Canada is struggling with the laws around prostitution. Nearly all law enforcement of the anti-prostitution laws concerns the people involved in street prostitution, with the other forms of prostitution being virtually ignored. The enforcement generally focuses on the prostitutes, and not on their customers.
Effects of section 213 (communicating)
More than 90% of prosecutions are under section 213 (communicating). Consequently it has become the target of criticism, that while designed to prevent public nuisance it ignores public safety. In practice it has not altered the extent of street based sex work, but merely displaced it, often to more dangerous locations. The STAR project showed that relocation to poorly-lit underpopulated areas reduced unwelcome attention by police and residents but increased the likelihood of ‘bad dates’. Displacement and relocation also isolates sex workers from agencies and social and health services, who have reported difficulty reaching street workers because of this section. Camaraderie and mutual protection (spotting) are important to sex workers’ health and safety and when they are isolated they are removed from sources of information on clients, and health and safety information.
Another issue with 213 is placing them at greater risk of violence when they have to conduct negotiations with clients quickly, to avoid police attention. Negotiation with clients is crucial in assessing the risk of danger. Hurried discussions initially may undermine the sex worker’s bargaining position, making them more vulnerable.
The law has been changing for a while now, although the new decision regarding the appeal is not released yet. It all started when a legal challenge to three of Canada’s many prostitution laws was filed in Ontario Superior Court in March 2007. In a decision handed down by Madam Justice Susan Himel in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on September 28, 2010, the prostitution laws (sections 210, 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c)) were declared invalid, although a stay of 30 days was allowed to permit appeal. [29] The lawyer for the applicants, Law Professor Alan Young of Osgoode Hall, York University, stated that he brought the challenge forward because the state of the law in Canada made it legal to engage in the act of prostitution, but illegal to be indoors, hire bodyguards or help and to screen clients. Several Canadian witnesses, e.g., Professor John Lowman of Simon Fraser University, were brought forward, while the federal government relied mainly on international witnesses, particularly Dr. Janice Raymond of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and Dr. Melissa Farley of Prostitution Research and Education.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has said that the Government will appeal the court ruling and seek a stay pending that decision. The Ontario Government, which has intervenor status in the case, supports the appeal and has not called for any Parliamentary discussion of the state of the prostitution laws in Canada.
For practical purposes of police, prosecution and sex trade workers, the state of the law remains the same during the stay of the judgment. Though the legal application of the ruling is clear, many politicians, police chiefs, sex trade workers, former sex trade workers, victims of sexual abuse, residents associations and some feminist groups opposed to prostitution have expressed personal confusion and speculation about what this ruling means for Canada and a desire for Parliament to face the issue.
On October 15 a further stay effective till November 27 was granted to allow the Justice Department to prepare an appeal, and on November 22 the Government sought a further stay in the court of appeal, claiming dire consequences if the decision was applied. Mr Justice Marc Rosenberg rebuked the Crown for overstating the consequences of allowing the decision to stand. Judgment was reserved, the parties agreeing to extend the stay until judgment was delivered. On December 2 the court granted an extension of the stay until April 2011, on the grounds of preserving the status quo and that the full appeal should have been heard. It is now half way through July, the appeal is done yet the decision has not been released. Time will tell ….
.
