[Viva] Fwd: Bedford v. Canada: Report from an intervention

[Denise Becker]

This is an update re. the Ontario Court of Appeal and adult prostitution
that I was telling you about in the email concerning the Legal Network
Meeting.  Alan Young was the lawyer giving us a lecture and he was an
inspirational man.  I have written to Lindsey at the Legal Network to ask
her when she expects the Ontario Court of Appeal to make a decision.
Denise

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lindsey Amèrica-Simms <lsimms at aidslaw.ca>
Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:43 AM
Subject: Bedford v. Canada: Report from an intervention
To: dbecker106 at gmail.com


** ** ** **

***BEDFORD**** v. CANADA: REPORT FROM AN INTERVENTION*

** **

>From June 13–17, five justices of the Ontario Court of Appeal heard
arguments about the constitutionality of Criminal Code provisions relating
to adult prostitution.  This was an appeal of an Ontario Superior Court of
Justice decision from September 2010, when Justice Susan Himel struck down
the communication, bawdy house and living-on-the-avails provisions of the
Criminal Code because she found they forced sex workers into more dangerous
situations and contributed to a greater risk of violence and other threats
to their health and safety. ****

** **

Besides the applicants in the case (namely Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch
and Valerie Scott — all current or former sex workers) and the Attorneys
General of **Ontario** and ****Canada****, seven groups were granted
intervener status in order to assist the court with the issues before it.
The seven interveners included a coalition of the Christian Legal
Fellowship, REAL Women of Canada and the Catholic Civil Rights League; a
coalition of organizations that included the Canadian Association of Sexual
Assault Centres; the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; the B.C. Civil
Liberties Association; a coalition of PACE, Downtown Eastside Sex Workers
United Against Violence Society (or “SWUAV” — both sex worker organizations
in Vancouver) and Pivot Legal Society; a joint intervention from Maggie’s
(Toronto sex worker organization) and POWER (Ottawa sex work organization);
and a joint intervention from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the
B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (BC-CfE).****

** **

In their appeal, the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario argued that the
purpose of the prostitution-related provisions in the Criminal Code was to
eradicate prostitution by discouraging sex work, an argument forcefully
countered by Alan Young, a lawyer and professor at Osgoode Hall who
represented the applicants.  The Attorney General of Canada also argued that
the law was not the cause of, nor did it facilitate, the harm sex workers
face — an argument that did not seem to persuade the panel of judges.****

** **

Among the interveners, the coalition of PACE, SWUAV and Pivot was
particularly compelling because it represented the perspective of
street-based sex workers, upon whom the communicating provision has had a
tremendously harmful impact in terms of safety and health.  Counsel for
PACE, SWUAV and Pivot as well as Maggie’s and POWER also decried the
“asymmetrical” or “Swedish” model, whereby clients and employers of sex
workers continue to be criminalized but sex workers are not.  This argument,
also endorsed by the Legal Network and the BC-CfE, submits that the
asymmetrical approach fails to lessen or eliminate the risks to sex workers
exacerbated by the current provisions.  Under an asymmetrical regime, sex
workers would continue to be prevented from screening their clients by
negotiating in advance the terms of their transactions, since it would still
be illegal for clients to engage in these communications.  Also, sex workers
would still be prevented from working indoors, where the work is safer,
because the bawdy house law would apply to clients and others found on the
premises.  Additionally, it would still be illegal for sex workers to hire a
bodyguard or a driver, since these persons could be criminalized by the
living-on-the-avails provision. ****

** **

The Legal Network and the BC-CfE argued that, in addition to the violence to
which sex workers are subject as a result of the law, they are also
prevented from taking precautions to negotiate and practise safer sex.  The
communicating provision, for example, hampers sex workers’ ability to
negotiate condom use.  Even more broadly, the criminalization of
prostitution hinders sex workers’ access to health-care services, including
HIV testing, education, prevention, care, treatment and support.****

** **

The impact of the prostitution laws on the health and safety of sex workers
was a central theme at the Legal Network’s Symposium on HIV, Law and Human
Rights held June 9–10, where sex workers Émilie Laliberté (Stella) and Nikki
Thomas (Sex Professionals of Canada) and lawyers Elin Sigurdson (SWUAV) and
Alan Young were featured speakers.  The timely discussion helped inform the
pressing issue of “next steps” in the event of a positive or negative
decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal and, ultimately, the Supreme Court
of Canada.  The road ahead is long, but one thing is certain: there is no
shortage of passion, commitment and activism from sex workers and their
colleagues to change the law to protect and promote the human rights of all
sex workers.****

** **

* * * * * * * * * *****

** **

______________________________****

*Lindsey Amèrica-Simms*****

Outreach Coordinator | Coordinatrice du rayonnement****

Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network | Le Réseau juridique canadien VIH/sida****

416-595-1666 ext (poste) 236****

  www.aidslaw.ca | www.twitter.com/aidslaw ****

** **

"Litigating for Change" 3rd Symposium on HIV, Law and Human Rights -
REGISTER TODAY at http://www.aidslaw.ca/symposium ****

 ****

**
 ****  **

P
 **  **** ****  **           please don't print this e-mail unless you
really need to.****

           s.v.p. ne pas imprimer ce courriel à moins d’en avoir vraiment
besoin.****

** **
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/viva/attachments/20110621/15a974e3/attachment.html>