Justice will only exist where those not affected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignation as those offended. – Plato
One year ago today I pointed out that though the still-contested Himel decision striking down Canada’s anti-prostitution laws in Ontario was “only one tiny crack in a very large and solid dam,” that “many such tiny cracks can weaken even the toughest structure so that one day it may yield to other pressures upon it.” That column reported another such crack: a judge in British Columbia allowed a similar challenge to the prostitution laws to proceed despite the efforts of prohibitionists to block it on a technicality. And now just in time for the anniversary of that decision, I’m happy to report yet another constitutional challenge, as reported on October 7th by CTV:
Canada’s prostitution laws are facing another constitutional challenge from a woman charged with keeping a bawdy house. And the lawyer mounting the case says other charges laid against sex workers in BC are in trouble because anyone can use a charter challenge as a defense in court. “It’s the same experts, the same evidence…the constitutional challenge is not out of reach the way it was two years ago,” said Joven Narwal…[who] represents a woman who was charged with keeping a bawdy house, living on the avails of prostitution, and procuring a person into the sex trade after Vancouver police raided…[her business just] days after an Ontario judge ruled that Canada’s prostitution laws are unconstitutional…In B.C., former sex worker Sheryl Kiselbach challenged the same laws, though the case is tied up in legal delays.
Putting those two cases together means anyone has access to the research and arguments to build a charter challenge, said Narwal. “It’s easier now to the extent that you know which evidence is necessary, which experts will be necessary,” he said. There are some 90 solicitation charges being prosecuted right now in B.C., and two groups of bawdy house charges. “They’re all compromised to the extent that anybody who is going to fight is going to sue constitutional arguments,” said SFU Criminologist John Lowman. B.C. prosecutors admit this will mean a harder fight in court, but they won’t be deterred. “If a charter challenge is raised, that will be more complicated,” said Crown spokesman Neil MacKenzie. “If that happens more often, we’ll just deal with it on a case by case basis.”
Obviously, prosecutors “won’t be deterred”; it isn’t their own money they’re wasting, and the fight is at least half of the sadistic fun for them. But that struggle is about to get a lot more difficult (and probably less fun) as the cracks in their prohibitionist dam keep multiplying. Remember Insite, the Vancouver harm reduction project the Canadian government was trying to close down? Well, the Canadian Supreme Court has unanimously decided in Insite’s favor, and legal experts are already predicting that this will undoubtedly help the sex worker rights case (thanks to Kelly Michaels for calling this October 7th Vancouver Sun story to my attention):
Canadian courts could strike down the country’s anti-prostitution laws if judges follow the logic of a landmark Supreme Court ruling on drug policy that came out last week. Experts say the biting unanimous decision preventing the closure of North America’s only safe-injection site for drug addicts has implications for a challenge to Canadian adult prostitution laws that is working its way through the courts. The court said closing the Insite clinic violated addicts’ basic rights to life and security, given evidence that the clinic reduced the risks from drug addiction. “I think it’s going to be cited in many, many cases,” said Errol Mendes, law professor at the University of Ottawa. He said the ruling’s logic can apply in a prostitution case that is likely to end up at the Supreme Court…Ontario’s Court of Appeal is expected to rule on the case soon. If it and then the Supreme Court uphold Himel’s decision, the federal government will have to find another way to restrict prostitution, or perhaps accept legalized brothels of the sort found in Nevada.
Both Himel’s ruling and the Insite ruling found government actions did not meet the “principles of fundamental justice” that underpin Canadian legislation…A lawyer in the prostitution case agreed that the Insite case was significant for his challenge…Canada’s Supreme Court is less politicized than the U.S. court, and few lawyers expect that to change even after Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper names two new judges, probably within months. Experts said the Insite decision showed that the government could not ignore scientific evidence to push a legal agenda that opposes drug use or prostitution. Significantly, the Supreme Court did not examine whether the trial judge was right to conclude that Insite saved lives, focusing on how the government had to react to that evidence. This might make it easier for the Ontario court to dismiss requests from government lawyers to reexamine the facts of the prostitution case…
Those cracks aren’t just legal, but social as well; as I reported in last year’s column and several other places, public support for criminalization in Canada is rapidly eroding and a number of newspapers have taken a pro-decriminalization stance. I’m willing to bet that ad campaigns like this one from Nova Scotia have helped by showing that prostitutes are “regular people”, thus fighting police propaganda that we’re all criminals and prohibitionist propaganda that we’re all damaged victims. Thus, I’m very pleased to see that St. James Infirmary has launched an ad campaign along very similar lines, and considering the story was featured on Huffington Post it may even find its way into the mainstream media:
…St. James Infirmary’s new media campaign promoting the rights of local sex workers…[is] a collaboration between [the infirmary]…and artists Rachel Schreiber and Barbara DeGenevieve…[and] features portraits of sex workers and supporters — spouses, partners, family members and health care professionals — putting faces to the people who work in the industry…”We wanted to make visible the workers who tend be invisible,” said Schreiber…”Sex workers aren’t people hanging out in a dark alley somewhere; they are nurses, teachers and mothers. Our goal is to demystify sex workers. They are just everyday people.” Schreiber believes that because of the mystery and invisibility surrounding the sex industry, workers have trouble accessing the resources they need — an issue she’s hoping the campaign will bring to light…the recent controversy surrounding Ashton Kutcher’s anti-sex trafficking campaign caught her eye…“When the focus of so much media attention is on the trafficking, it doesn’t leave room for anything else — like the resources to keep those who choose to work in this industry safe and healthy, and to give those who feel like they don’t have a choice a way out.” According to Schreiber, the problem with the media attention is that it fuels enforcement rather than support. “Many of the sex workers we assist at St. James choose to do what they do. And they have needs and rights just like everyone else,” said Schreiber. “And for those who feel stuck due to financial situation, the answer is in getting them the help they need, not in having them arrested.”
The result of the project: an honest, sincere and informational campaign across San Francisco. Schreiber originally planned to house the campaign on billboards across the city, but both Clear Channel and CBS Outdoor rejected the campaign, telling Schreiber that “sex worker [is] not a family friendly term”…But Titan 360, the ad company that supports BART, Muni and AC Transit, happily agreed, posting Schreiber’s photographs on Muni busses all over San Francisco. “We’re hoping this starts a dialogue,” said Schreiber. “And we want sex workers to be a part of that dialogue.”
Furry Girl’s sex worker rights billboard was similarly rejected by ad companies, but she finally located one who would take it. As in so many areas, the United States lags behind the rest of the developed world on sex worker rights. But when the prohibitionist dam crumbles in Canada, the cracks are bound to spread south; it’s good to see a few of them are already appearing.
Well Maggie – I just don’t share your optimism with regards to this stuff “spreading south”. The U.S.A. is an exceptional country – but it’s also a very independent one and doesn’t always fall in line with what other nations do.
I just don’t think we have a lot to hope for. The Neo-Feminists have the northern flank of this issue nailed down – and the Evangelicals have the southern flank nailed down in the “Bible Belt”.
We’re going to have to marginalize one of those factions to make any headway. I don’t know many “neo-feminists” here in Louisiana – so I can’t really help with that part. On the Evangelicals … man, there are a lot of them that I can really communicate with … and even they talk about expanding liberty and getting government off our backs …
EXCEPT when it involves prostitution, drugs, or marriage.
Liberty isn’t about picking and choosing though. Liberty should be about freedom to do what you please as long as you aren’t harming someone else. If I want to distill whiskey in my backyard – I should have the right to do it even if others don’t particularly like the fact that I’m doing it. Same goes for prostitution. There’s a lot of threats to my family out there – but none from prostitution and I can handle any threats coming from drugs by being an involved parent.
How is prostitution even VISIBLE to the people who are so against it? Streetwalkers maybe – at MOST? Which reminds me of the first time I was stationed in Hawaii – right out of Navy boot camp – had never been outside of the South. I was 20 years old and walking to a club in Honolulu to meet some buddies – first time in that city and at least five girls came up to be and said … “Hey do want a date?
I couldn’t figure it out … maybe these Hawaiian women were turned on by the “Big Bumpkin Mississippi Dumber-than-a-box-of-hammers” look? For awhile there, I felt quite the “stud” and thought Hawaii would be gold mine of pleasure for me! Until I arrived at the club and told my friends there about all these women approaching me – and they fell out laughing because I hadn’t figured out those gals were prostitutes.
Well … sorry – they were pretty girls and they were dressed nice and they acted nicely – how was I to know?? 😛
I’m not expecting it to spread south via politician or via feminism or evangelical, but via judiciary. It is my stated opinion that if decriminalization will only occur after the people’s or politicians’ attitudes change, it will happen shortly after Satan buys himself a snowmobile. Decriminalization in the U.S. will come by judicial fiat sometime in the next fifteen years, just as abortion and gay rights did, and then we’ll spend the next generation in culture wars over it exactly as has happened with the other sexual issues.
Heh … add this to your corruption diaries, Maggie. 😀
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/10/13/2011-10-13_excop_we_fabricated_drug_raps_for_quotas.html
Unfortunately, they do that all the time, all over the country; this is actually good news in that they admitted it for a change.
“EXCEPT when it involves prostitution, drugs, or marriage.”
Or abortion, sexual education, or contraception.
Don’t blame Christians for abortion. Some libertarians, like myself, believe that the FIRST liberty is life. I’m not a Christian. My rationale is based on the fact that I’m a living human – and it’s kind of illegal for anyone (but the government) to kill me. What line did I cross – and when did I cross it during my biological development – in order to receive that kind of protection? No one can tell me – and society can’t settle on a definitive answer. Until someone knows where that line is (first trimester, second trimester, birth, etc) – then it seems kind of illogical to destroy potential life at any phase of its development.
Sexual education? The government has no right to be involved in that. Parents should be free to teach what they wish. Good parents will raise good kids with healthy attitudes. Bad parents will raise kids that have issues the rest of their lives. Government shouldn’t be involved in sorting that.
Contraception? Where, in America – has any Christian Church made that illegal in any state, county, parish, or city?
The subject I thought was things evangelical Christians oppose. I don’t think it’s really that controversial to assert that on average, evangelical Christians oppose abortion, sexual education in schools, or contraception (by which I really mean contraception education, or making contraception easily available, or filling legal prescriptions for certain drugs).
I’m not saying non-chrostiams or non-evangelicals don’t also oppose some of these things, or that only evangelicals oppose these things. I’m just saying that these are three more things where evangelicals on average are more than happy to use the power of the state to impose their views on me.
Well Maggie at least my country of Canada is much closer to fully excusing/decriminalizing prostitution(or so it seems).
Its too bad that the U.S. seems to be so far away from that.. I find it disturbing that certain counties in Nevada are the only places where you have the freedom for it.
I know as much as they love doing it……a lot of people at the same time must feel annoyed somewhat that they have to go out of the country to do something completely normal.
I’m a little disappointed in myself that I missed this story.
I really like the legal precedent set with the InSite case. It boils down to evidence and a charter of rights trumping targeted policy. That will punch holes in many prohibitionist cases, not just prostitution.
One thing not mentioned in any of the articles above is that our current gov’t (which I voted for, I have to admit) is also introducing a crime bill that will increase the penalties for drug possession. I am very hopeful that the rulings in these cases are applied to dismiss the new laws.
Even with the appointed judges we have here in Canada I find they tend to be extremely moderate. I think we can attribute that to most judges being chosen by other judges, rather than by election like in the US. This article gives an overview of the process: (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/08/31/f-judges-how-they-are-chosen.html)
I wrote about the Bedford-Insite parallels too (a whole week before the Vancouver Sun did, actually!), here.
As I said in that piece, there are a couple significant differences in the two cases which could provide the courts with an escape clause if they’re not ready to strike down the prostitution laws. But the importance that the judges ascribed to evidence in the Insite ruling definitely gives grounds for optimism.
Thank you, Wendy! I’m always happy when my readers link to more information on the topic at hand. 🙂
>What line did I cross – and when did I cross it during my biological development – in order to receive that kind of protection? No one can tell me –
You became an independent entity, capable of survival outside the womb. There’. I just told you. Happy to clear that up for you.
Although there are all sorts of logical reasons for decriminalization of prostitution, we don’t do logic here in the USA, or at least a good number of us don’t.
Religion should be considered insanity. If you believe you speak with, and receive orders from an invisible super being in the sky, how are you really any different from the person who gets orders to kill from his neighbor’s dog, or voices in his head? There is no proof of the existence of any deity, or that any religion represents the will of such, if it existed. It’s all made up.
But, capitalism likes credulous, obedient slaves, and religion helps train such, so it will continue to receive state support.
>You became an independent entity, capable of survival outside the womb. There’. I just told you. Happy to clear that up for you.
Thank you for this, I feel exactly the same way.
“Religion should be considered insanity. If you believe you speak with, and receive orders from an invisible super being in the sky, how are you really any different from the person who gets orders to kill from his neighbor’s dog, or voices in his head? There is no proof of the existence of any deity, or that any religion represents the will of such, if it existed. It’s all made up.” – comixchik
^^This ❤
Krulac,
Here’s the Christian connection to anti-contraception laws.
The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice* (NYSSV or SSV) was founded in 1873 by Anthony Comstock and his supporters in the Young Men’s Christian Association. It was chartered by the New York state legislature. After his death in 1915, Comstock was succeeded by John S. Sumner.[1] In 1947, the organization’s name was changed to the Society to Maintain Public Decency.[2] After Sumner’s retirement in 1950, the organization was dissolved. The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice is not to be confused with its namesake, the earlier, 19th century Society for the Suppression of Vice. The NYSSV was an institution dedicated to supervising the morality of the public. Its specific mission was to monitor compliance with state laws and work with the courts and district attorneys in bringing offenders to justice. It and its members also pushed for additional laws against perceived immoral conduct. While the NYSSV is better remembered for its opposition to literary works, it also closely monitored the news-stands, commonly found on city sidewalks and in transportation terminals, which sold the popular magazines of the day.
The Comstock Act, 17 Stat. 598, enacted March 3, 1873, was a United States federal law which amended the Post Office Act[1] and made it illegal to send any “obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious” materials through the mail, including contraceptive devices and information. In addition to banning contraceptives, this act also banned the distribution of information on abortion for educational purposes. Twenty-four states passed similar prohibitions on materials distributed within the states.[2] These state and federal restrictions are collectively known as the Comstock laws.
The law was named after its chief proponent, the anti-obscenity crusader Anthony Comstock. The enforcement of the Act was, in its early days, often conducted by Comstock himself or through his New York Society for the Suppression of Vice.
The text of the federal bill reads:
Be it enacted… That whoever, within the District of Columbia or any of the Territories of the United States…shall sell…or shall offer to sell, or to lend, or to give away, or in any manner to exhibit, or shall otherwise publish or offer to publish in any manner, or shall have in his possession, for any such purpose or purposes, an obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing or other representation, figure, or image on or of paper or other material, or any cast instrument, or other article of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, for the prevention of conception, or for causing unlawful abortion, or shall advertise the same for sale, or shall write or print, or cause to be written or printed, any card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind, stating when, where, how, or of whom, or by what means, any of the articles in this section…can be purchased or obtained, or shall manufacture, draw, or print, or in any wise make any of such articles, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States…he shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than six months nor more than five years for each offense, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, with costs of court.
From 1873 the Comstock Act banned contraceptives and information about contraception from distribution. Judge Augustus Hand overturned this on the Federal level in 1934 so long as it was receipted by a physician.
Hand wrote that “we are satisfied that this statute, as well as all the acts we have referred to, embraced only such articles as Congress would have denounced as immoral if it had understood all the conditions under which they were to be used. Its design, in our opinion, was not to prevent the importation, sale, or carriage by mail of things which might intelligently be employed by conscientious and competent physicians for the purpose of saving life or promoting the well being of their patients.”
While I agree with Hand’s ruling, I think that the actions of the chief proponent of the law, Anthony Comstock, speak to actual motivations of his ilk in getting the law passed.
In addition, the Social Purity Movement championed the crusade…[that] was led by “energetic, driven men” backed by the professional organizations of white, middle-class, native-born men and women who assume the role of custodians of the public good. They had the backing of most state and federal officeholders and the result was an enactment of federal and state legislation that among other things criminalized contraception and abortion, both of which had long been legal.
This contravention of liberty, usurped by the states, persisted until 1965 when Griswold v. Connecticut overturned state laws regarding contraception.
Interestingly, the impetus for the finding in Griswold came from a dissenting opinion in a previous case Poe v. Ullman
where Justice John Marshall Harlan II filed one of the most cited dissenting opinions in Supreme Court history. He argued, foremost, that the Supreme Court should have heard the case rather than dismissing it. Thereafter he indicated his support for a broad interpretation of the due process clause. He famously wrote, “the full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints.“ On the basis of this interpretation of the due process clause, Harlan concluded that the Connecticut statute violated the Constitution
Griswold finally restored the status quo ante that existed before the Federal and State governments usurped power against individual rights. And the Social Purity Movement along with Comstock’s own “Society for the Suppression of Vice” makes it clear that this was a movement whose supporters were overwhelmingly christian.
*Notice the similarity between Comstock’s organization and this Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Saudi Arabia)one.
May the cracks spread rapidly, and far, and deeply. This is one damn dam which needs to come down.
Indeed, Sailor; we need to get back to *really caring* about each other, as sexual, social, emotional and partnering human beings. And being free to be ourselves (liberty) and freedom from social discrimination (non-opression) are vital and complimentary concepts towards that goal. ❤