An Ontario Superior Court judge struck down a major portion of the province’s prostitution law on Tuesday.
Judge Susan Himel concluded that prostitution laws don’t protect women who work in the sex trade, but place them in harm’s way by forcing them to work in secrecy and in dangerous environments.
Canada’s prostitution laws are notoriously convoluted. Prostitution itself is not illegal, but practically every action involved with it is.
Judge Himel’s decision overturned three major sections of the prostitution law which criminalize communication for the purpose of prostitution, living off the avails of prostitution and brothel-keeping.
The challenge was launched by three female sex workers.
While some may not be pleased with the decision, it seems guided by common sense. Forcing prostitution underground doesn’t make it go away. By making prostitution less visible, we sacrifice the well-being of sex workers.
In the meantime, those who work in the sex trade face public stigma and legal repercussions that make seeking medical attention or reporting threats and violence nearly impossible.
Ensuring that sex workers can work safely has nothing to do with questions of morality, and everything to do with human rights. Brothel-keeping would allow prostitutes to screen prospective clients, and create a network by working in a secure location.
Individuals concerned about living near a brothel should acknowledge that this is a safer—and far more subtle—alternative to street prostitution.
This decision does raise many questions, especially in the interim period while the government debates drafting new laws to combat prostitution. There are no guarantees against a new set of laws as confusing as before.
The concern put forth by the Crown—that easing or removing laws that “combat” prostitution will encourage people to pursue it as a “career choice”—are absurd.
It is likely that social stigma will always surround sex work, hardly glamorizing it. Similarly, the suggestion that prostitution is inherently degrading overlooks the fact that other forms of employment—like exotic dancing—are subject to the same critique.
While the Crown may appeal Judge Himel’s decision, overturning such a reasonable step forward would be a mistake.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].