Recently Kitchener Judge Thomas McKay, in superior court, decided that criminal charges brought against brothel owners were “unconstitutional” because in his opinion “Legislation for which the stated purposes include eliminating exploitation and reducing the risk of violence to sex workers actually has the effect of exposing sex workers to an increased risk of exploitation…” But does it? In the years that I’ve been researching this topic, partnering with various anti-human trafficking organizations, and working directly with survivors of exploitation I have never once come across evidence to support that claim. Despite the lack of sources to support it, this sort of thing has been claimed many times. With such claims being made, which could potentially affect future rulings and the safety of so many women and girls in Canada, it is time we look at the evidence that is available.
“Prostitution often meets the legal definition of human trafficking in that pimping or third-party control of a prostituted person cannot be distinguished from the identical crimes perpetrated in trafficking.13 According to estimates from eighteen sources including research studies, government reports, and nongovernmental agencies, on average 84% of women in prostitution are under third-party control or pimped or trafficked.” Farley et-al. 2014
The above quote is part of a study conducted for the Albany law review, and it is not the only source to show this sort of figure. In many cases where full decriminalization/ legalization of the sex industry has occurred, human trafficking increased drastically and the safety of those in it became impossible to ensure. A previous blog on this site, discusses a large-scale study on the increase of trafficking when prostitution is legalized, and I would encourage you to give it a read. That is only one such example though. A report in the AMA journal of ethics, which looked at studies from around the world concluded that the legalization of prostitution in Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand “has not resulted in uniformly safer conditions [65, 66], successful seller unions [64], destigmatization [67], reduced trafficking victimization [68], or substantially increased seller satisfaction [66].” (Rothman, 2017). Interestingly, in Germany where the sex trade is legalized and “controlled” a now retired detective chief superintendent Manfred Paulus claimed 95% of the women in legal prostitution were being controlled by others, usually organized crime; a rate 11% higher than areas where it is illegal. Similar findings were reported by several studies which are cited below. Even Former Mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, publicly claimed it was “impossible to create a safe and controllable zone for women that was not open to abuse by organized crime” regarding the legalization of prostitution.
The exploitation of women, and girls, in Canada is bad enough already. I spoke recently with a police agency in the GTA, which represents 25% of reported human trafficking cases in Canada, and was told that the number of identified victims was up 130% from the previous year. If we, as a country, decide to go down the wrong path now, the consequences could be catastrophic. There is no way to separate sex work from the victimization of vulnerable women and girls. Even the extreme minority that are in sex work “by choice” are almost certainly making such a choice based on extenuating circumstances that represent a failure on society’s part to give them better options. Nobody should ever be given the choice between extreme poverty and selling access to their body. Turning a blind eye to this truth is not only morally reprehensible, but it is contradictory to the outlined principles of anti-human trafficking policy set forth by the UN all the way back in 2002; namely principle 5 which instructs: “states and IGOs [intergovernmental organizations] shall ensure that interventions address vulnerability factors, including inequality, poverty and all forms of discrimination.”
These principles were intended to ensure that whatever systems we have in place to combat human trafficking would not lose sight of the intended purpose: end the injustice and exploitation that is human trafficking. This ruling has violated both the literal interpretation and the spirit of those guidelines, particularly those listed below.
- Principle 3: the “do no harm” principle, stating that anti-trafficking policies should not adversely impact human rights and dignity, particularly of the victim.
- Principle 4: strategies shall address demand as a root cause of trafficking.
- Principle 6: states shall eradicate public-sector involvement or complicity in trafficking.
The unfortunate truth is that this ruling is only one example in the recent past of legislation and/or judicial practice violating these principles, and it is beginning to seem like our legal system has become complacent on many of these issues again. It is important for everyone to be aware of the truth of what is happening, in Canada as well as around the world, and recognize the truth that the risk is in complacency so we can stand together against misinformation and bring about real change. Maybe then we will start to see a reduction to the exploitation happening to our people.
Please take some time to learn more. My sources, related articles, and the story of the trial that inspired me to speak on this issue are listed below.
Sources:
-Farley, M., Franzblau, K., & Kennedy, M. A. (2014). Online prostitution and trafficking. Albany Law Review, 77(3), 1039–1094 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279716725_Online_Prostitution_and_Trafficking
-Rothman, E. F. (2017). Second thoughts: Should US physicians support the decriminalization of commercial sex? AMA Journal of Ethics, 19(1), 110–121. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/should-us-physicians-support-decriminalization-commercial-sex/2017-01
Related Articles:
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-decriminalize-sex-work-hell-no-20190228-story.html
The Story