More than 220 legal experts have written an open letter to the prime minister asking that he reconsider his government’s new prostitution bill, just as hearings for the new legislation get underway in Ottawa.
The letter’s signatories, all experts in constitutional, criminal and public law, say that Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, will not make sex workers any safer than they were under the previous laws. And they say that the criminal charges laid out in the bill violate sex workers’ Charter rights, and will increase their risk of exposure to violence.
The group released the letter Monday morning, just as the House of Commons justice committee opened hearings on the new bill in a special parliamentary session.
Related Stories
Don't make prostitutes criminals, Manitoba's attorney general urges
Government open to amending proposed prostitution law, Peter MacKay says
Photos
Supreme Court of Canada
Sex workers, lawyers and other stakeholders have criticized the bill, which Justice Minister Peter MacKay unveiled last month. The new bill comes after the Supreme Court struck down three provisions in Canada’s prostitution laws last December saying they violated sex workers’ Charter right to security of the person, and gave the government one year to re-write them.
MacKay has urged Parliament to pass the legislation quickly, but has indicated he is open to amendments.
The letter is especially critical of three areas of Bill C-36: the prohibitions on purchasing sex, public communication and advertising. The previous prostitution laws were struck down, the experts write, because they “were found to create and exacerbate dangerous conditions and prevent sex workers from taking action to reduce or mitigate the risks they face.
“We are concerned that, for the very same reasons that caused the Court to strike down these prostitution laws, the criminal regime proposed by Bill C-36 is likely to offend the Charter as well.”
Here is a closer look at the three provisions the experts find troubling, and what the government says about them.
The prohibition on purchasing sexual services
The federal government has defended its new legislation by arguing that it is cracking down on johns and pimps because their activities are both harmful to women and society in general. The provisions are also meant to reduce the demand for sexual services and protect sex workers from exploitation.
The legal experts write in their letter, however, that the prohibition on purchasing sexual services and communicating for that purpose “will have much the same effect as existing adult prostitution laws.
“Targeting clients will displace sex workers to isolated areas where prospective customers are less likely to be detected by police.”
The provision will inhibit sex workers’ ability to screen clients or negotiate terms due to pressure from clients to “proceed as quickly as possible.” Sex workers will also be prevented from working in a “safe, indoor space” because clients will not go there over fear of being arrested.
Recent research suggests that rather than protect sex workers’ safety, criminalizing clients in fact “creates the conditions for violence, abuse, and human rights violations,” lawyer Elin Sigurdson said in a statement.
Prohibition on advertising
The prohibition on advertising from the sex industry is also problematic, the experts write, arguing that it will “significantly limit sex workers’ ability to work safely indoors” by restricting their ability to communicate with potential clients.
This is “concerning,” they write, because the laws that were struck down in December “clearly found that the ability to operate in indoor venues is a key measure for sex workers to reduce the risk of violence.”
When the Supreme Court handed down its decision last December, it said that the prohibition against operating a bawdy house violated sex workers’ Charter rights to be able to ensure their own safety, lawyer Sandra Ka Hon Chu said in a statement.
The top court “was very clear that the bawdy house law, which had the same effect of depriving sex workers of access to safer indoor environments, violated their fundamental constitutional rights,” Chu said.
Selling sex in public
The new legislation also prohibits the communication of sexual services in a public space where someone under the age of 18 “could reasonably be expected to be found.”
The provision, the government said, was meant to protect children who may be exposed to prostitution in their home or community and prevent such transactions to take place in places like residential communities and public parks.
But the provision further marginalizes street-based sex workers, “who are among the most marginalized segment of the industry,” the experts counter in their letter.
Like the above-mentioned provisions, this element of the new bill will also push sex workers to isolated areas where they are more likely to work alone and “rush into vehicles” without properly screening clients or negotiating terms.
Open Letter on Bill C-36
Read more:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pros...ter-legal-experts-say-1.1902206#ixzz36pzt0LLo
