|
Print media from 2010
{Begining with most recent}
Almost two months ago, an Ontario judge ruled that Canada’s prostitution laws put prostitutes at greater risk of violence and therefore violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government immediately announced it would appeal. If the ruling stands, it will strike down laws against “living off the avails” of prostitution, keeping a “common bawdy house,” and communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution. So what does Ignatieff feel about this?
“It’s being appealed, and all I feel about it is there is a balance, which I see in my own constituency,” Ignatieff replied, as reported by Dale Smith of Xtra. “Families in family areas are very concerned about the public nuisance and public disorder that happens with prostitution.... On the other hand, the same families are concerned about the safety, the physical safety, of sex workers. That’s the balance we have to find. I’m not going to say whether that court got it right. That’s not my job. My job is then, if the government appeals, and there’s a decision and has to be new legislation, we’ll look at the new legislation with that balance in mind, because that’s the balance that Canadians want us to keep.”
As political evasion goes, this was poor stuff. Good evasion doesn’t look evasive. The politician talks and talks, he looks earnest, he sounds judicious, and he moves smoothly to the next question without having said anything even slightly interesting or substantive. Ignatieff’s performance was closer to Jon Lovitz cooing “yeahhh, that’s the ticket.”
It’s “not my job”? What an amazing statement. Whose bloody job is it? And that line about the appeal and new legislation is nothing less than astonishing.
Remember, Madam Justice Susan Himel decided — after an exhaustive trial featuring countless witnesses and heaps of documentary evidence — that the existing laws were literally aiding and abetting the robbery, rape, and murder of some of the most powerless people in society. To this, Ignatieff responds by lowering his fulsome eyebrows, noting that the decision is being appealed, and promising that, if the ruling stands, he’ll have a look at whatever new legislation the government may see fit to put forward at some unspecified date. To ensure it’s balanced. Because Canadians want balance.
Meanwhile, if Justice Himel is right, and her decision is stayed while the appeal proceeds, years will crawl by — and the prostitution laws will continue to aid and abet crimes against vulnerable people. Not that Ignatieff has an opinion about that. It’s not his job.
Now, as we have established, Canadians want balance, and so I must not be one-sided in my criticism. For all his evasiveness, Ignatieff at least acknowledged the elementary fact that prostitutes are victims of horrific levels of violence and he would prefer, on balance, that this were not so. Which is nice. As far as I am aware, Stephen Harper has made no statement on the subject, evasive or otherwise, in response to a question from the public. That may be because he doesn’t take questions from the public. Or it may be because he really isn’t all that concerned about the safety of prostitutes. Recall that when Justice Himel made her ruling, the government did not say, “the very possibility that the law is endangering women is alarming and so we will urgently investigate.” It expressed alarm that the ruling endangers the law. And it said it would appeal.
As far as I can find, Ignatieff and Harper haven’t uttered a single serious statement on the subject between the two of them. And that, unfortunately, is typical of how the political class has dealt with prostitution for decades.
In 1983, the “Fraser Committee,” a special committee of Parliament, launched a two-year investigation into prostitution and related issues. It gathered all available evidence. It commissioned new research. And in 1985, it reported that the prostitution laws were a haphazard mess that failed to reduce levels of prostitution and put prostitutes in greater danger. It recommended a modest and tightly regulated form of legalization.
The government ignored the Fraser Committee. Instead, it passed a new law that strengthened the crime of communicating in public. As Justice Himel noted, some MPs criticized the government for making “a hasty response to a complicated problem” and so the government promised it would examine the other recommendations of the Fraser Committee.
It never did.
Three years after the new law was enacted, a legislated review was conducted. It found that the new law had only pushed street prostitution from block to block, driving prostitutes into more isolated environments where they were at greater risk.
The government ignored the review.
I could go on — and on and on — but the point is clear. Serious examinations of the prostitution laws always conclude they are a patchwork desperately in need of fundamental reform. And the political class always refuses to talk seriously about it.
The government’s lawyers have argued that allowing Justice Himel’s ruling to come into force before the appeal is decided will result in “chaos” on the streets. I doubt it. But if it does, don’t blame judges. Blame politicians too cowardly to do their jobs.
Why Decriminalizing Sex Work is Good for All Women
November 1, 2010 // Crystal Jackson and Barbara Brents // Ms. Magazine
In a landmark ruling for women, the Ontario (Canada) Superior Court struck down existing laws against prostitution. This is a win for all women–at least in Canada. Decriminalizing sex work is a step toward eradicating “whore stigma,”something that affects all women and not just sex workers.
Canadian sex workers brought forth a constitutional challenge arguing that anti-prostitution laws hurt them more than protect them. The Canadian court ruled that laws criminalizing aspects of prostitution violate principles of fundamental justice and workers’ right to security (PDF). In other words, the harms to sex workers and to communities that result from existing laws outweigh the (perceived) benefits of criminalization.
What is notable about the ruling is that the judge refuted ideological and unscientific arguments that prostitution, taken as a whole, victimizes women. The ruling cited study after study showing that indoor prostitution is less harmful than street work, and that the places and ways in which prostitution can be practiced can lower the risk of violence. Sweeping claims that prostitution harms women are not reflected in the research.
This case repudiates the dominant discourse around sex work today: that the majority of sex workers are coerced, that women are trafficked into the business and that selling sex is inherently violent. In sum, that whores are not capable of critical thought and informed decision-making.
(Soho area of London by Flickr user Tom Coates)
Whore stigma is a particularly gnarly incarnation of misogyny marking women who dare to exercise economic independence or sexual independence. Think of the stereotype of a woman in a mid- or high-power position sleeping her way to the top. Think of prostitution in the media: news stories of women arrested for prostitution, or victims saved from trafficking; the popularity of HBO’s CatHouse: The Series reality show in a legal Nevada brothel; Showtime’s Secret Diary of a Call Girl. Basically, women exercising power in forms traditionally coded as masculine—with sexual independence, economic aspirations—are a challenge to the traditional gender model.
Whore stigma is one clue that anti-prostitution ideology is about more than just violence against women—it’s specifically about femininity. In this sense, arguments against transactional sex are a defense of both the gender binary and of heterosexuality. This is why men and transgender sex workers are invisible in prostitution debates. This is why changing laws is just the beginning, not the end, of a longtime struggle for basic human rights for sex workers.
Perhaps it is time for the U.S. to start paying attention to our neighbor to the north and other industrialized countries such as Germany and Australia (where prostitution has been legalized) and start questioning the ideological assumptions of our anti-prostitution legislation.
Crystal Jackson and Barbara Brents are co-authors of The State of Sex: Tourism, Sex, and Sin in the New American Heartland. Jackson is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Brents is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
For more good reading from Ms. Magazine, about sex work click HERE
London police announce new prostitution strategy
Will post names online of anyone with prostitution-related charges
Dale Carruthers // Londoner // October 28, 2010
London police are using a new strategy to crack down on the world's oldest profession.
An innovative campaign targeting the city's sex trade kicked off on Oct. 20. Under the eight-week blitz, police are beefing up surveillance in areas frequented by prostitutes, sending letters to the homes of johns and suspected johns, and posting the names online of anyone charged with criminal code offences related to prostitution.
"Our plan is directed at reducing the demand for sex trade workers," Police Chief Brad Duncan said at a press conference on Oct. 21.
"The message to men who communicate with known prostitutes should be obvious: the London police will engage you and, where applicable, charge you."
Only one day into the campaign, four men have been charged with communication for the purpose of prostitution, and seven other men were caught loitering in a targeted area.
"As a result, these will be 11 candidates for letters that will be forthcoming from the police service," Duncan said.
The one-page letter sent to the homes of johns and suspected johns warns of the dangers of prostitution and asks the individuals to refrain from bringing their vehicle into the area unnecessarily.
East London resident Jackie Doyle applauded Duncan's announcement.
"I'm looking forward to the positive outcome of this," said Doyle, a retired nurse. "For years (prostitution has) been an ongoing issue."
In more than five decades living in the city's east end, Duncan said the sex trade problem seems to be getting worse.
"It's just been more visible to me the last five years," she said.
Under the campaign, men engaging in the following actions will get a letter from police: picking up a sex trade worker, being found in the company of sex trade worker, continually driving around an area frequented by sex trade workers or stopping to talk to sex trade workers.
Duncan said other Canadian cities, such as Ottawa, have successfully used similar tactics to clamp down on prostitution.
"This proactive response should act as a deterrent to men showing interest in soliciting sex trade workers," Duncan said.
Prostitution ruling forces review of SCAN legislation
Katie Anderson // October 15, 2010 // Centretown News
Ottawa Centre’s MPP will have to rethink his private member’s bill if laws on prostitution become of no force and effect in Ontario.
Yasir Naqvi introduced a private member’s bill in 2008, proposing Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods legislation for Ontario – already adopted in Manitoba.
The SCAN legislation is intended to target properties that frequently house illegal activity.
If the bill is passed, homeowners, landlords and neighbours will be able to anonymously tip enforcement officials about potentially illegal activity in a residence.
Included in this proposal is the intent to further enforce Section 210 of the Criminal Code, which makes it illegal to keep a common bawdy house.
But this section is one of three laws associated with prostitution that were deemed unconstitutional by an Ontario Superior Court ruling in late September.
If the ruling survives the appeal process, the laws will lose force and Naqvi will have to revise his current proposal.
He maintains that his legislation is based on properties where illegal activity takes place. The legislation could no longer apply to a bawdy house if the law is permanently struck down.
Naqvi predicts that the recent ruling on the prostitution-based laws will spark a long legal process.
“I think we’ll see a lot of legal work that will be done,” says Naqvi. “We are walking into unknown territory right now.”
Naqvi’s legislation is not the only enforcement activity that faces potential change following the prostitution ruling.
In the last few years, Ottawa police have conducted prostitution sweeps that have resulted in several arrests on charges including communicating for the purpose of prostitution.
Christine Bruckert, an associate professor at the University of Ottawa, says she believes these sweeps are a mark of Ottawa Police Services’ tendency toward enforcement measures rather than a collaborative effort with sex workers that is seen in other cities, such as Toronto and Vancouver.
“The more enthusiastic the policing are the more vulnerable sex workers are to violence,” says Bruckert.
She says neighbourhood interests don’t have to oppose the security of sex workers because community concerns are often based on the “nuisance” from theactivities surrounding prostitution and not necessarily the act itself.
She says in her opinion, the laws addressed by the recent ruling endanger sex workers by forcing them to work alone, in secret and by creating a fear among prostitutes of approaching the police.
“The first step is to appreciate that sex workers have rights just like everyone else,” says Bruckert. “We cannot have laws that endanger any one population.”
In the end, Naqvi’s proposed legislation might have to be changed, but he says the purpose of it will remain the same: the safety of Ontario communities.
“Public safety is of paramount importance,” he says. “And also the health and safety of the women and men involved.”
BC Court Allows Challenge against Prostitution Laws
Thaddeus M. Baklinski // LifeSiteNews.com // October 13, 2010
The BC Court of Appeal ruled on October 12 that a Vancouver based pro-prostitution lobby group will be allowed to challenge Canada’s prostitution laws in court.
Madam Justice Mary E. Saunders overturned a December, 2008 ruling by the BC Supreme Court and told representatives from the Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence (SWUAV) lobby group that she was granting them legal standing to challenge the Criminal Code, despite the group not being actively involved in prostitution themselves.
The 2008 Supreme Court decision found that the plaintiffs, former prostitute Sheri Kiselbach and SWUAV, did not have legal standing because they were not impacted by current laws against keeping a common bawdy house, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purpose of prostitution.
Kiselbach and SWUAV appealed the ruling in January, 2009.
Justice Saunders said in her decision "that the impugned provisions of the Criminal Code deprive sex workers, whose work itself is lawful, of the ability to conduct their work safely," explaining that "the communication provisions push sex workers into isolated areas, working alone where assistance is not near at hand, that the bawdy house provisions deprive sex workers of the opportunity to work indoors in a safer setting, and that the procurement provisions limit the ability of sex workers to establish safer working environments."
"In this case," Justice Saunders wrote, "I respectfully conclude the judge (in the 2008 Supreme Court decision) failed to give sufficient weight to the breadth of the constitutional challenge and the comprehensive and systemic nature of the plaintiffs’ theory.”
Justice Saunders also mentioned the September 29 Ontario Superior Court ruling in the case of Bedford v. Canada, where Justice Susan Himel found that laws restricting prostitution were unconstitutional.
"The result in Bedford, of course, is not binding in British Columbia unless it becomes the subject of a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. That there is a similar challenge ongoing in Ontario, led by two persons who plan to return to prostitution-related activities and one who is currently so engaged, is of interest to this case, but is not a matter that bears directly on the application here of the criteria for public interest standing," Justice Saunders wrote.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told the House of Commons on September 30 that the federal government will appeal Justice Himel's ruling.
Though Justice Himel originally stayed her ruling, which is binding only in Ontario, for 30 days to allow the provincial and federal governments to consider the implications of the decision, she yesterday granted a four-month moratorium before the ruling comes into effect, with the provision that the Crown appeal of her decision is heard promptly.
Lawyer Alan Young, who represented the "sex-trade workers" in the Ontario case, told the media, “Leaving the status of the current law open to debate does not serve the public interest, and we will do whatever we can to expedite final resolution of the issue of whether the existing legal regime will be given a second life.”
“In my view, having the impugned law remain in force for a further two to three months is a small price to pay for having the appeal heard with such great dispatch,” Young said, adding, “If this timetable cannot be achieved, we will not consent to any further extensions of the stay and the federal Crown will then need to seek a court order at a contested hearing if it wishes to extend the stay.”
Sex-trade workers consent to grace period on prostitution laws
Kirk Makin // Globe and Mail // October 13, 2010
A group of prostitutes who felled the country’s prostitution laws two weeks ago are willing to support a four-month moratorium before the landmark ruling comes into effect – for a price.
The group said on Tuesday that it will consent to the laws continuing until February, provided a Crown appeal of the Ontario decision is heard swiftly.
The offer prevents a potentially chaotic situation from erupting later this fall when Ontario Superior Court Judge Susan Himel’s ruling takes effect and prostitution is decriminalized.
Judge Himel found that laws set up to protect prostitutes actually endanger them, forcing furtive and hasty transactions in shady locations.
She said that her decision would take effect in 30 days unless Crown lawyers could persuade her to grant a delay. With the support of the group of prostitutes, chances of winning a four-month moratorium are excellent.
In an interim move on Tuesday, the applicants and the federal Crown bought time to negotiate by jointly agreeing to a briefer, additional moratorium that will expire on Nov. 28.
York University law professor Alan Young – the moving force behind the prostitution challenge – said that Judge Himel has accepted the proposal.
The moves are the latest twists in a continuing struggle over laws governing solicitation, pimping and keeping a brothel.
Prof. Young said that his offer recognizes the fact that governments need time to assess and respond properly to rulings that carry such vast ramifications.
“The issue of whether or not a constitutionally invalid law should remain in force pending appeal is a serious issue which should not be resolved in a precipitous manner without a careful consideration of the impact of the invalidation,” Prof. Young said.
If the appeal process is not expedited, he said that it could take up to five years for the Supreme Court of Canada to settle the issue.
“In my view, having the impugned law remain in force for a further two to three months is a small price to pay for having the appeal heard with such great dispatch,” Prof. Young said.
Carole Saindon, a spokesperson for the federal Justice Department, said that the Crown plans to apply to the Ontario Court of Appeal for a stay of Judge Himel’s decision pending its appeal being heard.
Judge Himel’s unexpected decision ignited the prostitution debate across the nation. It also caused immediate confusion among police and community activists, who braced for an onslaught of street prostitutes, grungy pimps and inconsiderate johns.
Prostitutes were divided on the ruling. Some applauded it as a move toward ending the constant jeopardy that many of them face as they ply their trade. Others feared being caught in red tape as they deal with health inspectors, tax collectors and licensing officials as a result of decriminalization.
One of the litigants in the case, Valerie Scott, said that she is keen to start creating legal sex-trade businesses.
“I have plans for a brothel that specializes in physically disabled gentlemen,” Ms. Scott said in an interview. “I’ve been seeing disabled clients since I was in my mid-20s.”
Ms. Scott said that she has already been accepted into a business course at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, “with their full knowledge of why I will be taking the course.”
Advocates of decriminalization have an intricate series of proposals for workable regulations and bylaws that will include community involvement and complaints processes for residents, prostitutes or clients, Ms. Scott added.
Prof. Young said that, in an ideal world, the federal government would have responded to Judge Himel’s ruling by repealing the existing provisions and working on law-reform measures to address the safety and security concerns she raised.
“Leaving the status of the current law open to debate does not serve the public interest, and we will do whatever we can to expedite final resolution of the issue of whether the existing legal regime will be given a second life,” he said.
“If this timetable cannot be achieved, we will not consent to any further extensions of the stay and the federal Crown will then need to seek a court order at a contested hearing if it wishes to extend the stay.”
Ontario court decision pours cold water on claim that average age of entry into prostitution is 14
Charlie Smith // October 11, 2010 // Vancouver Straight
Every once in a while, a journalist will claim that the average age of entry into prostitution is 14.
It's an effective argument for prohibitionists, who would like to ban men from purchasing sex.
However, an Ontario Superior Court decision last month should make people question that assertion the next time it appears in print.
In a constitutional challenge against Canada's prostitution laws, Justice Susan Himel poured cold water over an expert witness's suggestion that the average sex worker begins plying her trade at the age of 14.
Himel's ruling questioned the testimony of University of Ottawa sociology and anthropology professor Richard Poulin.
"His research has focused on prostitution, human trafficking, pornography, and the dynamics of the global sex trade, with a particular focus on minors," Himel wrote, adding that Poulin supports the abolition of prostitution based on his research.
"As well, during cross-examination, it was revealed that some of Dr. Poulin’s citations for his claim that the average age of recruitment into prostitution is 14 years old were misleading or incorrect," the judge noted.
Poulin also swore in an affidavit that serial killers have targeted prostitutes working at indoor sites. Himel, however, stated in her ruling that "his sources do not appear to support his assertion."
"I found it troubling that Dr. Poulin stated during cross-examination that it is not important for scholars to present information that contradicts their own findings (or findings which they support)," Himel added.
Poulin's affidavit also claimed that "physical and sexual violence in prostitution is substantial, regardless of the legal regime in place". Under cross-examination, he "defined violence as meaning a systemic power imbalance", Himel commented in her ruling.
Without naming names, Himel also wrote: "I find that some of the evidence tendered on this application did not meet the standards set by Canadian courts for the admission of expert evidence. The parties did not challenge the admissibility of evidence tendered but asked the court to afford little weight to the evidence of the other party."
In a recent e-mail to the Vancouver Sun, Simon Fraser University criminology researcher John Lowman pointed out that the Crown's factum in the case cited only one Canadian study indicating that the average age of entry might be as low as 14 years of age.
Lowman, who has studied the consequences of Canada's prostitution laws for decades, noted that this paper by Sue McIntyre "used a purposive sampling strategy that sought to include only persons who entered prostitution as children or youth".
As a result of this methodology, Lowman maintained that it couldn't be generalized to the entire field of prostitution. He also stated in his e-mail that other Canadian studies have reported higher ages of entry.
Has Ontario court ruling made life safer or riskier for Aboriginal sex workers?
Rick Harp // October 11, 2010 // Media Indigena
A potentially divisive debate is underway among women’s advocates after a provincial court recently struck down some of the laws restricting prostitution in Canada. And as the Toronto Star‘s Antonia Zerbisias writes, “even Aboriginal women’s groups have clashed, not only with mainstream feminist activists but also with each other.”
On Sept. 28, 2010, in the case of Bedford v. Canada, Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court declared three sections of the Criminal Code unconstitutional (summarized here by Zerbisias):
- Section 210, which prohibits maintaining, owning or being an “inmate” of a “common bawdy-house.” As a result, brothels will not be illegal.
- Section 212(1)(j), which affects those living “wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person.” With this struck down, prostitutes are able to support dependents.
- Section 213(1)(c), best known as the “communicating law,” which prevents street prostitutes from screening clients before putting themselves at risk.
In a joint statement released the day after the decision by the Aboriginal Women’s Action Network (AWAN) together with Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution and South Asian Women Against Male Violence, the authors asserted that the Ontario Court “abandons Aboriginal women and women of colour to pimps.”
Jeannette Corbiere Lavell is the President of the Native Women’s Association of Canada. In a statement released by NWAC, she says
“The decision itself acknowledges systemic injustice but nowhere mentions the overrepresentation of Aboriginal women in the sex industry. This decision glosses over the fact that Aboriginal women, women in low income situations, those suffering from mental health and addictions issues are working in prostitution because of systemic racism and classism, as well as a fundamental power imbalance and issues of inequality, which is at the root of prostitution.”
But there have been Aboriginal voices raised in support of Justice Himel’s decision, most notably, the Native Youth Sexual Health Network. In a press release, the Network says that, while it agrees with NWAC that the Ontario judgment fails to address inequality and racism facing Aboriginal women, the ruling still “has the potential to actually mean less violence” for those women:
If sex workers are able to live off of the money they earn, they may be able to afford shelter, better provide for their families, or be able to hire someone else, such as a driver, as protection. If they are able to openly communicate about sex work, they may be able to negotiate safer working conditions (such as condom use) with a client or report violence without fear of being arrested. If keeping a bawdy-house is no longer illegal, then sex workers may have access to indoor working conditions, decreasing the chances of street-based violence. If police are given less opportunity to arrest people on the basis of these laws, it means less Indigenous people that are incarcerated because of sex work.
It seems pretty clear this is ultimately headed for the Supreme Court of Canada. But even they won’t necessarily end this debate, just as laws against prostitution have so far failed to end the practice.
Former sex trade workers (itself a contentious term in some circles) have taken passionate and compelling stands for and against the Himel decision, complicating matters further. And, to be perfectly honest, I’m currently on the fence over this one, as I try to wade through the claims and counterclaims made in the name of Aboriginal women (and some men) on this issue.
What about you? Have you made your mind up on this? In your opinion, has this Ontario court ruling made life safer or riskier for Aboriginal sex workers? I encourage you to share below.
Prostitution laws continue for at least another month
Sean Mallen // Vancouver Sun // October 8, 2010
TORONTO — Federal prostitution laws that were struck down by an Ontario judge last week will be extended another month.
When Justice Susan Himel handed down her decision Sept. 28, she also delayed her order from taking effect for 30 days. Now, the grace period is going to be extended an extra 30 days.
Alan Young, the lawyer who argued the case for the winning side, said Friday in a taping of Global News's Focus Ontario program that he's agreed to a Crown request for a longer grace period.
"Simply because they look like they're panicking and in disarray and I feel somewhat sorry for them and I imagine if you've had a bad law for 30 years, another 30 days isn't going to make a huge difference," Young told Global News.
"After that, I put the gloves back on for the fight."
Young said the Crown will likely go to the Court of Appeal to try to get another stay.
"But they don't have good evidence for it, because they're going to say the sky is going to fall if they don't have the law. They tried that in the hearing itself and the judge didn't buy it."
The order will be officially signed on Tuesday. It gives the federal government until the end of November to decide upon its next step.
Last week, Himel ruled in favour of three sex-trade workers who argued that laws prohibiting them from communicating for the purpose of prostitution, running a bawdy house and living off the avails of prostitution put their lives at risk.
The 131-page ruling, which took a year to complete, decriminalizes activities associated with the world's oldest profession.
The court decision strikes down laws against brothels, soliciting and pimping. While it applies only in Ontario, the ruling could have a nationwide impact if it survives appeals.
Former sex-trade workers from across Ontario and British Columbia protested in front of the Ontario Superior Court after the decision was made.
They said the ruling makes prostitutes "most vulnerable to be standing targets," that only pimps would benefit from the situation and that suggesting these laws will protect prostitutes is "misleading."
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, described prostitution as "a problem that harms individuals and communities," and promised the federal government will appeal the court ruling.
Unfortunate ruling on prostitution laws
Catholic Register // Editorial // October 7, 2010
In striking down three prostitution laws an Ontario judge sparked a firestorm of debate about various legal and safety issues related to the so-called world’s oldest profession. But, at heart, prostitution is a moral issue and until society stops running from that fundamental truth no court decision or legislative amendment will make the streets safer for the women trapped in this dehumanizing lifestyle.
The unfortunate decision by Madam Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court has prompted commentators to call for further liberalization of prostitution laws. Since prostitution is so prevalent, the argument goes, it should be decriminalized or even legalized. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. These advocates applaud Judge Himel’s ruling that would permit prostitutes to maintain a bawdy house, advertise, keep business hours, hire accountants and operate as openly as your neighbourhood bakery.
These are the same people who opt for the friendlier term of sex worker over prostitute and who liken prostitution to a career choice no different than teacher, plumber or banker. Even Judge Himel dismissed prostitution as nothing more than a “social nuisance.” In our upside-down, politically-correct, morally-confused world, the courts and legislators seem content to nudge prostitution up a ladder of social acceptability to join divorce, gay marriage and abortion as the new norms of the modern world.
The trend is alarming. Prostitution is indecent, demeaning and sinful. It inflicts physical, emotional and psychological harm. It is among the oldest exploitive practises of mankind.
Prostitution persists because society ignores such root causes as poverty, addiction, family breakdown and mental illness. The world is increasingly hedonistic, promiscuous and less spiritual. Media of all types, but particularly web sites, blur the lines between right and wrong as they devalue integrity and morality.
Judge Himel struck down three prostitution-related laws she said increased “the risk of harm to street prostitutes.” But making it easier to live from the avails of prostitution or operate a bawdy house will only cause more prostitution and a corresponding rise in its most harmful effects: assault, human trafficking, child exploitation, disease, addiction, abortions, family breakup and so on.
The way to save women from harm is to reduce prostitution, not cultivate conditions for its expansion. And reducing prostitution is as much about society rediscovering its moral underpinning as it is about actions by legislators and judges.
Prostitution and related scourges reflect an erosion in sexual morality. On this, Pope Benedict has called for a “spiritual and human awakening.” Curtailing prostitution requires a similar awakening. It needs invigoration of such Christian moral values as fidelity, integrity, dignity and respect, and it needs laws based on those values to genuinely protect the vulnerable.
Time to bring prostitution into the light
Ali Churchill // October 6, 2010 // The Gateway (University of Alberta)
The immortal George Carlin once asked, “Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why is selling fucking illegal?”
There was good news for Carlin last week — an Ontario Superior Court Justice, Judge Susan Himel, struck down three Criminal Code provisions relating to prostitution on September 28. The case, launched by Terri-Jean Bedford, Valerie Scott, and Amy Lebovitch, and represented by lawyer Alan Young, overturned three of Canada’s prostitution laws. In the province of Ontario, prostitutes are now allowed to operate a common bawdy house, live off the profits of prostitution, and solicit for purposes of prostitution.
Prostitutes will have the opportunity to sell their wares in a safe and controlled environment, where they can employ people to ensure their safety and even call the police for help without fear of legal prosecution. Although prostitution itself wasn’t technically illegal, pretty much every action surrounding it was, and as such, violence against those involved in the sex industry was rampant. Those participating in the industry had to function outside the law, without basic protection to ensure their safety.
Bedford, Scott, and Lebovitch, who have all worked in the sex trade, are qualified to talk about the state of the industry in the years leading up to Himel’s decision. They haven’t painted the rosiest of pictures. Young gave the courts an overview of what he called “shocking and horrifying” stories of abuse suffered by prostitutes as a result of the industry being pushed underground. Even though these dangers still exist, by decriminalizing prostitution, the Ontario courts have given prostitutes a chance to create an industry where they can ensure their own safety.
Of course, no sane thought goes unpunished. There are those taking advantage of the 30-day window in which to overturn the Court’s decision. Federal conservatives squirmed as their tight pants got even tighter when Himel released her decision, complaining that the change will make prostitution even easier.
Well, yes, and that’s really the point. It’s about improving the lives of prostitutes and giving them a chance to work in a safe environment, rather than treating them as criminals.
Foremost amongst the dissenters is Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien, whose problem with Judge Himel’s decision centers on his belief that the move will only facilitate pimping and increase drug dependency. It seems he has missed the point.
Preventing continued drug abuse would be best combated with increased social and educational programs, not by shaming and charging those that work in the sex-trade industry. As for pimps, if the industry is regulated but not criminalized, there is a greater possibility that prostitutes will be able to form unions in which they are able to set their own standards of safe employment. By driving the sex industry further into the margins of society, prostitutes are regularly forced to go without the basic personal safety considerations they should enjoy.
The potential improvements in the industry resulting from this ruling are further highlighted by looking at incidences like the Robert Pickton murders. An internal report released by the Vancouver police in August of this year details the RCMP’s failures, listing the variety of ways in which the disappearances of prostitutes from the East Hastings area went ignored from the 1990s onward.
While the majority of the report focuses on the in-fighting, computer problems, and inadequate training that caused the investigation to stall, it stands to reason that had lines of communication between sex workers on the East side and police been more open, there would have been greater information pointing to Pickton’s involvement, which could have potentially saved lives.
The point to be made is that simply making prostitution illegal won’t deter people from buying and selling sex. If the federal Conservatives were really willing to help those victimized by the sex trade, they could do so by funding better drug counselling, job training, and education.
Like other controversial decisions that have sprung up from the east and spread across Canada, if Judge Himel’s decision stands, there is a good chance that it may be reproduced in other provinces.
And, just as in 2003 when Ontario was the first Canadian province to legalize gay marriage, we can expect that Alberta will be dragged kicking and screaming into the new age. Judge Himel’s decision won’t eradicate violence from prostitution, but at the very least, it will give the people involved a fighting chance to fuck on their own terms.
York prof helps decriminalize Ontario prostitution
Crown has 30 days to appeal before ruling becomes law
Raymond Kwan // October 6, 2010 // Excalibur (York University)
TORONTO (CUP) — Alan Young played a pivotal role an Ontario court’s decision to strike down key provisions in Canada’s anti-prostitution laws.
Some specific prostitution-related acts were decriminalized by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on Sept. 28, including pimping, running brothels and soliciting.
Young, a professor at Osgoode Hall law school at York University, represented the prostitutes and, with help from 20 of his students, was able to manage the case mostly for free; the students compiled most of the evidence and convinced prostitutes, academics and community workers to testify.
Kendra Stanyon, one of Young’s students involved with the case, said she is very happy with the court’s decision.
She said that she was partly motivated to work on the case because the government was ignoring recommendations in reports that could have made prostitution a safe trade.
“Almost every report came back saying the same things that we have said in our case now, which is that sex work is made more dangerous when you prevent women from moving indoors,” she said.
“The government’s response to the reports was one of inaction and was very frustrating for me,” Stanyon added.
In her 131-page report, Justice Susan Himel concluded that prostitutes are exposed to dangers on the street that force them to choose between pursuing their interests and their right to personal safety as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Crown lawyers have been given 30 days to come up with arguments strong enough to dissuade Justice Himel.
The court’s decision sent ripples throughout the political establishment.
Parts of Canadian prostitution law will be decriminalized in 30 days if the Crown does not appeal effectively. (Photo by Excalibur)
Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced on Sept. 29 that the government would appeal the decision, adding that prostitution is harmful to individuals and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said his government would support the appeal.
Young, however, said he feels the federal government is simply trying to buy time and avoid the issue.
“It’s a knee-jerk reaction to every case they lose,” said Young. “If they really care about women in the sex trade, they’d accept the judgment and change the law.”
Stanyon argues that the decriminalization of prostitution in other countries like New Zealand has not resulted in an explosion of crime and urges the public not to buy into the government’s claims that Canada will become a haven for sex tourism.
“[I] feel that that’s a scare tactic,” said Stanyon. “If you look internationally at other countries that have enacted similar decriminalization and regulatory schemes for prostitution ... they saw no statistically-relevant rise in sex workers or pimps. People weren’t seeking them on the streets or walking around on top of condoms everywhere.”
Young also disagrees with the government’s claim. “I’m not sure that’s necessarily such a bad thing, but the reason I don’t agree is because that’s not the Canadian way. You can only create a tourist hotspot if the community accepts it, and I don’t think Canadians are ready for it.”
Stanyon added that the public should acknowledge everyone’s right to personal safety.
“We’re not encouraging entrance into sex work ... it’s a health and safety issue, and these citizens have every right to operate their business and going about their job in a healthy and safe environment,” said Stanyon.
“It’s going to take generations before we see real significant changes in the sex trade, and I don’t know which direction it’ll go,” added Young. “This is just opening up the door slightly to allow women a few more options when they pursue their business.”
Ontario Strikes Down Prostitution Laws
October 5, 2010 | theTrumpet.com | Philadelphia Church of God
Prostitution in Canada got a big legal boost last week. On September 28, Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himel ruled to strike down three key sections of the Canadian Criminal Code dealing with prostitution.
“The conclusion I have reached is that three provisions of the Criminal Code that seek to address facets of prostitution … are not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice and must be struck down,” wrote Justice Susan Himel in her 133-page ruling. The three federal laws struck down pertain to operating brothels, procuring a prostitute or earning money off prostitution, and communicating in public places for prostitution.
Himel’s decision comes with far-reaching consequences. By repealing these laws, “sex workers cannot only form guilds, hire bodyguards and pay taxes,” noted Lezlie Lowe, “but men and women who trade sex for money can better count on police protection, and street prostitutes can conduct their business in less shady spots than the front seats of 2004 Pontiac Bonnevilles.”
In other words, Ontario’s illicit sex trade will likely expand and become more mainstream.
(iStockphoto)
Advocates for sex-trade workers and some feminists heralded the “victory.” “It’s like emancipation day for sex-trade workers,” said Terri-Jean Bedford, one of the women who launched the case. Others, however, state that this ruling will do little to deal with issues of addiction and poverty facing the majority of women in the sex trade.
Studies show that tolerance of prostitution generally results in a booming sex trade industry. When prostitution was legalized in the Australian state of Victoria in 1994, for example, the sex trade increased. According to the 2005 report “What Happens When Prostitution Becomes Work? An Update on Legalization of Prostitution in Australia,” Victoria’s tolerance of prostitution “encouraged an unprecedented demand for ‘sexual services’ resulting in more and more women being prostituted for sex and profit ….”
In Canada, many believe it’s only a matter of time before Justice Himel’s decision ripples far beyond the province of Ontario. Although Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has given notice that the Canadian government will appeal the judge’s decision, victory over Himel’s radical decision is far from certain. If the recent ruling withstands appeal, the Calgary Herald noted last Thursday, “the ruling could have implications across the country … and could help set similar precedents in other courts” (emphasis ours). Many fear Himel’s ruling could touch off a national trend whereby prostitution laws across Canada are watered down or repealed.
Prostitution, the solicitation of sexual services for money, has been a plague on human cultures around the world all of recorded history. Whether hired by a married man (adultery) or an unmarried individual (fornication), the prostitute (called a “harlot” in Scripture) is demeaned and degraded by the act.
The Word of God is clear that both adultery (Exodus 20:14) and fornication (1 Corinthians 5:1) are strictly forbidden as being grievous sins. Prostitution demeans the purpose of family and the proper role of sex within marriage. God created marriage, family and sex for a noble purpose and has proscribed specific, immutable, spiritual laws in order to safeguard the institutions of marriage and family.
In the meantime, Canada’s national moral slide continues. Stay tuned.
‘It is not important for scholars to present information that contradicts their own findings’: anti-prostitution witness in Ontario
Laura Agustin // October 2, 2010
The judge’s text explaining why she decided Ontario’s prostitution laws to be unconstitutional is a model of thoughtfulness and reason. The hearings took place in October of 2009, and I like to think Judge Himel took a year to read through the evidence submitted as well as all the historical legal material. The latter were undoubtedly the most important to her thinking, the meanings of the concepts in the past which she found to be indefensible in the present. I say this because the submitted research results nearly all came from qualitative studies and the testimonies of both sex workers and ‘experts’ were not much use to her, for different reasons. The judge’s thinking process is helpful to me because I am interested in the idea of evidence – what qualifies, how it’s judged.
Below are excerpts addressing the Judge’s experience of listening to opposing testimonies, opinions about the harm of laws on society and on those who sell sex. Whilst it is clear that a lot of testimonies just cancelled each other out, creepy ideas about research were revealed, too. The worst witness statement is the one used as the title of this post. Does anyone think that because a person is an academic he has any principles? I have the impression that the judge was fairly appalled by the advocating and declaiming she was forced to listen to. In fact, I am surprised that the anti-prostitution witnesses did not think strategically about moderating their strident tone before appearing in a court of law.
Evidence from prostitutes themselves
[85] The applicants submitted affidavits from eight witnesses who described their perceptions and experiences of working as prostitutes. During oral argument, the applicants’ counsel submitted that the purpose of these witnesses was to provide “corroborative voices” . . . [86] The affiants came from varied backgrounds and from across Canada, but largely shared the experience of finding prostitution in indoor venues generally safer than street prostitution (indeed, a few experienced no violence at all working indoors). . . they entered into prostitution without coercion (although financial constraints were a large factor) and most reported being addiction-free and working without a pimp.
[87] The respondent tendered nine affidavits from prostitutes and former prostitutes, whose stories painted a much different picture. The respondent’s witnesses gave detailed accounts of horrific violence in indoor locations and on the street, controlling and abusive pimps, and the rampant use of drugs and alcohol.
[88] While this evidence provided helpful background information, it is clear that there is no one person who can be said to be representative of prostitutes in Canada; the affiants are an extremely diverse group of people whose reasons for entry into prostitution, lifestyles, and experiences differ.
The idea of expert witnesses
[99] While neither party disputed that the other party’s witnesses were, in fact, experts, a great deal of argument and evidence was devoted to criticizing these witnesses. Both parties alleged that certain experts were biased, that conclusions were generalized beyond the sample studied, that studies were methodologically flawed . . . [114] The following factors are relevant to the consideration of the weight to be given to expert evidence:
- a) Unwillingness of the expert to qualify an opinion or update it in the face of new facts provided (often in cross-examination);
- b) Bold assertions without a properly outlined basis for the claim;
- c) Refusal to restrict opinions to expertise or the expertise demarked by the judge as required by the court;
- d) Lack of sufficient independence from the party proffering the expert; and
- e) Prior history as an advocate on the topic.
[182] In reviewing the extensive record presented, I was struck by the fact that many of those proffered as experts to provide international evidence to this court had entered the realm of advocacy and had given evidence in a manner that was designed to persuade rather than assist the court. For example, some experts made bold assertions without properly outlined bases for their claims and were unwilling to qualify their opinions in the face of new facts provided. While it is natural for persons immersed in a field of study to begin to take positions as a result of their research over time, where these witnesses act primarily as advocates, their opinions are of lesser value to the court.
[183] The evidence from some of these witnesses tended to focus upon issues that are, in my view, incidental to the case at bar, including human trafficking, sex tourism, and child prostitution. While important, none of these issues are directly relevant to assessing potential violations of the Charter rights of the applicants.
[352] I find that some of the evidence tendered on this application did not meet the standards set by Canadian courts for the admission of expert evidence. The parties did not challenge the admissibility of evidence tendered but asked the court to afford little weight to the evidence of the other party.
[353] I found the evidence of Dr. Melissa Farley to be problematic. Although Dr. Farley has conducted a great deal of research on prostitution, her advocacy appears to have permeated her opinions. For example, Dr. Farley’s unqualified assertion in her affidavit that prostitution is inherently violent appears to contradict her own findings that prostitutes who work from indoor locations generally experience less violence. Furthermore, in her affidavit, she failed to qualify her opinion regarding the causal relationship between post-traumatic stress disorder and prostitution, namely that it could be caused by events unrelated to prostitution.
[354] Dr. Farley’s choice of language is at times inflammatory and detracts from her conclusions. For example, comments such as, “prostitution is to the community what incest is to the family,” and “just as pedophiles justify sexual assault of children….men who use prostitutes develop elaborate cognitive schemes to justify purchase and use of women” make her opinions less persuasive.
[355] Dr. Farley stated during cross-examination that some of her opinions on prostitution were formed prior to her research, including, “that prostitution is a terrible harm to women, that prostitution is abusive in its very nature, and that prostitution amounts to men paying a woman for the right to rape her.” [356] Accordingly, for these reasons, I assign less weight to Dr. Farley’s evidence.
[357] Similarly, I find that Drs. Raymond and Poulin were more like advocates than experts offering independent opinions to the court. At times, they made bold, sweeping statements that were not reflected in their research. For example, some of Dr. Raymond’s statements on prostitutes were based on her research on trafficked women. As well, during cross-examination, it was revealed that some of Dr. Poulin’s citations for his claim that the average age of recruitment into prostitution is 14 years old were misleading or incorrect. In his affidavit, Dr. Poulin suggested that there have been instances of serial killers targeting prostitutes who worked at indoor locations; however, his sources do not appear to support his assertion. I found it troubling that Dr. Poulin stated during cross-examination that it is not important for scholars to present information that contradicts their own findings (or findings which they support).
[358] The applicants’ witnesses are not immune to criticism. . . During cross-examination, Dr. Lowman expressed discontent with portions of his affidavit, citing “careless” language and “poorly reasoned argument.” Dr. Lowman rightly takes responsibility for the content of his affidavit, which was drafted for him by law students. In his affidavit, Dr. Lowman made a direct causal link between the Criminal Code provisions at issue and violence against prostitutes; however, during cross-examination he gave the opinion that there was, rather, an indirect causal relationship. Such inattentiveness on such a crucial issue is indeed concerning. During cross-examination, Dr. Lowman gave nuanced and qualified opinions, which more accurately reflect his research.
Note: I was asked to be an ‘expert witness’ a few years ago and couldn’t see what it was I’d be expert in, exactly. I was relieved it didn’t come off in the end and much more, now, although I don’t go in for stridency, myself
|
