Victimized again

It’s déjà vu all over again; the government studies prostitution and nothing will happen.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee On Justice And Human Rights struck a subcommittee in 2004 on Canada’s solicitation laws. The members, drawn from all four governing parties, were to review the laws with an eye to improving the safety of sex workers, and to recommend changes that would reduce the violence and exploitation directed toward them.

A good start: Canada’s solicitation laws are a mess. Selling sex per se is not illegal. But most things surrounding it are criminalized. Communicating for the purposes of selling sex, operating a common bawdy house (a place where prostitution occurs), and living on the avails of prostitution are all illegal.

In its report the committee recognized that these laws are “contradictory.” Not bad either. In the portion of the report written by the majority — members of the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois parties — sexual activities between consenting adults that do not harm others should not be criminalized. Hallelujah. What a radical idea. No harm, no crime. But they did not make this statement a recommendation.

The majority recognized that prostitution, particularly street prostitution, has many potentially coercive and exploitative dimensions. But they refused to allow those dimensions to define the field as a whole. Rather, much of the report emphasized the two tiers of prostitution: street prostitution, where sex workers are subject to the worst forms of exploitation, violence and coercion, and other forms of prostitution, where consent and control of working conditions is possible.

But not the Conservatives. For them, prostitution is an evil that must be stamped out. All prostitution signals that “the commodification and invasive exploitation of a woman’s body is acceptable.” Prostitutes are victims, and all efforts must be made to get them out of prostitution. It is a kind of radical feminism 101: prostitution as inherently degrading and subordinating of women.

(Male and trans prostitutes get short shrift in the report. Only 10 lines acknowledge them, stating that male prostitutes are less likely to suffer violence from their clients, but more likely to be victims of violence by the public.)

The Conservative vision of women-as-victims comes with a punitive twist. Sure, let’s try to get women out of prostitution. But, if they don’t listen, watch out. First-time offenders, and those forced or coerced into prostitution would be given an opportunity to get out and avoid a criminal record. But “those who freely seek to benefit from the ‘business’ of prostitution would be held accountable for the victimization which results from prostitution as a whole.”

In other words, if a person chooses to be a sex worker, and quietly runs her business out of her house, she will be held responsible for all of the harms of prostitution.

And quite frankly, the majority opinion is not a whole lot better. Yes, it got the basic idea of decriminalizing consensual sex. But that’s it. It is virtually devoid on any concrete recommendations. After saying that the status quo is unacceptable, all they manage to do is recommend education campaigns and programs to stop people from entering prostitution and helping them to get out. They don’t even specify what kinds of programs.

 

This report is a classic example of best intentions on the road, if not to hell, then to purgatory. Some members of Parliament worked really hard on this, and came to believe that reform of Canada’s arcane prostitution laws is required. But their recommendations are vapid.

Add this to the fact that the Conservatives, with their patronizing, 19th-century views of sex and sexuality, run the government. So nothing will happen. The laws will remain the same, and sex workers, particularly those who work the street, will continue to be harassed and endangered by them, as they fend for themselves on hostile streets. What a waste. And a travesty.

Brenda Cossman

Brenda Cossman is a professor of law at the University of Toronto, the author of Sexual Citizens: The Legal and Cultural Regulation of Sex and Belonging (Stanford University Press) and a former board member of Pink Triangle Press, Xtra’s publisher.

Keep Reading

Karla Sofía Gascón as Emilia Perez in Emilia Perez. Gascón wears black with colourful embroidery, has long hair, and a brown purse and delicate chain.

Trans cartel musical ‘Emilia Pérez’ takes maximalist aesthetic to the extreme

REVIEW: The film’s existence raises intriguing questions about appropriate subjects for the playful machinations of French auteurs
Dorothy Allison sits behind a microphone. She has long, light-coloured hair and wears glasses and a patterned button-up shirt.

5 things to know about Dorothy Allison

The lesbian feminist writer passed on Nov. 6

‘Solemates’ is a barefoot stroll through the history of our fetish for feet

Queer historian Adam Zmith’s newest book allows us to dip our toes into the past of a common, yet stigmatized, kink

‘Masquerade’ offers a queer take on indulgence and ennui 

Mike Fu’s novel is a coming of age mystery set between New York and Shanghai