Sex work is (NOT) work!
Sex work is (NOT) work!
I saw a trend on Twitter the other day that said sex work is work! I, of course, had to check into why this was trending and what was being said because I have to strongly disagree that sex work is work.
I don't care how long being a sex worker aka hooker, prostitute, etc... has been around. It's NOT working! It's not a career or a "job." I don't know how anyone can say that it is. It's not like your child wakes up one day and says I want to be a hooker when I grow up like they do wanting to be a doctor, lawyer, firefighter, etc... Most people who end up in the sex worker trade do so because they're forced into it one way or another; either because they're homeless, runaways, addicted to some kind of drug, forced into the sex trade, or something else. It's not something someone wakes up and decides they want to do for a living.
Here is a history of prostitutes:
Current laws on sex work, introduced by the Conservative government in 2014, make it illegal to purchase or advertise sexual services and illegal to live on the material benefits from sex work. Although it is legal to sell sexual services, in some cases it is illegal to solicit in public areas.
It is the first time in Canadian history that the exchange of sexual services for money is made illegal. The Canadian Department of Justice, claims that the new legal framework "reflects a significant paradigm shift away from the treatment of prostitution as 'nuisance', as found by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bedford, toward treatment of prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation that disproportionately and negatively impacts on women and girls". Many sex workers' rights organizations, however, argue that the new law entrenches and maintains harm against sex workers since sex workers are still committing a crime, albeit there is an immunity from arrest for material benefits and advertising.
The new laws came in response to the Canada (AG) v Bedford ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, which found to be unconstitutional the laws prohibiting brothels, public communication for the purpose of prostitution and living on the profits of prostitution. The ruling gave the Canadian parliament 12 months to rewrite the prostitution laws with a stay of effect so that the current laws remain in force. Amending legislation came into effect on December 6, 2014, which made the purchase of sexual services illegal.
There has long been a general agreement that the status quo of prostitution in Canada was problematic, but there has been little consensus on what should be done. There is an ideological disagreement between those who want to see prostitution eliminated (prohibitionism), generally because they view it either as an exploitative or unacceptable part of society, and those advocating decriminalization because they view sex workers as having agency and prostitution as a transaction; they also believe prohibition encourages the exploitation of sex workers by denying them legal and regulatory protections. The term "sex work" is used interchangeably with "prostitution" in this article, in accordance with the World Health Organisation (WHO 2001; WHO 2005) and the United Nations (UN 2006; UNAIDS 2002). The Conservative majority Government of Canada, however, was committed to a prohibitionist position, as was laid out in its new legislation introduced in 2014.
While the act of exchanging sex for money has been legal for most of Canada's history, the prohibition of the activities surrounding the sex trade has made it difficult to practice prostitution without breaking any law. This is the first time that the exchange of sexual services for money is made illegal.
Canada inherited laws from the United Kingdom. The first recorded laws dealing with prostitution were in Nova Scotia in 1759. Following Canadian Confederation in 1867, the laws were consolidated in the Criminal Code in 1892. These dealt principally with pimping, procuring, operating brothels and soliciting. Most amendments to date have dealt with the latter; originally classified as a vagrancy offense, this was amended to soliciting in 1972 and communicating in 1985. Since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms became law, the constitutionality of Canada's prostitution laws has been challenged on a number of occasions, successfully so in 2013, leading to a new legislative approach introduced in 2014.
Before the provisions were struck down, the Criminal Code made the following unlawful:
- owning, managing, leasing, occupying, or being found in a bawdy house, as defined in Section 197 (Section 210) declared invalid by the Ontario Court of Appeal, March 2012.
- transporting anyone to a bawdy house (Section 211)
- procuring (Section 212)
- Living on the avails of prostitution declared invalid by the Ontario Court of Appeal, March 2012, except in circumstances of exploitation
- paying for sex with anyone under the age of 18 (Section 212[4])
- communication in a public place for the purposes of prostitution (Section 213)
- and transporting someone for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation (Section 279). This does not specify for any particular purpose, such as sexual exploitation
On March 26, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down part of two provisions, subject to appeal, and the declaration is not in effect. An appeal was lodged with the Supreme Court of Canada on April 25, 2012, including an extension of the stay in effect. Lawyers for the respondents pointed out that the last-minute appeal left them little time to respond.
The activities related to sex work that are prohibited by law include operating a premises (sexual services establishment or brothel) where such activities take place, being found in such an establishment, procuring for such purposes, and communicating such services (soliciting) in a public place, making it difficult to engage in prostitution without breaking any law. Automobiles are considered public spaces if they can be seen. On the other hand, working as an independent sex worker and private communication for such purposes (telephone, internet, e-mail, etc.) is legal. This ambivalence can cause confusion leading to one judge referring to the laws as 'Alice-in-Wonderland' and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court referred to the situation as "bizarre":
The legal situation has also been challenged in the rulings of two courts in Ontario in Bedford v. Canada—the respondents/appellants are sex worker activists Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch, and Valerie Scott—which described the laws as 'ancient' and emphasized that the purpose of the laws was not to eradicate prostitution but to mitigate harms emanating from it: "We are satisfied that the challenged provisions are not aimed at eradicating prostitution, but only some of the consequences associated with it, such as disruption of neighborhoods and the exploitation of vulnerable women by pimps." OCA at 169
In a dissenting opinion (2:3) regarding the potential harm of the laws, the appellate justices wrote:
'Prostitution' is not defined in Canadian statute law, but is based on case law which deems that three elements are necessary to establish that prostitution is taking place: (i) provision of sexual services, (ii) the indiscriminate nature of the act (soliciting rather than choosing clients), and (iii) the necessity for some form of payment.
On October 25, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal Bedford's decision. The court also granted the motion to stay the Ontario Court of Appeal decision until the judgement is passed, meaning that the Criminal Code sections at stake were still in force in Ontario. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlan wrote:
In a decision dated December 20, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the laws in question. They delayed the enforcement of their decision for one year—also applicable to the Ontario sections—to give the government a chance to write new laws. Following the announcement of the decision, Valerie Scott stated in the media that, regardless of the decision, sex workers must be involved in the process of constructing the new legislation: "The thing here is politicians, though they may know us as clients, they do not understand how sex work works. They won't be able to write a half-decent law. It will fail. That's why you must bring sex workers to the table in a meaningful way."
In response, Peter MacKay, the Minister of Justice, introduced amending legislation, C-36, the "Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act" on June 4, 2014, which received first reading. It came into effect on December 6, 2014. The act is criticized by sex workers who believe that it is worse for their safety than the previous law because it forces the sex industry further underground.
Constitutional and case law
The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues (whether a jurisdiction, such as a Provincial Government or municipality, has the powers to legislate on the matter).
In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the law which bans public solicitation of prostitution, arguing that the law had the goal to abolish prostitution, which was a valid goal. Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1 of Criminal Code, (the Prostitution Reference), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on prostitution. The Court held that, although the Criminal Code provision that prohibited communication for the purpose of engaging in prostitution was in violation of the right to freedom of expression, it could be justified under section 1 of the Charter and so it was upheld. The majority found, with a 5:2 split and both women dissenting, that the purpose of eliminating prostitution was a valid goal and that the provision was rationally connected and proportional to that goal. Accordingly, the provision was upheld.
In 2010, a decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Bedford v. Canada held that the key provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with prostitution (Keeping a bawdy house; Living off the avails; Soliciting or Communicating for the purpose) were invalid, but a stay of effect was put in place. This was appealed by the crown resulting in a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal on March 26, 2012. That court upheld the lower court's ruling on bawdy houses, modified the ruling on living on the avails to make exploitation a criminal offense, but reversed the decision on soliciting, holding that the effect on communities justified the limitation. Two of the five judges dissented from the last ruling, stating that the law on solicitation was not justifiable. The court continued a stay of the effect of a further twelve months on the first provision and thirty days on the second.
Both parties had up to sixty days to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and on April 25, the federal government stated it would do so. On October 25, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the appeal. The Supreme Court also agreed to hear a cross-appeal by sex-trade workers on the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision to ban solicitation. The Supreme Court of Canada heard the case on June 13, 2013, and overturned all restrictions on sex work, ruling that a ban on solicitation and brothels violated prostitutes' rights to safety.
Meanwhile, a related challenge was mounted in British Columbia in 2007 but did not proceed due to a procedural motion by the Attorney General of Canada seeking dismissal on the grounds of lack of standing by the litigants. This was upheld by the BC Supreme Court in 2008 but successfully appealed in 2010. The Attorney General then appealed this decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada who released their decision on September 21, 2012. They dismissed the appeal enabling the case to once again proceed in the court of the first instance.
The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics report Street Prostitution in Canada (1993) stated that police activity is mainly directed at the street level. Over 10,000 prostitution-related incidents were reported in 1992; 95% communicating offenses and 5% bawdy-house and pimping offenses.
In 1997, they reported a sharp increase in the number of prostitution-related incidents recorded by the police for 1995, following two years of decline. Since these are police figures they are just as likely to reflect enforcement rather than the actual activity.[31] The report also stated that in the period 1991-5, 63 known prostitutes were murdered (5% of all women killed in Canada).[13]
Separate reports have not been published since but included in Crime Statistics in Canada. Data from the 2007 report show 5,679 offences in 2006 (17/100,000 population), and 4,724 in 2007 (14). This translates into a change in -17.6% between 2006 and 2007, and -27.6% between 1998 and 2007.[32]
Other
The exact number of people in sex work is not known since this cannot be collected reliably. Estimates vary widely and should be interpreted with caution.
About 10% to 33% of all prostitutes have been estimated to work primarily outside, and are thus more visible.[33] The 2006 Subcommittee on Solicitation estimated 5-20%.[5]
According to some estimates, most sex workers are young women (average 22-25), who began working between 16 and 20, most are single, and estimates of the number of prostitutes who have children suggest this is between 30-70%. In some field studies, 62% of prostitutes in Vancouver, 50% in Toronto, and 69% in Montréal claimed that they worked for themselves, while the presence and influence of pimps were more extensive in the Maritimes and on the Prairies. Drug use has been found to vary substantially by region and gender: it is highest in the Atlantic provinces, lowest in Québec, and appears to be a problem for the men more than the women. However, all these figures need to be interpreted with caution and compared to the general population.[33]
A 1998 poll suggested 7% of Canadian men have paid for sex at least once in their life.[34] This is much lower than in the United States, wherein 1994, 18% of men stated they had paid for sex[35] and 15% in 2004.[36] However, these polls cannot be directly compared because the questions asked in each were not identical.
Street 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.[37]
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, the communication law has not altered the extent of street-based sex work, but merely displaced it, often to more dangerous locations.[7] 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'.[5]
Prostitution issues by province
While sex work exists in all cities, one that has received a large amount of publicity is Vancouver[38] due to poor socio-economic conditions in the Downtown Eastside, and the murder of a large number of women working in the sex trade, a disproportionate number of whom were aboriginal. "Body rub parlours" may be establishments in which sex work takes place, which would be illegal under bawdy house and communicating laws. Vancouver's milder climate may favour street prostitution. However sex workers and their support services in Vancouver have been very organised and vocal in responding to media criticisms.[39][40][41][42] They have an uneasy relationship with the police.[43][44] British Columbia has also been the area of Canada where most research has been carried out.
The murders of 60+ sex workers, most of whom were Indigenous, from the downtown eastside of Vancouver in the 1990s and subsequent trials focussed national attention on the safety of sex workers under current legislation, which eventually led to court cases challenging the constitutionality of those laws. These trials did not focus on the overrepresentation of Indigenous women and girls in street sex and trafficking trade which has been largely attributed to three main root causes: gender inequality, a subordinate place in settler-colonial society, and targeted violence; thus when paired with the racism aimed at the Indigenous population by the settler-colonial society, a violent attitude towards the bodies of Indigenous street workers is accepted. In 2011, a public inquiry into missing and murdered women again drew attention to the interaction between safety and legislation.[45][46][47] It is most likely that Pickton was able to kill those women, specifically because they'd been displaced from the Downtown core in the "stroll" bounded by Helmcken Street north Seymour to Nelson, east to Richards and south to Helmcken Street to the industrial area in the Downtown Eastside.
In 2012, a young Victoria man was convicted on charges relating to the prostitution of a child online. He was sentenced to three years in prison.[48]
Prostitution and health
A study was reported as showing that 26% of Vancouver's female sex workers were infected with HIV and that Vancouver's overall prevalence of HIV was about 1.21%, six times higher than the national rate. Dr. Patricia Daly, chief medical health officer for Vancouver Coastal Health, was quoted as saying "Our message has always been that you should assume sex trade workers are HIV positive". This remark was criticized as offensive and inaccurate. The subsequent correspondence showed this figure to be misleading. The data actually represented injectable drug users attending health services. With more health-related problems in middle age groups[49]
Saskatchewan's HIV problems have received some publicity when health authorities blamed injectable drug users (IDU) and street sex workers in 2009. However, HIV is uncommon amongst sex workers unless they are also IDUs and the Regina Street Workers Advocacy Project was critical of statements that demonized one group.[50]
Prostitution and minors
Child prostitution is illegal, but there are community concerns that it is a growing problem. While expansive claims have been made as to its extent, expert reports conclude that such estimates cannot be relied upon. For instance, a 2002 report of the Justice Institute of British Columbia states that "Because of the illicit nature of commercial sexual exploitation, there is no way to accurately measure the number of children and youth being commercially sexually exploited. Estimates of the number of commercially sexually exploited children and youth in Canada vary greatly."[51]
Federal initiatives
The Criminal Code was amended in 1988 to include child sexual abuse, and linking juvenile prostitution to the “procuring” section. In 1995, the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Prostitution stated that these provisions “have been ineffective in bringing customers and pimps of youths involved in prostitution to justice.” They reported that charges under these provisions were rare and that juvenile prostitutes and their clients continued to be charged under the general summary conviction offense prohibiting street prostitution, as with adults. Enforcement problems resulted from the reluctance of youths to testify against pimps, and the difficulty of apprehending clients.
Alberta[edit]
Alberta's Child Welfare Act (1997) added the purchase of sex from someone under 18 as child abuse, with fines up to $2,000 and/or six months in jail in addition to Criminal Code penalties.
The Protection of Children Involved in Prostitution Act (February 1999) provided that a child wanting to exit prostitution may access community support programs, but if not could be apprehended by police. They could then be confined for up to 72 hours in a protective safe house, where they can receive emergency care, treatment, assessment, and planning. Customers and pimps can be charged with child sexual abuse and fined up to $25,000, 2 years jail or both.
However, in July 2000, the law was ruled unconstitutional. The Provincial Court determined that it did not respect a child’s legal rights because it lacked the “procedural safeguards” to allow youth the right to answer allegations or seek a judicial appeal. But in December the Court of Queen’s Bench quashed this. Nevertheless, the government had already introduced amendments ensuring that when a child is confined they be informed in writing as to why they were being confined, its duration, court dates and the right to legal representation. The child is also given an opportunity to contact Legal Aid and that they may request a court review of the confinement.
Amendments were also made to enable children to receive additional care and support, including extending the confinement period for up to five days and allowing for authorities to apply for a maximum of two additional confinement periods of up to 21 days each.
Recruitment
A 2002 British Columbia Government report[54] stated that some children end up in prostitution after running away from home, where they may have been victims of physical and/or sexual abuse. The report cited as causes of commercial sexual exploitation of children factors such as social isolation; low self-esteem; a dysfunctional family where violence and substance misuse were common; neglect; early sexual abuse or other traumatizing experience; dropping out of school; hidden disabilities, including Fetal Alcohol Syndrome—factors which pushed children into prostitution. Many children had a history of provincial care in a foster or group home or living on their own, but some youth from well-functioning families had left home after a traumatic event becoming at risk of sexual exploitation once on the street. Some children came from families where prostitution was practiced by other members, or from communities where prostitution was common.
They found that some children were preyed upon by pimps who may slowly gain their trust, befriend them and provide them with food, accommodation, and clothes before hooking them on drugs and alcohol and forcing them into sexual service. However, only a small proportion was found to be controlled in this manner, and older girls frequently introduced younger ones into the trade. Some pimps were considered as boyfriends, the report found. Pimps may use romantic techniques to seduce young girls. Where pimps appeared to be involved in recruitment, they worked in areas where young people congregate such as food courts in malls, community centers, and schools, preferring unsupervised venues including fast-food restaurants and bus stops but also supervised locations including drop-in programs, group homes, juvenile detention centers, youth shelters, and treatment centers. Runaway children are easily spotted by pimps at the bus and train stations of major Canadian cities.
Human trafficking in persons
In the early 1990s, the pressure was building for action on the sexual exploitation of foreign children by Canadian tourists traveling abroad, even though the extent was unknown, leading to the introduction of a number of private member's bills.
C-27 (1996) amended s. 7 of the Criminal Code to address this. s. 7(4.1) extended its extraterritorial provisions to 11 sexual and sex-related offenses against minors (but does not specify the purchase of sex), and applies Canadian law to foreign jurisdictions.
Following enactment of C-27 in 1997, the Department of Justice was involved in the development of the United Nations’ Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and Canada became a signatory in November 2001 (in force as of January 2002). At the same time, C-15 simplified such prosecutions that had previously distinguished between prostitution and other forms of sexual abuse.[13]
In 2009, Joy Smith introduced Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offenses involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). This Bill amended Section 279.01 of Canada’s Criminal Code to create a new offense for child trafficking with a five-year mandatory penalty. Bill C-268 has received broad support from stakeholders concerned with human trafficking including law enforcement, victims’ services, First Nations representatives, and religious and secular non-governmental organizations. MP Joy Smith worked with her colleagues across party lines to gain support for the legislation. On September 30, 2009, Bill C-268 received near-unanimous support from Conservative, Liberal and NDP parties and was passed by the House of Commons, although opposed by the Bloc Québécois. On June 29, 2010, Bill C-268 was granted Royal Assent and became law. The successful passage of a Private Members Bill is rare and it is only the 15th time in the history of Canada that a Private Members Bill amended the Criminal Code.
Prostitution is not a job. The inside of a woman’s body is not a workplace!!
One of the most persuasive myths about prostitution is that it is “the oldest profession”. Feminist abolitionists, who wish to see an end to the sex trade, call it “the oldest oppression” and resist the notion that prostitution is mere “a job like any other”.
Now it would appear that the New Zealand immigration service has added “sex work” (as prostitution is increasingly described) to the list of “employment skills” for those wishing to migrate. According to information on Immigration NZ’s (INZ) website, prostitution appears on the “skilled employment” list, but not the “skill shortage” list. My research on the sex trade has taken me to a number of countries around the world, including New Zealand. Its sex trade was decriminalized in 2003 and has since been hailed by pro-prostitution campaigners as the gold standard model in regulating prostitution.
The promises from the government – that decriminalization would result in less violence, regular inspections of brothels and no increase of the sex trade – have not materialized. The opposite has happened. Trafficking of women into New Zealand into legal and illegal brothels is a serious problem, and for every licensed brothel, there are, on average, four times the number that operates illegally. Violent attacks on women in the brothels are as common as ever. “The men feel even more entitled when the law tells them it is OK to buy us,” says Sabrina Valise, who was prostituted in New Zealand brothels both before and after decriminalization. Under legalization, women are still murdered by pimps and punters.
When prostituted women become “employees”, and part of the “labor market”, pimps become “managers” and “business entrepreneurs”, and the punters are merely clients. Services helping people to exit are irrelevant because who needs support to get out of a regular job? Effectively, governments wash their hands off women under legalization because, according to the mantra, “It is better than working at McDonald’s.” As one sex-trade survivor told me, “At least when you work at McDonald’s you’re not the meat.”
If prostitution is work, will states create training programmes for girls to perform the 'best oral sex'
The decision to include prostitution as an “employment skill” is a green light for pimps to populate brothels to meet the increased male demand for the prostitution of the most vulnerable women.
The practice of using human bodies as a marketplace has been normalized under the neoliberal economic system. Supporting the notion that prostitution is “labor” is not a progressive or female-friendly point of view. I have investigated the breast milk trade in Cambodia, where wealthy American businessmen recruit pregnant women and pay them a pittance for their milk. I have seen desperately hungry men outside hospital blood banks in India, offering to sell their blood in exchange for food. Girls in Ukraine sell “virgin” blonde hair for use as extensions in western salons. It is increasingly common to “rent a womb” from women in the global south to carry a baby on behalf of privileged westerners.
In the Netherlands, which legalized its sex trade in 2000, it is perfectly legal for driving instructors to offer lessons in return for sex, as long as the learner drivers are over the age of 18.
Under legalization in Germany, one government-funded NGO, described on its website as a “counseling center for sex workers”, offers training for women to become “sexual assistant surrogate partnerships” when they decide to leave prostitution. The training focuses on how “sex workers” can help disabled people to explore their sexuality. Providing prostitution services, which is what it is, to men who are ill or disabled is a bit like the “meals on wheels” service, and clearly considered to be a public service. In other legalized regimes, such as Denmark and Australia, prostitution is available for men on the public health system. Perhaps an inevitable conclusion is that carers working with physically disabled couples, where there is a medium to severe level of mobility impairment, are asked to facilitate sex between them – for example, the carer may be expected to insert the penis of one into an orifice of the other.
Any government that allows the decriminalization of pimping and sex-buying sends a message to its citizens that women are vessels for male sexual consumption. If prostitution is “work”, will state create training programs for girls to perform the “best oral sex” for sex buyers? Instead of including prostitution as a so-called option in its immigration policies, New Zealand should investigate the harms, including sexual violence, that women in prostitution endure.
If prostitution is “sex work”, then by its own logic, rape is merely theft. The inside of a woman’s body should never be viewed as a workplace.
Comments
Post a Comment