Experts gathered at University of Guelph to debate topic
Almost a year after the groundbreaking Supreme Court case R v. Bedford, there is a shared concern that Bill C-36, proposed by the Conservatives to address the unconstitutional nature of prostitution laws in Canada, will fall short of its goal in protecting “communities and exploited persons.”
A panel of experts at the University of Guelph determined that Bill C-36 will continue to ignore the challenges that the sex trade industry faces and will be ineffective in addressing issues of protection from harm.
The Criminal Justice and Public Policy program and the Institute for Liberal Studies at U of G hosted the discussion on Wednesday, Oct. 2. Those in attendance widely agreed that Bill C-36 will not improve the lives of sex workers.
Dr. Peter Jaworski, Assistant Professor at Georgetown University, noted that he was “not endorsing [the legalization of prostitution], but if the genuine concern is about violence and the treatment of prostitutes, legalization can deal with this.”
Peter MacKay, Minister of Justice, told a different tale when promoting the bill. McKay said to the Senate review committee that under Bill C-36, the workers will be able to protect themselves while being able to exit the sex industry without fear of prosecution.
Dr. Rashmee Singh, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Legal studies at the University of Waterloo, did not agree with MacKay’s position at the panel. “Will criminalization protect the most vulnerable? Will Bill C-36 actually protect women? Recent research says no. Criminalization could make prostitutes more vulnerable,” Singh said.
Furthermore, Singh held that Bill C-36, like past prostitution legislation, continues to ignore that “the experience of the sex trade is different based on gender, race, economic and geographic location.”
“Native sex workers experience more violence and are more vulnerable,” Singh continued. “It’s entirely different from a middle-class white sex worker, and there’s an absence of empirical research on what sex workers want.”
Sex Workers’ Action Group: Guelph (SWAGG) suggests in the same nature that “Bill C-36 will disproportionately affect sex workers who are already vulnerable to violence and criminalization, including youth, those without homes, street-based workers, parents, those without status, and Indigenous people.”
Perhaps the problem is rooted in a mismatch, as many remain unclear as to what the bill is hoping to address. MacKay, in early September, stated that Bill C-36’s objective is “to reduce the demand for prostitution with a view towards discouraging entry into it, deterring participation in it and ultimately abolishing it to the greatest extent possible.”
Public opinion, however, suggests that the focus of any prostitution legislation should consider primarily issues of gender violence, sex trafficking, and harm, rather than the elimination of sex work as a legitimate profession.
While there is ongoing debate on the subject, one thing is clear: Bill C-36 will not pass uncontested.