THE SOCIAL EVIL, FROM WOMAN'S POINT OF VIEW
DO MEN AND WOMEN RECEIVE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT. ; Sir,—After due deliberation, the committee of the New Zealand Neo-Fcminist ■Usociation has decided that the ussociation should not allow the arguments contained in my letter on the above subject (which appeared in The Dominion ot May 9 last) to be brushed aside or ignored by the authorities who administer the War Regulations concerning houses of ill-tame. I have to ask your indulgence to allow me, by means of your columns, to make a second appeal to the public and to our legislators to realise what results must follow from the administration, of our hnv on this question, aa it now exists. The law as it now exists: Our dailies some weeks ago published a statement made by the Minister of Justice, onibodyiii" the' opinions of the Commissioner of Police and of the Solicitor-General, as to whether women and men received equality of treatment in connection with the illicit traffic carried on in houses of ill-fame. He stated that the effect of the War Regulations is the same as that of the statutes existing previously. We, therefore, in order to bring before your readers the exact wording of tho section under consideration, give an excerpt ol the relevant part of the regulations:"The following persons shall oe guilty of offences against theso regulations and shall be liable accordingly: Every person who keeps, manages, occupies, or resides in a house of ill-fame, or who acls or assists in the keeping or management of any such house.' Every ninlo person over the age of fifteen years who lives, whether wholly or in part, on tlio earnings of a prostitute. Every mate pereoti over the ago of fifteen years who habitually lives or consorts with a prostitulo shnll be deemed to be living upon the earnings of that prostitute unless ho proves to the contrary." Eouality of men and women: It is appare'nt tliat no distinction between men and women is made in tho above regulation, as regards the offence of "keeping, managing, etc.," a house of ill-fame. But I hi:; is no new principle, and in fact, before this regulation was passed it whs a matter of common knowledge that a. man who lived in, or assisted in the management of a brothel, was guilty of an offence. But when I spoke of men, T did not consider the whole of the male sex as capable of belonging to this class of degraded criminal parasites. In other words, these regulations forbid the "keeping" of a house of ill-fame and nothing more thau the "keeping." The. men whom my association had in mind when asking that nil concerned (of both eexes) in a raided house of ill-fame, be punished, wore the ordinary patrons or men visitors. The patrons or visitors to a theatre are never considered as "keeping or managing" the theatre at which they pay for an evening's amusement. Nor does the paying guest at an nccrmmiodation house assist in manneinjr the house.
The man visitor: Even though a man makes- periodical calls at a house of i!l----fimo T respectfully siilit»i(- Mint ho cannot bo held to he guilty of offence against the above regulations. As tho Commissioner of Police has staled, the nosition is analogous to that of persons found in a earning house on the occasion of a raid—the only reason tho police have in taking their names is to obtain evidence against the keeper of the house. The police- in suoh cases have enormous difli-
cnlty in obtaining sufficient evidesos t! sseure a conviction of the "keeper" of the illicit house. Could they ever procure sufficient evidence to convict a ri«itor of a criminal offence? To the best oi my knowledge,' the police do not in practice arrest the visitors in such cases.
The woman visitor: The case of a woman visitor to a house of ill-fame is in my opinion different. In executing a warrant against such a house it seems only reasonable that if the police found a woman on (he premises, evidently there for immoral purposes, they would assume that slio had committed the offence of "assisting in tho management" of the house, even though they had not f«n her before, and take her into custody. The charge against her would probably be dismissed, eifher by a. Magistrate or by a Supreme Court' Judge—but (his after her being arrested and figuratively dragged into the market-piuco and stripped, and consequently doomed to life-long disgrace. I'ecunii' • gain: I had at first thought it possible that the harsh treatment (if the keeper of the house of ill-fame and the immunity of the male, visitor might; bo the result of some rule of jurisprudence to (ha effect that the seller of illicit pleasures is always punished on account of the peouniary gain, while tho buyer, who gives his inoney to induce another to commit a wrong against mankind, and thereby obtains personal gratification which ho values more than money, or even honour, is free of g-nilt. In case this is the opinion of others, I would liko to state (hat (as I have lately ascertained) our legislature has in. various cases made all concerned with a breach of the law guilty of a punishable offence, for example the law regulating the hours for the sale of intoxicating liquor; and the law which forbids both the giving and the taking of secret commissions or "tips." The results: It is on account of the hideous and far-reaching results of the social evil that my association has felt honnd,Nj]i the interests of the State, lo> endeuvour to impress on our legislative and administrative authorities, the results viewed from woman's standpoint, of what is going on among us. All will, I think, admit that the prostitute is tho supply created bv man's demand. Is it the employer who tempts the honest, clean typist in his office, when she is tired and lonely, to give up the drudgery of honest work and live in a flat or hotel at his expense? Or is it the young girl, fresh from her home, who "offers herself body and soul for sale to her employer? Thousands of girls are being sold, or being tempted into selling themselves in the ever keen market, and we never hear of a purchaser being , judicially punished. Are we to consider , that our community is governed by the principle of monogamy or does it nllow polygamy F Tf it is wrong for a father or a husband to pay even occasional visits to houses of ill-fame, to befoul his family life, and bring dishonour and probably disease to his wife and children, is it not time for us as a community to apply ourselves to the problem o'f devising some means of suppressing this criminal habit by punishing all parties to the offence? And if the traffic is to be allowed to continue—if men are to be allowed to continue to buy women— should not the women who sacrifice themselves be registered, medically examined, and above all be rendered immune from bein? spasmodically hunted mid ran down by the police, to bo publicly gloated over?-I nm, etc.,
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19180725.2.43.4
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 263, 25 July 1918, Page 8
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,198THE SOCIAL EVIL, FROM WOMAN'S POINT OF VIEW Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 263, 25 July 1918, Page 8
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.