I've been following the coverage of Bill-C36 as it goes through Parliament, and will be posting a few blog entries on this subject over the next few
weeks as the testimony and full minutes of the Justice Committee meetings become available. For this post I would like to focus on the recent
Ipsos Reid Survey on Prostitution that was commissioned by the Federal
justice department and used by the Justice Minister, Peter MacKay, as
evidence of broad Canadian support for the Conservative government's
approach to dealing with prostitution laws in Canada.
Bill C-36 is the Conservative government's response to the December Supreme Court decision striking down sections of the old prostitution laws because they violated the Charter right to security of the person by putting women and men in the industry at great physical risk. (Prostitution is the most dangerous occupation, particularly for women, and because of its illegality there is no regulation available for occupational safety. There is a very compelling 2004 report from the Library of Parliament by Julie Cool that shows this.) Hence the formal name for Bill-C36 is "An Act to Amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts." The summary or short version of the Act is the "Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons" Act.
I find the difference between the long and short names of Bill C-36 noteworthy. First, because it is not clear that the long and short titles actually fit comfortably together, second, the provisions set out by the Act actually tend to contradict the Supreme Court ruling rather than respond to it, and, third, the short title says something very interesting about how Canadians view prostitutes which is not entirely in line with how the Conservative government views prostitutes.
That public access to some of the survey has happened is in itself interesting. While the Justice Minister (MacKay) has publicly stated that this survey gives public support for the approach taken by his ministry, the government and the justice committee have been loathe to make it public. During the afternoon meeting of the Justice Committee on July 9th, NDP Committee member, Francoise Boivin (Gatineau, QC) moved the committee Chair (Mike Wallace CPC Burlington) ask the Minister of Justice to table the Ipsos Reid survey on prostitution before Tuesday, July 15, 2014. This would put the survey into the public record. This motion was voted down by 3 yeas to 5 nays, breaking along opposition and government party lines. However, on July 16 a report in the Toronto Star by Alex Boutilier and Tonda MacCharles based on a leaked copy of the survey presents some of the findings of the Ipsos-Reid survey (Thanks to the Star for making this public. Please click on the above link to see the full article).
The survey questioned 3000 Canadians by telephone between January 30th and February 7th, 2014. It has a margin of error of 1.8%.
There is a divide between male and female attitudes to the issue.
We underestimate the significance of the framing or groups within society as "deserving victims." This is a powerful meme or trope in the framework of state neoliberal governance or the social-investment state (see work by Alexandra Dobrowolsky, Jane Jenson and Rhianon Mahon) which allows for state action only in specific cases where critically disempowered victims were identified. How the "deserving" or "true" victim is identified is particularly problematic and, unfortunately, depends on who is doing the defining.
Looking at the findings of this survey as reported in the Star it appears that Canadian's are open to defining prostitutes as deserving victims, especially those beset by addiction problems and those who have entered the profession not by choice, but through circumstances beyond their control or forcibly by pimps and through human trafficking. I'm not sure that the Conservative government fully sees the victimization in the same way. For one thing the short title of the act as written puts communities before the exploited individuals which helps explain the statement that the government has not adopted the Nordic model entirely but has introduced an approach "inspired by the nordic model." Therefore, they continue to criminalize communication for the selling of sex if it occurs near a place where minors can reasonably expected to be. (This language was tightened up by committee amendment on July 15th, to read areas near schools, playgrounds or daycares.) We have to remember that selling sex was never illegal, what was illegal was communication to set up a contract, running a bawdy house, and living of the avails of prostitution. Under the new law it is illegal to advertize your sexual services. The big change is that it is now illegal to purchase sex. How does this work in terms of protecting exploited victims? Who are the victims?
Let's break this down a bit. It is now illegal to advertize your services on Craigslist or in the back of urban news magazines, so setting up a system where you book appointments in advance by phone allowing time to vet your clients, etc., is pretty much out of the question. The legal form of communication for the purpose of selling sex would appear to be limited to spontaneous pick ups in bars or on the street. So advertizing your brothel or home business is illegal, street-walking is not. The most violent, physically harmful, and dangerous form of prostitution is street-walking. The most common form of prostitution entered into by drug addicts is street walking. The most oppressive form of prostitution is generally identified as street-walking. Bill C36 makes street-walking a more legal enterprise than running a brothel or hiring yourself out as an escort, it does not make it safer. You are no longer automatically a criminal for selling sex on the street, however, the john buying sex from you is now the criminal. Will this make the street-walker safer? Only if the threat of criminal charges deters johns from purchasing sex. ... Does this encourage johns not to go buying sex? Hard to say as it is harder to see if johns are buying sex because they get much more secretive about buying it. It encourages the practice of purchasing sex further underground so it makes it harder to measure if prostitution is declining. It also makes it much much harder to guarantee the safety of streetwalkers because it requires transactions to take place in much more isolated and private spaces where there is no one to oversee the safety of the person selling the service. At least with brothels and escort services security can be hired. On the street if the john has a concern they might get caught what is there to stop them from making sure the other person (the seller) in the transaction can't talk or testify?
Overall while Bill C36 does not criminalize the most oppressed and at-risk class of prostitute, the street-walker, it does not change any of the victimization inherent in the practice of street-walking. In fact, by criminalizing the purchaser it encourages practices that can compound the oppression and victimization of these prostitutes. It doesn't get them off the streets and into rehabilitation programs it actually pushes them out of sight into back alleys and abandoned lots, to places where they are much less safe but out of the public eye and worry. We can't define these people as deserving victims if we can't see them.
For those prostitutes who do not see themselves as victims, but as people providing a service and running a business, Bill C36 sets out to punish them. It does so by limiting them to business practices which do not allow them to discretely advertize and control their clientele. It seems that these prostitutes need to be punished and limited because they don't act like the victims characteristic of the common view of prostitutes. This is the problem with the "deserving victim" trope, it can't deal with those who don't see themselves as or act like victims. This was part of the campaign to bring the Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford to the Supreme Court, to show that it is not prostitution per say that creates victims, it is the practice and implementation of the law that creates and compounds the victimization that can occur in the profession. That is one of the interesting features of the attitude survey from Ipsos-Reid, while Canadian's supporting the Nordic Model saw it as recognizing the victimization that is found in the sex trade industry, they did acknowledge that there is a difference between those who do not consent to be in the industry and those who do consent. What is less clear is whether Canadians believe that those who consent to be participants in the sex trade should be punished for that choice.
There is a great comment on rabble.ca that makes it clear that what C36 does is disallow those who consent to be sex workers from undertaking their profession in a safe and dignified matter.
"By conflating human dignity with the discouragement of sex work, the government is implying that it is only by exiting the industry that a sex worker can attain self-worth. Not only is this a paternalistic ideal, but it is also Hobbesian in nature as it implies that the "public worth of a man...is the value set on him by the Commonwealth."
My problem with C36 is that it doesn't do anything useful for the victims of the sex trade, while it works to punish those who choose to be in the sex trade by disempowering them from making the profession safer and more discrete. This to my mind goes against the ruling of the Supreme Court in December and to a large extent the view Canadians have regarding the need to protect victims.
Please click on the links highlighted in the posting to see the original materials. Following postings will cover a who's who of the witnesses who appeared before the justice committee hearings on Bill C36, an indepth look at the Act including the changes made and an assessment of whether any of the witnesses made any impact on the final outcome, and possibly a discussion of the various models available for regulating, legalizing or prohibiting the second oldest profession. To keep track of what is going on in Parliament check out openparliament.ca, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and Parliament itself.
Bill C-36 is the Conservative government's response to the December Supreme Court decision striking down sections of the old prostitution laws because they violated the Charter right to security of the person by putting women and men in the industry at great physical risk. (Prostitution is the most dangerous occupation, particularly for women, and because of its illegality there is no regulation available for occupational safety. There is a very compelling 2004 report from the Library of Parliament by Julie Cool that shows this.) Hence the formal name for Bill-C36 is "An Act to Amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts." The summary or short version of the Act is the "Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons" Act.
I find the difference between the long and short names of Bill C-36 noteworthy. First, because it is not clear that the long and short titles actually fit comfortably together, second, the provisions set out by the Act actually tend to contradict the Supreme Court ruling rather than respond to it, and, third, the short title says something very interesting about how Canadians view prostitutes which is not entirely in line with how the Conservative government views prostitutes.
That public access to some of the survey has happened is in itself interesting. While the Justice Minister (MacKay) has publicly stated that this survey gives public support for the approach taken by his ministry, the government and the justice committee have been loathe to make it public. During the afternoon meeting of the Justice Committee on July 9th, NDP Committee member, Francoise Boivin (Gatineau, QC) moved the committee Chair (Mike Wallace CPC Burlington) ask the Minister of Justice to table the Ipsos Reid survey on prostitution before Tuesday, July 15, 2014. This would put the survey into the public record. This motion was voted down by 3 yeas to 5 nays, breaking along opposition and government party lines. However, on July 16 a report in the Toronto Star by Alex Boutilier and Tonda MacCharles based on a leaked copy of the survey presents some of the findings of the Ipsos-Reid survey (Thanks to the Star for making this public. Please click on the above link to see the full article).
The survey questioned 3000 Canadians by telephone between January 30th and February 7th, 2014. It has a margin of error of 1.8%.
- There is an even split on the approach taken by Bill C-36 with a slim majority of 51.2% reporting that the buying of sexual service should be illegal, 44.1% were opposed
- 75.6% agreed somewhat or strongly with the statement that "prostitution is harmful for women" whether it is legal or not. While 20.3% somewhat or strongly disagreed. 4.1% did not know.
There is a divide between male and female attitudes to the issue.
- 57.2% of women say "buying sex should be illegal," while 44.9% of men say it should be illegal.
- 38.1% of female respondents said the buying of sexual services should be legal. 50.4% of men said it should be legal
- 55.1% of women said the selling of sexual services should be illegal, 44.2% of men
We underestimate the significance of the framing or groups within society as "deserving victims." This is a powerful meme or trope in the framework of state neoliberal governance or the social-investment state (see work by Alexandra Dobrowolsky, Jane Jenson and Rhianon Mahon) which allows for state action only in specific cases where critically disempowered victims were identified. How the "deserving" or "true" victim is identified is particularly problematic and, unfortunately, depends on who is doing the defining.
Looking at the findings of this survey as reported in the Star it appears that Canadian's are open to defining prostitutes as deserving victims, especially those beset by addiction problems and those who have entered the profession not by choice, but through circumstances beyond their control or forcibly by pimps and through human trafficking. I'm not sure that the Conservative government fully sees the victimization in the same way. For one thing the short title of the act as written puts communities before the exploited individuals which helps explain the statement that the government has not adopted the Nordic model entirely but has introduced an approach "inspired by the nordic model." Therefore, they continue to criminalize communication for the selling of sex if it occurs near a place where minors can reasonably expected to be. (This language was tightened up by committee amendment on July 15th, to read areas near schools, playgrounds or daycares.) We have to remember that selling sex was never illegal, what was illegal was communication to set up a contract, running a bawdy house, and living of the avails of prostitution. Under the new law it is illegal to advertize your sexual services. The big change is that it is now illegal to purchase sex. How does this work in terms of protecting exploited victims? Who are the victims?
Let's break this down a bit. It is now illegal to advertize your services on Craigslist or in the back of urban news magazines, so setting up a system where you book appointments in advance by phone allowing time to vet your clients, etc., is pretty much out of the question. The legal form of communication for the purpose of selling sex would appear to be limited to spontaneous pick ups in bars or on the street. So advertizing your brothel or home business is illegal, street-walking is not. The most violent, physically harmful, and dangerous form of prostitution is street-walking. The most common form of prostitution entered into by drug addicts is street walking. The most oppressive form of prostitution is generally identified as street-walking. Bill C36 makes street-walking a more legal enterprise than running a brothel or hiring yourself out as an escort, it does not make it safer. You are no longer automatically a criminal for selling sex on the street, however, the john buying sex from you is now the criminal. Will this make the street-walker safer? Only if the threat of criminal charges deters johns from purchasing sex. ... Does this encourage johns not to go buying sex? Hard to say as it is harder to see if johns are buying sex because they get much more secretive about buying it. It encourages the practice of purchasing sex further underground so it makes it harder to measure if prostitution is declining. It also makes it much much harder to guarantee the safety of streetwalkers because it requires transactions to take place in much more isolated and private spaces where there is no one to oversee the safety of the person selling the service. At least with brothels and escort services security can be hired. On the street if the john has a concern they might get caught what is there to stop them from making sure the other person (the seller) in the transaction can't talk or testify?
Overall while Bill C36 does not criminalize the most oppressed and at-risk class of prostitute, the street-walker, it does not change any of the victimization inherent in the practice of street-walking. In fact, by criminalizing the purchaser it encourages practices that can compound the oppression and victimization of these prostitutes. It doesn't get them off the streets and into rehabilitation programs it actually pushes them out of sight into back alleys and abandoned lots, to places where they are much less safe but out of the public eye and worry. We can't define these people as deserving victims if we can't see them.
For those prostitutes who do not see themselves as victims, but as people providing a service and running a business, Bill C36 sets out to punish them. It does so by limiting them to business practices which do not allow them to discretely advertize and control their clientele. It seems that these prostitutes need to be punished and limited because they don't act like the victims characteristic of the common view of prostitutes. This is the problem with the "deserving victim" trope, it can't deal with those who don't see themselves as or act like victims. This was part of the campaign to bring the Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford to the Supreme Court, to show that it is not prostitution per say that creates victims, it is the practice and implementation of the law that creates and compounds the victimization that can occur in the profession. That is one of the interesting features of the attitude survey from Ipsos-Reid, while Canadian's supporting the Nordic Model saw it as recognizing the victimization that is found in the sex trade industry, they did acknowledge that there is a difference between those who do not consent to be in the industry and those who do consent. What is less clear is whether Canadians believe that those who consent to be participants in the sex trade should be punished for that choice.
There is a great comment on rabble.ca that makes it clear that what C36 does is disallow those who consent to be sex workers from undertaking their profession in a safe and dignified matter.
"By conflating human dignity with the discouragement of sex work, the government is implying that it is only by exiting the industry that a sex worker can attain self-worth. Not only is this a paternalistic ideal, but it is also Hobbesian in nature as it implies that the "public worth of a man...is the value set on him by the Commonwealth."
My problem with C36 is that it doesn't do anything useful for the victims of the sex trade, while it works to punish those who choose to be in the sex trade by disempowering them from making the profession safer and more discrete. This to my mind goes against the ruling of the Supreme Court in December and to a large extent the view Canadians have regarding the need to protect victims.
Please click on the links highlighted in the posting to see the original materials. Following postings will cover a who's who of the witnesses who appeared before the justice committee hearings on Bill C36, an indepth look at the Act including the changes made and an assessment of whether any of the witnesses made any impact on the final outcome, and possibly a discussion of the various models available for regulating, legalizing or prohibiting the second oldest profession. To keep track of what is going on in Parliament check out openparliament.ca, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and Parliament itself.
Comments
Post a Comment