Decriminalization would provide a practical response to contemporary prostitution in Canada. The challenge is overcoming entrenched views on the subject

Barker, Jane E.

Tavcer, D. Scharie

English

Mount Royal University Institutional Repository (MRUIR)

7/2/2018 Finding a middle ground on prostitution
http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2018/ﬁnding-a-middle-ground-on-prostitution/ 1/6
I
Decriminalization would provide a practical
response to contemporary prostitution in Canada.
The challenge is overcoming entrenched views on
the subject.
(This article has been translated into French.)
f there was ever a topic within criminal justice that’s been hotly debated, it is prostitution.
People may become entrenched in their views because of their ideology regarding sex
work. These views can then be mapped onto a continuum of positions and beliefs about
prostitution. To the left are those who adhere to an abolitionist stance, while to the far right are
those who insist that legalization is the best approach. The main ideological perspective that
permeates a society often winds up dictating the provincial governments’ application of federal
laws, in the form of policies around the sex trade. This is indeed a challenge, but a workable
D. Scharie Tavcer, Jane Barker
May 4, 2018 
Finding a
middle
ground on
prostitution
7/2/2018 Finding a middle ground on prostitution
http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2018/ﬁnding-a-middle-ground-on-prostitution/ 2/6
middle ground is possible if governments and policy-makers are willing to invest in the short-
and long-term well-being of all their citizens.
The term “prostitution” is conceptualized as any act that involves the trade of sexual
service for money or some other form of payment. While prostitution itself was not illegal
in Canada until recently, the Criminal Code prohibited essentially every other activity
related to prostitution in public and private spheres. In the 2013 decision R. v. Bedford, the
Supreme Court struck down three sections [210, 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c)] of the Criminal Code,
noting that these sections violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
(which says that everyone has the right to security of the person). As a result, it was no longer
considered illegal to keep or be found in a common bawdy house, to live off the avails of
prostitution or to communicate in public for the purpose of prostitution. The Court stated:
The prohibitions…do not merely impose conditions on how prostitutes operate. They go a
critical step further, by imposing dangerous conditions on prostitution; they prevent people
engaged in a risky — but legal — activity from taking steps to protect themselves from the
risks.
As Glenn Betteridge and Joanne Csete noted in their 2016 report on sex work, because it was
illegal to engage in sex work in a public place (“communicating”) and because it was illegal to
be in a brothel or similar establishment (keeping or being found in a common bawdy house),
sex workers were forced into the dark alleys and margins of society, where they were easily
preyed upon. They were forced into debt servitude (at the hands of pimps and organized
crime), because it was illegal for sex workers to earn a living from sex work (“living on the
avails”), which was in fact a legal enterprise.
The federal government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, tabled legislation (Bill C-36) in
2014 in response to the Supreme Court ruling. Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and
Exploited Persons Act, came into force December 6, 2014. This legislation made the act of
purchasing a sexual service from another person illegal. Prostitution in Canada became illegal.
It’s interesting to note that the revised laws no longer use the term prostitution. What the Act
did was emulate the “Nordic model,” which views all prostitution as an exploitation of primarily
women and girls. The ideology behind this approach is to reduce the occurrence of prostitution
by penalizing the purchasers of sex and others who beneﬁt ﬁnancially from the prostitution of
others, such as pimps and organized crime. Although honourable in its intention, the legislation
falls short of supporting sex workers or protecting the most vulnerable. Sex workers lose
earnings and the ability to support themselves when clients stay away for fear of being
arrested. And those most vulnerable, the women and girls exploited and forced underground,
do not beneﬁt from the criminalization of clients because their industry of exploitation is already
hidden and in the shadows, away from police attention.
7/2/2018 Finding a middle ground on prostitution
http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2018/ﬁnding-a-middle-ground-on-prostitution/ 3/6
T he continuum of debate on prostitution reﬂects a spectrum of ideology and inﬂuences. Atthe far left are the abolitionists, while at the far right are those who favour legalization. In
between we have those who support the criminalization of sex work (mid-left) and those who
favour decriminalization (mid-right).
Melissa Farley, a clinical psychologist and a researcher in favour of abolition, noted in 2004
that harm (both psychological and physical) and violence are inherent to prostitution,
regardless of whether sex work is legal or illegal, decriminalized or regulated. This abolitionist
view holds that all sex work is abusive, victimizing and enslaving. The goal of the abolitionists
is to eradicate sex work entirely, and in so doing they refuse to accept the personal agency of
sex workers.
To criminalize aspects of prostitution is to make it illegal to sell or purchase sex or both. This
approach is rooted in the philosophy of abolition, with a moral ethos that buying and selling sex
is wrong and deserves punishment. Criminalizing prostitution means that society agrees there
is inherent harm in sex work and aims to prevent people from engaging in it by making all
related behaviours illegal. However, criminalizing all aspects of it does not address or eradicate
its causes.
Canada has partially adopted this approach. Harper’s Bill C-36 embodies the belief that all
prostitution is victimization and therefore all aspects deserve to be criminalized. Furthermore,
the approach views all sex workers as victims and deserving of protection. Bill C-36 has thus
decriminalized their behaviour. All of this is problematic because the Bill remains contradictory:
if a law opposes all aspects of prostitution, then it needs to develop an appropriate framework
for exactly that purpose.
Decriminalization seeks to ﬁnd a balance between supporting sex workers (with exit and/or
harm reduction programs) and reducing or eliminating exploitation and forced prostitution.
Those who advocate for decriminalization argue that criminalizing sex work marginalizes and
isolates sex workers and fosters and fuels violence. Making it illegal undermines the ability of
sex workers to access justice, to maintain health, to be protected under labour laws and to
embrace their sexual autonomy. However, decriminalization does not ensure that buyers of sex
are healthy and peaceful either.
Those supporting legalization deﬁne sex work as bona ﬁde work and believe it should be
subject to provincial and municipal workplace health and safety regulations, health care beneﬁt
requirements and conditions of licensing, and that income from it should be taxable. From this
perspective, those working in the sex trade are not considered victims or exploited persons.
Rather, advocates of legalization believe that sex work is a by-product of societies around the
world, and therefore it makes sense to legalize and regulate it. Arguments in favour of
legalization include the advantage to governments of earning revenue from business licences
and taxes, and a reduction in criminal elements and violence, which would in turn increase
7/2/2018 Finding a middle ground on prostitution
http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2018/ﬁnding-a-middle-ground-on-prostitution/ 4/6
T
health, safety and the agency of men and women. However, legalization would not
automatically jettison rapists and murderers, and it would not guarantee that all sex workers
would be able to work within the new system (because of mental illness, addiction and/or
infections and the like).
he continuum of prostitution encompasses many different points of view; an argument
could be made for either end or any point in between. However, what is realistic in
contemporary society? Abolition is an idealistic and unrealistic goal despite the parameters of
Bill C-36. That’s not because abolition isn’t possible, but because the government (and society)
does not wish to make long-term, sustainable investments in the myriad of social programs
necessary to tackle the causes of prostitution (poverty, addiction, mental illness, child abuse).
Widespread legalization and regulation are also unrealistic, if for no other reason than the fact
that each province has jurisdiction in the administration of justice. With competing ideologies
and changing governments, it would be near impossible for every province to adopt and apply
the same regulations. Furthermore, legalization would still exclude the most vulnerable. For
example, if we were to run a legitimate brothel that required us to pay taxes and ensure the
health and safety of our workers, we would want to hire women who have all of their teeth, who
do not have a debilitating mental illness, who are addiction-free and who are healthy. In reality,
there would still be many women who would not qualify to work in regulated brothels. Where do
they go then? The causes for their engagement in prostitution remain, and so they would be
relegated to the dangerous back alleys. In addition, society’s protection of the anonymity of
johns would not support a regulation that would require all brothel customers to prove they are
free of sexually transmitted infections.
So where does that leave us in Canada with our current legal framework? Somewhere in the
middle.
Although decriminalization does not encompass all supports and solutions, it would provide a
practical response to contemporary prostitution in Canada. The response would require a long-
term commitment from governments (beyond a four-year provincial term) to fund harm
reduction as well as exit programming and services across a broad spectrum (children and
youth, adults, medical health, psychological health, addiction and mental illness services, crisis
intervention programming, social services, peer support, security and safety, police training and
so on). It would require social acceptance that adults who freely choose prostitution deserve
employment rights, our respect and human rights protection. It would require that legislation
like Alberta’s Protection of Sexually Exploited Children Act, which arms police and social
services with the tools to combat child sexual exploitation, be adopted in every province and
territory along with police training and cross-agency support and communication. And
decriminalization would also require federal-level coordination of responses to sex trafﬁcking
within and across borders.
7/2/2018 Finding a middle ground on prostitution
http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2018/ﬁnding-a-middle-ground-on-prostitution/ 5/6
The policy work required to achieve decriminalization is substantial and multidimensional, but it
is not improbable to accomplish. Only if we demand it of our federal and provincial
governments (regardless of their position on the political continuum) might we see meaningful
change. Any such meaningful change must touch every aspect of prostitution (from the
exploited child to the sex worker with full self-agency, and every individual in between).
Solutions must include providing sex workers with legislated worker and human rights, and
solutions must concurrently address all exploitive causal factors (child abuse, mental illness,
addiction, poverty and others).
Portions of this article are drawn from J. Barker and D.S. Tavcer, Women and the Criminal
Justice System: A Canadian Perspective (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2018). 
This article is part of the Widening the Lens on Criminal Justice Reform special feature.
TORONTO — Various groups demonstrate in support of sex workers’ rights at Allen Gardens, June 13, 2015.
The Canadian Press.
Do you have something to say about the article you just read? Be part of the Policy
Options discussion, and send in your own submission. Here is a link on how to do it.
| Souhaitez-vous réagir à cet article ? Joignez-vous aux débats d’Options politiques et
soumettez-nous votre texte en suivant ces directives.
D. Scharie Tavcer, Jane Barker
May 4, 2018 
7/2/2018 Finding a middle ground on prostitution
http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2018/ﬁnding-a-middle-ground-on-prostitution/ 6/6
HOT
TOPICS
Economy
Education
Environment
Global
Affairs
Health
Indigenous
Law
Media &
culture
Policy-
making
Politics
Science
&
Technology
Social
Policy
MULTIMEDIA
Podcasts
Videos
ARCHIVES
Policy
Options
Archive
ABOUT
Letter from
the Editor-in-
chief
Advertising
Article
Submission
Response
Submission
Contact
IRPP
Visit
Site
 (514) 985-2461
irpp@irpp.org
1470 Peel St. #200  
Montreal, Quebec 
Canada H3A 1T1
CONTACT US
SUBSCRIBE TO
OUR NEWSLETTER
Enter your email address


Finding a middle ground on prostitution.

http://mruir.mtroyal.ca/xmlui/bitstream/11205/474/1/Finding%20a%20middle%20ground%20on%20prostitution.pdf

Finding a middle ground on prostitution.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Mount Royal University Institutional Repository (MRUIR)