It’s not a scene you see everyday: A former sex worker is sitting at a table, sharing her experiences of violence in the sex trade with a law enforcement officer and a nun over coffee and cake. Free and uninhibited discussion flows back and forth, as all parties try to think of ways to reduce the risks associated with the sex trade.
Mount Saint Vincent University and Stepping Stone co-hosted “Green Light, Red Light: Regulating Sex Work in Halifax,” bringing diverse community members together last Friday for a conference and roundtable discussion about how to regulate sex work in Halifax.
“I never thought five years ago, when I started at Stepping Stone, that we would be sitting in the room with all these players,” remarked Rene Ross, the executive director of the non-profit organization that advocates for the health and safety of those in the sex trade. “We’ve come so far.”
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in September that the laws surrounding sex work were unconstitutional, forcing sex workers to choose between their liberty and their right to security. The Federal government plans to appeal this decision June 13, arguing that the law has no obligation to protect those working in the underground industry. If the appeal fails, the regulation of sex work could fall into the hands of the municipalities.
Lawyer Alan Young, who represents Terri Bedford (the dominatrix who first challenged the legislation surrounding sex work in Ontario), spoke to a packed conference room in Halifax Friday:
“What we have right now doesn’t work,” said Young bluntly. “The law does way more harm than good.”
While selling sex is not illegal in itself, the Canadian Criminal Code prohibits the activities surrounding sex work. This includes communicating for the purposes of sex work, living off the avails of sex work and operating a bawdy house.
Deborah, a woman who has worked for decades in the sex industry, told conference goers that navigating Canada’s sex trade laws has often endangered her on the job.
The law forbids sex workers to discuss the transaction of sex for money with clients: “If I were out working and I had a potential client, I would have to jump into that vehicle very quickly,” said Deborah (who requested media not use her last name). She wondered whether or not some murdered sex workers might still be alive today “if they were able to take that couple of seconds to make sure that there wasn’t another person in the back and to make sure that that guy wasn’t sitting on a knife that he could hold to your throat.”
Conference goers discussed the ways in which sex work could be regulated differently, studying models from countries such as New Zealand, where voluntary sex work is decriminalized. Were the Federal government’s June appeal to fail, the people who ought to help draft new regulations are “the sex workers themselves,” stressed Young “and the communities that have to deal with the trade.”
This article appears in May 26 – Jun 1, 2011.
Here’s an idea. I know some will argue to the death with me and I’m not calling anyone down.
DON’T ENTER THE SEX TRADE WILLINGLY!!!!!!! If you don’t like violence, being assaulted or things of that nature. Then go work at Tim Hortons, it’s just a little safer. You DO have a choice. I do not want my tax dollars helping prostitutes. I’m sorry. Do not fund technical criminals.
While I may agree with the above statement somewhat, about “Tim Horton’s being a little safer”, you are making the point even stronger for those of us who are fighting for the decriminalization of sex work. If we can change the laws and society’s way of disregarding sex workers as humans, then we can begin to make it safer for those in the trade. Much of the violence continues because sex workers are treated as criminals and considered disposable. Many who have killed sex workers, when asked why they chose their victims, have responded by saying that prostitutes were easy targets, and that they probably wouldn’t be noticed. So in fact, decriminalizing sex work would help take away this idea.
You said above that you don’t want your tax dollars helping prostitutes. Do you protest the strip clubs? The porn industry? The internet?
And your words, “technical criminals”, is exactly correct, TECHNICAL!!!!!!
@HaliMike So instead you’d rather your tax dollars go towards arresting and imprisoning sex workers just trying to make a living? It is very expensive to fund moral laws. Regulation will always be cheaper. But then again, it won’t give you the high horse that you feel you need.
When Tim Hortons pays a liveable wage, I’ll consider working there.
There’s a reason why its called the world’s oldest profession. And blaming the sex workers for being victims is as bad as the Ontario cop who told women not to dress like sluts if they want to avoid getting raped. Blame the perpetrator, NOT the victim.
And decriminialization opens up a vast amount of possibilities: safer workplaces for the professionals, safer environments for the clients to go, because, let’s face it, if regulated by any form of government, its likely going to be licensed and taxed as much as possible. Such as, for example, required STD testing for workers to maintain their “license” to operate, which, if effected, would make it safer for the clients. Legal operation of bawdy houses would improve the safety and sanitary conditions for all.
Not to mention all those taxes and fees our wonderful governments are likely to come up with. And income tax. Hmmm, seems like a win-win situation for all to me. Sex workers have better and safer working conditions, sex-work clients have better and safer ( and hopefully in time less stigmatized) conditions and the government coffers get a few more dollars.
Eviljo and Lilith: No amount of propaganda or legalization is going to take away the stigma from prostitution. There is a terrible need for liberals like yourselves to conceive of prostitutes as some kind of victim, in order that they can be considered blameless, and therefore worthy of ‘caring’ liberal sympathy.
While I strongly disagree with Stepping Stone’s pro-legalization stand, they do a great job of reminding people that it’s not necessarily drug or sexual abuse that makes people become prostitutes. Prostitutes are human beings. They have the capacity for rationale thought. They stay involved in prostitution for a variety of reasons, ranging from stupidity to addiction and, yes, because it pays better than minimum wage.
Despite what you think, you can have sympathy for prostitutes while condemning what they do. You can still believe prostitutes don’t deserve to get murdered AND that the practice of prostitution is immoral (it is), that it is degrading to women (it is), that it encourages women to be conceived as objects (it does), and that it harms communities (that too), and encourages human trafficking (it really does that one). You can still believe that the women (and men, for that matter) who do it deserve to be punished.
Just because a crime is popular and profitable doesn’t mean it should stop being a crime. Indeed, I can think of many more crimes that are actually less harmful to communities than prostitution. Making it legal may or not make it safer–but it won’t make it any better.
Ah prostitution. The only vice where the “pusher” manages to engender more sympathy than the “addict”. Now, why do you suppose that is?
Rhetorical question. I’m sure there are a multitude of facile Wimmin’s Studies 101 rationizations. Save them for your next Take Back The Night march