Charter challenge launched against prostitution law
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/court-challenge-takes-on-se...
While sporadic attempts have been made over the years to chip away at aspects of prostitution law, the challenge is the first in two decades to aim for a broad sweep of its provisions. The women want the courts to strike down prohibitions against living off the avails of prostitution, communicating with potential clients and setting up brothels.
To succeed, the applicants must show that the laws amount to a “grossly disproportionate” infringement of the Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person.
Even in a narrow legal sense, this isn't an easy issue. I don't think justices at the Superior or Supreme Court level will see their way to throwing everything wide open by denying Parliament a role in regulating or restricting prostitution for many excellent reasons. However, the current legal status of prostitution in Canada is a strange one. It's legal to do except for the part where you communicate to make a deal. It's legal to live on the proceeds on your own sex work, but not of someone else's. While this rightly prohibits pimping, it also prevents sex workers from hiring security or renting a place to work in. It's a status that needs clarification and the country's politicians have yet to provide it.
Given how past discussions of this topic have gone - should this be moved to the feminism forum?
Prostitution laws dead wrong
Surprisingly, a good op ed from the Ottawa Sun:
Yes, I'll move it to the feminism forum.
CBC story: A new coalition of women's groups in B.C. is hoping to head off what they see as an emerging trend to try to legalize prostitution.
The group, called the Abolition Coalition, cites two upcoming court cases that the group says will use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to argue that prostitutes and their customers should be allowed to sell or buy sex for money.
One of those cases gets underway Tuesday in Ontario Superior Court in Toronto. The three women who launched the case are arguing the Criminal Code forces them to work in the streets and not in the safety of their homes.
"The parties involved in those court cases would have you believe, when it comes to the law, our choices are all or nothing: either we criminalize both women and johns and continue to enforce the law inconsistently, as now, or we decriminalize it entirely, and this is untrue," University of British Columbia law professor Janine Benedet told a Vancouver news conference Monday.
The Abolition Coalition's position is that prostitutes should never be criminally charged for selling sex, but the men who buy it should face harsh legal punishment.
(...)
Source
Well, how does this at all help the women who say they choose to work as sex workers? It still means they have no legal clients, martin.
And despite what the coalition of women groups says in the CBC story about not wanted to criminally charge prostitutes, they are sitting under a huge banner that read "International Day of No Prostitution" in the photo at your link.
This completely denies agency, choice and the right to control one's own body to women who are choosing sex trade work (one of whom has been kind enough to post here over the past few weeks and share her perspective).
i will be live on CTV 4 pm vancouver time....
Sex laws under attack
Sex laws under attack
By DHARM MAKWANA
http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/natio...16566-sun.html
A constitutional challenge before Ontario courts to strike down federal prostitution laws has local advocates wading into the argument.
The case, slated to start today, argues the existing laws puts sex-trade workers at risk of violence.
In response, equality seeking women's groups launched the Abolition Coalition yesterday in downtown Vancouver, calling for the decriminalization of sex-trade workers and the criminalization of purchasing of sex - a model adopted in Sweden.
Prostitution is legal in Canada but most activities surrounding it are not.
"Either we criminalize both the women in prostitution and johns and pimps, and as we do now enforce the law inconsistently, or we decriminalize it entirely," said coalition member and UBC law professor Janine Benedet.
Susan Davis, a Vancouver sex-trade worker in favour of dropping the laws, submitted an affidavit for the case outlining the dangers she faced working on the street.
"We're not looking for special treatment, or carte blanche on brothels," she said.
Instead, Davis wants the sex trade to be subject to standards of transparency and ethical review under government oversight.
A similar charter challenge brought forward by Vancouver-based Pivot Legal Society has stalled in B.C. Supreme Court.
vancouver.24hrs.ca wrote:
"...Either we criminalize both the women in prostitution and johns and pimps, and as we do now enforce the law inconsistently, or we decriminalize it entirely," said coalition member and UBC law professor Janine Benedet.
Actually, as anyone familiar with this debate knows, this is a misquote of Benedet's and the Abolition Coalition's position. They have requested that the record be corrected.
The CBC story quoted them accurately:
"...The parties involved in those court cases would have you believe, when it comes to the law, our choices are all or nothing: either we criminalize both women and johns and continue to enforce the law inconsistently, as now, or we decriminalize it entirely, and this is untrue," University of British Columbia law professor Janine Benedet told a Vancouver news conference Monday.
The Abolition Coalition's position is that prostitutes should never be criminally charged for selling sex, but the men who buy it should face harsh legal punishment..."
There are feminists who support sex workers and believe it or not martin there are feminists and feminist groups who oppose the criminalization of johns. In fact, what a schock, there are feminists who are a-okay with trading sex, though some modern-day Puritans might not like it.
Look at who else is opposing this charter challenge, martin. "REAL" Women Canada and the Catholic League. Quite the company you keep
If I was betting on this one, I would probably hamper a guess that the SCC will throw out 1 or all of these laws. This challenge seems well thought out and very clever.
Okay, I know I've done it myself, but I'm resolving to do better in future, after yesterday's discussions. Let's not label each other "puritans" or imply that babblers are in league with anti-progressive groups simply because of their position on this issue. It's a rhetorical device that just leads to flaming.
I know there's a fine line here, and that people should be able to talk about the similarities between the positions of anti-progressive organizations and some feminist groups. I think we can do this, however, without claiming that people are "keeping company" with repugnant groups when we know that this is not really true.
I'm not sure how this is to be done Michelle. What are we allowed to say? What would be the appropraite way to state that the positions held by someone is akin to those held by anti-progressives? Or is that not allowed. I'm just confused here.
Well, think about it this way. You think that sex work should be legal and so do I. So do human traffickers. Therefore, look who we're keeping company with. Human traffickers.
See how it works? It's a smear.
Martin doesn't agree with R.E.A.L. women and other right-wing Christian organizations on the REASON it should be illegal. He doesn't agree with them about what should be done about prostitution. But because he does not want this legal challenge to succeed, and neither does R.E.A.L. Women, he's "keeping company" with them?
No, he's not, and it's kind of a dishonest debating tactic to claim that he is.
I'm not saying that the same kind of smearing hasn't been done by the anti-legalization folks here on babble. It has. I just think that, in the spirit of trying not to demonize our opponents on the issue, it might be a good idea to not smear each other.
Exactly Michelle. It is comparable to the section 13 debate, where people were accused of keeping company with Ezra Levant.
And, I'm told, liberals. Not the Canadian political party, but liberals... anyone who puts individual liberties ahead of harsh laws and such.
That's exactly what I thought the first ten or twenty times it was implied.
Actually I haven't formed a real opinion on this. I do, however, think it is important to keep Susan here at babble, and I don't think that attacking her real life experience, as sex worker, is the right thing to do, especially by someone who is not a sex worker. I think I'd like to hear the voices of women who chose this industry and what they have to say, how they feel and what they think would better their working conditions.
Oh, was that implied 10 or 20 times Snert? Funny, I thought it was twice.
Perhaps. I'm glad you noticed too, though.
Janine Benedet
Legalization wouldn't make prostitutes safe
The violence in prostitution comes not from the law, but from male pimps and
buyers
The Globe & Mail - Opinions, Wed. October 7, 2009
Supporters of the prostitution industry want us to believe that women would
be safe if men's purchase of women for sex is legalized. In the name of
women's security, they are arguing in an Ontario court this week that male
johns and pimps have a constitutional right to buy and sell women. They are
claiming that prostitution is women's work and that legalizing it would
advance women's liberty. Opposition is dismissed as based on "moral panic."
A closer look at the violent reality of prostitution exposes the utter
fallacy of these claims. (...)
Full Op-Ed here
Stargazer wrote: "I don't think that attacking her real life experience, as sex worker, is the right thing to do"
You are clearly suggesting I did. Please provide a quote. Failing this, a nice word of apology will do.And, I'm told, liberals. Not the Canadian political party, but liberals... anyone who puts individual liberties ahead of harsh laws and such.
Snert, are you assuming that ALL liberals are hostile to laws against profiting from the sale of someone else's body? Can you agree that there would be no such thing as individual liberties without legislation ("harsh" as it needs to be) to protect them?
Okay then Martin, I'll use a different word. How about, "I don't think co-opting her voice, as the lone sex worker on this board, is a good thing to do?" Or how about drowning out her voice? Sorry for using the word "attacking".
Sorry, but no cigar. Neither accusation is accurate. I am certainly not coopting her voice - we are on opposite sides of the debate. And Susan has posted way more volume than me on this issue. Please get off my case or take it to the mods, Stagazer.
The difference being that you are not a sex worker, she is. And there is no chance I will do anymore grovelling. If the mods decide I need a "break" then that's fine. But no grovelling.
A non sequitur. And actually, according the wide and vague definition given to that notion by our local sex workers org (Stella), I am a sex worker, since their definition includes people sympathetic to their issues. So why not shelf these haphazard ad hominem arguments and accept that everyone is both entitled and challenged to rise to collective responsibility on this issue, accepting guidance from the people who have or have had direct experience in prostitution and/or supporting prostituted people.
I'm of two minds about the issue of legalization/decriminalization - but I'm of one mind when it comes to the role of religious and anti-womens'-rights groups in deciding the law on this question. We have another open thread on that issue, and I thought I'd just remind babblers of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision, wherein it granted standing to the Christian Legal Fellowship, REAL Women of Canada and the Catholic Civil Rights League, on the grounds that:
In the other thread, babblers were debating whether or not this decision was a good thing.
Just to be clear Unionist: I am sure you will agree that people who make submissions to the Courts - on whatever grounds - have no role in deciding the law in question. That would be a grievous mistake indeed. But should they be silenced if their morality doesn't always jive with ours? Would you bar a faith-based pacifist group from hearings about the militarization of Canada, for instance? I hope not.
I read through all of susan's posts (thanks unionist) and while I agree that defining strip club owners, massge parlour owners etc. as stakeholders is problematic, I also noted that susan talked about having those policed by an overall agency. I think there is much hope in what she has put forward. These parlours etc. are already unregulated and often the workers are exploited. Why not have a central agency that can be counted on to get at those companies who use women non consensually, or exploit or harm them in any way? It really is not up to you or I. It is up to the women themselves to determine what they want. I think if there is a large consensus among sex workers that this is the way to go then we should respect that and hope that they are more than capable of determining for themselves what is right and what isn't for them.
The probem I am having with those against this challenge by Alan Young is the idea that women in the sex trade are not capable of making their own informed decisions. They certainly are when given the right tools and I think the ideas that susan has shared with us allow for that to happen. Prostitution is not going away anytime soon. No amount of wishing it were is going to make it happen. The field should be safe for women and I see susan's cause as advancing that agenda.
Susan, I have a question. How will an agency deal with traffickers and other people who are clearly exploiting women? Who will investigate? Who will determine what should be done? I would not want to see unethical and exploitive business owners policing themselves or others. Could you elaborate a bit on this part? I know there is a lot to be worked out but this is a definite concern.
In regards to REAL woman and the Church having standing, I do not agree. Their cause has nothing to do with the protection of women, It is about morality. Full stop.
Contestation à la Cour supérieure de l'Ontario : la décriminalisation TOTALE ne rend pas la prostitution plus sécuritaire
Montréal, le 06 octobre 2009 - La Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle - CLES - s'inquiète de la contestation du Code criminel à la Cour supérieure de l'Ontario qui pourrait conduire à la décriminalisation totale de la prostitution y compris du proxénétisme. En fait, une décision en faveur des demandeuses aurait pour effet l'augmentation de la violence envers les femmes dont celles qui sont dans la prostitution.
Depuis plus d'un an des survivantes de la prostitution qui ont été exposées à la violence tant dans les rues qu'à l'intérieur de bordels ou de bars sont engagées à la CLES. Elles sont convaincues qu'il est faux d'affirmer que la décriminalisation TOTALE conduira à une meilleure qualité de vie pour les femmes. Dans les faits toute décriminalisation est suivie d'une série de règlements et de lois qui ont des effets pervers. Les proxénètes deviennent des hommes d'affaire comme les autres, les clients prostitueurs sont légitimés et les femmes sont davantage victimes de violence, de traite, d'abus. Dans de tels cas des études montrent que l'industrie du sexe et le tourisme sexuel (pour des adultes et des mineurEs) connaissent une expansion. Tout se met en place pour répondre à la logique de marché : fournir toujours plus de corps de femmes à des coûts moindres.
C'est aujourd'hui le cas notamment en Hollande où le gouvernement a perdu le contrôle et se voit obliger de fermer plusieurs zones du Red Light.
La prostitution est une violence envers toutes les femmes et la décriminalisation TOTALE rendrait légitime la marchandisation du corps des femmes.
Ensemble - femmes survivantes de multiples violences - nous disons OUI à la décriminalisation des personnes prostituées et NON à la décriminalisation de ceux qui tirent profit de la prostitution : les clients et les proxénètes ! NON à la marchandisation du corps des femmes !
(Just released by Quebec's Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle, an organization that includes many survivors of prostitution, some active and some not in the industry)
That's great Martin but unfortunately, I lost all of my French ability quite some time ago.
I hope susan comes back to answer my questions.
What are you talking about? Of course they will have a role, just as lawyers making submissions do. The Court will interpret the statutes and the Charter, and its decision will be "the law", as that term is used. Anything the Court hears will obviously play a role in the Court's decision (whether the Court accepts or rejects those submissions). Otherwise, these groups would not be allowed to make submissions in the first place. Are you allowed to make submissions there? Is my local union? How about the NDP? Clearly not. Nor should these groups.
No, they should be barred from making submissions for the precise reason that the Ontario Superior Court said.
What kind of "hearings"? Judicial ones which can make law? Or an inquiry? And barred from what - attending, or speaking? And what about the local branch of Soldiers of Fortune subscribers? I don't understand you at all. This isn't about "morality". It is about the rights and equality and abuse of women. The court should look at the law in the light of the Charter and decide accordingly. It should NOT look at the Bible or listen to organizations that don't adhere to the equality of men and women as enshrined in the Charter.
ETA: Here is the full decision of Justice Matlow of Superior Court, which was later overturned by Court of Appeal. Worth reading IMO.