Final Exam- Feminist Issues Flashcards
Empirical Studies on prostitution
- Regarded by most people that buying and selling sex is degrading, dishonorable or despicable – a deep-rooted belief that prostitution is taboo.
- Assumption that prostitution cannot be taken seriously or ever achieve the status of other service occupations.
- Despite its size, profits, numerous customers, and mainstreaming, commercial sex continues to be viewed by people as deviant and disreputable.
- A lucrative industry that employs many individuals and attracts many customers but is regarded by many as immoral or harmful and in need of either stricter control or total elimination.
The Bedford Case
Bedford was brought forward in 2008 by 3 sex workers who challenged Canada’s laws about prostitution,arguing that the laws should be changed to protect the health and human rights of sex workers, it challenged sections of the criminal code
What are the sections of the Criminal Code that the Bedford Case challenge
- Section 210
- Section 211
- Section 212
- Section 213
Section 210: “Bawdy House Law”
- Bawdy-house law”: This law made it illegal to “keep” a “common bawdy-house”. This meant that it was illegal to regularly use, own, work, rent or even be found in a place that was used for the purposes of prostitution
- This prevented sex workers from working in their homes or other familiar locations despite research showing that indoor settings significantly reduced (or in some cases eliminated) the violence sex workers faced on the job
- Since bawdy-house laws made working in these types of places illegal, sex workers were reluctant to call police for protection if they encountered a violent client)
What do “Bawdy houses” refer to ?
was understood as any place (public or private) used for the purpose of prostitution
Section 211
This section made it illegal to take a person to a bawdy house or give directions to a bawdy-house
Section 212 “Procurement law” or “living on the avails of prostitution”
- Procurement law” or “living on the avails of prostitution”: Some parts of this law were important to protect people from being forced into prostitution or being exploited for prostitution
- The law also made it illegal to help anyone buy or sell sexual services including referring clients to other sex workers or giving advice to other sex workers about how to work safely
- It made it a crime for anyone to live off the profits made from prostitution
Section 213: “Communicating Law”
- This made it illegal to stop or communicate with another person in a public place for the purposes of exchanging sexual services for money
- This meant that it was practically impossible for a sex worker to legally work anywhere in public and the bawdy-house laws (above) made it illegal for sex workers to work in private places on a regular basis
- Forcing street-based sex work
The sections of the criminal code were unconstitutional because they violated sex workers’ rights under theCharterto
Section 7 : life, liberty, and security(safety) of personwhich means protection for their physical and mental well-being.
Section 2: freedom of expressionto talk to clients on the street about services, prices, and circumstances under which they will provide the services.
What did the government argue in the Bedford case?
- That the laws did follow theCharterand did not violate sex workers’ rights.
- That the laws did not create the risk to sex workers, but that the risk to sex workers was built into the nature of prostitution itself
What did the Ontario Court Appeal decide (The Bedford Case)
though these reasons were important, all three laws force sex workers to do their work in a way that significantly increases their risks of violence.
- 2012, bawdy-house law should be struck down.
- The Court changed the living on the avails law so that the restriction only applies in situations of exploitation.
In 2013, what did the SCC decide?
that the challenged provisions of theCriminal Coderegarding prostitution were unconstitutional
- In declaring thebawdy house lawunconstitutional, the Court stated that allowing sex workers to operate brothels will allow them access to safer working conditions without fear of criminalization
What year did Parliament amend the Criminal Code ‘Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act”
2014
Was the Crown’s appeal of the communicating for the purposes of prostitution successful?
yes. This means street prostitution, where prostitutes solicit business in public, remains effectively illegal.
What is the Nordic Model?
- This means street prostitution, where prostitutes solicit business in public, remains effectively illegal.
- aims to eliminate the demand for sex work.
R.v Anwar
- husband and wife applicants in the constitutional challenge, in this case, were charged under theCriminal Codefor their operation of an escort service in London, Ontario
- The charges were under section 286.2(1) (receiving a material benefit), s.286.3 (1) (procuring) and s.286.4 (advertising an offer to provide sexual services for consideration)
R.v Anwar
- husband and wife applicants in the constitutional challenge, in this case, were charged under theCriminal Codefor their operation of an escort service in London, Ontario
- The charges were under section 286.2(1) (receiving a material benefit), s.286.3 (1) (procuring) and s.286.4 (advertising an offer to provide sexual services for consideration)
What did the court find in the r. Anwar case under offence in section 286.4
that the provision failed to minimally impair the Charter right because it imposed criminal liability on third parties even if they are in non-exploitative commercial relationships with sex workers offering services at the same cost that they generally make available to the public.
What did the court find in the r. Anwar case under offence in section 286.3
makes it an offence to procure a person to offer sexual services for consideration, and subjects anyone who engages in a range of actions for the purpose of facilitating the sale of sexual services to an offence.
What was the decison in the R. Anwar Case
the decision was rendered at the provincial court level, the targeted sections are not struck from the law.
R. v Labaye
JeanPaul Labaye ofMontrealwas charged with operating a “common bawdy-house,” a violation under section 210(1) of theCriminal Code, for owning the club l’Orage, in which persons who paid membership fees and their guests could assemble and engage in group sex andoral sexandmasturbate
Was there a majority or minority of the Judges vote in allowing Swinger clubs?
Majority vote.
- The dissenting justices criticized the majority’s definition of indecency as “neither desirable nor workable,” since it did not follow certain precedent and discarded the “contextual analysis of the Canadiancommunity standardof tolerance
- The Court first noted thatmoralitywas of no use to determining whether these activities were indecent.
Only the objective standards of decency established inCanadian lawwould be of use, and those standards were concerned with whether any harm has been done
Do Nevada’s legal brothels make workers feel unsafe?
No.
- 84% said that their job felt safe
- report that they feel safe, are free to come and go and are bound only by their contract
- Workers report that they felt safe largely because the police, employers and co-workers were there to protect them
Why is it a bad idea to close legal brothels
The logic of legalization is like that for marijuana and casino gambling: the principle that tolerating consensual vice is far superior to criminalizing it, forcing participants underground and perpetuating the risks and harms inherent in any black-market enterpris
