by Sarah Allan
Today is International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. This day of observance and action was created to call attention to crimes committed against sex workers all over the globe. While atrocities like the murders of dozens of survival sex workers from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES) by Robert Pickton and the serial murders of sex workers in Seattle, Washington by the Green River Killer drew the attention of the popular media for their salacious details, many sex workers continue to routinely experience physical and sexual violence, as well as discrimination and marginalization. While women in general experience disproportionate amounts of violence in this world, and in Canada, for sex workers, their exposure to violence and their stigmatization is exasperated and their ability to protect themselves is hindered by the current legal framework and the ideologies espoused about sex work and women, in support of these laws.
Vancouver, 1984
http://blip.tv/first-coalition/sex-worker-rights-a-public-service-announcement-from-first-4153124
Many different adult women and men engage in sex work for many different reasons, which include sheer survival, lack of opportunities, enjoyment, independence, money, and flexible working hours. Some women and men engage in sex work that would prefer not to. Some women and men act independently and maintain a regular list of clients, some work in brothels or co-ops, some work under the guise of legality as escorts or in massage parlours, while other work on the street. Despite the range of individuals and modes of engaging in sex work there are a few points on which most people would agree:
1) Violence against any women, sex worker or not, is intolerable;
2) No one should be forced to engage in sex work if they do not want to;
3) The job of the police should be to protect women from violence.
Currently, the act of exchanging sex for money is not illegal in Canada, but a trio of Criminal Code provisions originally enacted to combat ‘street nuisance’ effectively skirt around the issue and make all the things to do with sex work illegal. These laws make it illegal to communicate for the purposes of prostitution (the “communicating law”), to be in or operate a ‘bawdy-house’ or brothel (the “bawdy-house’ law), and to aid or assist anyone in the act of prostitution or to live off of the income of a prostitute (the ‘procuring’ law and ‘living off the avails’). As a result of these laws, many men and women are charged every year with prostitution-related offences, though disproportionately these laws are used to target street or survival sex workers, while those in massage parlours and who operate as escorts operate unhindered (while paying large licensing fees to municipal governments…compare the annual cost of business license to run a ‘body rub parlour’ to pretty much any other business!).
Now, where people’s opinions start to diverge is on the definition of the problem and the proposed solutions to those problems, as each person defines it. One camp, let’s call them the ‘rights-based’ camp, argue that consenting adults should have the constitutional right to engage in whatever acts they want to when not in public. Conversely, the ‘abolitionist’ camp argue that all prostitution is violence against women and that it should be eradicated. These groups both acknowledge that currently, many sex workers experience harm, but disagree about whether this harm is to be attributed to the law or whether this harm is inherent. They further disagree about what the best way to address these harms should be.
The ‘rights-based’ camp argues that sex work should not be criminalized and that many of the harms that occur to sex workers result from prohibition. Similar claims are made about drug prohibition and the logic is hard to ignore. Sex workers fear being arrested so they ply their trade in ways and places where the likelihood of being detected is lessened. They work at night, in industrial areas where no one is around due to the bawdy-house law. They get into cars with strangers as fast as they can, in case anyone is watching, not giving them time to assess their client, the vehicle, or negotiate prices or services due to the communicating law. They work individually, and don’t tell anyone who they are with or where they are going, due to the procuring law. They are unable to declare their income or access any employment, human rights, health other protections offered by the law, and many are not comfortable reporting violence to the police, for fear of being criminalized or blamed themselves. They cannot openly support their partners or children, and some fear even having a roommate, as it puts that person at risk of being charged with living off the avails. When you think of the things you would do to ensure your safety if you were to engage in sex work: work in pairs, in a location you control, hire a driver or security, report to someone the client’s license plate number, etc. etc… you realize that all of these safety precautions are prohibited by law and women, largely survival sex workers who engage in sex work to support drug addictions and who are unable to access income through traditional employment, are left out on their own to deal with the violence and assaults.
In addition, these laws contribute to the marginalization of sex workers as they are pushed to the edges or ‘margins’ of society. If sex workers are not valued under the law, how can we expect society to value them and treat them with respect? While these laws apparently are aimed at keeping people from engaging in prostitution, they may actually do the opposite, as it is more difficult to obtain other forms of employment once one has a criminal record, especially for a highly stigmatized ‘crime’ like prostitution. Think of how sex workers and prostitution is viewed by popular media and culture: it is almost always negative. Sex workers face stigmatization and discrimination from strangers, the public and when attempting to access vital services. Police and the justice system disregard them as unreliable and untrustworthy. Health care providers criticize them for their involvement in prostitution. Friends, family and neighbours alienate and judge them, often making it hard to find and maintain steady housing and relationships. The list goes on…
The abolitionist camp, on the other hand, argues that all prostitution is violence and is harmful to women, and some even argue that all sex in exchange for money (or other things) is tantamount to rape. They argue that the harms experienced by sex workers cannot be removed by changing the laws as those harms are inherent to the act of prostitution itself. They tend to focus on female prostitution, citing statistics that link involvement in adult prostitution to child sexual abuse, and recounting negative experiences by current and former sex workers. They suggest that women’s bodies are commodified through prostitution, which degrades them, and that prostitution is an expression of patriarchy, man’s power over women. Their solution and end goal is the abolition of prostitution entirely, which many suggest can be achieved by punishing harshly those who purchase sex from women, through the implementation of what is known as ‘the Swedish model’. The blame is placed on the purchaser, while the woman selling sexual services is somewhat considered a victim, requiring assistance to stop being sex workers, as no one could really choose to be a sex worker. Unfortunately, abolitionists often equate these beliefs with ‘feminism’, which is unfortunate, because many women and men who identify as feminists, do not agree with the abolitionist position.
Returning to my numbered points above, everyone agrees that no one should be forced to engage in prostitution if they do not want to. But where these camps ideologically disagree is over the issue of choice. While one group believes consenting adults should have the freedom to exchange sexual services for money and control the conditions in which they do so, the other believes this is not really a free choice, as these choices are shaded by patriarchy, gendered and racialized power dynamics, the commodification of women and personal histories of sexual violence. Many former sex workers passionately argue they hated every minute of it and that no woman could enjoy that as work. Other current and former sex workers state that they enjoy what they do and find the attitudes of abolitionists patronizing and are insulted by the notion that they require rescuing. It is my opinion in regards to most things in life, including sex work, that people should be able to do pretty much whatever they want with their own bodies as long as it doesn’t harm other people. I also believe that we should first listen to those who live it, and truly hear them, and use those messages to inform our thinking. This means that if someone tells you they are not being harmed, and that they feel content with their decisions, then that person and those decisions should be respected. I also believe that for those who engage in sex work for purely economical reasons, to combat poverty and survive day to day, more health supports and educational and occupational opportunities should be made available to help them exit the industry. But whether you believe all prostitution is bad, or whether you believe, if done right, it can be safe and cause those involved little to no harm, it seems clear that the current legal framework creates unnecessary harms and targets those most vulnerable. But all that might be about to change…
Court challenges in both Ontario and British Columbia are arguing that Canada’s prostitution laws contravene several constitutional rights guaranteed to all Canadians in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court challenge of the laws in Ontario (Bedford v. Canada) argued these laws specifically violated sex workers’ right to life, liberty and security of the person, under Section 7, and their right to freedom of expression, under Section 2(b). In British Columbia, the court challenge (Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence (SWUAV) & Kiselbach v. Canada) argues the same violations with the addition of the right to equality, under Section 15. On September 28, 2010 Justice Susan Himel of the Superior Court of Ontario issued her decision in Bedford v. Canada and struck down Canada’s prostitution laws as unconstitutional. The laws are still in effect though, as the government has appealed the decision. In June 2011 the case was heard before the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Their decision has yet to be released, but most people predict the case will end up before the Supreme Court of Canada.
The case in British Columbia has hit an access to justice roadblock due to the nature of Canada’s laws of standing, meaning who is allowed to bring a court case on a particular issue. Unlike the Ontario case, which was brought by individually named, current sex workers, the plaintiff’s in the British Columbia case are Sheryl Kiselbach, a former sex worker with 30 years of experience in the sex trade, and Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence (SWUAV), a non-profit organization composed of street-based sex workers. The B.C. Supreme Court originally ruled that these plaintiff’s did not have standing to bring such a challenge because they weren’t individuals actively involved in sex work, and that only an individual active sex worker or a sex worker facing criminal charges under the prostitution laws could bring such a case. SWUAV and Kiselbach appealed that decision and the B.C. Court of Appeal granted them public interest standing to bring the challenge. The government appealed that decision, and now on January 19, 2012 the Supreme Court of British Columbia will decide whether SWUAV and Kiselbach qualify for public interest standing to bring their case challenging the prostitution laws in Canada as representatives of all sex workers in this province. This case has the potential to impact not only sex workers in British Columbia, but also other marginalized individuals who wish to access the courts as public interest litigants, an issue made even more serious in light of the province of BC’s decision not to fund independent representation for sex workers to participate in the Missing Women’s Inquiry currently underway.
To close this rant off, I’d invite all of you, whether you agree with one side or the other in this debate, or have no opinion at all, to take some action today, the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, as I think that all of us can agree that violence against all women needs to be eradicated, and that violence against marginalized women is particularly abhorrent.
Find an event in your community to recognize the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers:
http://www.swopusa.org/dec17/event-locations/
Read up on decriminalization of prostitution in Canada:
http://www.firstadvocates.org/
http://www.pivotlegal.org/our-work/sex-worker-rights
AND FOR THOSE IN VANCOUVER!!!! Come out on January 19, 2012 and show your support at the BC Supreme Court for SWUAV and Sheryl Kiselbach in their fight to access justice, and to ensure safety and security for all sex workers in Canada!
passittotheleft.wordpress.com 