jump to navigation

Prostitution Laws: Where do we go from here? October 4, 2010

Posted by Jarrah H in Can-Con, feminism, Politics.
Tags: , , , ,

Ever since the Ontario Superior Court struck down laws relating prostitution earlier this week and the federal government announced their plan to appeal, it threw open the debate about if and how we should regulate sex work in Canada. Like the general public, women’s and feminist organizations are divided. The Sex Professionals Association of Canada hailed the decision as a step towards recognition of sex work as a legitimate profession. On the other hand, the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres (CASAC) put out a release expressing their outrage at the decision for legitimating pimps, organized crime, and trafficking.

It’s taken me a few days to write something on this because it’s such a complicated issue. It’s easy to forget in this situation that a good legal decision might look a bit different than a good policy decision. The judge, Justice Susan Himel, had one decision: are the laws justified to protect the public interest or are they violating sex workers’ right to security of person? She didn’t have the ability to make a better policy regime for sex workers. That responsibility belongs to the federal government, and it’s a responsibility they’ve been shirking for years. In 2006 a parliamentary committee reported that the status quo was untenable and made it “virtually impossible to engage in prostitution without committing a crime” though prostitution itself is legal. However, no action was taken by the government.

So Justice Himel made the right choice. She believed the 3 laws, particularly the law prohibiting communicating in a public place for the purposes of prostitution, did make sex work a lot more dangerous than it has to be. It’s legal to sell sex and therefore sex workers have the right to the same security of person as any other Canadians. The judge made the right legal and ethical decision.

But it’s a mistake to think that this ruling deals with all the issues sex workers face or that it will suddenly solve problems of violence, exploitation, and abuse. Even the lawyer for the sex workers who filed the suit, Alan Young, admits the ruling is no panacea:

The case does not solve the problems related to prostitution, he said. “That’s for your government to take care. Courts just clean up bad laws.”

“So what’s happened is that there’s still going to be many people on the streets and many survival sex workers who are motivated by drugs and sometimes exploited by very bad men. That’s not going to change,” Young added. “Here’s what changed. Women who have the ability, the wherewithal and the resources and the good judgment to know that moving indoors will protect them now have that legal option. They do not have to weigh their safety versus compliance with the law.”

Vancouver-East MP Libby Davies told CTV news: “We need to distinguish between what is consenting between two adults and what is exploitative, coercive and violent and focus the law-enforcement on those aspects.” She’s right, but the distinguishing is where it gets tricky. While there clearly are people who choose to be sex workers (for more on this, check out Jeffrey and MacDonald’s research with Maritimes sex workers), there are clearly those who are trafficked into prostitution or forced into it by economic circumstances, sometimes compounded by drug addiction, mental health issues, and/or racism. Poverty can be a form of coercion, and while that’s no reason for maintaining the harmful patchwork of anti-prostitution laws that we’ve had, it makes me less willing to see this legal fix as more than just one piece of the puzzle.

So where do we go from here? It looks like the court decision is going to finally result in some policy-making at the federal level. Unfortunately, with the Conservatives in power it looks like the government will be fighting this ruling tooth and nail in the name of prostitutes’ “safety”, essentially arguing that some form of criminalization is the best approach, while all the evidence shows that it doesn’t act as a deterrent and only serves to put prostitutes at unnecessary risk. Historian George Ryley Scott concludes his research on prostitution around the world by stating that “the most that can be expected from punitive and repressive measures…is the driving of prostitution into underground channels” (1996, p. 181). As Justice Himel pointed out, one only needs to look at missing and murdered women in the Downtown Eastside to realize that.

So we’re left with legalizing and regulating prostitution, as in the Netherlands or Nevada, where brothels are legalized. It sounds progressive on the surface – totally legitimating the profession – but some fear that it can actually give more power to pimps and reports show it doesn’t stop the street trade and doesn’t curb violence against sex workers. Melissa Farley’s research found that most women in legal brothels in Nevada had pimps outside, and that rights are severely restricted, with women often forced to live in the brothels and work 12- to 14-hour shifts. In the Netherlands, the average age of death of prostitutes is 34.

More widely endorsed is decriminalization, which is supported by the Canadian Medical Association, the WHO, and UNAIDS when exploitation is not involved. It’s believed that decriminalization will reduce stigma and enable sex workers to organize for security and labour rights. However, as we’ve seen in the response to this debate, some women’s groups believe decriminalization gives tacit approval to the trafficking and exploitation of sex workers.

A slight variation on full decriminalization is the Swedish solution to make it criminal to buy but not to sell sex, an approach championed by Benjamin Perrin in the Globe and Mail and organizations like Vancouver Rape Relief. It’s a somewhat conservative approach that assumes all sex workers are victimized, but it’s probably more politically palatable than total decriminalization and statistics out of Sweden seem promising. That said, I do wonder whether it would just serve to continue to drive prostitution into unsafe areas.

I’m glad Himel’s decision has forced us into having this needed national discussion. It’s a complicated issue and while I definitely don’t agree with criminalizing sex work where there is consent and choice, and while I’m most supportive of decriminalization, I recognize underlying issues of poverty, racism, and sexism will continue to make any material changes difficult, even if Justice Himel’s decision results in national legal reform.

What I’d like to see is for policy-makers to work with both feminist and prostitutes’ rights groups to create broad-based policy initiatives responsive to the needs and views of sex workers. While moves to decriminalize prostitution should be part of these initiatives, recognizing sex worker diversity means also recognizing the needs for services and programs to help those women wishing to leave the sex trade. Finally, dealing with the harms associated with prostitution will involve a concurrent movement towards gender equality, in order to address some of the conditions which push women into prostitution and victimize them in this work.




1. Prostitution Laws: Where do we go from here? (via Gender Focus) | Every Voice Matters, Including Yours - October 4, 2010

[…] Ever since the Ontario Superior Court struck down laws relating prostitution earlier this week and the federal government announced their plan to appeal, it threw open the debate about if and how we should regulate sex work in Canada. Like the general public, women's and feminist organizations are divided. The Sex Professionals Association of Canada hailed the decision as a step towards recognition of sex work as a legitimate profession. On the o … Read More […]

2. jarrahpenguin - October 12, 2010

In case anyone’s interested, here are some other sources I consulted while doing research on the subject. My article was formulated from these sources, the ones linked to in the article, as well as information I’ve gained from attending various presentations by scholars and activists, personal discussions, and other more casual reading. I highly recommend “Sex for Sale: Prostitution, Pornography, and the Sex Industry” (2000), which has great articles from many diverse perspectives.

1. Blankenship, K. & S. Koester. (2002). Criminal Law, Policing Policy, and HIV Risk in Female Street Sex Workers and Injection Drug Users. Journal of
Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 30, 548-559. Blankenship and Koester’s research with prostitutes in Connecticut and Colorado found criminalization to be a key factor in increasing the risk of HIV transmission and discouraging prostitutes from reporting assaults to police.
2. Canadian Medical Association. (2004). Prostitution Laws: Health risks and hypocrisy. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 171(2), 109. The CMA supports decriminalization and especially opposes the communication law as dangerous to sex workers.
3. Farley, M. & V. Kelly. (2000). Prostitution: A critical review of the medical and social sciences literature. Women and Criminal Justice, 11 (4), 29-64. Farley & Kelly see prostitution as always exploitative. Their article states women who say they don’t want to leave the sex trade must be suffering from a type of PTSD or Stockholm Syndrome. I referenced another article about Farley’s research in the article. While I don’t agree with their attempt to psychoanalyze sex workers, they do a good job at showing the serious pitfalls with legalization.
4. Fawkes, J. (2005). Sex Working, Feminists and the Politics of Exclusion. Social Alternatives, 24 (2), 22-23. Fawkes is the President of Australia’s sex worker’s rights group The Scarlet Alliance. She supports decriminalization and opposes those who want to see all prostitutes as victims.
5. R. Weitzer (Ed.), Sex for Sale: Prostitution, Pornography, and the Sex Industry (217-243). New York: Routledge. In this collection:
-Hausbeck & Brents point out issues with legalized brothels in Nevada but argue they reduce violence.
-Davis believes moving away from criminalization legitimizes violence against women but also believes it is necessary to tackle the social and economic causes of prostitution and provide support for women wishing to leave the trade.
-Chapkis’ research with sex workers in the US and the Netherlands found that decriminalization in the Netherlands failed to address the conditions of illegal migrant and trafficked prostitutes.
-Brown and Matthews concluded from their research in the UK that criminalization cannot reduce prostitution without dealing with underlying causes such as poverty, racism, and sexism.
-O’Neill & Barbaret interviewed sex workers in Spain and found them still facing severe stigma despite decriminalization.
-Weitzer’s research concludes that decriminalization in the Netherlands has been extremely conducive to reducing stigma and improving the ability of sex workers to organize collectively for employment rights.
6. Jeffrey, L. A. & G. MacDonald. (2006). “It’s the Money, Honey”: The economy of sex work in the Maritimes. Canadian Review of Sociology and
Anthropology, 43 (3), 313-327. Jeffrey & MacDonald (link to their book in the article) interviewed 60 sex workers in the Maritimes and found that many women opt into sex work for it’s wages and flexibility and that underlying class and gender inequalities are key causes.
7. O’Neill, M. (2001). Prostitution and Feminism: Towards a politics of feeling. Cambridge: Polity Press. O’Neill believes that socioeconomic factors such as poverty and abuse make prostitution a rational choice for some women and therefore that these underlying factors need to be dealt with, rather than punishing the women in the sex trade.
8. O’Connell-Davidson, J. (1998). Prostitution, Power and Freedom. Ann Arbor: Michigan UP. O’Connell-Davidson interviewed British prostitutes and found criminalization negatively impacted their ability to colletively organize for better conditions. She argues that criminalization does not reduce prostitution and that complete legalization tends to just institutionalize pimping and exploitation.
9. Rekart, M. L. (2005). Sex-work Harm Reduction. Lancet, 366, 2123-2134. Rekart argues that criminalization endangers prostitutes and that decriminalization can improve access to housing, health care, and other services.
10. Scott, G. R. (1996). The History of Prostitution. London: Senate Publishing. Scott is a historian whose international research on prostitution led him to conclude that criminalization does nothing but drive the trade underground.
11. Zatz, N. D. (1997). Sex Work/Sex Act: Law, Labor, and Desire in Constructions of Prostitution. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22(2), 277-308. Zatz also sees issues with criminalization and legalization and argues that we need to distinguish between “what would be permitted in an ideal world and what should be permitted given the imperfections of this one”. That is, until greater equality means women are able to choose not to prostitute themselves, legal reforms are necessary.

3. Carla - October 15, 2010

Thanks for this! It’s such a big issue and I think you did a good job of considering and balancing opinions. I wish there were better solutions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: