Recently, the only law that stands between sex traffickers and the freedom to exploit women in the sex industry was legally challenged by a group of “pro-sex work” advocates. This is not the first time that Canada’s prostitution laws have been challenged, after the previous challenge Bill C-36 (also known as the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act) was made into law. This saw the burden of the crime of prostitution shifting from the prostituted person (who we now recognize in Canada as a victim of exploitation) to the buyer and any third party who exercises control over the victim. This was largely seen as a step in the right direction, at least from a legislative point of view, as it acknowledges the inherent inequality and harm that is caused by prostitution, and seeks to reduce demand while protecting those being exploited. In practice, it hasn’t been as effective as it could be, as we have not seen an increase in demand focussed enforcement since the law was granted royal assent nearly 7 years ago.
Now, the additions to the criminal code made by the Protect Children and Exploited Persons Act are being challenged by a small and vocal group of Pro-sex-work advocates on the grounds that it stands in the way of them conducting their business safely. I have already written an article on the impact of decriminalizing prostitution, which you can read HERE. So let’s now discuss the reality of the specific arguments being made about our current laws.
“PCEPA prevents conducting sex work safely through screening clients or conducting business in safe places.” is the argument presented against sections of the criminal code that prevent the solicitation of, or procurement of, sexual services in a public place. This would imply moving the process to private, indoor, locations where someone would be able to better control their circumstances, who they see, who is granted access, etc. This does not leave them feeling safe, however. I believe that this is because of the imbalance of power that inherently exists in prostitution. Even though “sex workers” are under no threat of criminal charges, because of the PCEPA, the criminally culpable sex buyers are allowed to dictate the terms of the transaction. This speaks to the many studies on prostitution that have concluded that it always exists in a state of inequality, that it is always exploitative, and that the buyer is always taking advantage of a position of authority over the seller. This is the natural result of the commodification of a person’s body, they become nothing more than a product for the buyer to consume, how they wish when they wish. If this power imbalance has this much of an impact when the laws currently threaten the exploiter and not the victim, what impact will it have when you remove that protection?
“PCEPA prevents me from opening a safe place to conduct business.” This is an argument against the current laws that prevent someone from living off the proceeds of someone else’s prostitution, a law that was specifically designed as a way to indict pimps (human traffickers.) Besides the point that in many cases this has been the one charge that gains conviction in human trafficking trials, which basically makes it essential to the enactment of justice, there just isn’t evidence that running a “sex work establishment” will make this exploitative work any safer. Less than a year ago, a young woman being exploited in a fully licensed body rub parlor in Toronto was murdered by a client. (Yes, despite our federal laws, somehow these body rub parlors are allowed to conduct business legally with a permit in Toronto; and believe me, this gross negligence has not gone unnoticed.) This occurred in a safe, licensed, indoor environment, with other staff nearby. Maybe this was an isolated incident? Germany decriminalized, and legitimized, prostitution in 2002, between then and April 2019: 84 women working in prostitution have been murdered, 47 have had murder attempts made on them, 2 have disappeared without a trace. The numbers, and the stories, are daunting; unfortunately, this is also not the whole picture. Former chief detective Manfred Paulus has repeatedly stated that legalization negatively impacted the ability of the police to protect those that were being exploited, that it was near impossible to get access to brothels anymore, and that Germany has become a “center for the sexual exploitation of young women from Eastern Europe, as well as a sphere of activity for organized crime groups from around the world.” Similar results have been seen post-legalization in New Zealand, Amsterdam, India, and everywhere else this exploitation has been legitimized.
“This violates my rights under section 7 of the charter.” To fully understand this argument let’s take a look at what the charter says: “s. 7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Now, I believe the primary basis for this argument is the same as the above, that it would be safer to conduct prostitution if the laws were changed. There are two major problems with this argument: 1. As we already discussed above, the law as it is does not make prostitution more dangerous but is a measure of protection against further exploitation and victimization. Given that prostitution is inherently exploitative and harmful to a free and democratic society it should be immediately saved by section 1 of the charter that says: “s. 1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” 2. Even if we ignore the above stated, and assume that it does make “legitimate sex-work” riskier for those who are engaging in it free of exploitation or control from a third party. International studies show that on average 84% of girls and women in prostitution are in circumstances that would be considered human trafficking; this number is, of course, higher in countries that have fully decriminalized prostitution. To remove this law, in an attempt to appease the rights of an extremely small percentage of women in prostitution, while condemning and enabling the victimization of the overwhelming majority of women being prostituted would be a grievous injustice to the rights of those exploited women who are also promised life, liberty, and security.
I would strongly encourage anyone with a concern about this issue to read the words of ONE SURVIVOR who spoke up, about her life in prostitution after decriminalization in New Zealand, when the same decriminalization discussion came up in Washington DC.
Citations
Spiegel. (2013). How legalizing prostitution has failed. Retrieved from
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-traff​icking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html
Moran, et al. (2019). Consent Coercion and Culpability
https://prostitutionresearch.com/consent-coercion-and-culpability/