To the Editor:
Nick Gillespie, in “Paying With Our Sins” (Op-Ed, May 17), argues for legalizing prostitution as a way for the federal and state governments to “fill their coffers.”
First, prostitution is not a sin; it is a social injustice. It is the world’s oldest oppression that stems from the world’s oldest inequality—that of women. By all accounts, the countries that have legalized prostitution have become magnets for human trafficking and other crimes.
Second, legalizing prostitution is a failed experiment because it ignores the underlying social inequities that create it. Legalization leads to an expansion of the sexploitation industry and protects no one.
You don’t tax a human rights abuse; you abolish it. Creating the cultural, political and legal conditions that are hostile to buying the bodies of others for sexual exploitation is how we end this injustice.
Sweden, Norway and most recently Iceland have taken a human rights approach that discourages the demand for commercial sexual exploitation. Their law is premised on the recognition that women and girls are human beings and therefore cannot be bought or sold.
The Obama administration should adopt this inspired approach.
Norma Ramos
New York, May 18, 2009
The writer is co-executive director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women.
Note from KBJ: I have a question for the letter writer. Suppose that we "create the cultural, political and legal conditions that are hostile to buying the bodies of others for sexual exploitation." A woman decides to engage in sex acts for a fee. What is to be done with her? Will she be punished for her transgression? Will she be forced to undergo therapy? And why describe prostitution as "buying bodies"? Do Major League Baseball owners buy bodies? Do janitorial services buy bodies? Do customers of masseurs and masseuses buy bodies? Do patrons of bakeries buy bodies? Do patients of doctors and dentists buy bodies?
Note 2 from KBJ: Does anyone besides me find it odd for Nick Gillespie, a libertarian, to be arguing in favor of taxes? Oh, wait. He's arguing that it's better to (1) decriminalize and tax a victimless activity than to (2) criminalize it. You can be sure, however, that once the activity is decriminalized, Gillespie and his ilk will argue that it should not be taxed. Libertarians are devious, aren't they?
