The following are word clouds derived from the testimony given to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Senate standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs by groups supporting Bill C-36. It is clear that the dominant frames involved exploitation, vulnerability, trafficking, and young girls and children.
Referring to the work of Wendy Brown (1995) this is very much in the realm of injurious talk. Underlying the recognition of vulnerability and victimization involved in the claims for state social protection is the language of injury and resentiment, "the moralizing revenge of the powerless, 'the triumph of the weak as weak'" (Brown 1995 citing Connolly, pp. 66-67). Brown (1995) argues that a moral positioning occurs as the recognition of powerlessness turns to the requirement that the injury and incapacity for action is avenged. "Rather than the codification of domination, moral ideas are a critique of a certain kind of power, a complaint against strength in efforts to shame and discredit domination by securing the ground of the true and the good from which to (negatively judge it” (Brown, 1995, 44). It is a form of ‘reactionary foundationalism” which “works in an idiom of moral utilitarianism presenting and legitimizing itself as an indispensable good” (Brown, 1995, 36). That good, is the Truth; victims always-already speak the Truth to power. “Not only the bulk of truth of human existence and human need is apprehended by, produced by, the daily experience of society’s most exploited and devalued. With their unique capacity for seeing the truth and their landing as the new universal class… this population has singular purchase on “the good”” (Brown, 1995, 47).
Ressentiment gives impetus and unity to the movement because it represents “a triple achievement[;] it produces an effect (rage, righteousness) that overwhelms the hurt, it produces a culprit responsible for the hurt, and it produces a site of revenge to displace the hurt (a place to inflict hurt as the sufferer has been hurt)” (Brown 1995, 68) This is seen in the discourse around Bill C-36 and sex work legislation in Canada as anger about the use and abuse of vulnerable women, particularly young girls, aboriginal women, and ethnically marginalized women, is turned to claims for empowerment by the groups who aim to “save” these women (predominantly survivor organizations and religious groups in partnership with the state), and to be done so by criminally sanctioning those perceived to be at fault – men, those who purchase and those who commercially benefit. That systemic issues such as poverty, racism, lack of mental and physical health care, misogyny and racism on the part of police forces might be at fault do not figure in this calculation.
The moral universalization results in the simplification of the problem and who is to blame. For sex workers this means there can be no acceptable identity other than that of the victim. As Augur (2009, 12) argues, the positioning of sex workers as victims “denies some women’s experiences while simultaneously making universal appeals to women’s human rights. Reliance on one universalistic truth that overlooks and over simplifies the wide variety of experiences in the sex trade, constructs them, the majority of whom are women, as ‘passive’ and ‘innocent,’ desperate victims,’ and ‘good’ women who face impossible choices or as ‘guilty whores’ and ‘bad’ women who refuse to passively accept mainstream society’s view on women and sex.” The issue becomes one of morality rather than politics.
It is much easier to side with those seen to lack power and demand provision be made to protect victims and those considered vulnerable, particularly when the issue is framed in moral terms. With sex workers this is a moral dichotomy between "virginal victims" or "deviant criminal adulteresses," helpless good girls or bad girls gone wild (Auger, 2009, pp. 1-2). The problem with this dichotomous view is that there is no way sex work can be conceived as rewarding, lucrative or even prestigious, as those that practice it are either coerced or enslaved in the industry or pathological bad feminists suffering from false consciousness (Auger, 2009, 12). Women in the sex trade (they are predominantly women or perceived as woman-like, e.g., gay men or the transgendered need protecting not only from pimps and johns, but from themselves. For feminists, as Auger (2009, 14) observed of the 2006 review of solicitation, “when sex workers are understood as victims it is possible to explain away their supposed betrayal to patriarchal oppression, they are not responsible for propping up the ultimate form of all women’s oppression – the economy made them do it or bad men made them do it.” The positions espoused by women’s groups, sexual assault centres and survivor organizations did exactly this, positioning sex workers as deserving victims, children, young girls, ethnic and aboriginal women, who suffered exploitation and injury at the hands of traffickers, pimps and johns who exerted control over their bodies.
References:
Auger, Cheryl. 2009. “Sex Work and Stereotypes: An Analysis of the Canadian Subcommittee on Solicitation,” Paper presented to the Annual Meetings of the Canadian Political Science Association, Carleton University, Ottawa, May 27, 2009.
Brown, Wendy. 1995. States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
JUST-32. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (July 7, 2014) Number 32, Evidence, Monday July 7, 2014
Sexual Assault Centers
(Concertation des lute contre l'exloitation sexuelle, London Abused Women's Network, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centers, Rape Relief and Women's Shelter)
Women's Organizations
(Canadian Women's Foundation, Native Women's Association of Canada, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies)
Survivor Organizations
(Asian Women's Coalition Ending Prostitution, Bridge North, Center to End All Sexual Exploitation, EVE-Exploited Voices Now Educating, Northern Women's Connection, Rising Angels, Servants Anonymous Calgary, Sex Trade 101, Sex Trafficking Survivors United, Walk With Me Canada)
Religious Organizations
(Defend Dignity-the Christian Missionary Alliance, Evangelical Foundation of Canada, Hope for the Sold, Ratanak International, REED Resist Exploitation Embrace Dignity, SIM Canada, U-R Home.)
Police Organizations
(Calgary Police Service, Canadian Police Association, York Regional Police)
Experts For Bill C-36
(Bernard Lerhe officer with the Quebec City Police, Jose Mendes Bota MP Portugal and Head of European Council Committee on Human Trafficking, Andrew Swan Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoba, Gunilla Ekberg Professor of Law University of Glasgow and consultant in Sweden on the Nordic Model, Gwendoline Allison lawyer Foy Allison Law Group, Georgialee Lang lawyer, Janine Benedet associate professor faculty of law UBC.)
Individuals For
(Parents Ed and Linda Smith, Glendene Grant, and activists, Jeanne Sarson and Linda MacDonald)
Referring to the work of Wendy Brown (1995) this is very much in the realm of injurious talk. Underlying the recognition of vulnerability and victimization involved in the claims for state social protection is the language of injury and resentiment, "the moralizing revenge of the powerless, 'the triumph of the weak as weak'" (Brown 1995 citing Connolly, pp. 66-67). Brown (1995) argues that a moral positioning occurs as the recognition of powerlessness turns to the requirement that the injury and incapacity for action is avenged. "Rather than the codification of domination, moral ideas are a critique of a certain kind of power, a complaint against strength in efforts to shame and discredit domination by securing the ground of the true and the good from which to (negatively judge it” (Brown, 1995, 44). It is a form of ‘reactionary foundationalism” which “works in an idiom of moral utilitarianism presenting and legitimizing itself as an indispensable good” (Brown, 1995, 36). That good, is the Truth; victims always-already speak the Truth to power. “Not only the bulk of truth of human existence and human need is apprehended by, produced by, the daily experience of society’s most exploited and devalued. With their unique capacity for seeing the truth and their landing as the new universal class… this population has singular purchase on “the good”” (Brown, 1995, 47).
Ressentiment gives impetus and unity to the movement because it represents “a triple achievement[;] it produces an effect (rage, righteousness) that overwhelms the hurt, it produces a culprit responsible for the hurt, and it produces a site of revenge to displace the hurt (a place to inflict hurt as the sufferer has been hurt)” (Brown 1995, 68) This is seen in the discourse around Bill C-36 and sex work legislation in Canada as anger about the use and abuse of vulnerable women, particularly young girls, aboriginal women, and ethnically marginalized women, is turned to claims for empowerment by the groups who aim to “save” these women (predominantly survivor organizations and religious groups in partnership with the state), and to be done so by criminally sanctioning those perceived to be at fault – men, those who purchase and those who commercially benefit. That systemic issues such as poverty, racism, lack of mental and physical health care, misogyny and racism on the part of police forces might be at fault do not figure in this calculation.
The moral universalization results in the simplification of the problem and who is to blame. For sex workers this means there can be no acceptable identity other than that of the victim. As Augur (2009, 12) argues, the positioning of sex workers as victims “denies some women’s experiences while simultaneously making universal appeals to women’s human rights. Reliance on one universalistic truth that overlooks and over simplifies the wide variety of experiences in the sex trade, constructs them, the majority of whom are women, as ‘passive’ and ‘innocent,’ desperate victims,’ and ‘good’ women who face impossible choices or as ‘guilty whores’ and ‘bad’ women who refuse to passively accept mainstream society’s view on women and sex.” The issue becomes one of morality rather than politics.
It is much easier to side with those seen to lack power and demand provision be made to protect victims and those considered vulnerable, particularly when the issue is framed in moral terms. With sex workers this is a moral dichotomy between "virginal victims" or "deviant criminal adulteresses," helpless good girls or bad girls gone wild (Auger, 2009, pp. 1-2). The problem with this dichotomous view is that there is no way sex work can be conceived as rewarding, lucrative or even prestigious, as those that practice it are either coerced or enslaved in the industry or pathological bad feminists suffering from false consciousness (Auger, 2009, 12). Women in the sex trade (they are predominantly women or perceived as woman-like, e.g., gay men or the transgendered need protecting not only from pimps and johns, but from themselves. For feminists, as Auger (2009, 14) observed of the 2006 review of solicitation, “when sex workers are understood as victims it is possible to explain away their supposed betrayal to patriarchal oppression, they are not responsible for propping up the ultimate form of all women’s oppression – the economy made them do it or bad men made them do it.” The positions espoused by women’s groups, sexual assault centres and survivor organizations did exactly this, positioning sex workers as deserving victims, children, young girls, ethnic and aboriginal women, who suffered exploitation and injury at the hands of traffickers, pimps and johns who exerted control over their bodies.
References:
Auger, Cheryl. 2009. “Sex Work and Stereotypes: An Analysis of the Canadian Subcommittee on Solicitation,” Paper presented to the Annual Meetings of the Canadian Political Science Association, Carleton University, Ottawa, May 27, 2009.
Brown, Wendy. 1995. States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
JUST-32. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (July 7, 2014) Number 32, Evidence, Monday July 7, 2014
JUST-33. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (July 7, 2014) Number 33, Evidence, Monday July 7, 2014
JUST-34. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (July 7, 2014) Number 34, Evidence, Monday July 7, 2014
JUST-35. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (July 8, 2014) Number 35, Evidence, Tuesday July 8, 2014
JUST-36. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (July 8, 2014) Number 36, Evidence, Tuesday July 8, 2014
JUST-37. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (July 8, 2014) Number 37, Evidence, Tuesday July 8, 2014
JUST-38. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (July 9, 2014) Number 38, Evidence, Wednesday July 9, 2014
JUST-39. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (July 9, 2014) Number 39, Evidence, Wednesday July 9, 2014
JUST-40. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (July 9, 2014) Number 40, Evidence, Wednesday July 9, 2014
JUST-41. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (July 9, 2014) Number 41, Evidence, Thursday July 10, 2014
JUST-42. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (July 9, 2014) Number 42, Evidence, Thursday July 10, 2014
JUST-43. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (July 15, 2014) Number 43, Evidence, Tuesday July 15, 2014
Newman, Jacquetta. 2015. 'Bill C-36: Feminist Ambivalences and Injurious Talk.' Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, University of Ottawa, Ottawa ON, June 4, 2015.
Newman, Jacquetta and Linda A. White. 2012. Women, Politics, and Public Policy: the Political Struggles of Canadian Women, 2nd Edition. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (September 9, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 15 - Evidence - September 10, 2014.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (September 10, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 15 - Evidence - September 10, 2014.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (September 11, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 15 - Evidence - September 11, 2014.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (September 12, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 15 - Evidence - September 12, 2014.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (September 17, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 16 - Evidence - September 17, 2014.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (October 29, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 19 - Evidence - September 10, 2014.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (October 30, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 19 - Evidence – October 30, 2014.
TagCrowd. Tagcrowd.com
Newman, Jacquetta. 2015. 'Bill C-36: Feminist Ambivalences and Injurious Talk.' Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, University of Ottawa, Ottawa ON, June 4, 2015.
Newman, Jacquetta and Linda A. White. 2012. Women, Politics, and Public Policy: the Political Struggles of Canadian Women, 2nd Edition. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (September 9, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 15 - Evidence - September 10, 2014.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (September 10, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 15 - Evidence - September 10, 2014.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (September 11, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 15 - Evidence - September 11, 2014.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (September 12, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 15 - Evidence - September 12, 2014.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (September 17, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 16 - Evidence - September 17, 2014.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (October 29, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 19 - Evidence - September 10, 2014.
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (October 30, 2014) Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Issue 19 - Evidence – October 30, 2014.
TagCrowd. Tagcrowd.com
Comments
Post a Comment