On Dec. 20, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), made the unanimous decision to strike down Canada’s anti-prostitution laws. The ruling was made on the case Canada v. Bedford, brought forward by Ontario sex workers Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott in 2010, which challenged the constitutionality of anti-prostitution laws in Canada.
These laws were found to infringe on the rights of sex workers to the security of the person as outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to associate professor for SFU’s Department of Political Science, Genevieve Fuji Johnson, “This was a very important ruling for the advancement of human rights.” She continued, “All of us have rights that should not be violated by the Criminal Code or any other piece of legislation.”
Prostitution is not technically illegal but laws surrounding the act were in place in order to prevent it including prohibiting common bawdy-houses, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution.
Fuji Johnson explained, “This dualism puts sex workers into very precarious positions in which they are not able to work in safe locations, work with others, hire security guards or drivers, or negotiate with prospective clients.” She also pointed out that if sex workers are victims of violence, these laws make it very difficult for them to seek police help.
“This was a very important ruling for the advancement of human rights.”
– Genevieve Fuji Johnson, SFU associate professor
The SCC’s media release states that anti-prostitution legislation “prevents the implementation of safety measures that could protect prostitutes from violence.” John Lowman, SFU professor of criminology and expert witness in the case said that these laws “make little sense as a package.”
Lowman adds that this advancement may press the government to criminalize the buying and/or selling of sex once and for all. The federal government was given a total of 12 months by the SCC to redraft the laws.
Various women’s groups with aligned views came together as intervenors in the case under the name “The Women’s Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution.” Their particular view is that Canada should follow the example of other countries, such as France and Sweden, and adopt a similar legislative model — a model in which the purchase of sex is criminalized, but not the sale of it.
This ‘Nordic model’ was put forth to the SCC but was not adopted. One criticism offered by Lowman is that this model assumes that all prostitutes are forced into the trade. He said, “In order to accept the Nordic model, you have to treat women involved in sex work as the equivalent of children . . . I believe that women have agency.”
Fuji Johnson also believes that this model “falls short.” Instead of creating protection, she argues that this would only exacerbate the problem; “Even when criminalized, buying and selling sex happens. Criminalization tends to push prostitution further underground, where sex workers are more vulnerable to violence and exploitation . . . [it] only disempowers and hurts sex workers.”
She also feels that this system overreaches by criminalizing sexual activities among consenting adults. Instead, Fuji Johnson suggests we look more at providing the funding for housing, health, and social programs necessary to enable those who personally articulate an interest in leaving the trade.
Fuji Johnson concluded, “I think it’s very important for members of the SFU community to think clearly and seriously about these issues . . . It’s always important to have an informed opinion concerning the laws and policies that govern us, especially when lives are at stake.”
