BODY POLITIC PLAYS BAWDY POLITICS

I hate hypocrites, those people who carefully maintain an illusion of
virtue to mask their secret love affair with vice.

Hypocrites hide behind the dignity of disapproval while enjoying the
pleasures of indulgence. I derive a great deal of satisfaction in exposing
hypocrisy, and I still find moments of rapture when I think back about guys
like Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker getting their hands caught in the cookie
jar, or in someone else's pants.

In the cosmology of most major religions, hypocrites are cast into the
lowest levels of hell, but within the institutions of politics and criminal
justice, hypocrisy reigns supreme.

These institutions condemn and criminalize a whole assortment of
consensual, pleasure-seeking activities although the politicians, judges
and police officers who carry out the condemnation may have indulged, or
indeed do indulge, in the very same activities.

I don't think it is heretical to suggest that some public officials have
spent money in hooker heaven or have temporarily spun out of control in a
sea of illicit drugs. How can these public officials in good conscience
punish others for sins we may all commit at some point in our lives?

The biblical admonition, "He that is without sin, let him first cast a
stone ..." is not valued in modern, political life. So please excuse me
when I take delight in announcing that the City of Toronto is living off
the avails of prostitution. The city is a pimp.

This disturbing thought occurred to me this past winter when Mayor Mel
triggered a scandal by shaking the hand of a visiting Hells Angel. I
thought the incident was blown way out of proportion, but the friendly
handshake and the large biker's convention in Toronto did create an
impression that the City of Toronto was open for biker business. Within
their diversified portfolio, bikers have traditionally profited from the
sex trade and I amused myself with the thought that the Mayor's ceremonial
chain of office was nothing more than a pimp's gold chain. It turns out I
may be right.

I'm sure most of you have noticed the blight of signs advertising $30 to
$40 massages all around the city. Suddenly everyone is a massage therapist.
But these cheap massages have little to do with the healing touch. In the
trade they are affectionately known as "rub and tugs" and it is the "tug"
that takes it out of the world of shiatsu and deep-tissue massage and into
the world of prostitution.

Once in a while the police invade the premises and bawdy house charges are
laid, but usually they are left to quietly flourish. As a lawyer I've
represented these establishments and I was always puzzled that the operator
needs to obtain a "body-rub" licence from the city, which charges an
exorbitant licence fee.

A "body-rub parlour" licence can cost more than $6,000 per year, but to be
licensed to touch someone as a "holistic practitioner" costs about $100
annually. The "body-rub" licence is one of the most expensive in the catalogue.

Strangely, the definition of "body-rub" refers to kneading, rubbing, etc.
of the "body or any part thereof" whereas the holistic practitioner is
specifically forbidden by the bylaw from touching "specified body parts"
(you know which ones).

Neither the governing bylaw, nor the licence requires the body-rubber to
stick to the "rub" and avoid the "tug." The city must know that many
body-rub licence holders are operating an illegal service since body rub
parlours are periodically processed through the courts as bawdy houses.

I happen to think that our current legal regime governing prostitution is
foolish and counter-productive, but that is not the point here. Folly or
not, it currently remains a crime to pay someone for a masturbatory
service. If the city wants to reap financial benefits from this service it
can do so, but only after lobbying the Parliament of Canada to change the
law. This would probably be a good idea, but it's not what the city has
done. It simply collects revenue from licence fees while turning a blind
eye to the source of the revenue.

In my understanding of the criminal law, this is what a reasonable observer
would call "living off the avails of prostitution".

Section 212 of the Criminal Code extends the definition of procuring
(pimping) beyond the base creatures of the night who resort to violence and
intimidation to include those who parasitically live off the earnings of
prostitutes.

Charging a fee to licence and authorize prostitution fits within the
definition of procuring and no one should be fooled by the fact that this
licensing requirement is found within the larger municipal enterprise of
regulating trade and business.

Plain and simple, you cannot regulate an illegal trade or service and
obviously you cannot collect licence fees for a trade you are not permitted
to regulate.

The easy solution would be to change the criminal law to decriminalize
prostitution, but until that is done I stand on solid ground in stating
that the City is a pimp.

Something should really be done about this.