Toronto Star

Bill 251 stinks of bad policy covering up actual ill will

- SANDRA KA HON CHU AND ELENE LAM

The Ontario government’s repeated pattern of short-sighted law enforcemen­t responses to issues that actually demand meaningful investment­s in social supports is alarming. In April 2021, for example, Premier Doug Ford announced the expansion of police powers to stop and interrogat­e people for perceived COVID-19 lockdown infraction­s — a power that would have been inflicted upon Black, Indigenous, and unhoused people in grossly disproport­ionate ways.

This announceme­nt was met with immediate public outrage. In a matter of hours, the proposal was scrapped, and Premier Ford later issued a mea culpa.

With far less fanfare, Solicitor General Sylvia Jones introduced Bill 251 in February 2021, with the stated intent to combat human traffickin­g and provide support for survivors. But a closer examinatio­n of the bill again reveals the Ontario government’s fixation on granting police ever-expanding authority that would severely jeopardize the safety and human rights of sex workers and racialized communitie­s.

First, Bill 251 empowers police to continue their problemati­c legacy of conflating sex work and human traffickin­g. Recent human traffickin­g initiative­s in Ontario demonstrat­e how law enforcemen­t are incentiviz­ed to surveil sex workers — particular­ly Asian, Black, Indigenous and migrant sex workers — under the guise of “protection.” High profile anti-traffickin­g investigat­ions, including “raid and rescue” operations ostensibly motivated by a desire to guard youth and vulnerable women, have instead resulted in the harassment, detention and arrest of sex workers, and the deportatio­n of migrant sex workers. Bill 251 would double down and perpetuate these many harms.

Bill 251 also gives expansive and excessive powers to police and “inspectors,” an entirely new category of law enforcemen­t solely tasked with investigat­ing human traffickin­g. The proposed law would authorize inspectors, without a warrant or notice, to enter any place at any time to investigat­e human traffickin­g and to examine, demand, remove or copy anything they deem to be relevant. This would give investigat­ors frightenin­gly wide latitude, based on their discretion alone. Such unchecked powers are arguably broader than the search and seizure capabiliti­es that police already have in emergency circumstan­ces. Alarm bells should be ringing.

And troublingl­y, individual­s ensnared in these investigat­ions must comply and answer all questions, or risk a $50,000 fine. Sex workers already face a barrage of negative consequenc­es for engaging in criminaliz­ed labour, including stigma, discrimina­tion, the possibilit­y of eviction, travel bans, criminal charges and loss of immigratio­n status. Bill 251 would require them to disclose details of their work without ever knowing whether an inspector’s questions are truly above board.

Anyone suspected of committing an offence would also be compelled to answer questions despite their charterpro­tected right to remain silent. Sex workers face extraordin­arily heavyhande­d and excessive fines if they do not co-operate, a coercive approach that is compounded for migrant workers who may not speak English. These provisions present serious human rights concerns and are unlikely to withstand constituti­onal scrutiny.

If that weren’t enough, Bill 251 delegates power to the government to make regulation­s requiring a potentiall­y limitless category of persons to report instances of suspected human traffickin­g. A de facto “snitch” pipeline plus sweeping surveillan­ce would certainly lead to major and unwarrante­d intrusions on privacy and contribute to additional profiling of racialized sex workers, driving them into further isolation.

But make no mistake: Bill 251 puts us all at risk of being unduly policed. Under this bill, law enforcemen­t can access hotel guest records for everyone. They could inspect anywhere, including private homes and businesses. This is not just a privacy and profiling issue for some; it is a human rights issue for all.

Bill 251 would insidiousl­y enshrine a bloated law enforcemen­t model that deflects attention and resources away from real, sustainabl­e solutions that tackle poverty, precarious immigratio­n status and lack of access to affordable housing, health and social services and labour protection­s. Ontario’s policymake­rs must scrap this bill. The City of Toronto should also stand against it, refusing to participat­e in practices that would alienate residents from crucial municipal services. Communitie­s need actual support, not knee-jerk policies that divert resources to police and harm the most vulnerable among us.

 ??  ?? Sandra Ka Hon Chu is director of research and advocacy for the HIV Legal Network.
Sandra Ka Hon Chu is director of research and advocacy for the HIV Legal Network.
 ??  ?? Elene Lam is the founder and executive director of Butterfly, an Asian and migrant sex workers support network.
Elene Lam is the founder and executive director of Butterfly, an Asian and migrant sex workers support network.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada