The need for a change in Canada's sex work laws

[Scott75]

Hello everyone. Not sure if I should just jump in with this, but I'm not really into small talk, so here goes. Constructive opinions welcome...

Sex work is a very controversial subject. Many people think that the current laws against it are justified. Many others (including myself) feel that the current laws are detrimental to everyone. Some may be aware of the current legal challenge made by sex workers against the current sex work/prostitution laws. While the prostitution laws were allegedly struck down:
Prostitution laws struck down

The truth of the matter is that nothing has really changed yet, as the judge's decision was appealed and is currently awaiting a new judgement:
Ontario court won't change prostitution laws yet

I also just found this article in the Globe and Mail that agrees with my stance that sex work/prostitution should be decriminalized:
Why the courts must decriminalize prostitution

Here's some excerpts I found to be interesting (on Page 3):

Most countries that have decriminalized sex work did so after deciding that, since it will never disappear, it only makes sense to take a pragmatic leap to tolerant regulation. In the past decade, Australia, New Zealand and Germany have all embraced decriminalization, acknowledging that their own versions of the it's-legal-but-you-can't-do-it game were not working...

Judge Himel concluded that the communication law compels sex workers to operate in dark corners at great risk to their safety; that outlawing brothels forces prostitutes to work in solitude; and that the pimping law precludes them from hiring drivers or bodyguards to enhance their safety, as well as making it legally dicey to live with boyfriends or family members.

The reaction from sex workers was all over the map. Some cherish their anonymity and independence from state scrutiny, red tape and taxation. Legal reform would cost them at least some of that.

But there would be many payoffs. For example, labour protections would allow sex workers to participate in employment insurance and have recourse against brothel owners who force them to work unpaid overtime or unsafely. As in Germany, they might even form unions.

“Right now, some escort services … expect you to be on call 24/7, and you are fined if you miss a call,” says Susan Davis, a Vancouver prostitute-activist. “We have booking girls who work totally on commission, so they will send you anywhere. We really need to be covered by labour law.”

As for the canard that decriminalization will lead to neighbourhoods being overrun with leering prostitutes and unruly johns? As Judge Himel took pains to point out, police have ample charges at their disposal to deter public nuisances.

What's more, many politicians seem unaware that the Internet has profoundly changed the nature of sex work, reducing the need for prostitutes to troll for business in public. Studies have shown that the bulk of them now work in massage parlours or with escort agencies or communicate by phone or online with clients.

Only the most desperate remain on the streets. But there will always be some. “For as long as there is extreme marginalization, poverty, drug addiction and untreated mental health, there is going to be street-level sex work,” Ms. Pacey says.​

I also read an interesting research article on the subject of sex work involving 50 sex worker clients, which can be seen here:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/Docume...l sex Sanders Sociology 2008 42(3) 400-17.pdf
**
It brings up various aspects of it. I found that some of its points regarding emotional intimacy, as many people seem to think that emotional intimacy can't be involved in sex work. I understand that some sex workers do indeed like to distance themselves emotionally from their clients and that some clients also want to distance themselves emotionally from the sex workers they frequent, and that some may see this as a good thing, just as some believe that there should be a certain distance between other professionals and their clients, such as doctors, dentists, etc. This being said, the study makes it clear that not everyone feels this way. In its conclusion, it brings up how the current laws are detrimental to society as a whole.

The study was done and is specifically geared for the United Kingdom, but I think that many of the points raised are universal. Here are some excerpts that I thought were particularly interesting:
Page 406:

It has been identified that some men are attracted to the temporal relationship available through commercial sex because of the lack of emotional attachment, the ability to suspend ‘normal’ expectations of the male sex role and the type of relationship that is free from societal norms and rituals (Atchison et al., 1998).
However, regulars were less inclined to be motivated by these features of commercial sex, but instead sought out sex workers with whom they could develop a more in-depth and holistic type of relationship​

**
Page 407:

The ‘girlfriend experience’, which usually involves kissing, caressing and other sensual acts (rather than brief sex acts), is sought by many men,
and is met with triumph and congratulations on message boards when a clien reveals he experienced the ‘GFE’. Contrasts were made between the commercial sexual experience where men experience sex workers as emotionally distant during the sex acts, to other experiences of ‘natural’ chemistry and sensual curiosity:
If it’s a situation where it develops quite sexually naturally, then you sort of explore each other’s bodies. But if it’s where for obvious reasons the girl is just doing a job and isn’t sort of connected, it is cold … If you’re not getting much of a response from the girl then you feel bad. (Craig, 38, sales, singles)​

Page 414 (Conclusion):

Commerce is but a manifestation of the more general exchanges that occur
within human sexual and intimate relationships. Some systems refuse to endorse sex and commerce as a legitimate relationship that should be facilitated, protected or even acknowledged. Other systems take a serious position on the social role of commercial sex and the ordinary characteristics of the relationships, preferring to provide an avenue where these relationships can be established with minimal harm and destruction. The relationships between sex workers and clients can be nurturing, respectful and mutual. This experience of the commercial relationship can
enhance the quality of life of men who buy sex (see Sanders, 2007b) whilst at the same time provide sex workers with safe customers who will not breach the contract through sexual misconduct, financial exploitation (e.g. not paying), abusive language, or aggressive behaviour. A system that recognizes the emotional consumption that is integral to some forms of commercial sex and the possibilities for emotional mutuality between sex worker and client could be a framework that distils negative images of women as disposable victims and clients as unruly sexual beasts to be controlled. The current climate of criminalizing men who buy sex
(Brooks Gordon, 2005) and the impetus to block a regulated indoor market
(Sanders, 2007a) prevent policy intervening to reinforce the male client role as an accountable active participant who has responsibilities to himself, the sex worker, other sexual partners and a wider responsibility to respect women in all areas of society. Policy designed to manage sex work markets should be informed by evidence that understands the micro-relationships that form commercial sex alongside the fluidity of male and female sexualities.​

 

[bluecolt]

You are a late on this subject. All of the above is being considered and reviewed by the Ontario Court of Appeals and their decision should come anon.

 

[neverwas]

Thanks for the interesting post Scott75.
I thought the Ontario Court of Appeal had said it would bring down the decision by August 2011. Can there be any good reason for the delay?

 

[Scott75]

You are a late on this subject. All of the above is being considered and reviewed by the Ontario Court of Appeals and their decision should come anon.

I actually included this information in my post; as to soon, I've read that the decision should come down sometime this year, so I created this thread to encourage the public as well as the Court of Appeals (assuming they notice this or other articles of this nature) to rule in favour of Himmel's decision, namely for sex workers to "communicate freely with customers on the street, conduct business in their homes or brothels and hire bodyguards and accountants without exposing them to the risk of criminal sanctions."

Now one might say that by posting here, I'm preaching to the choir, and I'm sure there is some truth to that, but this is only my first step. I wanted to get a little feedback here before moving on to more difficult forums. After this, I plan on posting about this to a forum regarding Polyamory, which, while I think is certainly more supportive of sex work then your average person, nevertheless definitely has people who object to it.

 

[Scott75]

Thanks for the interesting post Scott75.
I thought the Ontario Court of Appeal had said it would bring down the decision by August 2011. Can there be any good reason for the delay?

Where did you hear that? I decided to look into the history of the Bedford v. Canada, which is what w're talking about here.

On September 28, 2010, Justice Susan Himmel struck down Canada’s prostitution laws, saying provisions meant to protect women and residential neighbourhoods are endangering sex workers’ lives. The next day, however, The Federal government announced its intention to appeal the decision. Then began the many delays. It seems that what the government wants is for this issue to simply go away. Wikipedia tells it well:
***************
Justice Himel originally allowed a stay of 30 days to permit appeal.[20] Justice Minister Rob Nicholson stated that the Federal Government would appeal the court ruling and seek a stay pending that decision.[22] The Ontario Government, which had intervenor status in the case, supported the appeal and did not seek any Parliamentary discussion of the state of the prostitution laws in Canada.

On October 15, a further stay effective till November 27 was granted to allow the Justice Department to prepare an appeal, and, on November 22, the Government sought a further stay in the court of appeal, claiming dire consequences if the decision was applied. [23]Mr Justice Marc Rosenberg rebuked the Crown for overstating the consequences of allowing the decision to stand.[24][25]Judgment was reserved, the parties agreeing to extend the stay until judgment was delivered.[26][27] On December 2, the court granted an extension of the stay until April 2011, on the grounds of preserving the status quo and that the full appeal should have been heard by then.[28][29][30]

In March 2011, the Government filed its brief and applied for and obtained a further stay till the hearing of the appeal in June 2011.[13] They also asked for a further 18-month stay should the appeal be unsuccessful. In its brief the Justice Department made a number of arguments in addition to claims of errors in law: prostitution is inherently harmful, Parliament enacted the provisions to discourage this activity, and the impugned provisions met the stated objectives, were not arbitrary or overbroad, and therefore should stand. Furthermore, it challenged the legal standing of two of the three applicants. The claims that the stated harms were due to sex workers flouting the law, and that there was not a duty of protection to sex workers, since they voluntarily entered a dangerous occupation, were the ones picked up by the media. [31][32][33][34][35]

Seven additional parties, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Prostitutes of Ottawa/Gatineau Work, Educate and Resist (POWER), have obtained intervenor status as amici curiae, however Maggie's, a sex worker organisation [36] was denied this on March 16, since they sought to raise new constitutional issues under section 15. They were however invited to join one of the existing groups. [37][38]

The appeal was heard by five members of the Court of Appeal for Ontario from 13–16 June 2011.[39] The panel further extended the stay pending their verdict.[40]
***************

And so it goes. They can't delay a decision forever, but so long as the status quo is still enforced, it seems the government has every inclination to delay this case as long as possible.

 

[Anynym]

Theft can also be very dangerous, and should be decriminalized to protect the health of thieves.

 

[Scott75]

Theft can also be very dangerous, and should be decriminalized to protect the health of thieves.

-.-

I'm pretty sure you're just being tongue in cheek, but I'd like to point out that the difference being that theft generally only benefits the thieves.

 

[rld]

I actually included this information in my post; as to soon, I've read that the decision should come down sometime this year, so I created this thread to encourage the public as well as the Court of Appeals (assuming they notice this or other articles of this nature) to rule in favour of Himmel's decision, namely for sex workers to "communicate freely with customers on the street, conduct business in their homes or brothels and hire bodyguards and accountants without exposing them to the risk of criminal sanctions."

Now one might say that by posting here, I'm preaching to the choir, and I'm sure there is some truth to that, but this is only my first step. I wanted to get a little feedback here before moving on to more difficult forums. After this, I plan on posting about this to a forum regarding Polyamory, which, while I think is certainly more supportive of sex work then your average person, nevertheless definitely has people who object to it.

The typical time for a Ont C of A decision to come down on a full hearing is about six months. This one might take a bit longer.

Scott, if you honestly believe that your post here will encourage the public to lobby, or has any chance of impacting the panel's decision (which was likely actually made months ago) you need a reality check.

 

[Scott75]

The typical time for a Ont C of A decision to come down on a full hearing is about six months. This one might take a bit longer.

Scott, if you honestly believe that your post here will encourage the public to lobby, or has any chance of impacting the panel's decision (which was likely actually made months ago) you need a reality check.

Be so kind as to not remove my rose coloured glasses :hippie:

Anyway, I don't think it hurts to try. I have now brought the subject up over in that Polyamory forum I was talking about:
The crossover between Polyamory, Swinging and Sex work

So far no responses.. Well, I tried, laugh

 

[neverwas]

Theft can also be very dangerous, and should be decriminalized to protect the health of thieves.

One obvious difference is that theft is illegal but prostitution is legal. The two situations are totally different.

 

[Scott75]

One obvious difference is that theft is illegal but prostitution is legal. The two situations are totally different.

I agree that the 2 situations are totally different, but not because of legality. While prostitution is in theory legal, the fact of the matter is that the only form of it that's truly legal are outcalls. Bedford vs. Canada may change this, but the Ontario Court of Appeal has yet to make their decision on this, and the Federal government has already asked for 18 months for an appeal if the Court rules against the status quo.

 

[rld]

The real difference between the two crimes is that when done properly, prostitution is a victimless crime.

 

[Scott75]

The real difference between the two crimes is that when done properly, prostitution is a victimless crime.

Amen. I think that it's only a matter of time before prostitution is legalized in more then just outcall form in Canada. The current government seems to want to drag its feet on this as much as possible though -.-

 

[afterhours]

I bet you that if it gets legalized the prices will go up.

 

[TeasePlease]

I bet you that if it gets legalized the prices will go up.

I bet the opposite.

Prices will go up if the industry becomes regulated and supply becomes controlled.

 

[Scott75]

I bet the opposite.

Prices will go up if the industry becomes regulated and supply becomes controlled.

I do remember reading somewhere that there was a brief time when various forms of prostitution were legal in Canada and people who wouldn't normally engage in sex work were doing it because of this fact, thus driving the prices down; I wish I could remember where I read that. I do believe that regulation would make prices higher then if it wasn't regulated, but I think that regardless of whether there's regulation, it'll be cheaper then it currently is. This is because at present, there's a societal stigma, not to mention the fact that there are more risks associated with outcalls then there are with in calls, which are currently illegal, as well as employing people to protect you (it would fall under "living under the avails of" I believe).

As to increased prices with regulations, perhaps. What makes you think this would be the case? Even if true, I'm not sure that we should only be concerned about prices. That being said, I think that Nevada's legalization and regulations leave a heck of a lot to be desired. I thought some of the views expressed on the wikipedia page on Nevada's prostitution laws were quite educational:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada#Views_on_the_Nevada_brothel_industry

 

[Anynym]

One obvious difference is that theft is illegal but prostitution is legal. The two situations are totally different.

So no laws were challenged by this case.

You might give more time to reflect on what you're saying before you post it.

 

[Scott75]

Here is a study on the dangerous effects and outcomes of the swedish model. It is a really good read for anyone wanting to learn more.

It is frustrating because sex work is so demonized. Laws that criminalized any aspect of sex work imply that it is dirty, bad, and criminal. Anyone who engages in sex work, their family, friends, lovers are all effected by these debilitating views. They shape how we receive health services, education, and whether we deserve legal supports.

Here is another extensive study done by Prostitutes of Ottawa/Gatineau Work Educate and Resist (POWER). The study looks at the experiences of sex workers from various sectors of the industry and the barriers we face due to criminalization, stigma and the absence of labour protections.

Thanks for the links. I've now brought this subject up in 3 forums that aren't catered for the adult entertainment industry, and have gotten precious little response in all of them. Now, I may be a bit impatient; I only put them up today. But I admit that I'm worried that all my efforts will simply be ignored. However, court cases can be delayed, but not ignored; here's to hoping that Bedford vs. Canada leads to the decriminalization of the current laws against sex work.

 

[rld]

Thanks for the links. I've now brought this subject up in 3 forums that aren't catered for the adult entertainment industry, and have gotten precious little response in all of them. Now, I may be a bit impatient; I only put them up today. But I admit that I'm worried that all my efforts will simply be ignored. However, court cases can be delayed, but not ignored; here's to hoping that Bedford vs. Canada leads to the decriminalization of the current laws against sex work.

Your efforts are being ignored, and as I indicated before, in all likelihood the decision was made months ago.

Self-aggrandizement is not at all healthy.

Even if Beford is successful you will likely a) see a trip to the Supremes or b) see new legislation around the issue by the current majority government.

 

[Scott75]

Your efforts are being ignored,

Not by everyone, and certainly not here.

and as I indicated before, in all likelihood the decision was made months ago.

So you think the Ontario Court of Appeal has already made a decision and is just sitting on it?

Self-aggrandizement is not at all healthy.

I don't see how advocacy on behalf of others is self-aggrandizement.

Even if Beford is successful you will likely a) see a trip to the Supremes or b) see new legislation around the issue by the current majority government.

The federal government has pretty much stated that if they lose their case at the Ontario Court of Appeal, they will take it to the Supremes. And certainly, the conversatives may try to pass some legislation that further solidifies the illegal status of many sex work related actions. This being said, I would never discount the power of individuals to make a difference. It's true that many people don't want to involve themselves in such a contentious issue. That being said, some do and it's these people who have and will continue to make all the difference.