Ontario Set to Decriminalize Sex Worker Activities
by Melissa Ditmore and Jenn Clamen
October 5, 2010 - 6:00am (Print)
On September 28th, 2010, in an unprecedented judicial move, an Ontario court struck down three provisions that criminalize activities related to prostitution. Prostitution itself is not illegal in Canada but ancillary activities like advertising (communicating) and management (“living off the earnings”) are criminalized. Ontario Supreme Court Judge Susan Himel cited evidence that these laws contribute to a climate in which sex workers are unsafe because they are forced to operate in secrecy. She referred to a great deal of research on violence against sex workers that supported her ruling in the name of safety, not morality.
"By increasing the risk of harm to street prostitutes, the communicating law is simply too high a price to pay for the alleviation of social nuisance," Judge Himel said in her lengthy ruling. Sex workers were dancing in the streets in Montreal and Toronto.
What does this ruling mean for sex workers in Ontario?
If the ruling goes into effect in 30 days, the effects will be significant. The removal of parts of the “bawdy house laws” means that sex workers would be able to work together and indoors. The absence of laws that criminalize “living off the earnings” of prostitution, would ensure that family members are no longer vulnerable to arrest if they receive financial support from sex workers, and that other personnel affiliated with sex work such as drivers, receptionists and managers, would no longer be charged with crimes. The “communications” statute, previously prohibiting advertising and soliciting in public, would be permitted.
Rene Ross, director of Stepping Stone, an organization offering services to sex workers in Halifax, Nova Scotia said, "Sex workers say, 'when I try to negotiate a price, that’s illegal. When I go to a hotel, or I go to an apartment, that’s illegal. So what that’s forcing me to do is hop into a car with some guy I don’t know, be driven off to God knows where.' There’s no way for the community to even try to protect itself." The ruling would permit sex workers to work together instead of in isolation and in solitude, without fear. Kara Gillies, sex worker and activist, said, “After all these years, it will be a relief to know that I will be able to go to work without fearing arrest and incarceration.”
Judge Himel has not simply changed the working context for sex workers in Ontario but also the social landscape. Recognition of the violence that sex workers experience is vital. Sex workers across Canada and elsewhere experience high rates of violence: over 60 sex workers have been murdered or are missing in Vancouver and over 16 sex workers in Edmonton. Judge Himel’s decision has moved larger communities toward acknowledging this violence and taking action against it.
This judicial recognition for sex workers’ safety is unprecedented. The effects of prostitution laws ensure that sex workers are unlikely to report or in some cases even be able to report violence to the police because they are seen as criminals in the eyes of the law. As a result, sex workers are targeted by perpetrators of robbery and violence. Ross said:
"We have heard of incidents where sex workers will call law enforcement on a prostitution-related offence, i.e. if they get attacked by [a] john, only for them to be arrested themselves. We have had increasing reports of violence and even murders here in Eastern Canada. The laws have created a de facto death sentence for sex workers in this country."
This is not unique to Eastern Canada: Sex workers in New York and elsewhere have described this difficulty in reporting violent crimes to the police because they do not receive the same treatment and protection as other people. “It is the laws that surround the legal exchange of sexual services for money that endanger the lives of sex workers,” said Keisha Scott, coordinator at Maggie’s, an organization for sex workers in Toronto. Judge Himel referred to research documenting that sex workers have the highest mortality rate of any occupation.
Himel’s ruling recognizes the experiences of sex workers living with the dangers of criminalization. This victorious step for Canadian sex workers has changed the context for the recognition of sex workers’ rights across the world.
"Sex workers say, 'when I try to negotiate a price, that’s illegal. When I go to a hotel, or I go to an apartment, that’s illegal. So what that’s forcing me to do is hop into a car with some guy I don’t know, be driven off to God knows where.' There’s no way for the community to even try to protect itself."
Umm, perhaps finding another profession would help?
If prostitution is legal, those who choose it as a profession should be able to incorporate risk-management practices.
Most likely she would have if she COULD. Maybe, just MAYBE, the reason she is in that profession is because she was trapped in there and can't find any way out, derrrrr..... Or she really enjoys sex work and people just need to lose their prudishness and stop putting all the responsibility on the targets of discrimination to prevent it? I suppose you victim-blame quite a bit, too...?
Now you're defending prostitution?! Not that I'm all that surprised. If a group of pimps and madams wanted to build a web site that would increase their business, it wouldn't look all that different from this one.
I'M not *supporting (rather odd that you didn't know the aproppriate word was 'supporting' not 'defending' considering the title of this comment)* prostitution, YOU are. Let's see, blaming the victim, keeping a woman's source of income illegal without making any effort to discover and/or eliminate the reasons why a woman may choose this as a profession, oppressing her further, yup those all sound like things that would inCREASE rather than DEcrease prostitution rates, esPECially at risk sex-work rates. Sorry.
Oh, golly, honey, you've just got to do a little goggling around and you'll discover that sex and free love are way, WAY different than this. Instead of talking about reproduction and law and morals they're all about BODY PARTS and JIGGLE and promises that 'we won't tell your wife or your church congregation that you're a customer' and money, money, money.
And for the record, I don't defend 'prostitution' but I certainly will defend the prostitute's right to be free from abuse, danger and punishment for behavior that would be perfectly legal if she was giving it away free. Remember, hate the sin, love the sinner!
I do defend prostitution. While I do not think that prostitution would exist if we lived in an egalitarian society, I have no way to prove/effect this, and am instead left with the task of defending the basic dignity and rights of persons who have no choice but to exist within the framework of our patriarchal society. Prostitutes have every right to be safe from violence and I also believe they have every right to choose to sell themselves as masturbatory devices. I am so glad to see that Ontario has listened to the facts as they relate to public health and safety, rather than obstinately continue a moral crusade that only results in increased disease, abuse, rape, and murder.
In my perfect (interim) world, brothels and escort services would be legal and strictly regulated for compliance with safer sex practices and STI screenings. Brothels and escort services could only be run as cooperatives or employee-owned corporations, so that no pimp (of either sex) would be allowed to exploit the provider of sex services. There would be rules regarding mandatory contributions to pension plans and health/dental insurance, as well. Streetwalking would not be legal, but would be a misdemeanor offense for the prostitute and a felony for the john. In addition, johns caught soliciting streetwalker services would have their license plates recorded via camera and their names recorded in the local newspaper and/or social networking site. Public humiliation, especially as a tool against the demand side of the equation, is a proven and wonderful deterrent.
Except that keeping streetwalking illegal puts women who are unable to obtain liscenses, for a variety of reasons, at risk. That's just how I see it....
which is why I believe it should be a misdemeanor (akin to a traffic ticket) for the prostitute, while a punishable, broadcastable, humiliation fest, jailable felony for the john.
while the vast majority of prostitutes are women, some are men. I don't think either women or men should have to risk their health, well-being, and lives to provide a service and make a living.
Interesting, but that is the nature of many many professions/jobs/work, is it not? A crane operator at a construction site dies when the equipment fails, a police officer is struck by a car at a routine traffic stop, a tanning salon worker is kidnapped and assaulted, a gas station attendent is dragged by a car resulting in death. A sex worker should not have to work around laws designed to increase her danger, these laws were put in place to discourage her from doing the work. What other kinds of legal work is out there where there is specific legislation in place that (a) increases their danger and risk while doing it and (b) is designed to discourage the worker from choosing the work at all?
For the original post, I see a couple of annoying errors. These errors or misleading bits of information is expected in an anti-prostitution story, but inexcusable in one that looks fairly supportive. "Advertising" is neither illegal nor does it have anything to do with "communicating", in this instance. The actual law refers specifically for communicating IN PUBLIC for the solicitation of prostitution services. This way either client or sex worker can be picked up and charged, by simply discussing rates and services and perhaps details of where the date should take place, if either or both of them are out in public. This would include her leaning in to talk to him while he is in his car. Any other discussions are perfectly legal provided they have an expectation of privacy. This means the sex worker is perfectly okay to discuss these same things over the phone, or via email. Advertising, such as ads placed online or in newspapers, have already been determined to be legal. There is nothing in the laws, according to a court judgment some years ago, that applies to newspaper ads, etc. Nothing about "advertising" by sex workers is illegal.
I'm confused. All but the second scenario seemed obviously inapplicable.
Which sounds rather contradictory, if you haven't noticed...? Advertising IS public, so are e-mails, etc, etc.... Just because they're not in a public PHYSICAL space, they get extra protection...? Very weird. The woman conversing with a client who is sitting in his car, is conversing across a public PHYSICAL space, while a woman who is advertising her services to potential customers is conversing across a public electronic/proMOTional space, after all....
I also notice that a plainclothes police officer's car isn't considered a public place. That's rather hypocritical.
I don't see a good reason to humilate or punish clients for an activity that is perfectly legal, simply because they happen to be in a car lol. However, there are plenty of laws in Canada that do not need to be directly related to prostitution to address any of the concerns of the NIMBY groups. No loitering, no parking, no stopping. I don't see a good reason to make it any harder for a street worker. She is on the street, she already has multiple issues and problems. Having her have to go even farther and deeper into the back alleys and dark corners just so the clients can avoid humiliation seems extreme. Also, as can be seen in Sweden, the enforcement of laws against the street work that focus on clients, ends up keeping good clients away and the bad ones still come around. So a safe date guy gets nervous and stays away, but the bolder aggressive, drunk, drugged, guy has no concerns about this and he is the one who shows up. add to that she (or he) ends up again in a more isolated area, with little time to size up the guys plus is a bit more desperate because not as many guys come around anymore, and there you go.
What will not happen, and never has in spite of the stupid laws that have only been around since the mid 80's by the way, is an end to prostitution or an end to street work. Aint gonna happen,. New Zealand has all of the things listed above, legal at home incalls, legal brothels, regulation, testing, policies, health and safety protocols, and so on. And the street scene is almost exactly the same as it was pre-decriminalization.
I do see a good reason to punish someone for exploitation. Perhaps you've heard of it, while we've been discussing methods that can put more of the control back in sex-workers hands so we can reDUCE the amount of exploitation that goes on? Even money IS very coercive, after all....
Most laws aren't there to preVENT something, from the outset, btw. They're there to enforce specific guidelines.... So, if a client shows up, that doesn't mean the law automatically failed. It's when the guidelines aren't enforced that we know it failed.
I'm not for the complete elimination of street work, either. I am for the elimination of the oppressive nature of sex-work, altogether. Which doesn't mean that sex-work, OR street work, will completely disappear, just that it will most likely be much rarer.
re: the person in Halifax claiming a sex worker complained about going to a hotel or apartment being illegal. Actually, that is the one thing that is legal. A sex worker cannot work from home, she cannot do sex work in a public place like a car or at a massage parlour, but she can certainly go to the client's location or hotel room. It is this that makes things more risky for the sex worker. She is put into a vulnerable position by going into someone elses place. She has no control over the environement, who else may already be there besides the client, she has no security (not legally anyway, no one can legally take her there and remain nearby in case she needs help -- that would be living off the avails or procuring), so what then. Her best option is going to a hotel, but sex workers have been assaulted and confined when they go to client's hotel rooms as well, only to find there are 2-3 people when the arrive.
The cases of assault, violence, etc is much lower when the sex worker has control of her environment, by using her own location, the possibility of sharing the location with another worker, knowing the exits, knowing the client cannot enter with a friend, etc. Escort agencies provide security, via a driver, this is illegal.
It seems to anyone looking in from the outside that there is a concentrated and deliberate effort to discourage prostititution by allowing sex workers to work in dangerous settings, with no back up and little concern as to whether or not they can even work in a place that will allow them the facilities to wash up, stay clean, etc.
