Deterring prostitution vs. protecting the security of sex workers －The political discussion on this controversial matter has emerged in Canada for the past years, concerning the basic human rights of sex workers.
While the new prostitution law enacted in 2014 executed the stricter regulation to curtail the purchase of sex works, it jeopardizes the security and working conditions of sex workers. The enactment of this criminal law was intended to denounce and prevent the purchase or sale of sexual services in Canada. However, the lack of attention given on sex workers’ security and their human rights has increased the risk of further sexual exploitation.
As being a part of the local community in Canada, we must consider the societal issues and contemplate the practical solutions that protect the rights and security of every sex workers.
The final judgment on Canada v. Bedford acted as a catalyst to cast doubt on the inequity of the current prostitution law. The three former sex workers in Ontario, Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovich, and Valerie Scott argued that sections 210 (bawdy-house), 212(1) (j) (living on the avails), and 213(1)(c) (communicating in public for the purpose of prostitution) of the Criminal Code deprive sex workers’ human rights and violate their security by forbidding the fundamental safety measure to protect themselves from being abused by their clients.
The Supreme court gave the order to strike out these laws as it is a violation against s.7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which requires the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Although the Bedford case provided sex workers with a hope that the lawmakers were finally going to take actions, the enactment of a new bill dashed their hope and intensified the debate among sex workers and policymakers. The Bill C-36, or the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA), was implemented in November 2014 as a new legislative approach to make prostitution illegal in Canada for the first time. The PCEPA adopted the highly controversial “Nordic model,” which decriminalizes any sexual activities performed by sex workers and hold the purchasers accountable, placing them the criminal burden.
According to Peter Kim, the human rights lawyer from the Pivot Legal Society, the criminal code of PCEPA are “unconstitutional and should be repealed.” As these provisions are heavily targeting on the regulation of clients rather than ensuring the security of sex workers, Kim argues the urgent need of reforming the law into a “respectful, and promotes the human rights of sex workers.”
The implementation of a stricter regulation makes sex workers more vulnerable to sexual assault, rape or transmission of sexual diseases. As proposed by Andrea Krüsi, the PCEPA not only amplifies stigma and discrimination against sex workers, it also relegates them to shady industrial areas which increases the risk of assaults. The forced marginalization of sex workers is unacceptable. They have every right to engage with their profession, and the law should not deprive their rights and exploit them to the abusive environment.
Currently, we stigmatize the whole sex industry and dehumanize sex workers or any workers in underground industries. The social stigmatization is arguably the main cause of isolation of such industries, and the current law forcibly marginalizes the workers and detach them from our community. This institutional oppression leaves them no choice but to face the risk of abuse, and to have unsafe contact with the clients.
In order to ensure their safety, the lawmakers must restructure the current policy on prostitution that directly jeopardizes the rights and freedoms of sex workers.
One way to tackle this issue would be to increase the funding and more supports to sex workers to exit the industry. As previously discussed, the majority of workers in the sex industry has been relegated from society due to poverty and lack of institutional support. This harmful environment left them the only option – to work in sex industries and constantly face the risk of harassment, rape, and assault. By increasing the funding, increase the amount of supports and solidify the operation of organizations, it could eventually secure the safety of workers. In consequence, they would be able to have more options for safer jobs to sustain their livelihoods.
At the same time, the federal government should work with the provincial governments to launch effective methods for monitoring the influence of PCEPA on local communities. Further research should be conducted in order to reduce the risk of sexual exploitation and improve their working conditions. By reconsidering the way authority enforce the PCEPA, it would also encourage the shift in societal attitudes towards sex industry and contributes in respecting the dignity of sex workers, recognizing them as a meaningful contribution to our society.
We must extent ourselves to remove social stigmatization and reframe the way we think of underground industries.
