Canada's Sex Work Laws: Don't Break What We Worked So Hard to Fix

Excellent piece, Nikki! Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

 

I have been thinking of contacting people in government to speak out on this, but am not sure whom I should address. Whom would you recommend? I know we each have our MP in our own riding, but other than that person, to whom should we direct our comments?

 

Thanks for any help.

I'd recommend writing op-ed articles for different newspapers as well. I have a feeling that this issue will become an election issue in 2015. It's a high emotions subject which almost everyone seems to have a opinion, and a welcome distractions from the senate scandals and whatnot.

 

Listening to CBC radio on the day of the verdict gave the impression that with perhaps the absolute rare exception, all women in this industry were coerced into it. And the audience calling in rarely disagreed with that notion.

I'd recommend writing op-ed articles for different newspapers as well. I have a feeling that this issue will become an election issue in 2015. It's a high emotions subject which almost everyone seems to have a opinion, and a welcome distractions from the senate scandals and whatnot.

 

Listening to CBC radio on the day of the verdict gave the impression that with perhaps the absolute rare exception, all women in this industry were coerced into it. And the audience calling in rarely disagreed with that notion.

 

The difficulty is doing this anonymously. I am very frustrated with it myself. So much I want to say, but don't want to reveal my side work to my co-workers in my day job.

 

sigh......

What a well written article! I suspect the Tories have no stomach for this issue given an election is looming. They are embroiled in so many other hot issues, senate issues and more. Mandatory minimum sentences and fines thar accompany prison sentences among them should discourage a high profile legal set back. Really a "do nothing" policy would strategically be in their best interest. As a fiscally conservative but socially liberal voter I will be voting liberal. Liked Jack Layton but new leader seems sinister.

If it's true that the SCC has told Parliament that watered down versions of the old laws won't fly, then by default, wouldn't the Nordic approach be a 'no go' as well? Really, it's just a reworking of what we had. Instead of prostitution being legal but everything around it being criminalized, we would have a situation where it's legal to sell, yet illegal to buy. Nonsensical to the extreme, it also would do nothing to eliminate the inherent risks to a lady's safety working in the trade.

If it's true that the SCC has told Parliament that watered down versions of the old laws won't fly, then by default, wouldn't the Nordic approach be a 'no go' as well? Really, it's just a reworking of what we had. Instead of prostitution being legal but everything around it being criminalized, we would have a situation where it's legal to sell, yet illegal to buy. Nonsensical to the extreme, it also would do nothing to eliminate the inherent risks to a lady's safety working in the trade.

 

All this is true, but it would take years to prove in court (again!) and in the meantime the problem would be punted to another day for the politicians.

 

I'd like to think they wouldn't be so obviously cynical, but...

I suspect the Tories will kick this can down the road. Since we have a British common law tradition this would not be bad

I suspect the Tories will kick this can down the road. Since we have a British common law tradition this would not be bad

 

Hard to say... Justice Minister Peter Mackay was interviewed this evening on CTV News in Halifax, and when asked about the Government's intentions to address the SCC ruling on prostitution, he said "(The Conservatives) are looking at the Nordic Model, and will legislate in this area."

Hard to say... Justice Minister Peter Mackay was interviewed this evening on CTV News in Halifax, and when asked about the Government's intentions to address the SCC ruling on prostitution, he said "(The Conservatives) are looking at the Nordic Model, and will legislate in this area."

 

What he says to keep the support of those opposed and what actually happens are two different things. I suspect they will drag their feet, take too long examining the options etc, and then the point will be moot.

 

And again, remember it is not the right pushing the Nordic model. It is those who think they are helping by pushing it.

 

And IMHO, they would not be so stupid as to put in Nordic model as it exists in Sweden and other places. That would fail the charter test, and I am sure their lawyers will advise them of that. If they chose to act they will criminalize the act, and all involved, the client and the provider. No nasty charter challenges then.

 

And IMHO, they would not be so stupid as to put in Nordic model as it exists in Sweden and other places. That would fail the charter test, and I am sure their lawyers will advise them of that. If they chose to act they will criminalize the act, and all involved, the client and the provider. No nasty charter challenges then.

 

I agree that the Nordic model is an unreasonable solution and that it would likely fail another Charter test. I also agree with Nikki's original post that in general there are sufficient existing criminal laws to deal with underage, extortion and trafficking. Some of them could be strengthened.

 

If new laws are passed to completely criminalize prostitution (both selling and buying) that doesn't mean that they can't be challenged. There is a possibility that the new law could be successfully challenged under the Constitution. There is some limited precedent for the Supreme Court to "decriminalize" a criminal act. For example, the Supreme Court decided that the criminalization of abortion was unconstitutional. They also decided that the criminalization of safe drug injection sites was unconstitutional. In both cases the Court ruled that those laws violated the security of the person provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms section of the Constitution.

 

Security of the person is also at the heart of the Supreme Court's recent prostitution decision. Regardless of whether prostitution is fully or partially criminalized under any new laws, an interested party might mount a Constitutional challenge to test whether the new law has a reasonable or unreasonable impact upon security of the person. The Supreme Court will continue to ask questions such as "What public good is being achieved? Does the law place persons at an unreasonable and disproportionate risk of harm?"

 

Having said all that, it's also not that simple. There's an important difference between abortion and safe drug injection sites when compared to prostitution. The abortion and safe injection site decisions both dealt with medical procedures. The criminalization of patients and doctors who were seeking and providing medical treatments respectively is quite different from the criminalization of clients and sex workers involved in prostitution.

I feel that were prostitution to be criminalized by the Conservatives, the new law could be successfully challenged in the SCC. Let's not forget, the reason why the old laws were overturned in the first place was that they impacted the safety of the persons engaged in the act, namely sex workers. The SCC decided that safety of the person trumps any public nuisance issues that may arise, as they can be effectively dealt with through other means. As well, the court does not seem to have much appetite for arguments based on social morality. Therefore, by making prostitution illegal in all it's forms, the government would be increasing potential harms to its participants exponentially - something which rails against the spirit of the original ruling. Let's face it, criminalizing an act that has never been illegal in Canada will be viewed as a reactionary measure at best, with no intrinsic merit.

 

Additional Comments:

What he says to keep the support of those opposed and what actually happens are two different things. I suspect they will drag their feet, take too long examining the options etc, and then the point will be moot.

 

The Conservatives will likely ask for an extension if it comes down to it. I highly doubt they will sit idly by and watch the laws get struck off the books - in their words, 'Canada would then be left in a moral vacuum' *lol* As it stands now, Parliament has less than a year to come up with something... tick, tick, tick...

Thanks everyone, I appreciate the support you've given my article. It's had a surprising amount of staying power, and is continuing to make the rounds on Twitter and FB, even almost a week after it was published. I also published it through HuffPo (as I do with all my sex work blog posts) and it seems to have been shared through that medium as well, which is encouraging.

 

I'm of the mind that our best course of action is to continue muddying the waters on all proposed alternatives (especially the Nordic approach) while continuing to both outline all the reasons why it won't work, and why it would be a step backward instead of a step forward.

 

Most critical at this juncture is the need to overwrite the stereotype with a new narrative - the popularity of the Nordic approach in recent discourse is inherently based on the victimization model that is so prevalent in the discussion. Without that stereotype, the value of the Nordic approach declines significantly, because it's all about "saving" victims of the trade while criminalizing the "violent rapists" (a.k.a. the clients) to "help" us fallen women see the light. We all know it's BS, but the general public remains oblivious, without evidence to the contrary.

 

Many other courageous sex workers have already stepped out into the light, and told their stories, and we've seen some progress in this respect. However, the unspoken side of the transaction remains, and we need client voices more than ever.

 

I realize this is a huge imposition to ask, and an impossibility for many of you;

and tell his side of the story, and we will be forever grateful that he chose to do this for us. I can't possibly ask other clients to do the same, but I can facilitate client activism in other ways. I'm very friendly with a handful of writers and columnists in the mainstream media (those who have respected my privacy and have been very discreet when interviewing others in the industry) and I would gladly put you in touch with them if you wanted to anonymously tell your story.

 

We have been so fortunate to have built a community of respectful, pleasant gentlemen who love and admire us because of what we do, not merely in spite of it. So, now we're asking for your help - we would benefit greatly from your contributions in this critical time, and I'm happy to help your voices be heard in a way that protects your privacy.

 

Please PM or email me if you'd like more info, and if we show the country how good the industry can be when it's done right, perhaps we can run out the clock on any new legislation, leave the status quo in place, and improve things for all of us. Let me know if you'd like to help out! :)

I agree that the Nordic model is an unreasonable solution and that it would likely fail another Charter test. I also agree with Nikki's original post that in general there are sufficient existing criminal laws to deal with underage, extortion and trafficking. Some of them could be strengthened.

 

So, people around the world crave the Scandinavian health, economic, political, democratic system, but when it comes to the prostitution laws, their laws fail the Canadian Charter test?

 

What is the purpose of any constitution in any modern society? Isn't it to promote the social, economic, political and health etc. development? Please compare Canada to Norway or Sweden and see which constitution fails the real human development test.

 

With all respect, if the Nordic model could stand in countries like Norway and Sweden, then it would take clear and convincing evidence that such laws are causing more harm than benefits in Canada. We are talking here about another 20 years of struggle, at least.

There is a new study just wrapping up now, which is referred to if you go to this older study at www.johnsvoice.ca

 

It should provide you with some stats to refer to, and people to also contact.

 

Also, you can spread information by posting in the babble section of rabble.ca under topics started on the feminism forum and the sex worker forum.

 

Every step and post is a step in the right direction.

 

Here's a direct link, and I believe they have an account on CERB as well:

 

http://www.sexsafetysecurity.ca/index.php

 

I support this research because I think empirical evidence is important in drafting effective policy, but I also think the value of anecdotal evidence can't be understated in forming public opinion. People love stories, and we see the world as a series of narratives, rather than as an accumulation of evidence. I think both approaches are valid and worthwhile, and both approaches work towards the overall goal - destigmatization of sex workers and the people who love us. ;)

Don't agree with 3.2.3. This requirement is not inconsistent with other avenues of employment that require such things as a police report or evidence of a clean driving record.

Sorry but I disagree with this statement. You are engaging in intimate contact where infectious diseases can be spread. You are right that it is incumbent on both the client and the provider to take precautions and be tested.

 

However, the provider is charging for a service and arguably, on average, have many more partners than a client. Therefore the risk of causing multiple transmissions is more likely with the provider. And because they are the one who is providing the service, it is them who are more likely to be regulated in this regard.

 

A good analogy would be in the food service industry where there are protocols in place to avoid making people sick. Aside from the policies that a kitchen or restaurant may put in place themselves, there are government mandated food handling courses, there are mandatory inspections and there are procedures to deal with any outbreak of food born illness including medical checks of the staff involved in preparing and serving the food.

 

I personally think that public health concerns would trump any other concerns. I am not a big fan of big government, but sometimes there is a legitimate reason for them to step in and put something like this in place for the common good. There are lots of other similar cases where so-called "human rights" give way to the common good, such as vaccinating front-line health workers, or government employees and soldiers going to areas where there are serious risks of contracting major illnesses. Or say the mandatory health and vision testing of pilots and others in similar lines of work.

 

Fighting against this common sense provision would be one way to turn those undecided on legalization, against it.

 

Trust me I have known of, and even seen some providers, and know some clients who do not take proper precautions. I have stopped seeing a provider for that reason, and take great care with those I know who may have seen certain clients who are less than cautious.

God bless the sex workers who are willing to publicly stand up for fair laws, the country should thank you.