Melissa Ditmore lectures at MSVU, 20 January

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Thursday 20 January 2011, 7 pm at Seton Auditorium, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax

 

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Public Affairs (CCEPA) and Mount Saint Vincent University present:

 

Lecture: Sex Goes To Market: What Would Legalized Prostitution Look Like? with Dr Melissa Ditmore.

 

Dr. Ditmore has written and edited various books on sex work including The Encyclopedia of Prostitution, Sex Work Matters: Power and Intimacy, and the recently released Prostitution and Sex Work from the series Historical Guides to Controversial Issues in America.

 

Dr. Ditmore?s research includes investigations into law enforcement practices, violence against sex workers, research ethics and assessments of harm reduction. She has been following developments of sex work in Canada closely, including increasing violence in the trade and the current case of decriminalization before the Canadian courts.

Free admission, reception to follow.

 

This event will also be live streamed. Visit http://www.ccepa.ca

[VedaSloan 119179]

I'm so jealous that I'm not in Halifax. I love this woman. I quoted the crap out of her for a paper I wrote last year.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

This is on now. Live video-streaming: http://www.ccepa.ca

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

This was an interesting presentation.

 

Dr Ditmore started off by explaining Canadian law, but did so imperfectly. For example, she didn't mention the word "public" at all in discussing the Communication Law, and erroneously stated that communicating via e-mail is illegal in Canada. In dealing with the Bawdy House Laws, she stated that there had to be at least two ladies for it to be Bawdy House, so that's another piece of misinformation. These errors were discouraging, but turned out to be a temporary wobble.

 

The bulk of Dr Ditmore's presentation dealt with what WON'T automatically change with the legalization of sex work.

 

Public stigma won't automatically change;

Taxation issues won't automatically change;

Mistreatment by police won't automatically change;

etc.

 

Dr Ditmore heaped particular scorn on Boundary Conditions, which are tacit evictions of Sex Workers from huge portions of cities and support networks -- without the Sex Worker having actually been convicted of anything.

 

Dr Ditmore heaped particular praise on the city of Liverpool, England as a positive role model. The city has created a dedicated personal intervenor on behalf of Sex Workers who report being the victims of violence. A strictly-enforced time-sensitive reporting regime has been instituted there, and the police must report what steps they have actually taken to resolve reports of such violence (after, e.g., 12 hrs, 24 hrs, 48 hrs, etc.). As such, a new "willingness to investigate" is at work in Liverpool. Dr Ditmore states that Liverpool Sex Workers have the highest rate of having their cases successfully resolved in all of the UK -- not just among Sex Workers, either.

 

Dr Ditmore concluded with the blanket statement that all evidence from throughout the world shows that Criminalization is Harmful.

 

Dr Elaine Craig (Prof. of Constitutional Law at Dalhousie) then spoke for 15 minutes on the Bedford Decision.

 

She stated that if the decision is upheld, there will be a governmental regulatory regime of some sort coming, including the expansion of municipal by-laws. Any choices will involve the "degree and type of legalization", and activists should be focusing on possible regulatory models now. (Dr Craig mentioned, with particular loathing, current municipal licensing -- which she states places license-holders in legal "double-jeopardy", by having them (effectively) officially registered as providers of illegal activities.)

 

Dr Craig calls Bedford an "invitation ... to remodel the currrent landscape in a more coherent and just manner". She finds three things in Judge Himel's reasoning to be "hopeful" and "promising". She believes that the following will have weight in future law (be it Federal, Provincial, or Municipal), whether or not the ruling itself is ultimately upheld:

 

1) Himel's justification for revisiting the constitutionality of these laws means that future lawmakers are forever constrained to take into account the reality of documented violence against sex workers.

 

2) Himel's conclusion that the Security of the Person is violated by current law means that any new laws in the future will have to be consistent with this principle, even if the harm in indirect.

 

3) Himel's conclusion that the harmful effects of the current law are grossly disproportionate compared to the intent of the law, means that Government cannot in the future justify endangering Sex Workers just to reduce nuissance.

 

A 15-minute Q&A session concluded the 90-minute evening.