This post focusses on exploring the various groups that
testified to the Justice Committee regarding Bill C-36 the Protection of
Communities and Exploited Persons Act or formally 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 Justice Committee meetings ran from July 7, 2014 to July 15,
2014, hearing from 44 organizations and a number of individuals and undertaking
a clause by clause review before passing the amended legislation on to report
state. Report stage and third reading is scheduled for the fall when Parliament
returns from its summer break. This is part of a concerted effort on the part
of the Harper Government to pass this legislation quickly illustrated by the Peter
Van Loan’s motion to allocate time “of not more than five further hours” for
the second reading.
In the testimony to the committee there is a clear divide
between organizations that advocate the abolition of prostitution who generally
support bill C-36 and those who argue for the decriminalization of prostitution
and oppose bill C-36. There are a number of points on which most, if not all,
the witnesses agree: 1) that legal policy that criminalizes prostitutes is
problematic as it victimizes those who offer sex in exchange for money (there
is an underlying disagreement over what entails a victim and victimization), 2)
authentic consent is an indispensable requirement of legitimate commercial and
non-commercial sex, 3) sex workers are
often subject to economic coercion and disproportionately the victims of
violence, and that any policy addressing prostitution must address these issues,
and 4) addressing prostitution must significantly and seriously lead to harm
reduction.
It is over how harm can be reduced that significant
disagreement emerges between those who advocate abolition versus decriminalization.
For abolitionists prostitution is
inherently harmful because it is the sexual use and abuse of women by men. It
is not about work or a service but fundamentally about men's sexual pleasure
and possession to use the female body. It part of a continuum of violence
against women that runs from harassment to domestic violence to rape. There is
no free or authentic consent because women come to sex work because of
homelessness and economic deprivation, drug addiction, or coercion – women are
not prostitutes (noun) they are prostituted (verb). Therefore,
abolitionists argue the only way to eradicate the harm is to eliminate
prostitution, prosecute and punish those who purchase sex to decrease and deter
demand, and set up programs to help prostitutes find alternatives ways to make
a living.
For those who advocate decriminalization, harm arises from
the secretive and illegal nature of the work. The illegal nature of the work
means that prostitutes cannot come forward to report customers who commit
violence, report pimps, or access health care programs regarding substance
abuse and sexual health. It also means prostitutes find it difficult to
organize workplaces to enhance their safety such as setting up brothels with
security and screening procedures. Decriminalization would require government
to repeal laws that make voluntary and consented sex work a crime and allow
for control and oversight of the profession through health and safety regulations,
occupational health regulations, and business and commercial codes. Through
this taxation could be used to fund programs for those wishing to exit the
profession, deter those at risk to being forced into sex work, and governments could prosecute those who broke regulations,
committed violence, and traffickers. According to those advocating
decriminalization regulation, transparency and oversight would eliminate the
harms encountered in sex work.
The following is a quick view in table form of the positions
taken by the groups that testified to the committee. Clearly those advocating a
decriminalization position were opposed to bill C-36 while those with an abolitionist
position were supportive. However, the position of a number of the
abolitionist groups was qualified. While they supported bill C-36’s adaptation
of the Nordic model (more on this in a later post) and preamble which outlined
the victimization inherent in prostitution, they did argue the continued
criminalization of prostitutes though sanctions against communication and
solicitation undermined the intent of the bill.
More detail on the various groups will follow after the
table or in a follow up post.
Organization
|
For
or Against
C-36
|
Abolition
|
Decriminaliz
-ation
|
For/By
Sex-workers
|
Intervener
in Canada v. Bedford
|
Religious
|
Walk
with me Canada Victims services
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Canadian
Alliance for Sex Work Law and Reform
|
A
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Criminal
Lawyers’ Association of Canada
|
A
|
X
|
||||
Government
of Manitoba
|
F
|
X
|
||||
Evangelical
Foundation of Canada
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
||
Concertation
des lute contres l’exploitation sexuelle - CLES
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Sex
Trafficking Survivors United
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Maggie’s:
Toronto Sex Workers Action Project
|
A
|
X
|
X
|
|||
BridgeNorth
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Prostitutes
of Ottawa-Gatineau Work Education and Resist (POWER)
|
A
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Calgary
Policy Service
|
F
|
X
|
||||
Stella
l’amie de Maime
|
A
|
X
|
X
|
|||
London
Abused Women’s Centre
|
F
|
X
|
||||
Native
Women’s Association of Canada
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Rising
Angels
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Canadian
Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Sisters
Inside
|
F
|
X
|
||||
Canadian
Women’s Foundation
|
F
|
X
|
||||
Pivot
Legal Society
|
A
|
X
|
X
|
|||
SIM
Canada
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Adult
Entertainment Association of Canada
|
A
|
X
|
||||
Mother’s
Against Trafficking Humans
|
F
|
X
|
||||
Sex
Professionals of Canada
|
A
|
X
|
X
|
X*
|
||
York
Regional Police
|
F
|
X
|
||||
Sex
Trade 101
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Resist
Exploitation Embrace Dignity (REED)
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Prostitutes
Involved Empowered Cogent – Edmonton (PIECE)
|
A
|
X
|
X
|
|||
EVE
– Formally Exploited Voices Now Education
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Northern
Women’s Connection
|
F
|
X
|
||||
BC
Civil Liberties Association
|
A
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Providing
alternative Counselling and Education (PACE)
|
A
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
||
Asian
Women’s Coalition Ending prostitution (AWCEP)
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Hope
for the Sold
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Rape
Relief and Women’s Shelter
|
F
|
X
|
||||
Aboriginal
Legal service of Toronto
|
A
|
X
|
X
|
|||
U-R
Home
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Canadian
Association of Sexual Assault Centres
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Peers
Victoria Resource Society
|
A
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Centre
to End all Sexual Exploitation
|
F
|
X
|
||||
Defend
Dignity: The Christian and Missionary Alliance
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Servants
Anonymous Society of Calgary
|
F
|
X
|
||||
Canadian
HIV/AIDS Legal Network
|
A
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Ratanak
International
|
F
|
X
|
X
|
|||
Canadian
Police Association
|
F
|
*Amy
Lebovitch, Executive Director and Valerie Scott, Legal Coordinator of Sex
Professionals of Canada were co-listed plaintiffs with Bedford in Canada v.
Bedford
Other interveners in Canada v. Bedford were:
Attorney General of Quebec, Secretariat of the Joint United Nations Program on
HIV/AIDS, BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, HIV/AIDS Legal Clinics,
Ontario, Action Ontarienne Contra la violence faile aux femme, Christian Legal Fellowship, Catholic Civil Rights League, REAL
Women of Canada, and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights.
Comments
Post a Comment