Ottawa misses point on prostitution
Parochial approach does little to help sex workers
Recently, witnesses provided testimony on Bill C-36, The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Many applauded the legislative sentiment contained within the preamble. Supporters of the bill argued that it represented a progressive paradigm shift that made respect for human dignity an integral objective.
The specific passage states that “it is important to protect human dignity and the equality of all Canadians by discouraging prostitution.” By conflating human dignity with the discouragement of prostitution, the government is implying that it is only by exiting the industry that a sex worker can attain self-worth. Not only is this a paternalistic ideal, but it is also Hobbesian in nature as it implies that the “public worth of a man … is the value set on him by the Commonwealth.”
Despite the preamble, Bill C-36 sets forth a regressive conception of human dignity that is in direct opposition with the accepted view that dignity is intrinsic.
Although dignity is a natural human right, modern discourse advances the idea that rights also confer responsibility. According to Michael Rosen’s seminal work, Dignity: Its History and Meaning, the framework for human rights has evolved to embody the principle that human beings also have the “right to be treated with dignity.” This broader conception of human rights implies that dignity is not just a declaration, it is also a demonstrative action. To test the preamble’s respect for human dignity, it is essential to examine the actions of the various stakeholders.
Parliament has a duty to respect the dignity of Canadian society by enacting legislation that reflects Canadian values, as well as its constitutional obligations. The gendered language of Bill C-36, propounding that prostitution “has a disproportionate impact on women and children,” omits both male and transgendered sex workers. The exclusion of an entire population of stakeholders makes Bill C-36 factually inaccurate and compounds the criticism that the proposed legislation is based upon skewed scientific data.
With respect to constitutionality, the government has a responsibility to reflect the spirit of the Bedford decision. Instead, the government has abrogated its duty to protect Canadians from foreseeable risk by proposing legislation that will recreate the same harms that gave rise to the Bedford challenge. In its attempt to protect human dignity, Bill C-36 will have drastic consequences to those currently involved in the sex trade.
The concerns of law enforcement with respect to Bill C-36 must be balanced with the duty to uphold the dignity of Canadians. Out of all of the proponents of the bill, it was only the police that saw the need for the added criminalization provisions against sex workers. Several law enforcement representatives argued that it was an effective tool to open a dialogue with a potential “victim.” However, it was the spectre of Robert Pickton during the committee meeting that reminded us that law enforcement failed to employ all of its current legislative powers to protect society’s most vulnerable. Thus, it was not a lack of legislative tools that exacerbated the tragedy on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside; instead, it was the underpinning of racial and socio-economic prejudice that resulted in police inaction.
With respect to pro-prostitution and anti-prostitution organizations, the side that an individual sex worker supports is determined by whether one has had a positive or a negative experience in the industry. Given that prostitution is a complex issue, sex workers and former sex workers are the most knowledgeable people to draw upon for insight to create a sensible approach to the issue. This wealth of experience is being overlooked by an adversarial process, thus compromising the legitimate safety concerns of current sex workers.
Regardless of whether or not one agrees with prostitution, a sex worker’s intrinsic dignity accords him or her the right to personal security and harm reduction. Additionally, the economic imperatives that give rise to the necessity of sex work, such as housing and access to daycare, are a daily reality. It is interesting to note that some anti-prostitution proponents admitted at committee that a motivating factor to becoming a sex worker was the need to feed their children; however, it is now their support for Bill C-36 that will ultimately remove the opportunity of another parent to feed his or her children.
These important concerns merited serious deliberation at committee. Although many members of Parliament addressed the severity of the issue with respect, there was one exchange that warrants further examination.
Natasha Potvin, a sex worker brave enough to come before committee, recounted that she freely chose sex work to provide for her daughter. She stated that she never felt as though she was abused and, as such, took issue with the label of “victim.” She also maintained she had positive working relationships with her clients.
During the question-andanswer round, Conservative MP Stella Ambler equated Potvin’s testimony with the following quote, “the way you tell it, … it sounds like a TV sitcom about happy hookers.” While maintaining respect for the committee process, Potvin’s display of dignity was self-evident. She continued to answer questions calmly and truthfully.
Although the preamble to Bill C-36 was touted as a “progressive, paradigm shift” with respect to human rights, this was a hollow declaration. The notion that the Canadian government bestows dignity upon anyone is a regressive and patriarchal sentiment. All human beings have dignity by virtue of their existence and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.