Editor’s note: The following open letter on the topic of prostitution in Canada has garnered over 800 signatures. It was written in response to another open letter that called for the decriminalization of sex work.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada,
Mr. Thomas Mulcair, MP, Leader of the Official Opposition, the New Democratic Party of Canada,
Mr. Justin Trudeau, MP, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada,
Mr. Jean-François Fortin, MP, Interim Leader of the Bloc Québécois,
Ms. Elizabeth May, MP, Leader of the Green Party of Canada
April 23, 2014
Dear Sirs and Madam,
We—the undersigned—are women who work in different capacities to end violence against women and to protect and advance women’s rights to equality. Prostitution is a practice in which women’s subordination to men is inherent and lived out repeatedly. Consequently, we are writing to you today to urge you to support the “Nordic approach” to legislation on prostitution for Canada, because it includes legislation, intensive social supports, and public education strategies, all designed to reduce and eliminate prostitution.
We are aware of the March 27 open letter from the Gender and Sexual Health Initiative at the University of British Columbia (GSHI), which calls for decriminalization of all aspects of prostitution, including buyers and profiteers, on the grounds that this is the only “evidence‑based” policy option.
The use of the term “evidence-based” has become a smear used by those supporting the sex industry to suggest that those who oppose it in the name of women’s equality are arguing from a position of nothing more than anecdote or opinion. The list of signatories implies that only those with formal credentials can “research” or interpret evidence. We reject both of these premises. Evidence about the harms of prostitution is gathered by academic researchers, survivors of prostitution and those working on the front-line. That evidence proves that prostitution is violence against women.
This is not only a dispute about evidence; it is a dispute about goals and principles, and legislators will have to decide carefully which principles they wish to uphold, and which goals they wish to pursue, for women in Canada. The evidence in the same studies and government reports cited in the GHSI letter supports intensive efforts, worldwide, to reduce and eliminate prostitution. All reports and studies on prostitution confirm that, as the Ontario Court of Appeal said in Bedford, “prostitution is inherently dangerous in virtually any circumstance.”[1] Merely attempting to reduce the ancillary dangers of prostitution is an inadequate, and in our view, discriminatory strategy.
The signatories to the GHSI letter believe that prostitution, or ‘sex work’, is sex between consenting adults; that a bright line can be drawn between ‘sex work’ and trafficking and child prostitution; and that a harm reduction strategy is all that is necessary to moderate the worst effects of the commercial sex industry. We believe that prostitution constitutes violence against women because it is a practice of subordination and exploitation that is gendered, raced, and classed; that, as the Supreme Court of Canada found in Bedford, most women cannot be said to choose prostitution,[2] and consequently, in the experience of women, any line between prostitution, trafficking and child prostitution is more artificial than real. Therefore, we believe that a strategy that affirms the human dignity of women and girls is essential and the only approach consistent with Canada’s principles of equality.
A Women’s Equality Framework
First of all, any new approach to prostitution must be set in a women’s equality framework and reflect the fact that equality for women is a fundamental principle of Canadian law, enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and set out in human rights legislation that governs employment and services in all jurisdictions in the country. Prostitution is a social institution that both manifests and embeds the inequality between women and men, perpetuating women’s subordination to men, and their status as sexual commodities for men’s use. In Canada, as elsewhere, men are overwhelmingly buyers and women are the ones being sold. It is not sufficient in the face of these facts to take an approach that might merely reduce the harms that surround prostitution, when prostitution itself is a reinforcement of women’s subordination.
Further, the evidence is clear, including in affidavits filed by both the claimants and the defendants in the Bedford case, that women enter into prostitution because of economic need and profound social disadvantage. As it makes no sense to penalize women for their sexual, social, and economic inequality, we endorse the legislative approach of the Nordic model, that is, to decriminalize those—usually women— who are being bought and sold, but to apply criminal sanctions to buyers, pimps, and those who profit from the sale of women’s bodies. The criminal law by itself is not a solution to the inequality problem that prostitution represents, but it is essential, in our view, that the criminal law convey a clear message about women’s equality in Canada: in this case, the message that men’s purchase of sex is an egregious and impermissible violation of equality rights.
Who is in Prostitution?
Most women in prostitution in Canada are there because of poverty, homelessness, addictions, lack of social supports, racism, and the many harsh impacts of colonialism on Aboriginal communities and families. Aboriginal women and girls are disproportionately represented in street prostitution and among women in prostitution who have been murdered. In British Columbia, as the Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution (AWCEP) has documented, Asian women are disproportionately represented in indoor prostitution, in venues such as massage parlours, where they are advertised to clients as ‘exotic.’ Many women enter prostitution as children; many have histories of child sexual abuse. Most say they would leave prostitution if they could.
These are well‑established facts. Prostitution is evidence of, and entrenches, sex, race, and class hierarchies. In the face of this, it is wholly inaccurate to call prostitution sex between consenting adults or to explain women’s presence in prostitution as choice, when the choice of women to be in prostitution, or to leave it, is so heavily constrained. Prostitution for poor, racialized women in Canada cannot be called liberty.
The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) has made a public call for help to stop the buying and pimping of Aboriginal women, and to stop the poverty and abuse that funnels them into prostitution. NWAC has said that its goal is to “end the prostitution of women and girls through legal and public policy measures that recognize the state’s obligations to 1) provide for basic needs and 2) protect women and girls from male violence.” The Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution (AWCEP) makes the same call. We support NWAC and AWCEP and join our voices to theirs.
It is apparent from the facts about women in prostitution that concerted and comprehensive social program intervention is required to prevent women and girls from entering prostitution and to assist them to leave it. Well‑designed interventions by Canada’s governments, with long‑term commitments to address the social and economic disadvantage of women and girls, and particularly of Aboriginal and other racialized women and girls, will be needed, not just piecemeal short‑term exit services, drop‑in centers, or safe houses. Creating conditions that minimize the risk of women entering prostitution, and genuinely helping them to leave it, requires providing women and girls with adequate alternative sources of income, including social assistance sufficient to meet basic needs, adequate housing, access to all levels of education, decent work, child care, and counseling, addiction, and mental health services.
On this point too we find the Nordic model helpful, because it is clear that criminal law, by itself, is not a sufficient solution to the profound inequality that prostitution represents. Genuine programmatic and budgetary commitments by governments are also necessary to address the deeply rooted social and economic disadvantages of women and the history of sexism, racism, and colonialism that underlie prostitution.
Why Canada Should Not Legalize Buying, Pimping and Profiting
Legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution has been tried in the Netherlands, Germany, the state of Nevada, some states in Australia, and New Zealand. Such an approach means that governments and societies accept that there is an underclass of women (defined by some combination of poverty, race and addiction) who can continue to be exploited in prostitution, even though prostitution is inherently an institution of sex inequality and violence. We do not agree that prostitution is acceptable for any women, or that the goal of equality between women and men can be abandoned for some women.
The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) flatly rejects the prospect of indoor prostitution in legalized brothels as an advance for Aboriginal women and girls. They point out that Aboriginal women and girls who are in street prostitution are unlikely to move indoors because poverty and racism keep them in the most dangerous forms of prostitution. Even if this were not the case, NWAC finds that, over time, Aboriginal women and girls have been shifted from institution to institution by settler governments—residential schools, group homes, prisons. The brothel appears to be the most recent institution that is considered better and safer for Aboriginal women. But this is not equality for Aboriginal women and girls. As AWCEP knows from the experience of its members, indoor prostitution is no answer; it merely puts hard walls around the inequality of poor and racialized women, and leaves it unchanged.
Further, legalization and decriminalization, as an approach, renders the men who are buyers, pimps, and prostitution entrepreneurs invisible; their activities become protected, legal, and normalized. We believe that this is a wrong approach: men must be held accountable when they subordinate and exploit women. Equality for women cannot be achieved in Canada if we are unwilling to engage with the cruel reality that men exploit women in prostitution.
Even within the limited goal that legalization sets for itself – i.e., to reduce the harms that surround prostitution – the evidence does not show that it has succeeded. The most recent comprehensive study of prostitution and trafficking in one hundred and fifty countries finds that countries that have legalized prostitution show an increased inflow of trafficked persons, and growth in the size of the prostitution industry.[3] Government reports from Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand say that street prostitution persists,[4] and that there is little improvement in the conditions of women in prostitution.[5] The violence inherent in prostitution is accepted by legalization, and the violence regularly associated with prostitution does not disappear.
In addition, what is legalized and normalized is not just individual prostitution transactions, but the prostitution industry. It not only becomes legal for individual men to purchase access to women’s bodies, but also legal to own and run a business that sells access to women’s bodies, or for employers in isolated work locations to provide men access to women for sex as an aspect of employment. For Canada to take this step would be both dangerous and discriminatory.
Where Should Canada Stand?
Canada has a history of commitment to women’s equality, to racial equality, and to vigorous social programs as a means of creating a more egalitarian society in which the basic needs of all Canadians are met. In addition the rights of Aboriginal peoples, and of Aboriginal women to live free from violence, are set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, recently endorsed by Canada. Consistent with Canada’s long‑standing commitments to equality, we urge you now to support a Nordic‑model approach to new legislative, programmatic, and public education strategies to reduce and eliminate prostitution in Canada.
We do not accept prostitution as a solution to women’s poverty; we want something much better for Canada’s poor and racialized women and girls. We believe you do too, and we urge you to act on your commitments to women and to an egalitarian Canada.
List of Signatories
Men in support of the letter
Footnotes
[1] Canada (Attorney General) v.Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186, para. 117, online at: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2012/2012ONCA0186.pdf
[2] Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, para. 86, online at: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do.
[3] Seo-Young Cho, Axel Dreher, Eric Neumayer,“Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?” World Development, vol. 41, pp. 67–82, 2013.
[4] Ministry of Justice (New Zealand), “Street-Based Workers,” Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, chap. 8, 2008, online at: http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/commercial-property-and-regulatory/pro….
[5] Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (Germany), Report by the Federal Government on the Impact of the Act Regulating the Legal Situation of Prostitutes (Prostitution Act), July 2007, at 79. online at: www.mvcr.cz/soubor/05-regulating-legal-situation-of-prostitutes.aspx. See also, Ministry of Security and Justice (The Netherlands), Daalder, A.L., WODC (Research and Documentation Centre), “Conclusions,” Prostitution in the Netherlands since the lifting of the brothel ban, 2007, online at: https://english.wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/1204e-engelse-vertaling-rappo….
Apr 24, 2014 at 7:55am
If only the Straight did something about the ads for escorts in the adult personals.
Apr 24, 2014 at 8:40am
Or we could, you know, use a sane method that accepts the fact that prostitution will never go away and recognizes that some women do, in fact, choose to enter the sex industry of their own free will. Regulate, tax and monitor, increase penalties for pimps and coercion, direct more funds towards education and support programs for women who decide to move on from prostitution. All that happens when prostitution is further criminalized is that it's driven further underground and the police vice squads get more business.
(By the way, does anyone else find it interesting that there's never any mention in these treatises of men who prostitute themselves?)
Apr 24, 2014 at 10:01am
from the letter:
"that, as the Supreme Court of Canada found in Bedford, most women cannot be said to choose prostitution,[2] and consequently, in the experience of women, any line between prostitution, trafficking and child prostitution is more artificial than real."
checking the footnote reference [2], it (the Supreme Court) actually said:
"First, while some prostitutes may fit the description of persons who freely choose (or at one time chose) to engage in the risky economic activity of prostitution, many prostitutes have no meaningful choice but to do so."
the letter's writers are subtly replacing "many" with "most", yet i would hope that "many" if not "most" of these signatories would actually understand the difference, and not try to mis-paraphrase the findings of bodies like the supreme court. hopefully this example is an exception and not characteristic of how they have built their argument.
Apr 24, 2014 at 10:36am
there are people on both sides of this debate, not unlike abortion. Everyone considers themselves an expert and as if they know better then others. The truth is no one does. There are "experts" on both sides.
I say lets put it to a nation wide referendum and be done with it.
Apr 24, 2014 at 12:32pm
Making the best choice amongst limited options is something we all do, and nobody calls that "violence" when we do it, except prohibitionists about sex work. Instead we act to mitigate or prevent what real violence there is and recognise those involved in an industry as people providing a service, and not the dehumanizing mindless "bodies" that are "sold" as the prohibitionists say.
Yes, this is about principles. Do you want the government dictating to sex workers, most of whom are women, what they can and cannot do with their own bodies for their own purposes, or interfering with those that they sell services to?
Apr 24, 2014 at 1:55pm
Wow, this reveals so much about these crusaders. Just a few of this letter’s many absurdities:
“’evidence-based’ has become a smear” … no, it’s a call for integrity around evidence and arguments. Why do the authors take it as a smear?
“We believe that prostitution constitutes violence against women” … this statement of faith is one of those things that needs to be argued and evidenced.
“any new approach to prostitution must be set in a women’s equality framework” … another statement of faith.
“the evidence is clear … that women enter into prostitution because of economic need and profound social disadvantage.” … now the authors are back to evidence? Surely they’ll provide evidence of how these affidavits are generalizable…
“Most women in prostitution in Canada are there because of” … now the clear evidence applies only to “most women”…
Yet, “These are well‑established facts. Prostitution is evidence of, and entrenches, sex, race, and class hierarchies.” … now prostitution IS the evidence, and without having offered any real evidence or argument.
“We do not agree that prostitution is acceptable for any women” … back to an argument from faith. Prostitution is a priori unacceptable. We are to accept this without argument or evidence.
Re legalization: “the evidence does not show that it has succeeded.” … again with the evidence, but without showing any work that supports the assertion.
“The violence inherent in prostitution” … more faith, which does not follow from the references that precede it.
“what is legalized and normalized is not just individual prostitution transactions, but the prostitution industry.” … another giant leap, one that overlooks that prostitution has always been legal.
“For Canada to take this step would be both dangerous and discriminatory.” … Again, prostitution is already legal!
“We do not accept prostitution as a solution to women’s poverty” … and neither does anyone else. Please no straw men thanks.
Lastly, why does the letter divide “signatories” from “men in support”? What does that say about the authors position on sexist social relations? You can’t fight sexism by promoting sexism.
This letter reveals exactly who makes up the SWERF movement in Canada, and hints at their thinking and tactics…
The authors obviously have powerful feelings but their position is absurd, and therefore not the least bit feminist.
Apr 24, 2014 at 2:07pm
I want to be sympathetic to the arguments of the Nordic side, but i think they have the wrong target. Prostitution happens very simply because the demand for sex is greater than the supply. I realize that the Nordic side is trying to do right and support social justice–I share their general concerns. I wish I could share their conviction that long lectures about abused women or stringent legal measures against men who are seeking sex would eliminate prostitution, but I don't think it will.
Unfortunately there's a capitalistic and monetized relationship at the base of prostitution; it is the idea of a woman's body as property. But the Nordics, instead of attacking the property idea (e.g. capitalism is the source of women's oppression) attack its gender leanings (e.g. men are the source of women's exploitation). As a man, when I hear about the Nordic position, I am saddened, hurt, and angry.
Just as there are some women who buy into the anti-abortion position, so there are some men who buy into the Nordic position. I would suggest that they are exactly analogous.
Apr 24, 2014 at 6:26pm
Laws don't work, never have. In Florida where it's extremely illegal for both sex worker and client, the trick simply declares "Here is a gift for you" and presents payment which avoids all prosecution if it's an undercover sting. That's how easy this illegal buying legislation can be bypassed. There's dozens of other ways, including third party payment which brings back pimps.
Whoever drafted this letter should contact male, transgender, and female sex workers advertising in the hundreds of forums, agency sites and classifieds and ask them if they appreciate having somebody meddling with their livelihoods because "it's in their best interests".
Apr 24, 2014 at 6:47pm
Since male sex workers have no mention in this letter I can build an enormous gay brothel then fight any charges trying to shut it down by using this letter of experts in court which clearly proves sex work is only harmful to women.
Apr 24, 2014 at 8:17pm
This is unfortunately quite typical of attacks by the prohibitionists on consensual adult prostitution. Lengthy screeds full of hysterical concern "for the children" and hurt feelings but short on actual statistics backing up their position with most of their so-called statistics being willfully misinterpreted or being read from studies with serious methodological issues. The vast majority of papers supporting decriminalization are more likely to be logically presented with valid statistics supporting their position.
When bad feelz is the best evidence you can present your position must be disregarded and I am hopeful that the federal government will do the least possible damage is this situation. The ideal approach would be for the federal government to do nothing and simply let the old, flawed laws lapse but that is unlikely to be the approach of our increasingly statist society.
You are so self absorbed it's unbelievable. …
Your energy, warmth and presence as you left the cafe. …
O