Reworking Canada’s prostitution law

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 20/10/2014 (4248 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Within two months, Canada will have a new law that will fundamentally shift the country’s approach to prostitution, an issue that has long been ignored but is absolutely central to women’s equality.

It has proven to be a hot-button issue that engenders intense debate and diverse opinions even among organizations serving women.

Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, passed through the House of Commons recently and was sent to the Senate, where it is expected to be adopted without amendment. The legislation resembles the Nordic model adopted by Sweden and a few other Nordic countries.

The government-sponsored bill has been fast-tracked through the legislative process during the last several months. It is meant as a response to the Supreme Court’s Bedford decision, which found three Criminal Code provisions related to prostitution unconstitutional. The Supreme Court gave the federal government one year from Dec. 20, 2013 to pass a new law.

Women’s organizations and groups have taken a leading role in responding to the government’s legislation, and they have a diversity of views. On the one hand, we have those who, as with the Canadian Federation of University Women, support the Nordic model for prostitution (i.e. criminalizing the purchase of sex while decriminalizing the sale), but disagree with provisions of the bill that will criminalize the women who sell sex in some public spaces. On the other hand, there are many who adamantly oppose the criminalization of either the sale or purchase of sex and want to see the legislation rewritten completely.

Both are feminist perspectives on the issue, but differ significantly in their approach. Supporters of the Nordic model believe prostitution is inherently exploitative and a form of violence against women. Decriminalization proponents see prostitution as a legitimate form of work (i.e. the sex trade) that ought to be regulated like any other profession or industry.

Long before the Supreme Court decision was delivered last December, we knew these divisions existed. Some of us dreaded the infighting that would ensue publicly, but we knew the status quo was unacceptable and the debate had to take place to better protect women.

Others have chosen not to take a position, or have avoided taking a stance on the Criminal Code response. Instead, they are focusing on some of the broader concerns connected to women’s equality and the issue.

While we may not agree on Bill C-36, there are many points of consensus. We all agree the people selling sex, of whom the majority are women, should not be criminalized. Women’s organizations and groups have been unanimously against the provisions in Bill C-36 that will continue to criminalize the sale of sex in some public places. The government has softened these parts of the bill, but has not removed them entirely.

We also agree violence against women and girls must end and no woman should live in poverty, or be without safe, affordable and accessible housing, some of the economic drivers that make many women feel they have no choice.

Economic necessity is one of the main reasons women end up in the sex industry. The links with physical, sexual, emotional and financial violence are also ongoing realities. Again the views of women’s groups diverge on the best approach to these issues: Supporters of full decriminalization believe the solution lies in regulation and enforcement of health and safety standards; Nordic-model supporters would rather not see women put in these situations in the first place.

However, we would all agree, if Canada is to respond to this as a women’s equality issue, its response needs to include broader national strategies or plans to address women’s poverty, housing insecurity and violence against women and girls.

A criminal justice response alone is simply not enough.

With Bill C-36 now before the Senate, women’s organizations and feminists will surely continue to debate and disagree, but this debate is healthy — so far it has engendered a profound discussion on an issue that, too often, has been ignored. Our views have been heard, modifications have been made to the bill, and our shared desire to advance women’s equality remains.

Doris Mae Oulton is president of the Canadian Federation of University Women and CEO of Community and Youth Solutions. She is a former assistant deputy minister of Manitoba’s women’s directorate.