THE BASICS: DECRIMINALIZATION OF SEX WORK 101 - Stella

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3WHAT IS THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF SEX WORK?As part of a movement to recognize our autonomy, self-determinationand need for better working conditions, sex workersaround the world demand the removal of laws and policies thatmake sex work a crime. In countries where there are criminallaws, like Canada, we call for the total decriminalization of sexwork.At its core, decriminalization means the removal of all criminallaws that prohibit selling, buying or facilitating (procuring) sexwork.Decriminalization would reduce the stigma, discrimination anduncertainty that comes with criminality -- allowing us to live andwork in health and safety and without fear of arrest that deprivesus of our freedom and dignity.Sex workers have different needs depending on where we aresituated and how we work. What we want our industry to looklike in a non-criminalized environment will look different forsex workers across the country. Most sex workers are accustomedand skilled at working in an informal and unrecognizedeconomy for many years. Decriminalization could mean a hugeadjustment in working context for sex workers who work in theunderground, whether by choice or necessity. For example, sexworkers have developed knowledge and skills rooted in avoidingpolice and other repressive measures; we have developedways of working around precarious conditions and we have createdother forms of security where police and other mechanismsfail to protect us.Despite the adjustments that come with law reform, decriminalizationwould mean that sex workers, our clients and thirdparties (such as security, partners and receptionists), would notbe breaking criminal laws for working in the sex industry, andwould not be risking arrest.More specifically, the removal of prostitution laws would mean:· We could openly communicate and advertise our services,prices and negotiate limits and boundaries with clients;· We could work alone or with groups in indoor or outdoorspaces without fear of arrest;· We could report abusive or discriminatory hiring and workpractices and fight for access to labour protections that facilitatenegotiating or bargaining power with third parties;· We could work with, work for, or hire people to help us findand book clients, provide security, drive us to work, handleour money and work with others so we are not always isolated;and· It would also mean that our partners and people we live withwould not be at risk of criminalization.For reasons to support the decriminalization of sex work10 Reasons to Fight for the Decriminalization of Sex WorkBy Mensah, M.N. and C. Bruckert. 2011.cybersolidaires.typepad.com/files/10reasons.pdf10 Reasons to Decriminalize Sex WorkPublic Health Program, Open Society Foundations. 2012.www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/ten-reasons-decriminalize-sex-work4HOW DOES DECRIMINALIZATION HAPPEN?For law reform or decriminalization to happen, sex workers andallies need to engage the legal systems that take apart and rebuildlaws -- the courts or Parliament.Through ParliamentParliamentary committees are sometimes set up to have discussionsabout pressing social issues. Since 1980, Canada hashad three parliamentary reviews and researches of prostitutionlaws and their impact on sex workers: The Special Committee onPornography, otherwise known as the Prostitution Fraser Committee(1982); the Federal/Provincial/Territorial (F/T/P) WorkingGroup on Prostitution (1990); and most recently in 2003,the Subcommittee on Solicitation Law Review (SSLR). These committeesoften make recommendations for changes to prostitutionlaw.Historically, it has been valuable to engage with politicians andlawmakers around policies that negatively affect sex work communities.Through the courtsLaws are also struck down or changed by the Canadian courts –individuals or groups can try to take the government to court tochallenge the usefulness or fairness of a law. Court cases comewith a range of challenges for sex workers. They can be verylegalistic and can result in sex worker rights communities losingpower -- court cases can have limitations and may not be able toaddress all of the issues that we might address at a communitylevel or through social campaigns.Court cases also need to be brought forward by an individual.Finding an individual who can represent the diversity of sexworkers’ experiences is difficult. Also, often the people who docome forward face a lot of public scrutiny as not being representativeor not appealing to the image of sex work that peoplehave. Stigma around sex work means a constant discrediting ofsex workers who do come forward and more importantly, criminaland financial risk!A court challenge can place the focus on the fundamental problemwith prostitution laws: They deny sex workers of our rightsto safety, autonomy and equality. A court challenge allows sexworkers’ experiences to be recognized as legal evidence – wecan demonstrate how the laws actually make it more dangerousfor us to work and live. In this sense, court challenges can addressthe core problem – our human rights violations.There’s no “best way” to approach decriminalization. How weengage with Parliament and the courts, and the role that sexworkers play in framing and articulating the problems, definesthe success of any law reform initiative. That being said, thedominant values and ideologies of the court or Parliament at anygiven time will impact the results of any law reform initiative.Published in April 20132
5SEX WORKERS AND DECRIMINALIZATION THROUGH THE COURTSSince 2007, there have been two majorinitiatives to remove criminal laws againstsex work. Both of these were in response toviolence against sex workers. It is well documentedthat over sixty sex workers have beenmurdered in Vancouver, more than sixteensex workers have gone missing in the Edmontonarea over the last twenty years and seventeensex workers were killed over the last tenyears in Quebec. This does not even addressthe violence in other provinces. The violenceexperienced by sex workers on the street isdisproportionate compared to the rates ofviolence experienced by other sex workers.More so, police departments across Canadahave failed to properly investigate these incidents,focusing instead on arresting sex workers.For us, decriminalizing all aspects of sexwork is essential to reducing this violence.Bedford v. CanadaIn 2007, Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitchand Valerie Scott initiated their case at theOntario Superior Court of Justice seeking theremoval of three prostitution laws from theCanadian Criminal Code:· s. 210 (bawdy house);· s. 212(1)(j) (living on the avails); and· s. 213(1)(c) (communicating in a publicplace for the purposes of prostitution).The arguments are relatively straightforward:It is not unlawful to work as a sex worker yetcriminal laws make it virtually impossible fora sex worker to work in a safe and secure environment.They argue that these prostitutionlaws contradict sex workers’ rights protectedby the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Specifically, these three laws violatesex workers’ s. 7 right to liberty and securityof the person, and the communicating lawalso violates sex workers’ s. 2 right to freedomof expression.SWUAV v. CanadaIn February 2007, a group of sex workerswho work on the streets of the DowntownEastside of Vancouver, called the DowntownEastside Sex Workers United AgainstViolence (SWUAV), along with former sexworker Sheri Kiselbach, went to the SupremeCourt of British Columbia to challenge a widerange of criminal laws on prostitution.SWUAV v. Canada wanted to decriminalizeadult sex work by challenging most of theprostitution provisions in ss. 210-213 of theCanadian Criminal Code. SWUAV arguedthat, as a result of these laws, sex workersexperience systematic discrimination, exploitationand violence. They wanted to demonstratehow these laws negatively impact sexworkers’ safety, health and well being andas a result violate sex workers’ constitutionalrights to life, liberty, security and equality,and freedom of expression and association.This constitutional challenge is different to theBedford case in two distinct ways: First, in additionto sections 2(b) and 7 of the Charter, itargues that the s. 15 Charter right to equality,and the s. 2(d) freedom of association arealso violated -- arguing that sex workers as agroup are discriminated against and experienceinequality due to these laws. Second,SWUAV challenges a much wider range ofthe prostitution laws.At first the court rejected SWUAV on thegrounds that both SWUAV and Sheri Kiselbachdo not have the legal right to bring thecase forward -- SWUAV, as an organization,was not affected by prostitution laws andSheri, as a former sex worker, was not currentlyaffected by prostitution laws. In otherwords, the court said that only an individualsex worker who was currently working or arrestedcould make this Charter claim. So atthis point the nature of the case changed. Insteadof arguing for decriminalization, thesesex workers first had to argue that they hadthe right to represent their case and to beheard by the courts!SWUAV argued that a collective such astheirs, representing sex workers in the DowntownEastside, had the right to bring forwarda Charter challenge. SWUAV was created toprotect individual sex workers from the risksrelated to publicly outing and naming oneselfas a sex worker. They also argued that theindividuals within their collective are stigmatizedto bring forward their case individually.This reality is well understood by sex workers,people who work with marginalized womenand other communities that lack legal, economicand social support.SWUAV contested the decision at the SupremeCourt of Canada. In 2012, they wontheir right to be heard in court. They are nowable to launch their Charter challenge.Sections of the Criminal Codechalenged in Bedford210 Bawdy house212(1)(j)Living on the avails213(1)(c) Communicating in a publicplace for the purposesof prostitutionSection 7 of the CharterEveryone has the right to life, liberty andsecurity of the person and the right not tobe deprived thereof except in accordancewith the principles of fundamental justice.Section 2(b) of the CharterEveryone has the fundamental freedomof thought, belief, opinion andexpression, including freedom of thepress and other media of communication.Bedford v. Canada at the Ontario Court of Appeal: www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2012/2012onca186/2012onca186.htmlBedford v. Canada at the Ontario Superior Court: www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc4264/2010onsc4264.htmlPublished in April 20133
Page 1: 01THE BASICS: DECRIMINALIZATION OF

THE BASICS: DECRIMINALIZATION OF SEX WORK 101 - Stella

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?