A year ago, the government of Saskatchewan made a big decision to allow strip clubs in the province. It was surprising considering the conservative nature of the government, but not when you think about the open policy of this topic in all the other provinces. Then suddenly, they flipped last week and banned it again.
I’m not about to argue the morality of strip clubs; that’s a discussion for a different time and place. The difficulty I have with this latest change of heart is the reasoning behind their decision. According to Premier Brad Wall: “If by this decision we have only marginally allowed for the slimmest potential of a greater foothold in Saskatchewan for organized crime, then it’s the wrong decision.”
Okay, you’re taking the super protective stance, I get that, but then what about other businesses that are hotbeds for organized crime, like casinos? Why isn’t the government taking a stand against businesses such as that that not only become synonymous with money laundering, but also prey on marginalized people? Wall said the government’s decision is based in part on research done that links organized crime to strip clubs, particularly Hell’s Angels. However, there’s just as much research – if not more – saying the same thing about casinos.
It’s a known fact that the casino model is a perfect tool for laundering money. The whole concept of gambling is based on luring people into spend tons of their hard earned money on the tiny chance that they can hit the jackpot. It’s also the perfect bait for the needy, the desperate, and those vulnerable to addictions.
Then of course we can even branch out into other more inconspicuous industries, such as the tobacco industry. There isn’t a single reason on earth why cigarettes are a good thing and yet every reason in the book why they’re bad. They’re massively addictive, extremely unhealthy, and cause numerous issues, which put a strain on the health care system. So why does the government allow smoking? Let’s leave aside the fact that they make a fair bit in change from the tobacco tax every year. The answer they’ll give you is because it’s each person’s right to smoke. It’s not the government’s job to police every action you make and as long as it’s not altering your mind or negatively affecting your ability to think, they don’t really have a legal reason to say no without intruding on your rights as an individual. The legality of cigarettes is based on personal responsibility.
Okay, fair enough. But it doesn’t change the fact that the tobacco industry still preys on the vulnerable. Why else would people still keep choosing to smoke, despite all the awareness campaigns and information out there saying why it’s bad? Because kids still think it’s cool and because there are a lot of dependent people out there that need a crutch.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to say cigarettes or casinos should be banned as well. I’m only trying to point out the contradiction in the government’s decision. You can’t ban one business because it preys on vulnerable people or because it has strong connections to organized crime when other legal industries have the same thing.
Moreover, I’m asking one important question: at what point should the government draw the line when it comes to protecting the public? (Personally, I’m more inclined to think this might be more a case of right wing lobbyists rather than fear of organized crime).
As it stands, there is only one strip club in the entire province, and that’s in the Codette Hotel near Nipawin. Apparently, people travel there by the busloads, although I’m sure it’s just for the food.
As far as public protection is concerned, some say that it may actually be safer for the women in this business if it was made legal. They say that these sorts of activities are going to happen whether the government allows it or not, but at least by making it legal, it brings them aboveground. Legalizing it means slapping legislation and taxation on it, which would force operators to publicize their business operations. It won’t completely cancel out criminal activity, but it might make it easier to track and stop. That’s just one of theories out there though.
This might slide down into a debate of morality versus individual rights, but Wall will still need a better excuse.
