[Sexworkersandfriends..potluck..] Sex worker advocates clash over landmark ruling

[Andy Sorfleet]

TORONTO STAR
Monday, March 26, 2012

Jayme Poisson


Sex worker advocates clash over landmark ruling

[photo caption]
Terri-Jean Bedford, left, is confronted in Toronto on Monday by an
advocate for a group called Sex Trade 101, Christine Barkhouse, right,
who disapproves of the decision of Ontario's Court of Appeal after
they struck down a ban on brothels.
AARON VINCENT ELKAIM/THE CANADIAN PRESS

18-year-old Angel Wolfe storms away from retired dominatrix Terri-Jean
Bedford during an argument that followed a press conference announcing
the legalization of brothels.
LUCAS OLENIUK/TORONTO STAR


Eyes brimming with tears, voice unsteady, Angel Wolfe came to Monday's
news conference called by jubilant sex workers challenging Canada's
prostitution laws because she was "appalled and disgusted" by a
decision handed down by the province's top court.

Upholding most of a landmark lower court decision, the Ontario Court
of Appeal ruled Monday that sex-trade workers should be allowed to
conduct business in homes and brothels and hire security so long as
the relationship is not exploitative. Soliciting prostitution on the
street, however, should remain illegal, the court ruled.

The decision gives women the chance to legally practise their trade
indoors, where many have argued it's safer.

But for Wolfe, who said her mother, Brenda, was one of the first women
murdered by serial killer Robert Pickton, legal brothels would make it
more difficult for police to get warrants for sweeps that could
unearth illegal child trafficking and abuse.

"Those girls get hidden and they still get beaten by the johns," said
Wolfe, 18, who's aligned with Sex Trade 101, an organization that
helps women get out of prostitution.

"I believe all women should be shown a viable way out of the sex
trade," she said.

While Monday's ruling was hailed as insightful and a victory by many
who believe criminalizing prostitution endangers the lives of women,
there was by no means consensus among sex workers and their advocates.

At one point, Wolfe faced off with dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford, one
of three sex workers who launched the constitutional challenge to get
the laws scrapped.

"The argument has been made in court. The law stands," said Bedford,
52, raising her voice before being ushered away.

The tense moment was indicative of the heated debate that swirls
around the world's oldest profession.

For Bedford, carrying her signature riding crop and donning her
signature black leather, Monday was "emancipation day." Her
co-litigant, former prostitute Valerie Scott, likened it to being a
debutant.

"I feel like a citizen," said Scott, 53, who also mused about opening
her own brothel. "It's just so nice to see that we're now brought out
into society."

If the ruling stands, legal brothels will still be some time off. The
court gave both sides 30 days to appeal or ask for an extension and
stayed their decision on bawdy houses for one year, giving the
government time to draft legislation.

The 148-page ruling was the result of a 2010 decision by Ontario
Superior Court judge Susan Himel, who struck down all three laws
governing prostitution. Queen's Park and Ottawa appealed Himel's
ruling, arguing the laws promote values of dignity and equality and
send a message to johns and pimps that they engage at their own peril.
(While prostitution is technically legal in Canada, much of what would
allow a woman to practise her trade is not.)

That appeal, heard by the five-judge appeal panel in June, brought us
to Monday. The panel agreed with Himel and deemed the law governing
bawdy houses and brothels unconstitutional, allowing women to practise
their work indoors.

When asked what they would say to communities who don't want a brothel
in their midst, Scott and Bedford remarked they probably already have
one on a nearby corner and don't know it because they're so discreet.

"We are not going to have fire and brimstone and hookers falling from
the sky," said Nikki Thomas of advocacy group Sex Professionals of
Canada, who called for an immediate discussion on licensing and
regulation.

None of the women advocated for a red light district, which, in places
like Amsterdam, has bred organized crime.

The second law, prohibiting "living on the avails" of prostitution,
was also deemed unconstitutional. While the legislation is supposed to
protect women against pimps, it also stops them from hiring
bodyguards. But instead of upholding Himel's decision to strike it
down altogether, the panel chose to amend it, saying the law would
still apply in "circumstances of exploitation," allowing police to
charge violent pimps.

As for the third law, the appeal court overturned Himel's decision and
found that communicating for the purposes of prostitution in public
should remain illegal -- albeit, by a narrow margin.

Himel concluded the legislation prevents women, rushed when
negotiating in public, from properly vetting Johns for drunkenness or
weirdness. The majority of the panel disagreed, saying that while the
inability to communicate properly can lead to harm it is not "grossly
disproportionate" to combating social nuisance.

In a conclusion that will surely assuage government and neighbourhoods
worried about prostitutes pouring into the streets, the judges implied
that Himel failed to recognize that "street prostitution is associated
with serious criminal conduct including drug possession, drug
trafficking, public intoxication and organized crime."

Justices James MacPherson and Eleanore Cronk dissented, writing that
the law has a "devastating" impact on the right to life and security
of the person for the most vulnerable group.

"The world in which street prostitutes actually operate is a world of
dark streets and barren, isolated, silent places. It is a dangerous
world, with always the risk of violence and even death," they wrote,
adding regret that their colleagues did not come to the same
conclusion.

Lawyer Alan Young said he -- along with litigants Bedford, Scott and
Amy Lebovitch -- may appeal the communication ruling, but added that
the case was primarily brought because of the bawdy house law. While
street sex workers are still at risk, "Now that indoor prostitution
has been opened up there's a less pressing reason to go after
communication, other than the fact that it is unprincipled and wrong."

Chanelle Gallant, spokeswoman for Maggie's: Toronto Sex Workers Action
Project disagreed. The ruling was disappointing because the law leaves
the most vulnerable sex workers unprotected, she said.

"What people might not know is that 95 per cent of all prostitution
arrests are under that law ... what people might not realize is this
isn't going to protect the majority of sex workers from being
criminalized," said Gallant.

Dissent and praise rolled in from across the country Monday,
signifying the debate is far from over.

As for the government's position, "I'm not a prophet or Nostradamus,
but I am going to assume the Crown is going to appeal," said Young.

While the decision would apply only in Ontario, it sets precedence for
similar challenges across the country. It's likely the issue will next
make its way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

When asked if he thought the Ontario public would accept brothels, the
province's Attorney General John Gerretsen replied "I somehow doubt it
... that's only my personal opinion at this point in time."

And in a statement, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said, "As the Prime
Minister has said, prostitution is bad for society and harmful to
communities, women and vulnerable persons. We are reviewing the
decision and our legal options ... We continue to see a social need
for laws to control prostitution and its effects on society."

Bedford, who once called the Prime Minister a "very, bad, bad, boy,"
had this to say about Stephen Harper: "We'll see how he handles the
situation ... I'd like to see him squirm out of this one."

Not so fast ...

You won't be able to open a brothel tomorrow.

Ontario's top court suspended their decision on bawdy houses for 12
months, giving the government time to appeal, extend or draft new
legislation.

The court stayed their amended ruling on the "living on the avails"
law for 30 days, allowing time for appeal or a request for another
extension.

If either or both sides appeal, and if the Supreme Court accepts it,
effects could be suspended until Canada's highest court chimes in.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: torstar-120326a.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 48365 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/swaf-potluck/attachments/20120404/ad92c490/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: torstar-120326b.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 37674 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/swaf-potluck/attachments/20120404/ad92c490/attachment-0001.jpg>