Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA ... - York University

Page: 146[367] With the prohibition on bawdy-houses still in effect, it is impossible toobtain empirical evidence as to whether street prostitutes will indeed moveindoors if they are legally able to do so. This is where the internationalexperience is instructive. Although the Netherlands has completely legalizedprostitution and given prostitutes the option to move indoors, up to 10% ofprostitution continues to occur on the street. Street prostitutes in the Netherlandsare often addicted to drugs or suffer from mental illness, are unwanted inbrothels, and are unable to pay to rent a window.[368] Even efforts by charities to help street prostitutes move indoors may notsucceed while the communicating provision remains in force. Grandma‟s House,a charitable society that provided indoor space for street prostitutes inVancouver, was established at a time when there were fears of a serial killerpreying on prostitutes. (Those fears were, of course, borne out by the convictionof Robert Pickton.) The prostitutes using Grandma‟s House still relied on outdoorsolicitation to find clients. It is not at all clear that this model could operate whilepublic solicitation remains forbidden.[369] My colleagues concede that there is no evidence in the record to suggestthat eliminating the bawdy-house provision will shift the ground to the extent thatall street prostitutes will move inside. Accordingly, as the interveners put it, streetprostitution will continue to exist. In that context, the communicating provision willcontinue to impair street prostitutes‟ efforts to protect themselves. It will inhibit