How will parties approach the legality of sex work after the Supreme Court decision?

 No one has demoted Megan or Libby. 

 And I agree it would nice if they resolved this in a timely manner. As cor patience from what I've heard many police are backinv off on enforcement of the prostitution laws until everything is settled and they know what the rules will be. No point in arresting someone over a law that might not exist soon.

 Still I very much would like to know what the NDP is going to do on this issue. Maybe I'll email some MPs and see what I can find out.

Okay.

If the NDP does come out with a coherent position on decrim, how much of an impact will it have? Our current government is well known for ignoring any sort of inconvenient evidence, scientific or otherwise. I appreciate the hard work done in here by fortunate and others. But I think we're going to get stuck with some half-baked version of the Nordic model. It sounds neat and clean, like something you'd buy at IKEA. If it was called the Saudi model or the Bangladeshi model, I don't think it would be getting so much glib support. Brachina has said earlier they might just run out the clock on this one, and avoid the Nordic model because it wouldn't stand up in court. I'm not sure she's right on that: everytime you hear some mention of this in the MSM, the Nordic model always seems prominent (most recently with Jimmy Carter's musings.) And Makay does seem to be speeding things along with the help of that blancmange Joy Smith. But maybe I just have an overly negative cast of mind...

lagatta wrote:

Remember that Jonathan is an Innu, and he was raising the same questions as the leading Aboriginal women's groups (and many other women's groups) in Québec, in particular in the context of Charest's "Plan nord".

He did not state any remedy in this article, or speak out against decriminalisation.

If a remedy is needed, it should be because a problem exists. Prostitution within the Innu comunities, by Innu women or outside the Innu communities is close to 0 on the North Shore. Jonathan was reacting to pressures from the CALAC, always in need of funding. They panicked because they thought the Plan Nord would foster prostitution. It did not, does not and will not. There are close to 0 sex workers East of Tadoussac. Sex workers would have to come from elsewhere. And it's also close to 0 across the Saint-Laurent in Gaspésie. Its way to far for sex workers to travel from Québec or Montréal. No reason to freak out, Jonathan. It's a no problem.

Just have an omnibus that repeals every law passed since February 6, 2006. Good for the gander, and all that. Maybe even stick it in the budget. It can be called "C-1, the Our Long National Nightmare Is Over Act".

Brachina wrote:

 

 So that leaves me wondering would did the transfer of money turn an act that was previously none violent into an act of violence? And if trnasfering money to another is a violent act is the sex violent or is money its self an act of violence?

 

 Just alittle thought exiperment.

that is always where the abolitionist argument fails, because they want the actual exchange of $$ to turn a simple sexual activity into a crime of violence, against women.  Sorry, B but if jane pays john, there is no violent exchange!!  Because only women can be victims, even when (or especially when) they are not.   

I have yet to see anyone give me a solid reason why the exchange can possibly be called 'paid rape" or violence when the activity is a simply body massage with a happy ending by hand, the sex worker fully clothed and never touched by the client.  But maybe it's just me who fails to see how violently assaulted she is by not once being touched.   

Here, for whatever it is worth, is an event on March 26 that Libby Davies attended. 

http://www.carleton.ca/womensstudies/2014/sex-work-bedford-legal-reform-canada/

It is more interesting that you don't see her announce attending this event anywhere on her website that I could find.  I looked there first when i was trying to find the event announcement, only because i knew she was going to be there and i couldn't remember where it was or what it was called.    

There likely isn't consensus within the NDP as to what position to take.  For instance, I'm sure Libby Davies and some others are more in favour of decriminalization, whereas others, like Alex Atamanenko, are more in favour of the so-called Sweden Law (aka Nordic).  So, I'm guessing NDP's strategy will be to accept that the Cons are going to pursue criminalization of some sort (which is a safe assumption, I feel) and then move to have the Cons also implement a variety of anti-poverty measures along with this.  Here's a link which makes me think this.

In searching the Liberal domain, I found absolutely nothing on the recent Bedford decision.  There was some stuff from some Liberal members after the Ontario Court of Appeal decision --> basically in favour of the government's fight to preserve the three laws.  Otherwise absolutely nothing on the Liberal domain that I could find.  ETA: found this, which says nothing.

this member said no way.

zerocarbs wrote:

Great idea! Just go through all those omnibuss bills and wrte the word "-NOT!!" at the bottom of each page. Maybe get Mulcair to initiai each. ;-)

Could make for an odd stye of government. Each new governmet that came in would immediately negate everything that the previous goverrnment had passed. It would drive the busines communty nuts, amonsgt others.

Just to point out, a massive flurry of legislation in a short period, undoing what the last government spent years doing, would create a nightmarish situation for the overburdered public service that actually has to implement the changes. Dave Barrett admits that this was one of his biggest errors, passing such a frenzy of bills and falling short on the implementation.

Perhaps on topic

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2014/03/ah-shouldnt-canadas-new-sex-work-legislation-include-workers-#comment-1433550

Many sex workers' rights advocates are frustrated -- and baffled -- by the government's flawed policy development strategy, but they are not giving up on trying to get their perspectives heard. Even as the government ignores them, several highly motivated individuals are attempting to disseminate their views to the general public.

Sex positive activist and Slut Walk co-founder Sonya Barnett recently launched a website called "After Bedford" in the hopes of bringing awareness to the concerns facing sex workers today. As well, a number of panel discussions have been held at universities across the country, giving highly qualified academics and researchers an opportunity to share their opinions on the best way for the country to tackle the issues that are present in the sex industry.

The government should be seeking the input of all major stakeholder groups, including sex workers, sex worker outreach organizations and expert researchers. By not doing so, they are wasting their time and the tax payers' money because the findings that come out of their poorly executed consultation process will be of little use in creating an effective strategy for dealing with the problematic situations that can arise in the sex trade.

The development of new sex work laws is a very important matter, as legislation has the potential to deeply affect the lives of some of our society's most vulnerable people. The government ought to be taking their approach to policy development more seriously.

 

I think on this issue the public is ahead of the politicians.  Earlier I had linked to a Toronto Sun poll that showed most people favoured either decriminalization or legalization.  Here's another poll on the CBC that shows 80% vote to make it legal, 18% vote to punish johns (aka Swedish/Nordic solution), and 2% vote to make it illegal.  Mind you, online polls are not an accurate reflection of public mood.  Still, I had expected different results even for the online polls.

mark_alfred wrote:

I think on this issue the public is ahead of the politicians....

I think the public is ahead of the politicians on most issues and I've always put far more trust in we the people as opposed to they the politicos but my partner says I'm pollyannaish. Tis all moot though, the feds are not going to consult with the 'right' groups regardless of where you stand on prostitution. Many folk here have criticized the feds for not talking with prostitutes or their advocacy groups, did anyone here expect them to?

That's a great article, thanks, B.  

The one in the article is someone whose book and person has been raked over the coals by a blogger here on rabble, btw.  

Here is another interesting recent article, not as indepth but covers a number of reports and research

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/03/jesse-kline-the-wrong-way-to-deal-with-prostitution/

 

Indeed, in a 2012 issue paper published by the Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law at the American University Washington College of Law, researcherAnn Jordan argues that the Nordic “experiment has failed. In the 13 years since the law was enacted, the Swedish government has been unable to prove that the law has reduced the number of sex buyers or sellers or stopped trafficking.”

Part of the problem is that the intellectual underpinnings of the Nordic model are based on a branch of radical feminism that views all prostitutes as victims. In doing so, it marginalizes those who work in the sex trade and are thus most affected by the law. Smith is a proponent of the view of “prostitution as a crime that is inherently harmful to women and girls and therefore must be eliminated.”

The result of this radical ideology in the Swedish context is a legal regime that sees no distinction between those who freely choose to engage in the sex trade and those who are forced into it against their will — a crucial distinction because in a free society, individuals should have the right to freely enter into economic transactions that are agreed to by both parties, but no one should have the right to force another to perform sexual (or any other) services against their will.

The Swedish approach also promotes state-sanctioned discrimination and the marginalization of a specific group of people, namely sex workers. In fact, one of the government’s own reports claimed that this “must be viewed as positive from the perspective that the purpose of the law is indeed to combat prostitution.”

“The Swedish approach disempowers women who happen to be sex workers and prevents them from asserting their labour and other rights,” Jordan argues. “This viewpoint also positions all sex workers as passive objects (not agents) who are not in control of their actions or able to speak for themselves.”

Indeed, the Nordic model is not just antithetical to the personal liberties of those who choose to buy or sell sex, but to the economic freedom of prostitutes, as well. Just like in Canada, prostitution is legal in Sweden, but those who work in the industry do not enjoy the same rights as every other citizen.

Swedish hookers are legally required to pay income taxes, for example, but there is no legal way for them to do so, because they are not allowed to register as a business or an employee. Nor are they permitted to enjoy the social security benefits and labour protections that are available to anyone working in any other industry.

Swedish law also prevents prostitutes from working in secure environments by making it illegal to run a brothel, or rent an apartment or hotel room to operate out of. It is also illegal to run an escort agency, act as a security guard or advertise sexual services.

 

fortunate wrote:

That's a great article, thanks, B.  

 

The one in the article is someone whose book and person has been raked over the coals by a blogger here on rabble, btw.  

 

Here is another interesting recent article, not as indepth but covers a number of reports and research

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/03/jesse-kline-the-wrong-way-to-deal-with-prostitution/

 

Indeed, in a 2012 issue paper published by the Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law at the American University Washington College of Law, researcherAnn Jordan argues that the Nordic “experiment has failed. In the 13 years since the law was enacted, the Swedish government has been unable to prove that the law has reduced the number of sex buyers or sellers or stopped trafficking.”

Part of the problem is that the intellectual underpinnings of the Nordic model are based on a branch of radical feminism that views all prostitutes as victims. In doing so, it marginalizes those who work in the sex trade and are thus most affected by the law. Smith is a proponent of the view of “prostitution as a crime that is inherently harmful to women and girls and therefore must be eliminated.”

The result of this radical ideology in the Swedish context is a legal regime that sees no distinction between those who freely choose to engage in the sex trade and those who are forced into it against their will — a crucial distinction because in a free society, individuals should have the right to freely enter into economic transactions that are agreed to by both parties, but no one should have the right to force another to perform sexual (or any other) services against their will.

The Swedish approach also promotes state-sanctioned discrimination and the marginalization of a specific group of people, namely sex workers. In fact, one of the government’s own reports claimed that this “must be viewed as positive from the perspective that the purpose of the law is indeed to combat prostitution.”

“The Swedish approach disempowers women who happen to be sex workers and prevents them from asserting their labour and other rights,” Jordan argues. “This viewpoint also positions all sex workers as passive objects (not agents) who are not in control of their actions or able to speak for themselves.”

Indeed, the Nordic model is not just antithetical to the personal liberties of those who choose to buy or sell sex, but to the economic freedom of prostitutes, as well. Just like in Canada, prostitution is legal in Sweden, but those who work in the industry do not enjoy the same rights as every other citizen.

Swedish hookers are legally required to pay income taxes, for example, but there is no legal way for them to do so, because they are not allowed to register as a business or an employee. Nor are they permitted to enjoy the social security benefits and labour protections that are available to anyone working in any other industry.

Swedish law also prevents prostitutes from working in secure environments by making it illegal to run a brothel, or rent an apartment or hotel room to operate out of. It is also illegal to run an escort agency, act as a security guard or advertise sexual services.

Thanks fortunate, for this article debunking the "NOrdic model

New Democrats believe that conditions of poverty, discrimination, inequality, poor housing and underemployment must also be addressed – all issues that affect the freedom to choose one’s own work.

 This was one of my favourite parts of Nikki's response. I like how Nikki pointed out that the real problem isn't sex work its more universal then that, the real problem is that too many people are trapped in Jobs they hate because of poverty, discrimation, underemployment, although I'd add accessiblity of training and post secondary education to that list. Because that's what it comes down, issues that affect the freedom to choose one's own work. People should be free to choose thier own jobs, instead of having the choice be made effectively by ones circukstances and the 1%. And this is a battle for everyone, that effects people across all industries, not just the sex industry.

 Its a beautiful dream.

I think we have the NDP bumper sticker slogan now: "Prostitution should be safe, illegal, and rare."

That said, I really do believe Niki Ashton supports decrim. But an email that carefully nuanced without really saying anything smells of coming from higher up the food chain.

 *bangs head against wall*

Brachina wrote:

 I guess she sent me the wrong part, but she did say the convention policy passed and we know the convention policy was decriminalizarion. I don't know. If you want anymore clarification perhaps you should email Nikki yourself Unionist and ask for clarification on her and the NDPs position if you don't feel its clear enough. I'm satisified and so I will no longer be the go between.

I'm satisfied just by the fact she said that sex worker advocates will be consulted.    It's kind of a landmark statement that any political party actually puts that in writing. :)    However, it doesn't say that sex workers themselves would be consulted :(     and they seem to have no plans to help any male sex workers from exploitation, sex slavery or smuggling/trafficking, which is a bit of a problem.  

However, i do agree with you B, that it seems quite clear they have no intention of adding criminalization, or the nordic model.     For one thing, since there are a few of the laws that will already be decriminalized in December, it would seem pointless to point out that they intend to do more than what is already going to be done.   They don't actually have to, most sex workers are satisfied by the SCC's decrimming.    

Many other laws are already in place and will remain in place to address even the NDP's list of concerns.  Anyone's list of concerns for that matter.  Not sure why people think it will become the wild west and panic and chaos.  All the decrim of those 3 basic laws mean is someone can legally work from home or a massage parlour, something they are currently doing illegally and no one the wiser,   sex workers can have a proper conversation with a potential client if they do street work, before they enter the vehicle, and sex workers can pay a driver or a landlord without fear of either one being knocked to the ground by police is Swat gear, and guns drawn, because a sex worker goes in to pay the rent.   

Brachina wrote:

Currently the Criminal Code of Canada forces sex workers into unsafe circumstances which can put them in exploitative, dangerous and sometimes deadly situations.

...

New Democrats are committed to supporting policy and legislation that will enshrine safety for women. We will work collaboratively with communities and all levels of government to ensure that women are not threatened by violence, and unsafe conditions.

...

New Democrats are committed to advocating for the health and safety of all women, working to end exploitation and violence for sex workers. Further, we recognize that the status quo increases the risk of violence and harm for sex workers.

It doesn't scream "decriminalization" but it sets up a chain of logic:

Criminal Code makes sex work unsafe + Safety for women + status quo increases harm --> Implication: Change the Criminal Code so that it is no longer unsafe and reduces harm.

Thanks for writing me with interest about the NDP’s position on sex work.

I welcome the landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that struck down 3 laws relating to prostitution. They ruled that bans on street soliciting, brothels, and people living off the avails of prostitution are unconstitutional and create serious risks for sex workers.  All levels of government must now carefully review Supreme Court’s decision.

While the experiences of others are helpful, such as those utilizing the Nordic Model, we need a made-in-Canada solution.  I know there have been very mixed reviews of the so-called Nordic model. 

Any new laws that are contemplated must be done in consultation with sex workers - to determine what needs to be done to protect the rights and safety of sex workers, as well as the wider public.  We need a model that follows the Supreme Court of Canada ruling and respects sex workers’ Charter Rights for liberty and security and reflects the experience and needs of sex workers. 

I will continue to work on this issue to make sure there are changes to address the need to protect the dignity, human rights and safety of women and communities. You can find the NDP’s resolution attached.

Thanks again for taking the time to write me about this important issue.

Sincerely,

Libby