Current Legal Debate
One year ago, after an extensive trial, and a year of deliberation by the judge, major portions of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (also referred to as Bill C-36) were ruled unconstitutional. He did not rule on the remaining portions. The rule is not binding, as it was in a lower court. However the government’s decision not to appeal meant no opposition to the ruling.
The defendants in the case, along with the members of the Canadian Alliance for sex work law reform, have since filed a constitutional challenge to the Act. Bedford Versus Canada, along with the ruling noted above, will form major components of the challenge.
I decided to issue a statement about the debate concerning Canada’s sex laws in advance of the release of the decision, to make the point that the issues remained, regardless of the ruling. One year later, the points made remain relevant.
Sex Trade Law Reform or
Missing, Murdered and Abused Women
By Terri-Jean Bedford
I have been asked by reporters to comment on a court ruling, scheduled in the coming days, on the constitutionality of Canada’s prostitution laws. I think it more important to comment before the ruling. I am the Bedford in Bedford Versus Canada, a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2013. That decision will likely weigh heavily on the upcoming ruling on a motion concerning the law’s constitutionality. The upcoming ruling has taken the judge a year to prepare and the motion was presented by an eminent legal team, no doubt at great expense.
In 2013 the Supreme Court ruled that the laws restricting the sex trade worked against their stated purposes and exposed women engaged in a legal activity to danger. For example, the laws prevented sex trade workers working from secure premises or hiring security. The government then rammed through a new law, patterned after the so-called Nordic model, which allows the sale of sex acts but outlaws buyers or enablers.
Opponents of the new law say it replicates the constitutional flaws of the old laws. The Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform, on their site, provides all the relevant arguments and citations of evidence. The evidence from 2013, and after, is that the new law is unconstitutional for many reasons, not the least of which is that it has led to missing, murdered and abused women.
Despite the new law, the sex trade is booming. A strong economy is one reason. Reason number two is that most clients of sex trade workers don’t even know what the law is. Reason three, women are encouraged to go into the trade by the very fact that Prime Minister Harper’s government in 2014 explicitly brought in a law that said they could not be charged for selling sex. Reason four, advertising on-line is now done off-shore. Reason five, landlords and hotels who obey the law lose revenue, so they break it. Reason six, the authorities do not have the resources to clamp down.
The new law has been a gift to organized crime and human traffickers of women for sex. These people are not concerned with obeying laws. If they are to be stopped, it would be because sex workers, their landlords, their advertisers, their security and so forth would not have to be concerned with dodging authorities. The judge who first struck down the old laws, Susan Himel, said existing laws against assault, confinement, illegal immigration would address the worst aspects of the sex trade. The authorities have important issues to address, rather than ensuring consenting women only have sex for free.
In the discourse over the issue of whether to decriminalize the sale of sex acts between consenting adults there were many cherry-picked stories used to argue for the new law. The so-called evidence used to that end has been debunked. Yet both the stories and the “evidence” are dredged up over and over again by opponents of decriminalization or legalization. This will continue and should be seen for the fraud it is. There are also those who support the new law for what may be called ideological or moral reasons. Their morality is as perverted as their so-called evidence. Women have a right to control their own bodies.
Professor Young, who headed our legal team in Bedford Versus Canada has criticized the new law for legal reasons. He and others have also lamented it because of the missing, murdered and abused women who it was foreseen would arise because of the new law. It is sad that it takes so much and so long to challenge the legality of such legislation.
Trudeau and his party voted against the new law when in opposition. Again, the judge who struck down the old laws at the outset said no new laws were needed. She said the existing laws against illegal immigration, assault, and forcible confinement, among others, already address the worst aspects of the sex trade.
The new law has made Stephen Harper the godfather of sex trafficking in Canada. MacKay and Nicholson, his justice ministers, were his eager henchmen. Why should they care? Those victimized were unlikely to vote for them.
So, what about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau? His late father, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, said the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Justin has a choice, regardless of what happens in court. If he says he cannot comment because the matter is before the courts, I have no problem with that. But he can act. When there is a national crisis, and the matter is before the courts, real leaders act, if they care. Or perhaps they enjoy candlelight vigils, and missing and murdered women inquiries.
So, does he want to help women by getting rid of the law, or hurt them by doing nothing? Right now, he is doing what his predecessor Stephen Harper and organized crime want him to do. He is doing nothing. What he says is irrelevant. Will he continue to do nothing? Missing and abused women probably want to know his choice. Before it’s too late.
* * *
Here is an important article that clearly explains what is wrong with support for the current law against the sex trade in Canada.
Professors promote ideology, ignore evidence, when discussing [opposing] prostitution
POST MILLENNIAL by Stuart Chambers February 2020When discussing sex work, professors are obligated to present empirical evidence to support their truth claims.Sadly, some academics use the media to promote an ideological crusade against legalized prostitution. Take, for example, a recent opinion piece in the Toronto Star.
Janine Benedet and Isabel Grant, professors of law at the Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, and Elizabeth Sheehy, professor emerita at the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, all subscribe to the oppression paradigm—the belief that prostitutes can be reduced to a single category of being universally exploited and violated. Embracing a radical feminist perspective, they assert that female prostitutes are victims. Their clients, mostly men, are victimizers.
What is not discussed once in the opinion piece is the mountain of research that proves that decriminalization of sex work is far safer for prostitutes than criminalization.
For instance, according to a 20014 report by the Ministry of Justice in the Netherlands, the “vast majority” of workers in Dutch brothels and window units report that they “often or always feel safe.”
In Queensland, Australia, a 2011 report by the Crime and Misconduct Commission acknowledged the conclusions of recent studies: “regulated brothels are the safest and healthiest work environments for sex workers.”
In a 2013 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that criminalizing prostitution harms sex workers who are not permitted to work indoors or to hire bodyguards, managers or drivers, all of which would enhance their safety and security.
As Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin noted, the Criminal Code prohibitions “do not merely impose conditions on how prostitutes operate. They go a critical step further, by imposing dangerous conditions on prostitution; they prevent people engaged in a risky—but legal—activity from taking steps to protect themselves from the risks.” The Court agreed with the trial judge that “indoor work is far less dangerous than street prostitution—a finding that the evidence amply supports.”
In Nevada, where prostitution has been legal since 1971, the exploitation myth has been widely discredited. Of the brothel workers surveyed by sociologist Barbara Brents and her colleagues, 84 percent felt safe in their job, were free to come and go and were not forced into the trade. When a recent ballot initiative challenged the legal status of prostitution in Lyon County, Nevada, roughly 80 percent voted against a brothel ban.
Poll data also shows that support for legalization is not some fringe idea. In America, support for legalizing prostitution increased from 38 percent in 2012 to 44 percent in 2015 to 49 percent in 2016.
Professors Benedet, Grant, and Sheehy sidestep difficult questions concerning sex work. For instance, if prostitution objectifies, exploits, and harms women, why would the Supreme Court of Canada, in a unanimous decision, throw out the previous law? Why do some liberal feminists view the radical feminist position against sex work as fundamentally un-feminist? Most importantly, why would Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the World Health Organization all support decriminalization?
Radical feminist academics are pushing an agenda that sex workers in Canada reject outright. Members of one lobby group, Prostitutes of Ottawa-Gatineau Work, Educate and Resist (POWER), want the Liberals to scrap Bill C-36, the current prostitution law sex workers refer to as “harmful and unconstitutional.”
If the research supports the conclusion that decriminalization of indoor sex work lowers the risk of harm to prostitutes, why would Professors Benedet, Grant, and Sheehy lobby for criminalization? Put simply, their desire to punish the demand (mostly men) is more important than the health and safety of sex workers.
Hypocrisy is the price the ideologically driven are willing to pay. Too bad it comes at the expense of others’ safety.