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

I think both criminalization and decriminalization have their pros and cons when it comes to the violence that is prevalent in the sex industry. But I think on the whole decriminalization comes out well ahead.

Criminalization, even of the clients, probably does reduce the demand to an extent which leads to somewhat less trafficking. But the clients who are still around probably have less to lose from a criminal record in general, and are more likely to resort to violence. Moreover sex workers are forced into the shadows and are less able to take effective measures to protect themselves or screen clients so as to avoid the one's who are violent.

When prostitution is decriminalized sex workers are able to take effective measures to protect themselves by working in safe indoor locations, hiring bodyguards and screening their clients carefully. Ofcourse not all sex workers will have these options available to them, the one's who are coerced, or are just too poor to work indoors will ofcourse continue to be the targets of violence. Moreever legalization will increase demand for sexual services and even if most of this absorbed by legal prostitution, there will be an increase in trafficking to a small extent as research as shown.

Perhaps decriminalization along with a tough enforcement of anti-trafficking laws (even to the extent of criminalizing men who see trafficked or co-erced prostitutes) would be the best way to go if safety for the most number of women in the sex industry in the goal.

However, as the abolitionists have admitted many times, their main goal is to end prostitution for the sake of their ideology, the safety of sex workers is secondary.

Pondering wrote:

Wow. I didn't realize you hate women so much you want us raped, beaten, abused and murdered in greater numbers than ever. 

If you did not already cross the line, I think you just did.

Of all the folks who argue against criminializing sex work on this forum, I think 100% would be able to agree the goal is to reduce harm to the workers. That means ensuring there is a framework that empowers them to prevent the four harms you have listed - in greater numbers than ever. 

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Wow. I didn't realize you hate women so much you want us raped, beaten, abused and murdered in greater numbers than ever. 

If you did not already cross the line, I think you just did.

Of all the folks who argue against criminializing sex work on this forum, I think 100% would be able to agree the goal is to reduce harm to the workers. That means ensuring there is a framework that empowers them to prevent the four harms you have listed - in greater numbers than ever. 

I would agree and I am very fed up with being told abolitionists don't care about violence against woman. It's a constant drone. There is no evidence that legitimization leads to less violence. 

There is zero evidence of a drop in violence in New Zealand. While sex workers themselves seem to support decriminalization they do not claim a significant reduction in violence. 

The notion that it produces a drop in violence is all theory. Not fact. 

It is fact that legitimization expands the industry leading to more violence against women.

The suggestion that abolitionists should be barred from Rabble and Babble is offensive. Abolitionism is a valid approach to reducing violence against women. I am appalled at the lack of attention to survivor voices. 

I am not at all against sex workers having their say. They have a right. They don't have a right to be the sole voice. 

What makes it okay to say that my actions lead directly to the deaths of women but the same cannot be said in reverse. 

And P.S. I never wanted to make a confession here as thought my arguments can't stand on their own, but yes, I am a survivor of prostitution and yes I was sexually abused prior to then. I am really really really done with everyone acting as though there is only one valid viewpoint on the topic. 

Yes I am happy about Bill 36. Yes, I believe it will save women's lives. 

I don't support the law as worded, as it continues to criminalize people in prostitution and even creates a new offence against them, and also because the funds for helping people escape prostitution are a pittance, but marc alfred's decree would mean I'd have to leave rabble, though I'm practically a founding member (I joined just after the Counter summit in 2001; there was some technical glitch meaning I had to re-join in 2002).

The CSN, which is not only a labour confederation but certainy among the most progressive in North America, takes an abolitionist stance, as do most of the organisations representing Indigenous women, who are doubtless the most oppressed and misused people in prostitution here (well, transpeople are also grossly misused, but once again that is an expression of violent discrimination). My stance does not derive from direct experience but of those of many Indigenous people (mostly women) I have known who experienced or continue to experience such sad lives. And more than a few of these have died.

I don't think sex work can be made safe as the way it means using another person is akin to very deep violence. Just as I don't think absestos mining and processing can be made safe. Of course we had to listen to the workers in that industry as well, but at a certain point certain categories of employment are untenable in terms of worker safety.

The feminist movement is deeply divided on this issue - the last issue that had even a hint of such division among women who in some cases had been feminist activists for decades was the issue of wages for housework. Since then the call for some form of universal income has superceded that issue.

It is possible that the way this issue is framed will evolve too on both sides, and the many nuances of each. I most certainly do not think prostitution is a good thing for society, nor any other way human beings are commodified. But I certainly don't hold people in the commercial sex industry in contempt or want to silence them. Or those who have managed to get out and who don't share the line espoused by decrim advocates, or the extreme prettification of what is often an ugly and violent trade.

But there is a sort of "party line", about NGOs with deep pockets. There could be some linked to the UN (with different outlooks among agencies, and UN staff have been notorious - and bad - clients in many vulnerable countries. But most community associations are underfunded and their staff are far from rolling in money, whether the staff - and volunteers - of Stella or La Clés.

Well, like you, Unionist has the right to say whatever he wants, as long as he doesn't insult anyone or "mansplain" on the feminist forum.

Just as I have the right to disagree with him, as I don't think prostitution has anything to do with sexual freedom. It has always been the underbelly of societies that denied the former, in particular to women.

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I agree that they should take a stand.  I also feel that Rabble and Babble itself should take a stand.  From Babble policy:

Quote:

babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum.

So, anyone advocating anti-choice positions would be booted.  I think it's time for Babble to also clearly say that sex workers' rights are not up for debate, and act upon that.

Wow. I didn't realize you hate women so much you want us raped, beaten, abused and murdered in greater numbers than ever. 

This is a stunningly outrageous and defamatory accusation to make. You're suspended for 48 hours.

thankyou mark and rebecca, this was an encouraging sentiment to wake up to today. 

@pondering; i am sorry experienced violence and abuse before and during being involved the sex industry. it is my sincere wish to find a way to prevent experiences like your in the future.

knowing in part your experiences helps me understand your passion around this issue.

in terms of the terms of use;

maybe if people would stick to using ethical evidence from either side and stayed away from research which has been proven problematic, we could have a clearer conversation based on facts.

for example the georgia straight now refuses to publish the well promoted average age of entry (12-14 or now as its know 13) in any story as well as they carefull scrutinize for any reference to debunked stats and edit them out such as 90% of workers want to exit....

this at least strips the fear tactics from the arguements which have clouded the debate for so long.

if abolitionists feel that prostitution is bad for society and want to end prostitution no matter the cost to consensual adult sex workers, they should say so and not use myths to confuse canadians or promote their position.

i understand that perspective and in many ways i agree that people should have more choices so that they are not forced to choose prostitution in a time of vulnerability.

however, i do not believe that an all encompassing criminal law which targets all sex work will have the intended effect. it puts those still engaged in prostitution at risk.

why can't we all agree to work together to form exiting stratgeies, raise the minimum wage, raise welfare rates, end homelessness and find meaningful supports for people facing mental health challenges including addiciton...

why does the converstaion fall squarely on prostitution and men?

if we were to united over the underlying reasons people choose sex work, we could actually be accomplishing something rather than dividing our efforts and going in circles with nothing changing for anyone....

i simply don't understand why abolitionists don't hear what sex workers are calling for ...livabel welfare rates, exiting supports, homes, non judgemental treatments...why can't abolitionists still be abolitionists but support sex workers voices?

could decriminalization not actually pave the road to abolition? by changing the focus to the underlying causes and uniting us all in a common set of goals? 

i believe this is what happen in kolkata and why they have been so successful working to stabilize their lives and safety

This is some more analysis of C-36   http://www.understandingsexwork.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BillC36brief.pdf

In this brief we focus on the findings from our recent national study funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Our research team involves a multisectoral group of scholars, trainees, knowledge users and collaborators who have worked with us for many years to raise public awareness. In the last 12 months we have researched the sex industry in six Canadian municipalities (Victoria, BC; Montreal, QC; Fort McMurray, AB; Calgary, AB; St. John’s, NL; and Kitchener-Waterloo, ON). These sites were carefully selected so that key comparisons could be made on the main determinants of health and safety of people involved in the Canadian sex industry. Using well-established social science methods we selected respondents in a manner that represents as well as possible, the range of people and organizations involved in the industry. Our investigators have surveyed and conducted interviews with 218 adults who sell sexual services, 1252 adults who pay for sexual services, 30 spouses/intimate partners of sellers, 61 sex industry business managers, and 80 people involved with creating and enforcing laws and regulations affecting sellers, buyers, managers, and other third parties. We collected diverse samples that include Aboriginal and other minorities, people from all genders and sexualities, as well as indoor, outdoor, and independent sellers, and buyers in diverse venues

Certainly there are real issues and problems faced by the minority of people in the lowest end of the sex industry who tend to be disproportionately female, poor, Aboriginal, and suffer from mental health and substance (ab)use issues.i We can all agree that they definitely need to be provided assistance in various forms. We can also agree that stigma and discrimination are1common experiences of most people involved in the sex industry, which negatively affect self-esteem and hinder access to supports, including supports for those who want to transition out of the sex industry.ii However, the findings from our national study, the largest of its kind in Canada, suggest that the main provisions of Bill C-36 will result in a variety of harms affecting sex sellers, including the most vulnerable, as well as the parties with whom sellers engage.

We recommend instead treating the sex industry as any other industry and controlling it through existing human rights legislation, labour laws, and municipal regulations as a better alternative to the current proposed legislation. We also recommend, as others have internationally, harm reduction and health promotion policies that improve health, safety and wellbeing.iii

vincentL311 wrote:

Dont think that this has been posted before, and it deals with legal and constitutional issues as related to Bill-36.

http://www.iconnectblog.com/2014/06/canadas-new-prostitution-bill-dont-a...

Thanks.  Interesting read.

mark_alfred wrote:

vincentL311 wrote:

Dont think that this has been posted before, and it deals with legal and constitutional issues as related to Bill-36.

http://www.iconnectblog.com/2014/06/canadas-new-prostitution-bill-dont-a...

Thanks.  Interesting read.

I think the key point argued in any challenge will be the legality of selling sexual services. If the sex workers can get the court to accept that it is legal, it will be far easier to argue that the harms that they will be subject to are unconstitutional using precedent of Bedford.

The Crown will ofcourse go with the argument that Prostitution as a whole is illegal, although they have explicitly criminalized only one side of the transaction. As the article says there will be nothing in the criminal code that makes the selling of sexual services illegal, although in certain places it presupposes that the sex workers are engaged in an illegal activity, albeit for one they cannot face prosecution. Infact, the Cons did market their approach under the guise of protecting sex workers and making the selling of sexual services legal; for example in their online consulation.

I wouldn't be so quick to declare the government successful in creating a constitutionally sound law.  From the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network:

Quote:

Where the stated objectives of a law are so broad and difficult to measure, a court may find it challenging to assess the impact of a law against those objectives and judges could be deterred from finding a violation of constitutional rights.

But this key challenge remains: Can the government defend as constitutional legislation that reinstates provisions very similar to those already found by the Supreme Court to be harmful to sex workers’ lives, health and safety, simply by re-labelling those provisions with new (and even broader) objectives?

Similar laws but different objectives.  Would this assuage the SCC?  I doubt it, but I don't really know.  So, I think it's a valid goal for political parties and others to advocate that the government refer the case directly to the SCC.

Now you're putting words in my mouth.  I did say and do agree with you that they should take a clearer stand.  However, I don't agree that it's a foregone conclusion that the bill is constitutionally sound, and do feel it's valid to question the bill in this regard.

Unionist wrote:

It's what we call, in legal parlance, cowardice.

It's like if Harper proposed torture in certain circumstances to get information from detainees. And the cowardly so-called phoney "opposition" parties replied: "Oooooo, I dunno, I won't say what I think of that, but let's hear from the supreme court."

Suggestion: Start by getting the NDP to speak out, however quietly, in favour of decriminalization. I know, it's radical and crazy. But give it a try.

 

Franz Kafka wrote:

Now the Sirens have a still more fatal weapon than their song, namely their silence. And though admittedly such a thing has never happened, still it is conceivable that someone might possibly have escaped from their singing; but from their silence certainly never.

there is a new petition:

Justice Minister Peter MacKay: Produce new legislation legalizing prostitution and related activities.

http://www.change.org/petitions/justice-minister-peter-mackay-produce-new-legislation-legalizing-prostitution-and-related-activities?recruiter=118189335&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

Sex work is and always will be a part of life.  Follow the Supreme Court's ruling, and recognize that our current laws regarding prostitution and related offences violatiolates the constitutional guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person.

There is a big difference between protecting children against trafficking and child pornography, and protecting adults from being forced into sex work, and the very real industry of voluntary sex workers.  The majority of members of the sex industry are there of their own free will, and by legalizing the industry, we make it safer for all.  It also encourages workers to report abuse (including physical and sexual assault) which they may be hesitant to do while it is illegal.  Legalizing the industry also permits people to work in safe environments, such as well-run brothels, where their safety is more assured than when working in more anonymous situations.  

There will always be prostitution, the question is whether we would rather shame and marginalize, or respect, protect, and tax it.

For more information on sex work, check out http://www.spoc.ca/

 

I still say legalize it, regulate it, tax it, and provide whatever support or services Sex Workers themselves say they need. Prohibition didn't work, and neither will this.

i am watching it....so many debunked research stats being thrown around....ugh.....

i cannot believe how hostile the conservative mp's were towards pro decrim org's....i can't believe that it acceptable behaviour for a committee member to behave in such a way towards witnesses testifying to the committee.... un.....believable....

susan davis wrote:

i cannot believe how hostile the conservative mp's were towards pro decrim org's....i can't believe that it acceptable behaviour for a committee member to behave in such a way towards witnesses testifying to the committee.... un.....believable....

 Oh I believe it, I remember how the Tories and Liberals treated Mulcair at committee when he was a witness. These aren't committees anymore, the Tories long ago sent out orders to sabotage the proper functioning of committees, and then under Trudeau the Liberals started aiding the Tories in thier abuse of committees.  This is how they work now, they're generally secretive, and when they're not, its just threatre on the Tories part, all show leading to a conclusion that the Tories have arrived at long ago. 

The opposition needs to filli-buster this bill so it doesn't receive royal ascent by December 19, 2014

If they don't meet that deadline, the bill dies.