This essay first appeared in Cliterati on December 14th; I have modified it slightly for time references and to fit the format of this blog.
A year ago tomorrow, the Supreme Court of Canada decriminalized prostitution in every part of the country with its ruling in Bedford vs. Canada, which struck down the criminal laws (very similar to those in the UK) which attempted to “control” and “discourage” the sale of sex by making it more difficult and dangerous. Unfortunately, though the judges ruled the only way they could ethically rule under the circumstances, they still allowed themselves to be swayed by prudishness and deference to busybody ideas about government control of the personal lives of individuals: they voluntarily stayed their own decision for one year to give the government time to cobble together some new, equally-indefensible, equally-vile law to replace those the court was striking down. There’s little doubt that the resulting hot mess, The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (or if you prefer something a bit less Orwellian, Bill C36), is merely a ridiculous rephrase of the rejected laws, combined with new, even more oppressive statutes, with the whole smothered in popular tinned Swedish sauce. The government knows the law will never stand constitutional muster, and has known from the beginning; it simply didn’t care. The sole purpose of C36 was to delay the issue and “send a message”; even though it will certainly be struck down, that may take years, and the Conservatives will be out of power by then. In other words, they know they’ve lost and have now switched to a “long game” strategy, minimizing the political fallout by trying to ensure that the hot prostitution potato is in some other party’s lap next time the Supreme Court stops the music. But Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne may have derailed that plan:
Just one day after a new and controversial federal prostitution law came into effect, the premier of Ontario is calling on her attorney general to look at the “constitutional validity” of the law…Kathleen Wynne said she is gravely concerned the new law will not protect sex workers or communities. Wynne has asked Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur to advise her on the options available to the province, should it be found that the legislation’s constitutionality is in question…Wynne’s comments come as more than 60 organizations, including the Canadian AIDS Society and John Howard Society, demand the new laws be scrapped. Now Magazine, an alternative publication in Toronto, has also said it will defy the new law, and continue to run advertisements by sex workers…Supporters of the new rules [pretend] the law will help reduce demand for prostitution…
But even police state functionaries know that it will do no such thing; one cop interviewed in the Edmonton Sun said, “At best, it’ll be useless…at worst, it will make things worse than the old law.” Politicians like Joy Smith are either entirely dishonest or entirely delusional when they call for the censorship and suppression of those who reveal the facts about prohibition and debunk prohibitionists’ propaganda and outright lies; fortunately, however, they are in the minority. Most of the Canadian media and academia, and a large fraction of the population, understand that threatening people with violence and caging for consensual behavior is an abomination, and it’s inevitable that laws that enable such tyranny eventually go the same way as laws criminalizing BDSM, homosexuality, masturbation and other private sexual behaviors in which the government has no legitimate interest.
So, another “triumph” for the Swedish model. But I’m puzzled by it: I thought the Swedish model was based on the radfem idea that all heterosexual intercourse was violence against women, so that women who volunteered it for payment needed to be saved from themselves. But I’ve seen another explanation; that the Swedish model was a reaction to immigration from overseas, specifically women of colour, and the model was designed to keep such apparently undesirable women out. Is the Swedish model a mixture of both “philosophies” or something else? What am I not understanding?
I have NEVER bought the “it’s racism against immigrants” excuse. That is merely a cheap-assed attempt to bring in the “old-saw” of “racism” on OUR side. It’s intellectually dishonest – and lazy.
And it assumes that we have some magical method of “divining” what is in the hearts and minds of our opponents which – NEWSFLASH – we don’t!
You have also seen this very thing with ANY criticism of the current President of the U.S. “You’re only criticising him because you’re racist against blacks and he’s BLACK!!”
No – I’m criticizing him because he’s a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure. His skin color has nothing to do with that.
And I really don’t understand why it’s important to know what the stimulus for the Swedish model was anyway – even if it were neo-feminists. Not all of them hold the view that any penetrative sex is rape – and it’s a mistake to think they are somehow running the whole show and driving ALL legislative affairs.
The opposition is DIVERSE. It includes conservatives who believe that a wife should submit to her husband. It includes liberals who believe she she should not. It includes neo-feminists. It includes racists who see a “feature” in the Swede model of curtailing unwanted immigration.
In short – the opposition includes A WIDE SPECTRUM of people and groups.
It’s pretty simplistic to assign one, or even two motivations to it. And who cares anyway? The model should be debated on the merits. It has none – so logical arguments against it should eventually prevail.
as much as i appreciate Wynne coming out about this now, I wonder where she was before this odious pile of swill got passed, but she may know something about our system that I don’t. The main positive about her opposition may be in changing the schedule on when this bill gets its inevitable challenge. Wynne has the option of sending it to the Ontario court of appeal to challenge its charter compliance when most opposition is still spinning its wheels trying to find a charge to challenge the bill with which should move everything up by a couple of years by bypassing the lower court levels.
I live in the Detroit area and travel the 15 minutes across the border to Windsor, Ontario on a regular basis to see a favorite sex worker of mine. She was absolutely convinced the law would not pass the last time I saw her. She thought even Harper’s govt. would end up having common sense on this matter.
I am not familiar with Canada’s judicial review process, how long would it typically take a law like this to work its way through the courts?
Potentially? Many years, which is exactly what Harper and his cronies are counting on. They’re hoping someone else has the mighty Potato of State in their collective lap the next time the Supreme Court stops the music.
This is very disheartening. I am looking into keeping a Windsor attorney on retainer in case I run into any legal issues if I decide to purchase sex in Canada again.
From my understanding, before the law was passed, purchasing sex in Windsor was perfectly legal as long as the escort was licensed and her business was conducted exclusively as outcalls.
It truly makes me sick that supposed women rights advocates such as Meaghan Murphy demonize men who buy sex and deny women agency over the bodies. Without radfems working with Harper’s crowd, this law would not have passed. These sex negative feminists and the Santorum types are two sides of the same coin.