Hamilton Spectator Article: Forget About Morality In Relation To Prostitution Think About Safety Of Sex Workers.

Prostitution laws should be about safety, not morals

Most of the time when I write about sex workers, it’s because one has been murdered. Or raped. Or beaten.

There have been many victims in our community.

You don’t have to look all the way to the Robert Picton case in British Columbia to find a man who preys on sex workers. You don’t need to go to bigger cities for women who have vanished from street corners. You don’t need to search far to find johns who see the women they hire as something less than human.

There was Project Advocate, run by Hamilton police from 2002 to 2004. It looked at the murder of one sex worker, attacks on five others and the disappearance of two more. No arrests were ever made for the murder or disappearances.

There was Najim Khairzad, who raped, beat and nearly killed four sex workers. He pleaded guilty a year ago.

There have been others. The sex worker who was stabbed 30 times in an alley and survived, for instance.

There are an estimated 300 sex workers in Hamilton — mostly women. Last year, Hamilton police charged 51 people under the prostitution law.

Violence against sex workers happens all the time in this city. Maybe every day. For that reason, I welcome changes initiated last week when a ruling by an Ontario Superior Court justice struck down three key portions of Canada’s prostitution law.

No, this does not mean I support sex work. It means I support anything that might protect sex workers. I think the decision delivered by Justice Susan Himel has potential to do that.

Her decision weaves testimony of women involved in the sex trade with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the morals of average Canadians, the prostitution laws of other countries and some of the federal government’s own research on the sex trade — which concludes sex work puts women in grave danger.

With the help of Hamilton criminal lawyer Jeffrey Manishen, I’ve waded through the document trying to understand it and decide if it will do what its advocates say it will — keep sex workers safer.

The three areas of the law Himel struck down were these:

• The section that made keeping a bawdy house a crime. Now sex workers can work indoors, legally. Given that the most frequent and severe violence against sex workers happens on the street, this is a good thing. About 15 to 20 per cent of sex workers are on the street.

• The part that made it a criminal act to communicate for the purpose of prostitution. Now sex workers can talk to a john before getting in his car, which will allow them to better vet him for safety purposes.

• The section that made living off the avails of prostitution against the law. Now a sex worker can hire a driver or a bodyguard to protect her.

“The judge found that the current laws were unreasonable infringements on the rights of (sex workers),” Manishen summarizes. Himel found the old laws are “arbitrary and over-broad with an effect far beyond what they were meant to achieve,” he says.

And his own opinion?

“It’s an issue which has called out for a comprehensive analysis for a long time.”

At the Sexual Assault Centre of Hamilton and Area, director Lenore Lukasik-Foss supports legislation that protects women from rape.

“I think that this is a good move for vulnerable women who do sex work,” she says. “It means greater safety for the most marginalized women in our community.”

Rape is not just a job hazard for sex workers.

“It is outrageous,” says Lukasik-Foss, “that we suggest that because a person agrees to have sex with someone that they agree to be raped, beaten and tortured.”

Sexual assault is always under-reported. But that becomes more profound in the case of sex workers, the women at the greatest risk of sexual assault.

“If you’ve been arrested for the work you do, would you go back to the police to report a crime?” Lukasik-Foss asks.

A conviction could have serious repercussions: a child protection agency could take the woman’s child, or she could lose her public housing. Also, sex workers balk at going to court because they fear they won’t be believed.

“We have to push aside some of these arguments that (sex work) is not morally OK or is sexually exploitive,” Lukasik-Foss says. “It’s not going to go away. Regardless of where you’re coming from, you have to put those beliefs aside because women are dying.”

At the Elizabeth Fry Society, which runs Sex Trade Alternatives and Resource Services (STARS), executive director Leanne Kilby says her agency supports “the decriminalization of the sex work side, but not the decriminalization of the purchasing side.”

In most cases, that translates into charges for the men, but not the women. It is crucial, says Kilby, that men know they are purchasing a service and not a woman. Continuing to criminalize the actions of the john reinforces that, she argues.

Kilby also raises concerns that if portions of the law are struck down, Elizabeth Fry — which supports women in conflict with the law — may receive less funding to work with sex workers. STARS lost virtually all its funding last year and is now reduced to five hours of services a week.

It will likely be years before the appeals of Himel’s decision wend their way through the justice system. Meanwhile, “business here in Hamilton is status quo,” says police Chief Glenn De Caire. “We work toward the protection of all our citizens.”

Manishen says it’s unlikely, however, that police will lay many prostitution charges during this period of flux because the cases won’t be heard in court until the appeals are concluded.

So at most, we may have a revised prostitution law that will give sex workers in our community more options to keep themselves safe.

At least a worthwhile public discussion has begun.