I write and teach frequently about thought processes, and I often use hypothetical situations to illustrate this point or that. Today I have a real-life scenario that highlights the question posed by this blog entry’s title.
A few months ago, a young lady I’ll refer to as Susan (not her real name) texted me with a few questions in an effort to help her friend, who I neither know nor know the name of. I’ll call her Madge and pray that isn’t her real name.
Madge has reportedly begun working at a massage parlour, telling Susan the establishment provides “happy endings” and similar sexual services. Madge assured Susan that she isn’t providing said services personally, she initially worked as a receptionist, and she is now a manager. The massage parlour is apparently one of three in Toronto owned by the same people; I have no idea who they are. Apparently, Madge has recently forwarded the parlour’s business phone to her personal cell phone so she can take appointments when the shop is closed.
Understandably, Susan is concerned about her friend Madge. She told Madge that what she is doing is against the law, among other things. Madge assured her that sexual services are legal and she is at no risk. Perhaps because I address criminal laws in a few of my courses, because I know several police officers, or because I’m much older than Susan, she reached out to me for some facts. On this issue, they are currently a bit murky and those details don’t matter so much to my point, but here’s the relevant stuff.
Historically, running an establishment that provides sexual services for money has been unlawful and referred to as Keeping a Common Bawdy House, (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-110.html#h-70) the language presumably being a throw-back to old English terms . What makes things currently murky is that in December of 2013, Canada’s Supreme Court struck down that and two other prostitution-related laws as being unconstitutional. However, the Court also allotted the federal government one year to draft new legislation if it wants to maintain criminal control of some aspects of the sex trade. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sex-workers-fear-new-prostitution-laws-will-compromise-safety-1.2523145).
Putting moral issues aside, the standing law may not be enforceable right now but the links I provided above, and to Madge via her friend, make it clear that running a house of happy endings was a criminal offence and may still be if a new law is passed, even if providing sexual services is not itself unlawful. Here’s where things get, well, ignorant in the truest sense of that often-misused word.
When Susan tried to show Madge the links, from the Canadian government and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Madge refused to look at them, claiming that they were faked or lies. Why would someone not be willing to look at this information even if she did not like it or want to accept it, and especially when the hazards for Madge ignoring them could be fairly high? Speaking of risks, there could be considerable risks for young women working in these massage parlours; some of them could be victims of human trafficking, a growing global scourge predominantly fuelled by the sex trade.
Evidently, Madge formed beliefs that allow her to make certain decisions and take certain actions, and she is currently blissful about those. Evidently too, she feels comfortable enough with both her decisions and actions to tell at least one of her friends about it, and perhaps many more people. Whether intentionally or not, Madge chooses to exclude any information from her consideration that may contradict what or who informed her current beliefs. The latter could be her employers or who-knows-who-else. This is a clear example of confirmation bias, which I’ve blogged about previously on this site.
Curious at her response, I asked about Madge’s academic background. She reportedly has an undergraduate degree, majoring in psychology no less. That may or may not be accurate. If true, though, that seems the height of irony.
Irony and morality aside, I hope that the law and human behaviour work out for Madge, whoever she is. I hope the people who own her house of happy endings, and two more, are not involved in organized crime. I hope that organized crime disputes or an angry spouse or intended robbers do not inadvertently hurt or kill Madge some time. I doubt most of these establishments are located in conspicuous, highly-visible areas, so they are likely more vulnerable to robbery than more traditional businesses, especially if they operate at night. I hope that potentially new legislation does not become the basis of criminal charges that essentially paint Madge as a “pimp” and leave her with a noteworthy criminal record, one that could preclude several employment opportunities she might otherwise have. Last but certainly not least, I hope this Madge doesn’t unwittingly play a part in the victimization of young women that is currently known as human trafficking.
For our mysterious Madge, ignorance is her bliss for now. But in no dictionary or book I’m aware of is bliss described as a permanent state. The kind of bliss that comes from ignorance and intentional blindness can disappear in a heartbeat, and it has for many people before. Good luck to Madge. I suspect she may need it.