How some feminists hurt sex-trade workers

[drlove 37204]

[B]How some feminists hurt sex-trade workers[/B]
[INDENT]
By: Stuart Chambers
Posted: 06/21/2016 4:00 AM

[URL="http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/how-some-feminists-hurt-sex-trade-workers-383734561.html#comments"]http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opi....html#comments[/URL]

When the Liberal government revisits the prostitution debate later this year, some feminists will once again embrace the prohibitionist position. And once again, they will sidestep uncomfortable truths. For example, rather than acknowledge the link between indoor sex work and enhanced safety conditions for prostitutes, prohibitionist feminists will instead rely on circular arguments. Put simply, paid sex is wrong because it is wrong to purchase sex; therefore, men who purchase sex from women are the source of the problem. This brand of principled moralism, however, has little to do with empiricism and everything to do with ideology.

The initial backlash began in 2010 when the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had to decide whether or not the law violated the Charter rights of prostitutes in the Terri-Jean Bedford case. Credible evidence led to two conclusions: (1) "indoor" prostitution was significantly safer than "outdoor" prostitution; and (2) the laws in Canada were a direct factor in making "outdoor" prostitution dangerous.

In other words, the law contributed directly to sex workers being beaten, raped and murdered. As Justice Susan Himel noted, "significantly more physical violence occurred in street prostitution as compared to (legal) brothels."

Yet some feminists refused to accept research that challenged their own agenda. In 2011, a coalition of seven abolitionist feminist groups (the "interveners") submitted a factum to support the federal governmentâ??s appeal of Bedford. The interveners not only dismissed Justice Himelâ??s findings, that criminal laws expose prostitutes to violence by preventing them from working indoors and adopting specific safety measures, they also insisted the risks associated with sex work were derived from the purchase of sexual services: "Contrary to the analysis of the court, indoor prostitution is not safe or healthy for women. The danger to womenâ??s security is a function not of the laws constraining prostitution, but of the actions of men who demand the sale of womenâ??s bodies."

So why would abolitionist feminists so vehemently deny the difference in safety between in-call and out-call prostitution? First, acknowledging this difference provides constitutional validity for in-call sex work, an option radical feminists reject outright since the buyers of sex â?? men â?? would go unpunished. Second, by refuting the impact of location on womenâ??s security, prohibitionist feminists do not have to take ownership of the fact their own entrenched position is a contributing factor in violence against sex workers.

In place of an evidence-based approach, feminists opposed to legalizing prostitution have forwarded their own gendered solution: "asymmetrical criminalization." Under this proposal, the demand for sex would be treated differently than the supply of sex, meaning Canadaâ??s current criminal laws violate the constitutional rights of "prostituted women" but not the rights of "buyers, pimps, brothel owner and others who exploit prostituted women." As "victimizers," male clients would be charged criminally. As "victims," female sex workers would be offered exit strategies.

In anticipation of a Supreme Court challenge, the interveners submitted an additional factum in 2013. Predictably, they rejected any qualitative or quantitative data concerning safer indoor working conditions. From their perspective, "focus on location distracts attention from the men who are the source of prostitutionâ??s harms." Unfortunately for prohibitionists, the claim men "universally oppress and exploit prostituted women" has proven unpersuasive in courts of law because it is ideologically, not empirically, driven.

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada â?? in a 9-0 unanimous decision â?? struck down the Criminal Code provisions restricting paid sexual services because the old laws put sex workers at increased risk. Judges do not have the luxury of ignoring evidence or sustaining a gender war.

Much to the chagrin of prohibitionists, the new Liberal government has adopted the logic of the judiciary. Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould admitted last year, "the safety of the workers is fundamentally important" in reducing the incidence of violence against women. By putting the health and welfare of prostitutes above ideology, Wilson-Raybould will be steering law and public policy in a more rational and compassionate direction.

[I]Stuart Chambers, PhD, teaches in the faculties of arts and social sciences at the University of Ottawa.[/I] [/INDENT]