Tories’ call for more research on prostitution laws could be stalling tactic
OTTAWA—The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in December to strike down three federal criminal laws against adult prostitution left the Conservative government scrambling and apparently looking to buy time.
In an interview last week with Montreal’s La Presse, Justice Minister Peter MacKay said he wants to study international laws on prostitution especially the “Nordic” model that criminalizes pimps and johns.
But MacKay does not have to look far.
Parliament has already extensively studied — and the Conservative government rejected — any legal reform that would relax a tough-on-crime approach to prostitution.
In a little-noticed report by subcommittee of the Commons justice committee in late 2006, Conservative MPs called for tougher criminal laws that “clearly target abusers (johns and pimps).” The Conservatives on the committee recommended even heavier fines to deter offenders and to pay for rehabilitation and support for “the victims they create.”
That’s a partial nod to the approach taken in countries like Norway, Sweden and Iceland. But the only easing of criminal sanctions against prostitutes that Conservative MPs would back — at the time — was a legal regime that would allow first-time prostitutes to avoid a criminal record yet would still apply criminal sanction against anyone freely choosing to sell sexual services and trying to “benefit from the ‘business’ of prostitution.”
The committee — whose work first began in 2003 under the previous Liberal government and concluded in December 2006 under the Conservatives — had stopped and started due to two prorogations and elections.
In the end it heard from some 300 witnesses, including Canadian prostitutes, their clients, police officers, lawyers, women and aboriginal groups, academics and international experts from Sweden and other countries.
But after all that, the committee was unable to reach a consensus on what legal reforms were required. It agreed only that the status quo wasn’t working.
Tabled in the Commons on Dec. 13, 2006, the committee report contained a majority recommendation by the opposition parties that called for an approach that targets “exploitation and nuisance” through Criminal Code laws of general application against “public disturbance, indecent exhibition, coercion, sexual assault, trafficking in persons, extortion, kidnapping, etc.”
The majority of MPs on the committee — made up of opposition members — said “it is preferable to concentrate our efforts on combating exploitation and violence in the context of prostitution, rather than criminalizing consenting adults who engage in sexual activities for money.”
But the Conservative MPs disagreed.
They argued against any further decriminalization, saying no one’s consent to choose to practice the world’s oldest profession could be understood to be freely given.
Indeed, Conservative MPs said law enforcement efforts should be beefed up against all forms of prostitution, whether it’s found in the street, in escort services, massage parlours, bawdy houses or anywhere else.
And the Conservative government agreed.
MacKay’s predecessor, then-Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, replied on March 30, 2007 to politely thank the committee for its work, calling it “the most up to date research on the issue, including an overview of prostitution generally and those involved in it and the evidence that exists in relation to prostitution in Canada.”
But the government’s bottom line, just a few short years ago, was to reject further relaxation of laws.
“This government condemns any conduct that results in exploitation or abuse, and accordingly does not support any reforms, such as decriminalization, that would facilitate such exploitation,” replied Nicholson.
The committee said “it did not hear sufficient evidence with respect to the impact of the legal and social reforms emerging from other countries to address prostitution,” and urged more research. Nicholson appeared to ignore that in his response.
“This government continues to address prostitution by focusing on reducing its prevalence. This involves prevention, education and awareness initiatives, supporting programs that encourage those involved in the sex trade toward exit programs, and focusing on consistent enforcement of the criminal law,” he replied.
Since then, two lower courts and the country’s top court weighed in, overturning the laws as unconstitutional because of their grossly disproportional effect on vulnerable, marginalized persons.
In December, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Criminal Code prohibitions against brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and against communicating for the purposes of prostitution drive vulnerable women onto the streets, in back alleys or cars, with no ability to hire security guards or drivers or to screen “bad dates.”
“The prohibitions . . . go a critical step further, by imposing dangerous conditions on prostitution; they prevent people engaged in a risky — but legal — activity from taking steps to protect themselves from the risks,” wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in the 9-0 ruling.
The high court suspended the effect of its ruling for 12 months, giving the federal government a year to re-write the law or allow adult prostitution to flourish unregulated. The case did not challenge child prostitution laws or laws against human trafficking. Those remain intact.
It’s not clear what further study MacKay would like to see Parliament undertake, although he mused that a Conservative senator’s proposal to have the Senate do the study was interesting. His office has not yet responded to a Star inquiry.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ostitution_laws_could_be_stalling_tactic.html
