Sex work laws on trial
NEWS / Constitutional challenge continues
Julia Garro / Toronto / Monday, October 05, 2009
Share |

WORKPLACE HAZARD. "Sexual predators are well aware that the law is a gift to them," says Sex Professionals of Canada's executive director Valerie Scott.
(Paula Wilson)
After hearing from witnesses in June the constitutional challenge of some of Canada's sex work laws is back in court from Oct 6 to 9 for closing arguments.

"It'll be our legal team and the crown's duking it out," says Valerie Scott, executive director of Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC).

Scott and fellow sex work activists Terri Jean Bedford and Amy Lebovitch filed the case in 2007, challenging that several sections of the Criminal Code related to sex work violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although it is legal to sell sex in Canada, many of the activities related to the sale of sex are considered criminal offences.

Specifically SPOC's case takes issue with Section 213(1)(c), which makes it illegal to communicate for the purposes of prostitution; Section 210, which makes it illegal to run a common bawdy house; and Section 212(1)(j), which makes it illegal to live off the avails of prostitution.

These laws, say Scott, are putting sex workers at risk because it makes it illegal to take safety precautions including hiring security staff and working in groups.

"Sexual predators are well aware that the law is a gift to them," she says. "It serves us up on a silver platter to them because we're too afraid to call the police. We're too afraid to work together, we're always alone and isolated."

Although originally denied intervener status in the case a group of Christian organizations — Christian Legal Fellowship, Real Women of Canada and the Catholic Civil Rights League — won an appeal on Sep 22. The groups will begin presentations to the judge in the case, justice Susan Himel, beginning Oct 19.

"They have a real substantial and identifiable interest in the subject matter of the application and, as acknowledged by the Attorney General of Canada, an important perspective different from the parties," states the decision.

Scott admits she was surprised at the overturned decision. "The logic of this case has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with safety."

Following the interveners' presentations there will be a chance for counter arguments by SPOC's senior lawyer, Osgoode Hall law school professor Alan Young.

Scott hopes for a decision in the case early in 2010. "There's a lot there's an awful lot to wade through and come up with a decision... it's going to take [Himel] several months," she says.

No matter which way Himel rules Scott expects the decision will be appealed.

"If the decision is at all favourable to us for certain the Crown, the Attorney General of Canada, will appeal," she says. "If the decision is unfavourable to us then we scramble to find more money and then we go to appeal court where we ask for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada."



Share |


Reader Comments


 
Where does Xtra! stand?
This is a fantastic article which provides a very sex-positive and liberationist perspective on the issues of sex work and safety in Canada. I'd like to believe that Xtra! understands this issue, but the Toronto Sun-quality video which was posted about Homewood and Maitland the other day, a video which referred to sex workers as "hoes" and sensationalized their situation, suggests otherwise. Are they sex workers or hoes? Do they deserve dignity or degradation?
Matthew, `Toronto ON
10/05/09 6:51 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Hoes..
Matthew, if you think that that video (http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/A_peek_into_Torontos_tranny_stroll-7591.aspx) was sensational, you must be one excitable guy. An the Hoes comment.. um, it was part of a stupid rhyme at the end of the clip - hardly a position statement for PTP.
Some Dude, Toronto Ontario
10/06/09 8:09 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Just a Thought
"The logic of this case has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with safety." Even if this [i]was[/i] a case of morality, aren't sexual predators more against morals than sex workers? Attacking someone and forcing him or her to have sex seems to me a bigger sin than simply making sex available.
Megan, Medicine Hat Alberta
10/07/09 12:12 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
YOU BE THE JUDGE
YOU BE THE JUDGE We support Allan Young challenge of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which would allow prostitutes to apply their “TRADE” indoors. The bottom line prostitution has been around for decades. Why not give prostitutes the best chance to apply their legal TRADE in a place they consider safe the same as we do for drug addicts providing them crack pipes and needles to conduct their illegal activity. If prostitution was legal indoors they could protect themselves with body guards of surveillance cameras and more apt to call police for assistance when their safety is in danger. There would be less prostitution on the city streets and kids/public wouldn’t be subjected to dirty needles or used condoms. Let’s be real here Prostitution will never go away and a large percentage of sexual acts is between two consenting adults behind closed doors for money. Well it seems the City of Ottawa and other municipalities across Canada have jumped the gun and started selling “ADULT entertainment BODY RUB PARLOUR” licences back in 2005 and Nations Capital “The City of Ottawa” issued 32. GEE I wonder what they are selling and what is happening in these ADULT BODY RUB PARLOURS when ONLY 18 + are allowed to enter the premises. A LOT of the public don’t really know what these license’s entails. BY-LAW NO 2002-189 (http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/bylaw/a_z/business/index_en.html#4) "adult entertainment parlour" means any premises or part thereof in which is provided, in pursuance of a trade, calling, business or occupation, live entertainment or services appealing to or designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations; How can a Municipality SELL these licenses when they clearly conflict with the criminal code section 210 of the Bawdy House Law? This is definately “BIZZARE”. When a parlour owner buys this licences and renews it every year what did they think they we buying when it talks
Dave, Ottawa ontaro
10/09/09 9:15 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Continued from last comment............. When a parlour owner buys this licences and renews it every year what did they think they we buying when it talks about Adult Entertainment Establishment BODY RUB to cater to an erotic or sexual appetites. In MY opinion the municipalities are living off the avails of prostitution since 2005. We think that this challenge should be judged on facts outlined and leave the moral issues out of a court room.
Dave, Ottawa ontario
10/09/09 9:31 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.