[SWAF-Potluck] Conservative Prostitution Bill: Two Steps Back

[Andy Sorfleet]

Here is an article in the current issue of Canadian Dimension. I got a
great quote and so did Katrina Pacey from Pivot!

Cheers,
Andy


https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/conservative-prostitution-bill-two-steps-back

CANADIAN DIMENSION
Friday, October 3, 2014

Leah Horlick, Labour

Conservative Prostitution Bill: Two Steps Back

[photo caption]
Protest against Bill C-36, Toronto, June 14, 2014; photo by Jenn Peters.

Last year, Canada's Supreme Court made a landmark decision for sex
workers. A major step towards occupational health and safety, the
decision was lauded by advocacy organizations across North America,
and hailed as a progressive move forward. Now, Peter MacKay, the
Minister of Justice, has proposed legislation that would take labour
rights in Canada two major steps back. Why? Because those workers are
sex workers.

The landmark ruling in December 2013 was the Bedford ruling, which
determined that sections of Canada's Criminal Code pertaining to
prostitution are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court unanimously
decided that in one year's time, the parts of the law that undermine
the health, safety, and rights of sex workers will no longer be in
effect. In response, the federal government introduced Bill C-36 this
summer. Loosely based on an interpretation of the "Nordic Model"
whereby johns, or clients, of sex workers are criminalized, Bill C-36
would render the advancements of the Bedford ruling almost entirely
null.

In Vancouver, many advocacy organizations which worked tirelessly to
support the Bedford ruling have raised serious concerns about the
proposed bill. Andrew Sorfleet, the president of Triple-X Workers'
Solidarity Association of BC, Canada's first legally registered sex
worker labour association, describes the bill as a motion to threaten
"150 years of legitimate industry—industry with workers and with an
economy. From an economic standpoint, [MacKay's] about to put a whole
lot of workers out of work." Sorfleet, who describes the Triple-X
Workers' Solidarity Association as built on the same model as ACTRA,
the Canadian actors' union, wants the federal government to allow time
for a discussion within the sex industry of the consequences of Bill
C-36: "If you're going to take away my ability to work, I want to know
what my compensation will be. The sex industry needs some time to know
what this is going to mean."

For many, the effects of the proposed bill are already frighteningly
clear. One advocate, who wished to remain anonymous, describes Bill
C-36 as a mechanism that will create high-pressure situations where
both worker and client are trying to avoid arrest, and where workers
will not have time to properly assess situations and take appropriate
safety measures. In addition, the bill's new motion to criminalize
accessing material benefits from sex work (a contemporary reworking of
the pre-Bedford "living off the avails" law) means that sex workers
will no longer be able to hire "third parties," or security staff, to
ensure their safety on the job.

The effects on women workers in the sex industry will be especially
dire, as the anonymous advocate observes: "We need laws that allow us
to work towards creating a culture that does not accept violence
against women -- regardless of their work or perceived place in
society -- and laws that do not take away or limit the agency of
working women." It is clear from the proposed bill that Peter MacKay
and his supporters are proponents of an outdated, patriarchal view of
sex work: one where all sex workers are "prostituted" female victims
in need of rescue from immorality, trafficking, and their
fundamentally predatory male clients. (It is also worth noting that
the proposed legislation, and the debates surrounding it, are
distinctly heterosexist, framing all sex workers as victimized women
who need to be protected from their male clients.)

In response to the potential ruling, PIVOT Legal Society, an
organization committed to decriminalizing sex work and based in
Vancouver's Downtown East Side, released an information resource
entitled "Reckless Endangerment -- Q&A On Bill C-36: Protection of
Communities and Exploited Persons Act." Katrina Pacey, Litigation
Director at PIVOT, says that public response to their primer on the
dangers of Bill C-36 has been positive. "[The] proposed legislation is
both complex and confusing," she says, noting that the government has
not explained the full extent to which Bill C-36 will truly
criminalize sex workers, clients, and third parties.

PIVOT's primer outlines a litany of details that remain unclear in the
proposed bill: whether or not the internet will be considered a
"public place" where communication for obtaining sexual services will
be illegal, and what constitutes a "legitimate relationship" with a
sex worker. In a particularly draconian clause of the bill, those
deemed to be "habitually in the company" of sex workers are also
criminalized. Thanks to PIVOT's primer, a host of community members
fearing for their children, partners and roommates can learn that they
are indeed part of a "legitimate relationship." No such luck for safe,
longstanding clients of sex workers: those "illegitimate"
relationships will arguably be deterred by the new potential for
arrest.

Like many others, Pacey believes Bill C-36 is a direct response to the
Bedford ruling. "Until that decision came down, the Harper government
demonstrated very little interest in the issue of prostitution. Bill
C-36 will recreate the harmful, stigmatized and dangerous conditions
that sex workers had to endure under the laws that were struck down in
the Bedford case. It is an unconstitutional variation of our broken
laws that imposes more danger, more criminalization and fewer safe
options." Pacey echoes the concerns of many sex workers, activists and
advocates in observing that the new laws will be especially
debilitating for street-based sex workers. Indoor sex work will be
made "nearly impossible," she says, forcing street-based sex workers
into isolated and dangerous parts of the city.

Sorfleet, who has worked in the sex industry for more than a decade,
says one of the major issues at play is that there exists no form of
true representation for sex workers. "I can't believe [this] wouldn't
be struck down right away. It's a free speech issue." On the bill's
supposed goal to "protect" sex workers and criminalize harmful
clients, Sorfleet states simply, "You can't make half a thing
illegal."

In the face of this ultimately flawed goal, sex worker support
organizations across the country including WISH, Stella and Maggie's
have unanimously decried the proposed bill as one that will create
increased risk for sex workers across the country. In short, consensus
from those who work in the industry is that Bill C-36 will kill
workers, especially those facing multiple barriers: Indigenous women,
women of colour, and trans women. It remains to be seen if, in a
bizarre case of déjà vu, Bill C-36 will be challenged in the Supreme
Court. And despite the evidence that no sex workers or allied
organizations were consulted in the drafting of the bill, with so many
outspoken and concerned activists it's clear that Peter MacKay and his
supporters are simply not listening—to workers, women and their
communities.

Leah Horlick is a writer and poet living on unceded Coast Salish
Territories in Vancouver, where she coorganizes REVERB: A Queer
Reading Series.