The staggering incoherence of Canada's prostitution laws‏

[Susie 1472]

A proper legislative discussion on the inconsistency of Canada's prostitution laws is long overdue. British Columbians recently endured the lengthy trial of Robert Pickton, and came face-to-face with the perils of life on the street for dozens of women who were victimized. Just a few blocks away from the Downtown Eastside, purported massage parlours operate in apparent disregard of the Criminal Code, blatantly advertising access to women on the Internet or the back pages of weekly periodicals.
Last year, two challenges to Canada's prostitution laws were launched in British Columbia and Ontario. It is the expectation of the plaintiffs that the Supreme Court of Canada will end up making the final call on how our country's prostitution laws should be interpreted.
Under existing guidelines, exchanging sex for money in Canada is legal. However, the Criminal Code makes many activities surrounding prostitution illegal, including the public communication for the purposes of prostitution, and owning, running, occupying or transporting anyone to a bawdy house (or brothel). In a 1990 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada called this incoherence "bizarre."
A survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion sought to review just how much Canadians know about existing legislation, and whether they would be open to change. For starters, just 23 per cent of respondents are aware of the fact that exchanging sex for money in Canada is legal, with residents of Ontario and British Columbia being a little better informed than those in other provinces -- but not by much.
Canadians, however, are divided on whether it makes sense to criminalize all other aspects of prostitution. Two-in-five claim that the Criminal Code provisions are fair to the purpose of protecting the public good, while the same proportion view them as unfair and forcing prostitutes into unsafe situations.
It has been suggested that Canada look at the examples of other countries. In Norway, the government opted to make purchasing sex a criminal act. Under the new regulations that came info force last year, Norwegian citizens and residents now face a punishment-- ranging from fines to jail terms -- if they decide to exchange money for sex.
Canadians are not ready to take this drastic step. Half of respondents to the Angus Reid survey believe that adults should be allowed to engage in consensual prostitution without punishment, while 34 per cent would punish both the prostitutes and the clients, and eight per cent would only punish the clients.
Throughout the entire survey, a wide gender gap is evident. While 60 per cent of men are ready to accept consensual prostitution in Canada, only 36 per cent of women concur. And while 43 per cent of female respondents want to see both prostitutes and clients punished, this view is shared by only 25 per cent of men.
Canadians are also open to the concept of brothels, with the impression that working indoors would make prostitutes safer. Two-thirds of men and half of women surveyed supported this notion. However, the gender gap appears again on another question. While 62 per cent of men are in favour of decriminalizing some aspects of the sex trade, only 40 per cent of women side with this option.

It is clear that male respondents are more welcoming of prostitution than female respondents, on the questions related to working indoors, punishment and even on how a new policy should be created. Canadian women, for the most part, relate to prostitution as an exploitation issue and do not believe that decriminalization will help.
The 1990 case that reached the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of liberty, and the judges stopped short of openly discussing decriminalization. This time around, the prevalent issue is safety, which is at the heart of the double-standard that is flagrant in Vancouver. The lack of a consistent approach has allowed better funded operations to advertise their services openly, while other sex workers are routinely exposed to disease, violence and even death. They are both, for all intents and purposes, acting in direct contravention of the Criminal Code. But one is evidently safer than the other, not because of a suitable safeguard under the law, but because of wealth.
Lawmakers are supposed to make laws. On this particular file, the centre-left and the centre-right have failed to formulate a strategy. Conservatives may not want to alienate their base by appearing to endorse a way of life that is contrary to their moral beliefs. Liberals may not want to touch the law because it may be construed as an attack on the civil liberties that they hold dear. Ignoring the problem, which has been the modus operandi for decades, is clearly the worst course of action.
When it comes to prostitution, Norway has opted to punish the clients. In Canada, it is the lawmakers -- past and present -- who require a scolding.
Mario Canseco is vice-president, public affairs, at Angus Reid Public Opinion.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]
Read more: [URL]http://www.vancouversun.com/news/staggering%20incoherence%20Canada%20prostitution%20laws/3180224/story.html#ixzz0rgbqVOxg[/URL][/COLOR][/LEFT]