Supreme Court declares Canada’s anti-prostitution laws unconstitutional in landmark ruling
Adrian Wyld / The Canadian Press Terri-Jean
Bedford leaves the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa Friday morning,
Dec. 20, 2013 after learning Canada's highest court struck down the
country's prostitution laws in their entirety in a unanimous 9-0 ruling
OTTAWA — Canada’s highest court has declared prostitution laws
unconstitutional and has given Parliament a year to make them
Charter-compliant should it wish to continue to impose limits on the sex
trade.
It means being caught in a bawdy-house, living off the profits of another’s prostitution and soliciting sex in public will remain crimes until December 2014, but that legal brothels could be a reality in Canada by next Christmas should Parliament decide to do nothing.
In a landmark, unanimous ruling Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada found bawdy-house laws that make it a crime to be caught unlawfully in what is essentially a brothel are “grossly disproportionate” to the intent of the law, which is to prevent community nuisance.
“Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes,” wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLaughlin who referenced the case of convicted serial killer Robert Pickton who targeted prostitutes in British Columbia.
“A law that prevents street prostitutes from resorting to a safe haven such as Grandma’s House while a suspected serial killer prowls the streets is a law that has lost sight of its purpose.”
Living off the profits of prostitution, a law aimed at criminalizing pimping, was found to be “overbroad” in that it also criminalizes those who “increase the safety and security of prostitutes,” like legitimate drivers, managers and bodyguards.
While the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution — a law aimed at Johns who buy sex, prostitutes who sell and anyone who tries to recruit people into the trade in a manner that could be deemed a nuisance to their community — did indeed comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the top court restored the lower court’s ruling that it does not.
The court found the law was “grossly disproportionate” in that it removes the ability of prostitutes to enact safety measures like screening clients in public in order to avoid drunk or potentially violent encounters.
“These appeals and the cross-appeals are not about whether prostitution should be legal or not. They are about whether the laws Parliament has enacted on how prostitution may be carried out pass constitutional muster. I conclude that they do not,” McLaughlin wrote.
“These restrictions on prostitution put the safety and lives of prostitutes at risk and are therefore unconstitutional.”
The constitutional challenge was brought by current and former sex trade workers Terri Jean Bedford, 54, Amy Lebovitch, 34, and Valerie Scott, 55.
The women have argued Canada’s three prostitution laws violate their
right to life, liberty and security of the person and their right to
freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
While prostitution is legal in Canada, it is illegal to reside in or be caught unlawfully inside a bawdy-house, or brothel. It is also illegal to live off the profits of another person’s prostitution, a law typically aimed at pimps, and it is illegal to communicate in public for the purposes of prostitution.
The women have all worked, at one time or another, as street prostitutes, masseuses, escorts, dominatrices, brothel owners and as advocates for sex-trade workers.
They’ve also experienced violence at some point, and have taken a variety of precautions to improve safety, including vetting new clients in public spaces, verifying client phone numbers and credit card information, hiring drivers and body guards and turning down seemingly intoxicated clients.
Federal and Ontario lawyers argued the intent of Parliament is to place limits on prostitution and suggest the Ontario Court of Appeal went too far when it struck down the Criminal Code ban on bawdy-houses on the grounds that it endangers sex workers by forcing them to work outside.
It means being caught in a bawdy-house, living off the profits of another’s prostitution and soliciting sex in public will remain crimes until December 2014, but that legal brothels could be a reality in Canada by next Christmas should Parliament decide to do nothing.
In a landmark, unanimous ruling Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada found bawdy-house laws that make it a crime to be caught unlawfully in what is essentially a brothel are “grossly disproportionate” to the intent of the law, which is to prevent community nuisance.
“Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes,” wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLaughlin who referenced the case of convicted serial killer Robert Pickton who targeted prostitutes in British Columbia.
“A law that prevents street prostitutes from resorting to a safe haven such as Grandma’s House while a suspected serial killer prowls the streets is a law that has lost sight of its purpose.”
Living off the profits of prostitution, a law aimed at criminalizing pimping, was found to be “overbroad” in that it also criminalizes those who “increase the safety and security of prostitutes,” like legitimate drivers, managers and bodyguards.
While the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution — a law aimed at Johns who buy sex, prostitutes who sell and anyone who tries to recruit people into the trade in a manner that could be deemed a nuisance to their community — did indeed comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the top court restored the lower court’s ruling that it does not.
The court found the law was “grossly disproportionate” in that it removes the ability of prostitutes to enact safety measures like screening clients in public in order to avoid drunk or potentially violent encounters.
“These appeals and the cross-appeals are not about whether prostitution should be legal or not. They are about whether the laws Parliament has enacted on how prostitution may be carried out pass constitutional muster. I conclude that they do not,” McLaughlin wrote.
“These restrictions on prostitution put the safety and lives of prostitutes at risk and are therefore unconstitutional.”
The constitutional challenge was brought by current and former sex trade workers Terri Jean Bedford, 54, Amy Lebovitch, 34, and Valerie Scott, 55.
Alex Urosevic for National Post Nikki
Thomas, Executive Director of Sex Professionals of Canada, Dominatrix
Terri-Jean Bedford and Valerie Scott joined by York University
professor Alan Young during a press conference in Toronto, March 26,
2012
While prostitution is legal in Canada, it is illegal to reside in or be caught unlawfully inside a bawdy-house, or brothel. It is also illegal to live off the profits of another person’s prostitution, a law typically aimed at pimps, and it is illegal to communicate in public for the purposes of prostitution.
The women have all worked, at one time or another, as street prostitutes, masseuses, escorts, dominatrices, brothel owners and as advocates for sex-trade workers.
They’ve also experienced violence at some point, and have taken a variety of precautions to improve safety, including vetting new clients in public spaces, verifying client phone numbers and credit card information, hiring drivers and body guards and turning down seemingly intoxicated clients.
Federal and Ontario lawyers argued the intent of Parliament is to place limits on prostitution and suggest the Ontario Court of Appeal went too far when it struck down the Criminal Code ban on bawdy-houses on the grounds that it endangers sex workers by forcing them to work outside.
Labels: Government of Canada, Human Relations, Justice, Security, Sexism
posted by Pieface | 8:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home