By Vanessa Brown
As her colleagues surrounded her with tears and laughter, jumping up with explosive excitement, Ruby Jeffrey sat motionless, dazed with disbelief. Her state of shock reflects a decade of secrecy in the sex-trade industry, and being ignored by the Canadian legal system.
“As a sex worker, you’re not used to things going your way, or anyone listening to you ever,” Jeffrey said.
It is a week following the landmark ruling. Her level of shock is still palpable, but her emotions are starting to mirror those of her fellow sex workers. Jeffrey is talkative and energetic. She believes the current Criminal Code provisions effectively cover sex workers with a blanket of tension in their daily dealings with clients, from negotiating services beforehand, to worrying that the flow of traffic outside their bawdy houses will rouse suspicion in their neighbours.
“Even though nothing’s changed yet on the ground, I think that even just the possibility that we don’t have to have legal repercussions for doing this job does make your ability to enjoy the job greater,” she explained. “It gives us a more carefree attitude towards the job because there is always tension and anxiety when you’re doing this work. You could be criminalized at any moment, and you never know when that’s going to come.”
On Sept. 28, Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himel quashed three Criminal Code prostitution prohibitions: operating a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution, and living off the avails of sex work. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced the next day the federal government will appeal the decision. Himel suspended the ruling from taking effect until Oct. 28, providing the prosecution 30 days to convince her there is compelling evidence to return to court. In her 131-page ruling, Justice Himel argued that the provisions, which were originally included to protect sex workers’ safety, actually put prostitutes in danger.
Osgoode Hall lawyer Alan Young represented three former sex workers in the year-long battle.
“The idea that we really need to hold onto the existing law to protect society is … disingenuous, or even a lie,” Young said. “We’re not using the current law in a way that protects society.”
Jeffrey argues that the illegality of operating indoors with two other prostitutes forces her into vulnerable and dangerous situations on the street. She wants to be able to work safely indoors, and not live in fear of criminalization for hiring security – punishable under the living off the avails provision. If Justice Himel’s ruling stands after Oct. 28, Jeffrey won’t have to fear for her daughter’s freedom, either. The 18-year-old university student receives support from her mother’s prostitution, and is technically guilty of living off her earnings.
“If I’m on my own, working in isolation, which is the most dangerous way to do it, it’s 100-per-cent legal,” Jeffrey said. “But I would have to put myself in the most danger to do that, and that’s why I don’t … We need to be able to work together for our safety.”
REAL Women of Canada, a socially conservative national organization, maintains that decriminalizing prostitution will lead to the exploitation of vulnerable women and increased trafficking. Diane Watts, a representative of REAL Women of Canada, said Justice Himel let liberal sexuality ideology cloud her judgment.
“There’s an ideology here which is disconnected from the reality,” Watts said in an interview. “So we apply the ideology and claim it’s going to give women power, or increase their sexuality, or liberate them; but in actual fact, what happens is it’s a degradation of the prostitutes.” Watts believes the prostitution decriminalization debate belongs in Parliament, where “there’s a wider range of consultation.”
Juliet November is a Toronto-based sex worker. She also works with Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC) to empower those in the sex trade. She is involved in educating prostitutes on their civil rights- including bi-weekly meetings on safety- as well as constructing bad client lists.
“It’s extremely offensive for someone who is not a sex worker and does not understand this industry whatsoever to tell us where it belongs,” said November, referring to the Parliament-versus-courts debate. “I’m a sex work activist because we … know what’s best; we know what we need, and we have strength in our numbers.”
Definitive statistics on Toronto
“Between 80 and 90 per cent of it is indoor, invisible stuff that we have worked on for years to be discreet so that there’s no complaints,” Jeffrey said. “There’s just no data on this because we’re an invisible group. Even though we’re the huge majority … we’ve really worked at … being able to slide under the radar. I know thousands of (indoor) sex workers.”
If Justice Himel’s ruling stands, Jeffrey contends that the Canadian prostitution landscape will largely remain the same. She said it is illogical to argue that sex workers will fill the streets when, in reality, even street-level prostitutes can afford low-level brothels.
“It’s an absurdity to make something which is inherently risky a legal right,” Watts said. “Those laws against prostitution are there to protect women.”
Neither Jeffrey nor November has ever experienced violence from their clients. They say sex work isn’t inherently risky; rather, their clients are generally appreciative and complimentary, leaving them feeling empowered.
While Jeffrey observed her fellow sex workers’ rapture in court Sept. 28, she felt a heavy weight melt off her shoulders. She said she is now free to protect herself from harm.
“I can’t afford to be put out of commission by some incident,” she said. “I’m a single mother. There’s a whole safety structure built in, and I need that.”
No comments:
Post a Comment