Late last year, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down key provisions of this country’s anti-prostitution laws, ruling that these provisions violate constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, and security of person. It has taken the past six months for the federal government to introduce new legislation.
Bill C-36, known as the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, is an adaptation of the Nordic Model that is employed in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland. This model immunizes prostitutes of both genders from any criminal liability involved in prostitution, while targeting the pimps and johns that fuel the demand for the service.
This bill, once passed into law, amounts to a major step forward for the issue of prostitution. By targeting those who fuel the demand for prostitutes, rather than the prostitutes themselves, the new law places the blame on those who are purchasing the services, and treats sex workers as victims of exploitation rather than criminals.
The one exception to the decriminalization of the selling of sex is a ban on communications intended to sell sexual services in neighbourhoods and areas where children could reasonably be expected to be present, which will likely have to be more clearly defined before the bill passes into law.
The targeting of johns and pimps will aid in driving down the demand for sex workers.
Furthermore, the bill also contains a provision for an initial $20 million for organizations involved in assisting persons wishing to exit the trade. While this initial funding is likely to be insufficient, it is at least a step in the right direction. Many who are recruited by force into the sex trade enter into it between the ages of 14 and 20, and suffer severe abuse along the road to the street. This bill reflects the goal to restore them to their families.
There are quite a few criticisms of the bill at this point, including that it still does not do enough to protect those involved in the sex trade. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a good solution. Even Justice Minister Peter MacKay had to admit that “no model will ever make prostitution a safe endeavour.”
This is inherently true, as the legal status of the sex trade is not an issue in relation to its safety. Rather, it is the vulnerability necessary for the act of sex that makes prostitution dangerous. To engage in it, one is completely physically, and often emotionally, exposed.
There are others that are disappointed that the government has criminalized the purchase of sexual services, preferring for prostitution to be legalized outright. Their disappointment is somewhat difficult to understand, as it is nearly impossible to see a Conservative government that has generally taken a firm stance on traditional morals legalizing the sex trade; the Prime Minister even went as far as to state that a Conservative government would never legalize prostitution.
In addition, legalizing the sex trade does not eliminate the underground trade, as many nations that have legalized the trade have discovered. In the state of Victoria in Australia, which has had legal and regulated brothels for several years, police continue to discover illegal brothels.
It is my hope that this bill is passed for the protection of this exploited group within our society. Ideally, the targeting of johns and pimps will aid in driving down the demand for sex workers, which will in turn cut down on the human trafficking that is involved in the trade. While I am not naïve enough to believe we can ever eliminate the demand, this bill is at least a step in the right direction.
If you read the judgements of all 3 levels of court for Bedford vs. Canada, you will see that your assumptions about prostitution being so inherently dangerous that it warrants the state harm of criminalization are false. Terri Jean Bedford was most vulnerable when she was outdoors as a prostitute; when she changed her business to Domanatrix services and went indoors, THAT’s when she was raided by police and arrested under the prostitution bawdy house laws in the 1990s.
The killing fields of Pickton were created in Vancouver when police decided they’d go after johns and give prostitutes immunity in one small area to ply their trade. That’s where Pickton found his victims. A good samaritan, Jamie Lee Hamilton, created an indoor space for prostitutes to go inside when it was apparent there was a serial killer targeting prostitutes outside in the police designated “safe for prostitutes” area. That indoor space was called Grandma’s House. And Grandma’s House was raided and shut down by police under the bawdy house laws, sending the women back out into the arms of Pickton. http://dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news/former-police-chief-testifies-supported-safe-house-raided-in-2000
If Harper / Mackay really meant what they say about prostitution being so inherently dangerous it warrants criminalization under federal law, they would also outlaw the selling of sex. To not take that step means it’s all just words. They have not justified criminalization through the preamble of c-36 because they didn’t even take their own advice within the actual legislation. And to fully criminalize does not respond to the spirit of the Bedford decision which stated that prostitution is not so inherently dangerous as to warrant criminalization.
You may draw your opinions from wherever you choose. Could you at least do some first hand research in order to inform yourself before trying to sway public opinion about a matter that means life and death?
I actually agree that the Nordic model is a step in the right direction, but I think the intent of the law is to make prostitution illegal, while trying to remove the stigma from prostitutes – because the stigma and society’s attitudes toward prostitutes (and certain ‘classes’ or types of people who seem to have been sucked into it) and the indifference – has allowed, if not been indirectly (who knows maybe even directly) responsible for the missing and murdered. The default position has been ‘they want it, they deserve it, they like it.’ The Canadian government was forced to come down on one side or the other of the criminal/not criminal debate. They have said that they would not decriminalize. With all the recent information coming out of the Netherlands and Germany, legalization doesn’t appear to have been able to meet the principles laid out by the SCC, nor has decriminalization in NZ/Australia. So, unless a valid legal argument can be made, based on reliable information coming out of those countries, that those regimes improve safety, (and then by how much, because a government survey that tentatively suggests – and only this – that prostitutes ‘feel more willing to report abuse to the police’ after quite a number of years of legalization in NZ, doesn’t cut muster in my books, especially when decriminalization hasn’t removed the stigma, youth prostitution, street prostitution nor even illegal brothels, and some urban areas have significant trouble dealing with local problems) there doesn’t seem to be any reason for Canada to legalize or decriminalize. I think we’d have to ask if we’d even want to, because Australian customs has been grappling with pressure to add prostitutes to their list of skilled workers to allow entry to migrant sex workers from SE Asia among other places. I don’t think most people here like the idea of funneling immigrants into that kind of lifestyle. I’d like to hear from anyone who has access to reliable information out of NZ/Australia, because other than government reports, the research I’ve seen from there indicates the situation is quite a mess.
Hey I have an idea! let’s draft legislation that police don’t even know how to interpret! that is so vague and broad that it will get thrown out in the first court challenge!
The first judge will look at these laws laugh and throw the case out. and we are back on our way to the supreme court. Maybe the conservatives don’t know how to read the charter of rights and freedoms, but judges and lawyers still do. If this legislation gets passed, it’s going to result in A LOT of court battles. Any decent lawyer can challenge these laws.
In short it’s bad legislation, and that is why you have those in the conservative party who are even advocating for full criminalization who don’t support the bill.
because it’s a stupid poorly drafted bill that’s why.
Just how is “sexual services” an acceptable legal definition? What exactly is a “sexual service” just what is a “sexual service” and what isn’t? Doesn’t “sexual services” also include, strippers? what about a dominatrix? what about those who produce or sell porn? phone sex operators? sex therapists? surrogacy services? What if a man hires a prostitute but they don’t have sex? Don’t the police have to prove that a sexual act occurred to charge him? What is a sexual act? is Kissing and caressing okay? what if a man gets a massage and gets an erection? is that a sexual service? A escort can advertise her own services but she can’t advertise anywhere? Funny thing is, we’ve been hearing all this championing about the “Nordic” Model but….what Peter Mackay drafted isn’t the Nordic Model because prostitutes can still be criminalized. What Mackay has drafted here actually has more in common with the Russian Model only difference is there are a few narrow instances where a prostitute can’t be charged.
I’m actually hoping this legislation gets passed in its current form so it can be challenged the very next day and everyone can see just how bad this legislation is and how incompetent the conservatives really are.