By Diane Walsh / Website
Originally published in Victoria’s Lower Island News
July/August 2008, Volume 25, Issue #4, page 17
Vancouver—For as long as anyone can remember Canada’s hypocritical solicitation laws have been controversial. Prostitution goes unchecked for a time—and for one haphazard reason or another—the dusty law books emerge with arrests made selectively but with a biting vengeance.
“So who’d have thunk it?” Sex workers want to be able to work in their own preferred safe house and without the fear of criminal arrest—what a concept. Apparently it takes constitutional lawsuits in the works and activists coupling with sex positive women in sympathetic union groups to bring about change. Ontario’s hearing is already underway, with BC’s case still engaged at a research stage.
The sex workers from Toronto are finally getting a hearing. As of May 5 th 2008, the Ontario Superior Court has agreed to hear the challenge to strike down three provisions of the Criminal Code s.210 (bawdyhouse), s.212 (1) (j) (living on the avails) and s.213 (1) (c) communicating for the purpose of prostitution.
A public statement has been issued by Sex Professionals of Canada. S.P.O.C is the on-line society providing safety support tips to sex workers. “The act of prostitution itself is legal in Canada yet the provisions challenged in this application operate to deny sex workers safe legal options for the conducting of legal business. The applicants will argue in court that the combined effect of these three provisions violates s.7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by depriving sex workers of their right to liberty and security in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”.
Activist lawyer lan Young of Osgoode Hall is providing his legal services for the Ontario case pro bono. Having faced three years of court delays, albeit ready with documentation from 150 workers interviewed, it’s now time—Amy Lebovitch is taking the stand, along with Valerie Scott and Terri Jean Bedford. All three women plaintiffs are self-described sex workers but only two are S.P.O.C members [Lebovitch and Scott]. Sex worker safety is being claimed as a constitutional right.
Lebovitch understands the more long-term legal strategy is that the Ontario and British Columbia cases will mesh at some point in the future, setting the stage for a bid to the Supreme Court of Canada. She explains very clearly neither she nor S.P.O.C. favour legalization of sex work. “The movement is toward exemption, not unlike the decriminalization paradigm operating in New South Wales Australia at this time”. No sex worker she knows wants legalization.
The problem is that decriminalization becomes portrayed as legalization. Legalization is viewed as an overbearing role of the state, as opposed to decriminalization, which removes specific sections of the criminal code pertaining to adult sex. The legal case focuses on the working conditions in which sex workers are forced to work under Canada’s current solicitation laws.
The gruesome Pickton murder trial caused a significant stir across the country. This has given impetus for sex workers to move on their political strategy. Susan Davis of Vancouver has been granted an “op-out”—as of early June 2008 she was allowed her safe house. Reports are Jamie Lee Hamilton ran “Grama’s Place” for a time in Vancouver as well. In parallel, in Victoria, Jody Paterson has been active forming a group interested in setting up a cooperative where a percentage of trade proceeds go to job option programs for workers wishing to leave the trade.
Member of Parliament Libby Davies (NDP, Vancouver East)—once a Vancouver city counselor—has for some years been instrumental in making the progressive case for changes in the law at both municipal and federal levels. She has concentrated on questions such as, “What is the manner in which the sex worker is forced to do business?” and “What has been the effect of actively stigmatizing women [primarily] with archaic and irrational solicitation laws still on the books?” Davies has been successful in garnering support for proposed changes. She put forth a motion in 2003 to do research on the sex trade. Over three Parliaments she and her colleagues managed to get the review committee reconstituted.
Over two elections, a comprehensive report was developed and although members did not call for decriminalization, Davies says, “The language is quite significant. The report did not go as far as to recommend decriminalization—which is what I wanted—but it says that three parties believe that the state should not intervene or prohibit consenting adult sexual activity”.
Jody Paterson—who still has her Friday column in the Times Colonist and who served a three-year term as executive director of P.E.E.R.S— has been an activist in this cause since almost before anyone even used the term “sex worker” in public discourse. As a first step, progress could entail refraining from using loaded words such as, “whore” or prostitute” [sic], which, in itself, may convey unwittingly an opposing and resentful view of anyone working in the trade. Paterson is now, known for putting pressure on the labour movement to take up the safety for sex workers’ cause, and getting behind any initiatives which could help to move toward addressing the working conditions of sex workers. To date albeit no union has actually agreed to get out there and start mobilizing for the labour rights of sex workers. Maybe the time will come.
Apparently, the unions flagged for support by Jody Paterson have—according to Libby Davies—entered the dialogue. “I know Susan [Davis] has met with the BC Federation of Labor on what it is like to be in a union…There was a big talk among members about the need to assert—making sure workers sex workers are protected. Of course it is quite controversial. They [CUPE] are not going to organize people. The union is apparently very interested in the in this issue. The women’s committee is somewhat divided, as it is in the in the feminist community”.
Adding, Davies says, “I have not worked so closely with Jody [Paterson], but I have with Susan [Davis] who is doing a similar thing in Vancouver where they want the cooperative run by sex workers. I call it a safe house. They call it a brothel. The word is their choice and I have been very supportive of what they have been doing here in Vancouver”.
Gradually, performing sex work may begin to lose some of its off-colour reputation—what little stride has been gained of late may be due in part to Jody Paterson’s crusade to lift the stigma—getting indoor workers’ working conditions documented and then coming out defending the need to establish a cooperative for those now working the street.
Libby Davies is certainly flexing her political muscle as well now, advocating openly for decriminalization. Most organizations she’s worked with support the initiative. She’s met with various women’s groups within the BC Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress and says, with confidence, “I know three unions personally that had some discussion on this question to looking at it [sex work] as both a labor issue [and] as an issue of women’s equality”.
The blind anti-prostitution pledge so entrenched in the collective consciousness is said to no longer hold water. She adds, “Some feminists say sex work is inherently exploitative but I think that is an unrealistic position. The key question is to differentiate what is consensual adult behavior and what is harmful, as you would in any other situation. Using the analogy that there is violence in marriages, our response is not to ban marriage.”
When asked what will happen to activists who set up safe houses, Davies says, “Maybe nothing”. Going on to say, “To me it is far preferable to have a place run by sex workers themselves; they have control of comings and goings; they have people close by to monitor what is going on. A common sense point of view is far preferable to what we see going on right now which is basically where sex workers are in incredible danger, especially the street sex workers”
Many sex workers simply want to be left alone to operate independently if they so choose. Plaintiff Amy Lebovitch—who, remarkably, agreed to be interviewed despite a degree of risk from police authority—is one of these people. Strategically, she refers to her co-workers as “colleagues”—understanding that dignity should be afforded to all women in this trade and based on the notion that every woman be respected unequivocally.
Having the courage to participate in Ontario’s constitutional lawsuit is Lebovitch’s way of dealing with having been treated as somewhat of an outcast by society. S.P.O.C. has been a vital support resource for workers trying their best to keep themselves safe while working. Internet posting opportunities on S.P.O.C’s website brings greater safety for all. It may be that a worker finds she is wary of someone and now she has the option to post her concern—alert her colleagues. “Flag that John” who may still be seeking service from another worker. Further, she explains that “being picked up by the police” is something that concerns every worker, particularly those “working the street”. The effect of police activity against workers is that workers are inclined to work alone, rather than in groups of two or three, which would be much safer.
The implementation of sporadic street sweeping methods produces one of the major occupational stresses associated with isolated sex work. It wouldn’t/doesn’t have to be this way, if sex work was regarded differently in the Criminal Code.
“Sweeping prostitutes off the streets”—as policy—is but one aspect of law enforcement, decriminalization activists are seeking to challenge. Even some police officers agree sweeping as-a-stand-alone policy doesn’t solve anything. It’s simply not an approach that works as a comprehensive policy against crime.
Enforcement officers may be less inclined to arrest sex workers if those officers were required to attend professional training classes exploring the social and safety effects of actively stigmatizing sex workers. The option to get out of the trade shrinks more so once visible stigmatization occurs. No one can dispute that it must be harder for a sex worker to succeed in leaving the sex trade and finding alternative employment once she’s marked with a criminal record.
The Pickton murders have shown what happens when our society turns its back on sex workers. There have been some changes in policy in Toronto. For instance, there is now a female-headed unit in Toronto’s division, which promises “victim” response services for a sex worker in danger without the implicit or explicit threat of arrest. At least that’s what Amy Lebovitch has been led to understand. The police are attempting to establish better trust and rapport so that sexual rape and/or violence are more likely to be reported.
Sex workers should not be a segregated labour class having to work under inhumane conditions and on the wrong side of the law. The current situation is not supported by our Charter, which affords human rights to all people, including sex workers. They must be protected against harm, just like anyone else. Keeping sex work criminalized only increases the power of the organized crime syndicates.Decriminalizing sex work is about women’s rights and ridding society of a sexual apartheid. Protecting women from unnecessary harassment and violence—women who happen to be women who work in the sex trade. Progressive communities—particularly the gay communities across Canada—are behind the decriminalization initiative. Some say sex worker activists have reignited the women’s movement for full equality.