Beyond Decriminalization: Sex-work, Human Rights and a New ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PIVOT LEGAL SOCIETYCode. Usually this provision has been invoked in the circumstances of doctor-patient or therapistpatientrelationships. However, the sort of authority envisaged by 265 (3)(d) is not limited to situationsin which the more powerful person has a right to issue orders and enforce obedience. 11 In R. vMatheson, 12 the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the purpose of s. 265(3)(d) is to criminalizecoerced sexual relations: a person who extracts consent to sex by exercising his or her authority will becaught by this section if he or she had the power to influence the conduct and actions of others andused that power to compel the complainant to engage in sexual activity.Consent – sexual assaultSection 273.1(2) of the Criminal Code includes a non-exhaustive list of factors that can vitiateconsent. 13 In the context of sexual assaults, s. 273.1 (2)(c) provides that consent is not obtained insituations where the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a positionof trust, power or authority. The courts have held that 273.1(2)(c) aims to protect the vulnerable andthe weak, and to preserve the right to freely choose to consent to sexual activity. For instance, a drugaddict’s consent to sex with her drug dealer may be invalid if their relationship created a dependencywhich meant that she could not give consent to his advances freely and independently. 14The expression “a position of trust, power or authority” is not defined in the Criminal Code. InR. v. Hogg, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that the dealer-addict relationship was not one of animbalance of power per se: it is not a case of a position of authority or trust, such as in the typicaldoctor-patient or teacher-student relationship, where vulnerability is inherent to the relationshipitself. 15 When it is unclear whether the accused was in a position of trust, power or authority, theCrown has to prove that there was a significant level of dependency.Whether an employer-employee relationship would be characterized as conferring the necessarypower on an employer is yet to be determined. While it is not the type of relationship that involvesthe similar moral obligations found in a teacher-student or doctor-patient relationship, the courtsin numerous sexual harassment cases have acknowledged the inherent imbalance of power in theemployer-employee relationship. 16 It is arguable that if the requisite degree of vulnerability is presentin the employer-employee relationship, a sex worker’s “consent” to sex with the employer as a conditionof employment will likely be deemed to be invalid, as per s. 273.1(2)(c). This provision may alsoapply to the requirement that a sex worker agree to offer certain services to clients or risk dismissalfrom her position.The assault and sexual assault laws require that a sex worker always maintain control over whether,where, when and how she or he provides sexual services. Therefore, should the provisions of theCriminal Code related to adult prostitution be repealed, employers would find that sex workers cannotenter contractual arrangements requiring them to engage in sexual relations which they do not consentto at the time that the sexual encounter is to take place. This will likely result in employer dissatisfactionwith the restrictions upon what can be demanded of their employees, but sex worker’s argued thatit is important for them to maintain control over the extent and nature of services they offer.11 R. v. Saint-Laurent (1994), 90 C.C.C. (3d) 291 (Qc. C.A.).12 R. v. Matheson (1999), 23 C.R. (5th) 269, 134 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.).13 Criminal Code, s. 273(3).14 R. v. Hogg (2000), 148 C.C.C. (3d) 86 (Ont. C.A.), obiter.15 Ibid.16 See, for example, the early case of Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252, in which the Supreme Court held thateven an employee could be in a position of authority with respect to other employees where he had the power to terminate them.216
BEYOND DECRIMINALIZATION: Sex Work, Human Rights and a New Framework for Law ReformYouthIn Canada, the general age of consent to sexual activity is 14 years, although special provisionsapply to criminalize sex within relationships of dependency, or those in which the older party is in aposition of trust or authority towards a person between the ages of 14 and 18 years.In the context of prostitution, the relevant age limit is found in s. 212, which creates severaloffences intended to prevent the sexual exploitation of individuals under 18 years of age. Section212(2) of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to live wholly or in part on the avails of prostitutionby a person under 18. Further, s. 212(2.1) says that if the person living on those avails encourages ayoung person to engage in prostitution, or uses coercion in relation to that person, then an aggravatedoffence has been committed and a minimum five-year sentence applies. 17 Finally, s. 212(4) makes itan offence to purchase sexual services from a person under 18, or to communicate with anyone under18 for the purpose of purchasing such services. Related offences include s. 170 (a parent or guardianprocuring sexual activity by a young person), s. 171 (a householder permitting criminal sexual activitywith a young person), and s. 172 (corrupting children).Sex workers agreed that a minimum age for prostitution is appropriate, and were satisfied with 18years as the minimum age, as the comments of these male street workers attest:A. Age limits. There should be an age limit . . . between clients and john.A. You can’t say it’s right for a 60-year-old man to pick up a 15-year-old boy. That’s notright.A. I think there should be a legal age of prostitution. You can’t have kids out there, that’snot right.A. Eighteen.A. But then again that’s the way some kids survive.A. You know, hey man, I survived the same way. I wish someone kicked my ass when Iwas 13 and I was out there. I wished someone had kicked my ass outta there.A. Not me I was having a good old time.A. Every time I see those kids out there I say go home. Go home, you don’t need to be outhere.- male street-level sex workersMany participants were of the view that no change is required to the age restrictions contained in ss.212(2) and 212(4). If any reform is to be introduced, Canada may chose to follow the New ZealandProstitution Reform Act 2003, (the “PRA”), which expressly protects youth by exempting themfrom prosecution. 18 While we did not directly discuss this issue with our project participants, manyacademics and sex worker advocates argue that sexually exploited youth should not be criminalized fortheir involvement in prostitution. 19IndecencyCanadian criminal law contains several offences intended to protect the public from offensiveor indecent sights or sounds: laws prohibiting obscene publications, 20 a ban on sending obscene or17 Pivot has previously recommended reform of some aspects of the procuring law (s. 212), inasmuch as the extortion-related aspectsof the section are redundant. The same wrongful activity is already subject to general extortion offences (Voices for Dignity, supranote 5).18 Prostitution Reform Act, 2003 (N.Z.) 2003/28, s. 23(3) [Prostitution Reform Act].19 D. Brock, Making Work, Making Trouble: Prostitution as a Social Problem (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998).20 Criminal Code, s. 163.217
Page 4:
PIVOT LEGAL SOCIETYPart 2: Municipa
Page 21 and 22:
BEYOND DECRIMINALIZATION: Sex Work,
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166: BEYOND DECRIMINALIZATION: Sex Work,
Page 215: BEYOND DECRIMINALIZATION: Sex Work,
Page 229: BEYOND DECRIMINALIZATION: Sex Work,
show all

Beyond Decriminalization: Sex-work, Human Rights and a New ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?