
Katrina
Pacey of PIVOT Legal Society is blazing a trail of legal eloquence. Her
ability to articulate with passion the impacts of criminalization of
sex workers is a huge asset for our movement. Bravo, Katrina!
The following synopsis of the Canada v. Bedford decision is taken entirely from the PIVOT Legal Society website’s blog.
See full blog post at PIVOT Legal Society
Written by Darcie Bennett on December 20, 2013
Today
the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a landmark unanimous decision in
the case of Attorney General of Canada v. Terri Jean Bedford, Amy
Lebovitch and Valerie Scott. Canada’s highest court has ruled that three
provisions of Canada’s Criminal Code, s. 210 (keeping or being found in
a bawdy house), s. 212(1)(j) (living on the avails of prostitution),
and s. 213(1)(c) (communicating in public for the purpose of
prostitution) violate the s. 7 right to security of the person protected
by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All three laws have been struck down.
This
case was initiated in 2007 by three Ontario sex workers: Terri Jean
Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott. The applicants asked the court
to strike down the three provisions of the Criminal Code because they
violate sex workers’ constitutional right to security of the person.
In a decision written by the Chief Justice, the court said:
“The
prohibitions at issue do not merely impose conditions on how
prostitutes operate. They go a critical step further, by imposing
dangerous conditions on prostitution; they prevent people engaged in a
risky – but legal – activity from taking steps to protect themselves
from the risk.” (para 60)
Pivot,
Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence and PACE Society
intervened in this case and took the position that all three provisions
should be struck down.
Given
the limited time given to interveners for legal argument, we focused
our submissions on the communication law, which creates serious dangers
for street-based sex workers and prevents them from taking basic safety
measures. We argued that a law that has the stated purpose of preventing
public nuisance cannot be justified when it results in a risk of
serious harm and death to marginalized women. The Supreme Court agreed.
Here is a summary of the judgment:
s. 210 (keeping or being found in a common bawdy house)
The
SCC held that the bawdy house law violates sex workers’
constitutionally protected right to security of the person and is struck
down. The Court found that this law prevents sex workers from working a
fixed location that is safer than working on the street or meeting
clients at different locations. (para 64)
Specifically,
the Court stated that “the harms identified by the courts below are
grossly disproportionate to the deterrence of community disruption that
is the object of the law. Parliament has the power to regulate against
nuisances, but not at the cost of the health safety and lives of
prostitutes. A law that prevents street-prostitutes from resorting to a
safe haven such as Grandma’s House while a suspected serial killer
prowls the streets, is a law that has lost sight of its purpose.” (para
136)
s. 212(1)(j) (living on the avails of prostitution)
The
SCC held that the living on the avails provision violates sex workers’
constitutionally protected right to security of the person and is struck
down.
The SCC writes that the law is overbroad in that:
“The
law punishes everyone who lives on the avails of prostitution without
distinguishing between those who exploit prostitutes (such as
controlling and abusive pimps) and those who could increase the safety
and security of prostitutes (for example, legitimate drivers, managers,
or bodyguards.” (para 142)
s. 213(1)(c) (communicating in public for the purpose of prostitution)
The
SCC held that the communication law violates sex workers’
constitutionally protected right to security of the person and is struck
down.
In the decision the court writes:
“By
prohibiting communication in public for the purpose of prostitution,
the law prevents prostitutes from screening clients and setting terms
for the use of condoms or safe houses. In these ways, it significantly
increases the risk they face.” (para 71)
In this way, the harms caused by the law is grossly disproportional to intended objective of the law. The court writes:
“If
screening could have prevented one woman from jumping into Robert
Pickton’s car, the severity of the harmful effects is established” (para
158)
This decision marks a huge step forward for sex workers’ rights and human rights in Canada.
The
declaration of invalidity suspended for one year, during which time the
federal government can consider whether to design new laws that comply
with the Charter of Rights of Freedoms.
The full decision is available at: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do