"The movement of sex workers is building." Credit: Carol Leigh Scarlot Harlot / flickr Credit: Carol Leigh Scarlot Harlot / flickr

Back in the spring, I interviewed Jenn Clamen, national coordinator for the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform about their upcoming constitutional challenge. The aim of the challenge is to decriminalize sex work in Canada. The Alliance went to court in early October to argue their case over four days of proceedings.  

I read both the Alliance’s factum and both the Canadian and Ontario government’s factum in preparation for my follow-up interview with Jenn. As a layperson, the difference in language used was astounding. It’s clear that the Alliance was purposeful in using plain language wherever possible. It’s also clear that they were backing up all their claims with peer reviewed and relevant research. 

The Crown took a different approach — they didn’t put the same amount of care into ensuring that a member of the public could understand their arguments. It’s also clear they used antagonistic language towards sex workers, and gaslit their expert witnesses via deliberate twisting of their research findings; I’ll get to the experts later.

The most glaring difference to me is that the Alliance is composed of 26 member groups, each of whom provide services to sex workers in their respective cities or geographical areas. They also have five individual sex workers and one former escort agency owner as an applicant. By contrast, neither the Canadian or Ontario government had a single sex worker as an applicant. Instead, their side of the argument relied heavily on evidence given by law enforcement and experts whose motives and qualifications are dubious at best. I asked Jenn about what she thinks of all this below.

Natasha Darling (ND): I wonder if you can tell me how many sex workers are affiants in the case? And how does the Alliance feel about the fact that neither the Government of Ontario or Canada presented any sex working affiants? Like, what is the logical conclusion that the readers can draw from this?

Jenn Clamen (JC): The Canadian Alliance with Sex Work law reform is one applicant. And we are 26 sex worker rights’ member groups across the country. So our sex worker rights groups across the country, are predominantly led by sex workers. And we all serve individually, all of our member groups serve thousands and thousands of sex workers. So that is representation of sex workers across the country. In addition to that, there’s six individual applicants, five of whom are sex workers, one of whom is a third party who used to own an escort agency… Then, as fact witnesses in the case we have people who, again, are not individuals…So those are, again, representations of collective sex workers. And so we decided to do it that way instead of individual sex workers – besides the individual applicants – so that we could represent a collective of experiences and have more experiences on the table, and more evidence on the table…The fact that government hasn’t brought forward anybody working in the sex industry is indicative of the fact that they’re having a very different conversation to the one that we put forward before the court. They are talking about human trafficking for the most part. And when they are talking about human trafficking, they might be talking about people who no longer work in the sex industry. So their analysis of the harms of the current regime is very limited. And the fact that all of their witnesses are police officers who are in a directly antagonistic position to people experiencing the harms of criminalization, again, is a testament to the fact that they’re having a very different conversation…They’ve made the conversation not about sex workers experiences of the law, and that’s what the conversation needs to be about. So it’s very disappointing. But it’s also very common that that happens. So it’s not surprising.

It boggles my mind; there is so much cognitive disconnect to unpack. First Parliamentarians write Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA) — legislation that makes it hard for sex workers to effectively screen clients, work together, advertise and hire security staff. And they’re very clear in writing these laws that the aim is to eliminate prostitution in the long term. Then, without consulting sex workers once again, they choose instead to center voices of law enforcement officials and prohibitionists. 

Here’s where things get extra sinister: Cops get all sorts of funding to combat human trafficking, as do prohibitionist organizations because they believe that, eventually, sex work becomes human trafficking in the long term. This is literally the crux of the governments’ legal argument. 

This conflation of sex work with human trafficking is what leads to surveillance, criminalization and stigma, and ignores the lived experience of those most affected by the legislation. If sex work is decriminalized completely, cops and prohibitionists are at risk of losing funding, and losing their jobs. If you give someone a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you give cops poorly conceived legislation, everyone involved is somehow a criminal. If you give fundamentalists a religious book, everyone becomes a sinner.

I noticed that a prohibitionist group called Defend Dignity is an intervenor for the Crown. These people are also against banning conversion therapy! This is who the government chose to help them with their case: religious fundamentalists who wish to see LTBTQ+ communities and sex workers exposed to harm because of their interpretation of the Bible. Our government is actively pursuing theocracy, mirroring our southern neighbours in the U.S. 

I asked Jenn about what she thinks of the role the religious right plays. 

JC: So at its core, the criminalization of sex work has always been about punishing sex workers, calling sex workers criminal before 2014. And calling sex workers victims after 2014 [Bedford decision] is the same conversation. It’s just the two sides of the same coin, because the same mechanism is being used in both cases. So we know that underneath the criminalization of sex work is a moral conversation. It’s a religious conversation in some ways, right? Because that’s what often ideas of morality are based on. And so it is not surprising that yet again, because they were there in Bedford as well, the Evangelical Fellowship is intervening on the side of the crown. It is no surprise that Defend Dignity is only on the side of the Crown… And the Parents Against Trafficking, like these are all groups that have their base and religious perspective of what sex is, what sex isn’t, what it should be, who should have it, when they should have it, how they should have it. And that’s the conversation that nobody’s having out loud. But it’s the conversation that’s happening underneath all of this. So yeah, so they’re there. And they’ve always been there and the conservative minded laws, like the PCPA. There, it’s conservative minded, because it was written by a Conservative Party, and is now being supported by the Liberal Party, who arguably are conservatives with looser ties.

In contrast to religious fundamentalists with questionable views about human rights, the Alliance has intervenors such such as Amnesty International Canadian Section (English Speaking), Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC), Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL), Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), The Enchanté Network, Migrant Workers Alliance for Change Ontario, Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres and Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights among others. (The full list of intervenors, and a more nuanced primer of the whole challenge is here.)  

Who would you rather trust to help shape our laws and public policies? Folks that willfully misinterpret one book, written by only men over 1500 years ago? Or folks with lived experience, and researchers and organizations who spend years studying to become leaders in their field? Would you rather trust law enforcement or human rights lawyers? 

Even if the Alliance wins their challenge at the Ontario Superior court level, the government is likely to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. If they don’t win the challenge, the Alliance will file an appeal. The fight for decriminalization will most likely take years. It’s daunting and tragic, that in the meantime, sex workers will continue to be harmed by laws, institutions, and bad faith actors. If the government is as concerned about keeping sex workers and marginalized communities safe from exploitation and harm as they claim, they should work to eliminate poverty, not sex work. 

In recognition of the long and hard road ahead, I tried to end the interview on an uplifting note. I firmly believe that even in times of collective struggle, there is a muted undercurrent of strength, joy and power in community, as corny as that sounds. 

ND:  Do you think sex workers and sex work organizations are more connected with each other nowadays, compared to before Bedford?

JC: I would argue it’s not just easier, it’s just a stronger and more powerful message when you have sex workers across the country joining together to say, of course, these laws need to be struck down. So that I would say is really, really strong and really, very positive. And I appreciate you asking that because I do think that that’s one of our successes that we can’t underestimate, regardless of what happens with this court case. The movement of sex workers is building. New sex workers are feeling more confident in being out and being a part of the movement. Allies are joining. Women’s movements and women’s organizations are changing their tune in recognizing the harms of a carceral approach to sex work. And so we are definitely making progress there.

The court is expected to release its decision within six to 12 months. If you’d like to follow the Alliance and keep up to date, their Twitter handle is @cdnswalliance. You can email them to set up a donation to go towards their legal expenses at [email protected].

The above quotes from the interview with Jenn Clamen have been lightly edited for clarity. 

Untitled design (2)

Natasha Darling

Natasha Darling is a pseudonym to protect the author’s true identity from the stigma and harm associated with her sex work. Darling is a stripper and community organiser based in Toronto. Plant...