Quote:

 

Canadian judge strikes down prostitution lawBy Emanuella Grinberg, CNNSeptember 29, 2010 1:24 a.m. EDT

Canada
(CNN) -- Key provisions of Canada's prostitution law were struck down Tuesday by an Ontario judge who said they endangered the people they were meant to protect.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himel sided with three sex workers who argued that restrictions on prostitution in Canada's Criminal Code forced them onto the streets to conduct business under threats of arrest and violence.

The constitutional challenge dealt with three provisions that prohibit keeping a common bawdy house, or brothel, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade.

For Valerie Scott, one of the sex workers named in the lawsuit, the case was about the "blatant hypocrisy" of Canadian law.

"In theory, I can't be arrested simply for being a known prostitute, but practicing the profession is illegal," said Scott, 52. "I file income tax as a sex worker... I have that responsibility, but I don't have the rights that come with the responsibility."

Scott has worked on the streets, in massage parlors and as an exotic dancer since her teens. She said she and the other women named in the suit -- Terri-Jean Bedford and Amy Lebovitch -- raised the challenge on behalf of sex workers who want to operate legitimate businesses, complete with zoning permits and workers' compensation.

"When I began all this I just wanted to be a sex worker, but I recognized pretty clearly and quickly that in order to be so, I have to change the laws of the country, and it's a big job," Scott said. "I never thought I'd spend my afternoons studying company law and income tax, municipal zoning regulations."

In the ruling, Himel noted that even though the act of prostitution is not illegal in Canada, "Parliament has seen fit to criminalize most aspects of prostitution," effectively infringing upon sex workers' constitutional rights.

Read the judge's decision (PDF)

"These laws, individually and together, force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of person as protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Himel wrote in a 132-page decision. "I find that the danger faced by prostitutes greatly outweighs any harm which may be faced by other members of the public."

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson expressed concern over the ruling and said the government was "seriously considering" an appeal.

"The government of Canada is committed to the health and safety of all Canadians and the well-being of our communities. We will fight to ensure that the criminal law continues to address the significant harms that flow from prostitution to both communities and the prostitutes themselves, along with other vulnerable persons," he said in a statement.

The ruling is set to take effect in 30 days, and it will only apply to Ontario until the Canada Supreme Court issues a ruling in the matter, said Alan Young, a lawyer for the sex workers.

The York University law school professor launched the lawsuit in an effort to bring Canada's policies in line with countries like New Zealand and Australia, where prostitution has been decriminalized.

"Our position was if you remove certain legal provisions, you can conduct sex work in a safer way," he said.

Even so, Scott said the ruling was completely unexpected.

"We're not used to good news. We had several different press releases prepared but we didn't even bother to write one where we won everything," said Scott, the executive director of Sex Professionals of Canada, which advocates for the decriminalization of prostitution.

"We didn't think it would be possible."

Witnesses for both sides agreed that all prostitution carries a risk of violence and significant social stigma, Himel wrote in her decision, summing up more than two years' worth of evidence, discovery and testimony in the case.

Key matters in dispute were whether indoor prostitution is safer than street prostitution and whether current laws did sex workers more harm than good, Himel wrote.

Lawyers for the applicants submitted affidavits from current and former sex workers who shared the view that prostitution conducted in indoor venues was generally safer than street prostitution. They described strategies for ensuring safety, from working in a familiar environment to verifying services, prices and contact information with clients before an encounter, according to the judge's decision.

The clandestine nature of prostitution forces sex workers to establish client contacts hastily and without opportunity to assess the situation, experts on behalf of the sex workers testified. Provisions in the law limited the places and ways in which prostitution could be practiced safely and led to reluctance to report robberies or attacks, witnesses for the applicants said.

Former and current sex workers speaking for the government told stories of violence and drug abuse perpetrated by pimps and johns, the judge wrote. Crown experts said that no form of prostitution is safe because it is an inherently harmful form of violence against women.

The judge also heard from police officers from across Canada with experience in enforcing prostitution-related provisions. They generally characterized sex workers as victims, commonly poverty-stricken and drug-addicted. Prostitution, the judge wrote, was generally described as a harmful activity with links to drugs, violence, organized crime and child exploitation.

Under cross-examination, the officers conceded that the level of violence on the street is worse than it is indoors, and that safety precautions can be taken in indoor locations to reduce violence, the judge noted.

Scott said she applied to the University of Toronto's business school with a business plan for running a brothel and was accepted. She plans to attend in April.

"I like the work, I like the people, I like the clients, I set my own hours, I set my own price structure, I call the shots with what I will and will not do," she said. "Personally, I took to sex work like a duck to water. If it's for you, if the person likes the job, it can be a very good job. And that's what it is -- a job. It's not a lifestyle."