The case, scheduled to be heard this fall, was launched by three activists connected to the sex trade
Kirk Makin / Globe and Mail / Saturday, Jun. 20, 2009
Spirituality and morals took centre stage at the opening skirmish in what could be a battle royal over the constitutionality of the country’s prostitution laws.
With the court challenge scheduled to begin this fall, two religious groups and a conservative women’s group urged a Toronto judge Friday to let them participate to ensure that morality is not swept aside by legal rhetoric.
“It is okay – to be blunt – for a person to sell their body, but when that action begins to impede on others, fundamental moral values are impacted,” Ranjan Agarwal told Mr. Justice Ted Matlow of the Ontario Superior Court.
“If this forum is to be the way that laws live and die in our society … the courts should welcome intervention of groups who represent a broad number of Canadians and can give assistance to the court,” said Mr. Agarwal, a lawyer for REAL Women of Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights League and Christian Legal Fellowship.
The challenge was launched by three activists connected to the sex trade – Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott. They are seeking to strike down laws that prevent communicating for the purposes of prostitution, living off the avails of prostitution and keeping a common bawdy house.
Their lawyer, Alan Young, a law professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School, contends that the three laws are incompatible with the fact that prostitution is legal in Canada.
The challenge contends that the prostitution laws violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person, by exposing sex workers to danger.
Prof. Young said he intends to argue that the laws compromise the safety of sex workers by making it impossible for them to hire staff, run secure brothels or talk to potential clients to determine which ones are potentially dangerous.
Prof. Young said he usually welcomes legal intervenors that represent various sectors of society and can bring a distinctive approach to a case. However, he urged Judge Matlow to prevent REAL Women and the two Christian groups from imposing their brand of morality on a legal proceeding.
“This is not a seminary,” Prof. Young said. “This is not a forum for theological debate. They should really be in Ottawa. This is a forum for legal arguments; it is not a forum for airing grievances…When there are too many cooks in the kitchen, there is confusion.”
Prof. Young said the Supreme Court of Canada heard a Charter challenge to the prostitution laws in 1990, which raised quite different legal points. He said that, while the court upheld the provisions, it made it clear that morality is not a factor in such challenges.
“What these three groups want is a freestanding airing of their grievance that drugs, homosexual bathhouses and prostitution are spoiling the fabric of Canadian society,” Prof. Young said. “What you really have are three groups that have very strong opinions about the immorality of prostitution.
“My mother shares that opinion,” he said. “But she would not be able to intervene in this case just because she believes prostitution is immoral.”
Lawyers for the federal Justice Department support the groups’ application for intervenor status. Ontario Crown counsel Shelley Hallett said she had no position their request.
Mr. Agarwal pledged not to range far afield if he were granted legal standing. “My clients have no interest in trying to derail the process,” he said. “They believe that our Criminal Code can and does reflect fundamentals of morality. What my clients seek to do is simply stand up after five days of hearings and make oral submissions.”
Judge Matlow reserved his decision.