Länderberichte KANADA:

[Aoife]

Diese Argumentation ließe sich sinngemäß ebensogut beispielsweise auf Polizei oder Feuerwehr übertragen:

Warum nicht diese beiden Organisationen einfach für kriminell erklären, wer solch einen gefährlichen Job wählt ist schließlich selbst schuld ...

Liebe Grüße, Aoife

[Aoife]

          

Sex-trade workers voluntarily enter a world known for violence, drugs and death, the federal government will argue at a June showdown over the embattled prostitution laws.

Dieser Prozess läuft jetzt gerade, wer Echtzeitinformation aus dem Gerichtssaal möchte kann auf twitter NikkiSPOC folgen.

Liebe Grüße, Aoife

[Marc of Frankfurt]

Ein starker Medienauftritt
von SW Nikki Thomas Sex Professionals of Canada's.

gegen Diane Watts von REAL Women of Canada's
ein typischer Kampf gegen ideologische Gegner, die auch falsche Argumente vorbringen, weil sie "das Chaos" befürchen ohne die diskriminierenden Strafgesetze.

Video
Debate on sex trade laws
http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/25595501

[Marc of Frankfurt]

Jetzt abstimmen

68.82% (2,415 votes) Uphold the lower court decision and decriminalize prostitution.

13.74% (482 votes) Overturn the lower court decision and restore the laws.

14.96% (525 votes) It doesn't really matter. This is going to the Supreme Court.

2.48% (87 votes) I'm not sure.

Total Votes: 3,509

Jetzt abstimmen
www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/06/c ... -rule.html

[Marc of Frankfurt]

Anwalt der Sexworker: RA Alan Young:
- "Using restrictive laws to discourage prostitution is as wrong-headed as discouraging smoking by outlawing cigarette filters.
- “You can't deter legal conduct by making it riskier”.
- “It is ethically unsound. No government should be able to endanger its citizens in the name of sending a message”.
- Preventing them from working indoors with other prostitutes forces them to operate on the streets or in isolation – which cannot help but place them in greater danger.


Staatsanwaltschaft (Crown):
- Prostitution ‘not a constitutionally-protected right’.
- Decriminalizing prostitution won’t make it safer.
- State has no obligation to protect prostitutes. The state does not owe prostitutes a promise of safety if they choose a profession that is fraught with danger.
- “The law does not oblige individuals to engage in an activity that could risk their security”.
- Sex-trade workers voluntarily enter a world known for violence, drugs and death.
- “It is the practice of prostitution in any venue, exaggerated by efforts to avoid the law, that is the source of the risk to prostitutes”.


Die 3 Sexworker Terri-Jean Bedford, Valerie Scott and Amy Lebovitch:
- The prostitution provisions violate their constitutional right to security of the person by compelling them to work under unsafe conditions.
- Since prostitution is legal, it is dangerously hypocritical to make it impossible for sex-trade workers to operate in safety.


www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/u ... cle2061799

www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/s ... cle1935992

[Marc of Frankfurt]

Publication

Sex, work, rights: Changing Canada’s criminal laws to protect sex workers’ health and human rights

Überblick über die gefährlichen Prostitutionsgesetze in Kanada:

www.aidslaw.ca/publications/publication ... hp?ref=197





Sex, Work, Rights
The Legal Network was recently before the Ontario Court of Appeal, intervening on behalf of sex worker rights in Bedford v. Canada. Read our report from inside the courtroom.

Prozessbericht:
www.aidslaw.ca/EN/documents/BedfordvCanada_rpt-ENG.pdf

Bedford v Canada: Report from the courtroom on prostitution law and sex work
www.lauraagustin.com/bedford-v-canada-r ... d-sex-work

[Marc of Frankfurt]

Der Prozess um die Entkriminalisierung der Sexarbeit
und zum Unterschied von Entkriminalisierung vs. Regulierung/Legalisierung

The Case for Decriminalizing Prostitution




by Amy Lebovitch Sex worker; sex worker rights activist, Sex Professionals of Canada.
First Posted: Jul 13 2011

The sex workers challenging Canada's sex laws say it's about safety – and freedom.

By now, you have probably heard that there is a case in the courts challenging Canada’s current prostitution laws.

Valerie Scott, Terri-Jean Bedford, and I are the three plaintiffs, and there are many other current and former sex workers and academics who have given their voices and expertise to this case.

Although the exchange of sex for money is legal in Canada, there are provisions within the Criminal Code that make it impossible to work in this business legally and safely.

First, we are challenging Section 210 of the Criminal Code, which is also known as the bawdyhouse law. This law prevents us from working in the safety of our own home, or in a familiar location, either by ourselves or as a collective.

A bawdyhouse is any place used for prostitution. This law thus applies to a sex worker seeing a few clients from her home, which is how much of sex work is conducted in this country, and to a place that two or three sex workers use as their work place. Under this law, such actions are considered an enterprise crime.

Upon being charged, the government seizes all of your assets. The police can, and do, show up with moving vans and take everything the sex worker owns, including freezing any bank accounts.

Everyone should feel safe in their homes and their places of work, but the bawdyhouse law puts our safety and lives in jeopardy. Because working this way is completely illegal, we are afraid that if we were to call the police to report a bad client we would be investigated and charged. This has happened all too often.

Bad clients know this, and use it to their advantage.



Second, we are challenging Section 212(j), which forbids anyone from living “wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution,” including someone who “lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute.”

This is the only section of the Procuring Law that we are challenging.

Far from protecting us, it criminalizes all of our everyday and healthy relationships. It is illegal for us to have a roommate or any other kind of relationship, including a spouse. If we are working at a location away from our homes, this even prevents us from having vital support staff such as receptionists and drivers, and from implementing other security measures.



The third law that we are challenging is Section 213(1)(c), also known as the Communicating Law, which prevents my colleagues who work on the street from interacting with potential clients.

The “communicating for the purpose of prostitution” law came into effect on Dec. 20, 1985. It forbids anyone who is in a public place, or in a place open to public view, from “stop[ping] or attempt[ing] to stop any person or in any manner communicat[ing] or attempt[ing] to communicate with any person.”

This law creates an environment in which my street-based colleagues are working out of the public eye, in industrial areas. They are unable to assess and negotiate with a client out in the open for fear of being seen by the police and charged.

Those who seek to hurt us know this, and seek out my colleagues on the street, committing horrific crimes.





Legalization vs. decriminalization

We are not seeking legalization, which is a government-controlled model of sex work that treats prostitution as a vice. Rather, we seek full decriminalization.

Legalization exists in a few places such as Amsterdam, Germany, the state of Victoria in Australia, and some counties in the American state of Nevada.

Legalization does nothing to assist in creating a safer working environment for us. It is a government-controlled model, a vice model, in which the government says, “We will allow sex work, but only under these stringent regulations. You are only allowed to work in designated brothels in designated areas.”

This model does not allow for independent sex workers, either individually or in groups. In most of these places, sex workers are required to do some, or all, of the following: register with the police; be photographed; be fingerprinted; and provide very personal information – just to receive a licence.

Individual sex-worker licences can cost exuberant amounts – much higher than licences for other work – and brothel licences are even more expensive. This obviously creates economic and other barriers for individuals who wish to obtain a licence to work as a sex worker, or to run a sex-work business. Furthermore, if you have a criminal record, you can’t get a licence.

If I lived in a legalized system, I would rather work illegally than work under these kinds of conditions.

Legalization certainly benefits the brothel owners, who often receive 50 per cent of the earnings of the sex workers, and take further advantage by overcharging for necessities such as condoms, lube laundry services, sheets, food, etc. And the government not only receives the money from the costly licensing fees, but also takes, on top of regular income tax, a “sin tax,” like it does with cigarettes and alcohol. We are not an item for purchase.

We are working people who deserve to pay fair and equal taxes like everyone else.





Decriminalization, on the other hand, views sex work as legitimate work, and rescinds the laws against consensual adult sex workers, whether the work is commercial or private.

New Zealand and New South Wales in Australia both have decriminalization. In these places, sex workers are not required to get expensive licences, and can work without the threat of criminal charges.

The cost for licences and permits is on par with those of other businesses, and sex workers pay the same taxes that any other businesses do.

Decriminalization puts the power back in the hands of the sex worker so we can work under our terms while still being productive members of society. We should be able to work safely, and should be able to contribute to, and participate in, society, just like everyone else.

With decriminalization, sex workers have better jurisdiction over their work and are free to work on their own, with other sex workers as a co-op, or for a brothel.

Sex workers have a voice in decriminalization, and can form unions if they choose. Giving sex workers multiple options for their working venues is very important. Also, under this system, if you have a criminal record you can still be a sex worker.

Full decriminalization is what most sex-worker-run organizations all over the world support.

With the existence of a model like decriminalization, sex work is slowly becoming legitimate. However, the removal of the laws is only the beginning. There is a very long history of sex workers being viewed as disposable, diseased, and less than human.

Stigma is not going to go away overnight. Stereotypes are being perpetuated about sex workers, and it’s very important for people to challenge them. Sex workers are human beings with real lives and families, and are deserving of dignity.

We are fighting for a safer environment for consenting adults to do business with each other without our safety being compromised, and without fear of prosecution.

For more information, please see the Sex Professionals of Canada website at www.spoc.ca.

www.themarknews.com/articles/6002-the-c ... ostitution


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Lebovitch

[Marc of Frankfurt]

Challenging the Criminalization of Sex Work

A public lecture by Alan Young
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School
Counsel in Bedford v. Canada

Part of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network's
3rd Symposium on HIV, Law and Human Rights

9 June 2011
Toronto, Ontario

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX6JI5onIUA[/youtube] 2 www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCUKVtSQ1Hw
3 www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkdPQNGu5KU
4 www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu0GDD9lAXM
5 www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTk9-h1Um8A

[Marc of Frankfurt]

Große Frauenkonferenz www.womensWorlds.ca mit heftiger Sexworker-Diskriminierung:

"second wave feminist imperialism"


Hostile clashes dominate women's conference

NEWS / Pro sex workers beaten down in name of feminism

Lara Purvis / Ottawa / Monday, July 18, 2011


At the recent Women's World 2011 Conference held in Ottawa, sex workers and their allies found themselves silenced and outnumbered by anti-sex work groups and a controversial art exhibit entitled "Flesh Mapping: Prostitution in a Globalized World".



Ein typisches Mißverständnis bzw. Verdrehung von Tatsachen:
Alle Sexworker oder Migranten werden als Opfer von Prostitution oder Menschenhandel gesehen.
Ein zugrundeliegende Vorverurteilung verfälscht die Wahrnehmung.


Promoted as a global feminist conference, Women's World 2011 saw the convergence of almost 2000 women from 92 countries, from July 3 to 7 at the University of Ottawa.

Designed to bring together researchers and activists on women's issues, this year's event unexpectedly highlighted a deep and painful fissure in the feminist movement, with hostile clashes at the sex worker advocacy panels and in the common spaces over the course of the five days.

The week's schedule included numerous panels arguing, from various angles, to end global prostitution. This movement, more commonly associated with an earlier generation of anti-pornography, anti-sex work feminism argues that sex work is inherently exploitative of women, further entrenching patriarchal structures.

In comparison, the pro sex work groups at Women's World were small in number. Groups like Prostitutes of Ottawa/Gatineau Work, Educate and Resist (POWER), Toronto's Maggie's and Montreal's Stella work as sex worker advocacy groups arguing for the option to choose their occupation, safer working conditions and harm reduction strategies. Together they support groups like Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC), which has made significant grounds in arguing for decriminalization in Canada.

The chasm between the two groups became obvious at the Women's World multi-media exhibit, "Flesh Mapping: Prostitution in a Globalized World" which attracted much attention among media and conference delegates and marked a strong prohibitionist ideology throughout the conference.

The multi-media exhibit included 70 used bed sheets as canvases that expressed sentiments, such as, "women are abandoned in the name of choice."

It was a disturbing exhibit for many but, for activists like Tuulia Law of SPOC and the president of Students for Sex Workers Rights at the University of Ottawa , it felt personal.

"It was a huge room - located ironically just down the hall from the Pride Centre - with messages about the horrors of prostitution and the impossibility of choice written all over, and a bed in the middle," says Law. "Even the name - they were mapping our flesh - I found incredibly offensive, but being in that room, with all the folk-art looking quilts and sheets that denied our existence and our choice, that denied the existence of choice in the sex industry at all, just made me want to die."

Oral presenters at the two sex worker advocacy panels were also harassed.

A social justice activist and former sex worker Simone (not her real name), was a Women's World volunteer who attended the panel, The Stigma of Sex Work: Addressing the Problems, Organizing for Change.

"I realized there was a strong prohibitionist presence from the beginning. It was clear in the schedule and the general focus on the Flesh Mapping exhibit. And I overheard conversations in the elevators and all around me. I knew people were organizing to disrupt the workshops," says Simone.

After the presentations by panelists that included Frédérique Chabot (POWER), Colette Parent and moderator, Chris Bruckert (University of Ottawa) and Nengeh Mensah (The Université du Québec à Montréal) the language turned personal.

When one audience member suggested they were perpetuating not only patriarchy but also the oppression of capitalism with their choices, a group of anti-sex work supporters stood up and cheered.

"The panelist's responses were so powerful and well-spoken but they were not heard. It was such a feeling of hatred towards sex positive feminists," Simone shares quietly.

"I got up and went to them where they stood congratulating each other. I said, "We had this much space in this conference." She holds up a hand, her thumb and finger an inch apart. "This much. And you squashed it. Why are you denying my existence? My choices? I am in this room," says Simone.

"It felt like a tornado went through the room," agrees Lindsay Blewett, an escort who also attended the workshop. "It's really hard to describe how it felt. I felt so powerless as nothing we could have done would have changed anything. They were not there to dialogue. They were there to humiliate us, to silence us, to laugh at us, to yell at us."

The hostility didn't end in the workshops. Pro sex work activists wearing t-shirts chose to sit quietly outside of the Flesh Mapping exhibition on the last day offering informational materials and buttons in an effort to share another perspective.
Joining them was Bruckert, researcher and professor from the University of Ottawa.

"We sought to take the high road and were respectful," says Bruckert. "It was perhaps 10-12 of us, mostly women, one young male student - a number of us were current or former workers, others were allies... I should note that I was there in part to show that some of us older feminists also question the prohibitionist discourse."

The reaction to their presence was visceral. One sex worker was asked if she'd ever been raped.

"One wonders at the bounds of human decency," muses Bruckert.

Another anti-sex work supporter did media interviews pointing to the group and implicating them in the harm to other women, while others accused them of ignoring the needs and hurt of Aboriginal women and being in alliance with the police.

Though the group tried to respond to each concern, they were not heard.

"It was extremely demoralizing," says Chabot.

A representative for Women's World shared her disappointment at the events, stating: "We now recognize that pro sex worker activists felt unsafe at the congress - we take this very seriously and have plans to dialogue with representatives of that community about how to ensure the situation is not repeated at future Women's Worlds and similar gatherings."

While the experiences of sex workers and their allies at Women's World left many wondering about solidarity and the meaning of feminism, Bruckert stands firm.

"I have been a feminist for 35 years and refuse to let that go. I am, however, profoundly disturbed by what I saw and experienced at Women's World. This was a silencing of the voices of marginalized women and unprovoked verbal violence - I am at a loss to define this as anything other than second wave feminist imperialism."
www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/Hostile_clash ... 10497.aspx

Ein bedeutender Erfolg der Sexworker war auf der Welt Frauen Konferenz in Peking 1995, wo erstmals in die Resolution die Unterscheidung "selbstbestimmte, freigewählte Sexarbeit" aufgenommen wurde. Dafür wurde damals die ganze Nacht gekämpft.
www.sexworker.at/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=89716#89716





Ausstellung "Flash Mapping":

www.flickr.com/photos/ww2011/sets/72157 ... 908615625/

www.flickr.com/photos/ww2011/5908617697 ... otostream/

www.facebook.com/notes/aboriginal-women ... 7634006691

www.womensworlds.ca/story-flesh-mapping

www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1015025 ... 6634443935

[ehemaliger_User]

Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC) is shocked and deeply saddened to learn of the death of Wendy Babcock on August 9, 2011. A member of SPOC from 2004 to 2007, Wendy worked constantly to dispel stigma against sex workers, and improve the lives of others.

Our community has lost a passionate voice, and together we mourn her passing.

Rest in peace, Wendy Babcock. You will be missed.
Toronto News


Kurz vor ihrem Tod schrieb sie noch:

Can A Person Be A Sex Worker Rights Activist While Not Enjoying Sex Work Themselves?
by Wendy Babcock on Wednesday, 03 August 2011 at 19:28

I have to get something off my breast... er... I mean chest. At the risk of offending the pro sex positive feminist movement (which I have no inclination of doing) I have to admit that as a sex worker rights activist, and more so a former sex worker, I have never enjoyed sex work. In fact I am remorseful that sex work is how I lost my virginity, I regret that at 15 I entered sex work, and I despise the fact that I learned about my sexuality through sex work while the majority of other girls my age were discovering theirs in the school yard - usually with kids their own age.

For me, sex work was something I did to survive to get me through the years when I was homeless and too young for a full-time job, general welfare, youth shelters, and food banks. I did NOT engage in sex work because I wanted to express my sexuality, bring pleasure to others, or any of the other reasons pro sex feminists have for engaging in sex work. Not that I'm condemning them for their choice or suggesting that their decision was not a well thought out choice to engage in sex work. I'm just saying that my reasons for being involved in sex work were different. How could I have gone into sex work for any of those aforementioned reasons without first discovering my own sexuality – let alone be comfortable with it? Hell, I never even kissed another person before I headed out to my first call in Mississauga to meet a business man who would pay me money for my virginity. I did not enjoy sex work as a teenager nor did I enjoy it as an adult. There was always the fear of a bad client, a broken condom, and the judgment of johns regarding my appearance (which includes having a few too many of them comment on my stretch marks, cellulite, and a whole slew of other insecurities that unfortunately we as woman must deal with - thanks to the airbrushing of models in magazines like Vogue, Glamour and Maxim), which would be reviewed and commented on by many "johns". I didn't enjoy the stigma, the fact that I had to hide my profession for fear of being socially isolated, teased, and worse - arrested.

Had I enjoyed sex work I wouldn't have quit doing sex work and taken a job that didn't require me to be sexual with the people I serviced when the opportunity presented itself. Yet I still consider myself to be a sex worker activist, one that promotes the decriminalization of prostitution. And do I think that not getting pleasure from sex work diminishes or sets the sex worker rights movement back? Hell no, in fact I believe it enhances it. Yet our voices are not heard in the sex worker rights movement, as it is universally falsely believed that current or former sex workers who dislike their previous or current occupation have no place in the sex worker rights movement.

I remember when I first got involved in sex worker rights and was a naively impressionable young woman. I did a talk show for AM 680 (the Bob Oakley Show) and when I mentioned that I didn't like sex work myself I was chastised by fellow activists. "How will anyone understand why decriminalization is important if you keep telling interviewers that you don't like sex work?" "Don’t tell people you don't like sex work, if you want to do that you have no business speaking for sex worker rights" and "You are discounting everything other sex worker rights activists are saying!"

Stunned and not wanting to upset anyone as I felt really passionate about the need to decriminalize sex work I kept my mouth shut about my true feelings and instead pretended that sex work was this revolutionary way for me to reach my true sexual potential. And please don't get me wrong, it is for some sex workers, for those sex work can be freeing, empowering, and a slap in the face to the misogynistic notion that men are the ones with the sexual power and women should just submit.

However, not all of us sex workers feel this way. In fact in my 8 years of working with street involved sex workers very few expressed that this was the way they felt as many of them were survivors of violence, ripped off by clients, faced arrest and were harassed on a regular bases. Many of them did not feel represented in the sex worker rights movement. This is an absolute shame as if anyone, ANYONE should feel they belong in the sex worker rights movement it's the street sex workers who face the brunt of criminalization, social isolation, stigma, and discrimination. Yet, when sex worker rights are talked about it is usually the overtly privileged sex workers, the high end sex workers, the ones who chose sex work as a legitimate occupation over other employment choices that they could have made. These are the sex workers who work in safer environments, the ones who work independently who don't have to give any of their earnings over to a boyfriend or agency, the ones who work from their own or shared establishments, the ones who have the luxury of choosing where, when and who they work with. These do not tend to be the sex workers who see sex work as their only means of survival - who don't have (or are not aware) of other employment options. So then, why if it is street involved sex workers who feel harshest effects of criminalization not heard when it comes to the question of sex worker rights and decriminalization?

I can't answer that question, for I do not know the answer. What I do know is that we, while acknowledging my own privilege at having my voice heard in this movement, as allies for the sex worker rights movement have an obligation to our brothers and sisters who face a much higher rate of isolation than us must embrace sex workers that do not feel that they would stay in sex work if given the opportunity to be employed in another profession.

Back to my question, Can A Person Be A Sex Worker Rights Activist While Not Enjoying Sex Work Themselves? I say, ABSOLUTELY! Just because a person does not enjoy sex work does not mean that they have nothing to add to the decriminalization debate. Since when does not liking your job mean that you can't (or shouldn't) speak up against the barriers that make your trade MORE unenjoyable - even distasteful? Personally, I believe that any debate about sex worker rights should be more diverse than just between the people who utterly despise the profession and want it criminalized to the people that love their profession and want it decriminalized to include the people who neither like it nor avoid it but can justifiably see that things still need to change. There is nothing worse than hating your job and feeling like you have no voice in changing things. Worse still, if you hate your job, the isolation, stigma, criminal records, and other legal repercussions (such as fearing custody of your children, ability to retain status in your chosen country, etc.) does nothing to assist those sex workers who would prefer to leave the profession. I may have disliked providing sexual services for money but that shouldn't disclude my voice (or others) that the laws that keep sex workers working underground. Personally I think ALL voices need to be heard. What do you think?

Law is cool

[Marc of Frankfurt]

Proposed rules see Edmonton escorts, body-rub parlours subject to greater restrictions, higher fees

Licensing plan puts city at forefront of regulating erotic massage


By Gordon Kent, edmontonjournal.com September 15, 2011


Legitimate Edmonton massage practitioners will no longer be regulated with body-rub parlours under proposed new licensing rules.

EDMONTON - Proposed new rules for escort agencies and body-rub parlours will put Edmonton at Canada’s forefront for regulating erotic businesses, the city’s chief licensing officer says.

Under recommended bylaw changes released Thursday, escorts and body-rub workers will need to take a sexual exploitation information session and prove they’re over 18 before receiving a business licence.

Legitimate massage practitioners would be regulated separately from the steamy side of the field, with a lower fee and no more need for police checks.

The city also wants to form a sex-industry enforcement team, similar to the group inspecting bars and nightclubs, that could include police, bylaw, health, employment and immigration, border services and community members.

“This is going to be leading edge. I have colleagues in Vancouver interested in what’s going on, people in Calgary interested in what’s going on,” Randy Kirillo said.

“You can create laws. Part of this is dealing with social issues … I think that’s where we’re on the forefront. Also, we’re acknowledging what’s going on.”

He expects the sexual exploitation course, the only one he knows about in Canada, would last two or three hours and cover such issues as
- employment standards and
- human trafficking.

[ Merkwürdige Bezeichnung für einen Kursus, wo es um Arbeitsstandards geht. Anm. ]

Police would be able to recommend to Kirillo whether he should give escort agencies and exotic entertainment agencies licences, based primarily on whether those in charge have a history of violence.





The Ontario Court of Appeal still hasn’t ruled on a case that successfully challenged the constitutionality of laws against keeping a bawdy house, pimping and soliciting in public, but Kirillo said that isn’t the issue right now.

“We’re not licensing prostitution. We’re licensing an adult entertainment and erotic industry.”

The city now licences
- 1,057 massage practitioners and
- 594 massage centres.

Police estimate there are about
- 40 sexual body-rub parlours in the city.





Roger Murray, an accredited massage therapist since 1995, said new rules for his business would be great.

“For over 16 years, each year I have had to go downtown to get a record check that shows I have not been caught prostituting myself or selling drugs. You would think they would have figured it out,” he said.

“The public is pretty aware that massage parlours are a front for prostitution. It’s nice that the lawmakers are finally realizing that there are legitimate health-care providers out there.”

[ Alles ein Kampf um Stigma, Vorurteile und die uralte Kriminalisierung. ]

Murray, owner of Healing Arts Massage Therapy in Old Strathcona, said police checks cost $30, plus parking and lost income.

“It’s a useless waste of my time … It has no bearing on the people who come to see me, it hasn’t reduced the actual number of massage parlours in town.”

Coun. Ben Henderson, who asked for a review of the industry, said he thinks the proposals are a step in the right direction.

While he admitted there’s no perfect solution, he said it’s hard to regulate an activity with a murky legal status.

“If it’s going to exist, we need to be able to do what we do with any other business — that it fits in, that it’s not causing problems for others, that it’s safe,” he said.

“It’s a more honest approach than pretending it doesn’t exist.”





The changes are part of a proposed overhaul to the business licensing bylaw that would also control outlets serving alcohol based on whether they allow minors, such as restaurants, rather than whether they allow dancing.

That would put the same controls on bars and nightclubs — including requirements for security, noise and first-aid plans — while ending the need for police scrutiny of restaurant licence applications.

As well, the revised bylaw would spare vendors at farmers markets and festivals from buying business licences that cost them hundreds of dollars and eat up their profits, Kirillo said.

“We were in the weird situation of having grannies selling pies at the market … (where) there would be $8 left for granny.”

The issue will be discussed next Wednesday by council’s executive committee.

www.edmontonJournal.com/news/Proposed+l ... story.html





A "sexual exploitation course" should also address root causes of exploitation (dis-empowerment):
- stigma management (how to deal with corrupt cops, legal traps, good adult service vs. bad prostitution, sex or body work, body-mind-dualism...)
- partnership issues for sex/body workers (stigma, codependency, pimping)
- money making, saving and investment (compound interest, lifelong financial planning)
- social security (insurance, pension/houseownership)
- exit and outplacement strategies (continuous education, career planing)
- sex worker unionisation (NGOs, lobbying, history of our movement)
- STD prevention, health care
- law (legalisation/regulation vs. decriminalisation/deregulation, migration vs. trafficking)
- ...
Course can be a good first step on the long way to establish a "sex work academy" and "sex work self-regulatory board (SRB)"...

SRB Vorbild Indien:
www.sexworker.at/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=38203#38203

Sex worker academy / whore college / Sexworker Uni:
www.sexworker.at/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=817

[Marc of Frankfurt]

Das Fehlverhalten von Polizei und 'Politik der SW-Vertreibung' wird in einem Prozess aufgearbeitet:

Fall des Massenmörders Robert Pickton und die verschwundenen 49 Sexworker in Vancouver 1990-2000


Kritischer Polizeibericht erschien 2010
www.sexworker.at/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=86237#86237

Aktuelles Gerichts-Gutachten (Prozess-Stellungnahme) von Prof. John Lowman, Anwalt der Sexworker, Criminologist Simon Fraser University:
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/ ... 30115a.pdf





Police make sex workers 'easier targets,' inquiry told
Inquiry told of adversarial relationship between prostitutes and police

The Canadian Press
Posted: Oct 13, 2011 4:12 PM PT

A combination of the law, police tactics and bad attitudes among officers has forced street-level sex workers out of sight where they are easy prey for predators such as Robert Pickton, a prostitution expert told the public inquiry into the serial killer's case on Thursday.

John Lowman said police in Vancouver have engaged in a decades-long campaign to move prostitutes out of residential neighbourhoods and upscale areas of the city and into the industrial and commercial areas of the Downtown Eastside, where Pickton spent years hunting his victims.

That eventually meant sex workers were in isolated areas out of sight of both police and local residents, making it easy for predators to target the women with impunity, said Lowman, a criminologist at Simon Fraser University.

• 'The law itself encourages an adversarial relationship between street-involved women and the police.'
  -- Criminologist John Lowman

"Women are spread out in an area like that in back alleys and pushed off the main streets, they're a much easier target for a misogynistic predator pretending to be a client," Lowman, the first witness at the hearings, said during his testimony.

"I don't think it was the intention of anybody to make this a more dangerous area or the situation worse, but I think that's exactly what it did."

Commissioner Wally Oppal is examining why the Vancouver police and the RCMP failed to catch Pickton as he murdered sex workers from the Downtown Eastside in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as well as the decision by Crown counsel not to prosecute Pickton for attempted murder after an attack in 1997.

Lowman said a number of factors converged to make life for impoverished, drug-addicted street prostitutes, many of them aboriginal, particularly dangerous by the time Pickton began bringing them to his farm in nearby Port Coquitlam to be butchered.

Reduced chances of arrest

Under pressure from the city and residents, Vancouver police spent years displacing street-level sex workers away from residential areas — even those in the Downtown Eastside itself — into the deserted, poorly lit and scarcely policed industrial areas nearby. Sex workers knew if they stayed in such areas, which served as unofficial red-light districts, they could reduce the chance they would be arrested, he said.

Criminologist John Lowman says authorities have helped push street prostitutes into dangerous situations.

At the same time, local courts were imposing conditions on sex workers ordering them to stay off the main strolls in the Downtown Eastside, forcing them to side streets and or back alleys where they were even more isolated.

And Canada's prostitution laws encouraged police to view sex workers primarily as criminals, making it more difficult for prostitutes to come forward if they were abused, fostering dismissive attitudes among some officers, Lowman said.

He has interviewed sex workers during his research who recalled being ridiculed by police officers when reporting assaults, and harassed while on the streets. For example, some sex workers were taken on "starlight tours," [Deportationen] in which officers drove them across the city and dropped them off with little way to find their way back, he testified.





"The law itself encourages an adversarial relationship between street-involved women and the police," said Lowman.

He said that reality exposed sex workers to people like Pickton, who appeared to have picked up women from the Downtown Eastside with a plan to kill them from the outset.

Lowman said Pickton fits the description of a classic predator, which he describes as a man who hates women and poses as a client to attack or kill sex workers. Lowman contrasted that with a client who might attack a sex worker in the heat of the moment during a sexual encounter.
Premeditation presumed

"In your opinion, Pickton would have planned, ahead of time in a premeditated manner and formed that intent at the time he was picking up the woman?" commissioner Wally Oppal asked Lowman.

"The likelihood that he may have done that 5 times or 10 times or 49 times, the idea that he didn't premeditate it sounds rather unlikely to me."



Pickton was arrested in 2002 and eventually convicted of 6 counts of second-degree murder. The jury declined to convict him on the more serious charge of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to life in prison with no parole for at least 25 years.

The remains or DNA of 33 women were found on Pickton's farm, though he boasted to police that he killed a total of 49.

The inquiry's terms of reference focus specifically on the actions of police and prosecutors, but a number of advocacy groups have urged Oppal to look at broader issues affecting sex workers in the Downtown Eastside such as poverty, drug use and prostitution laws.

Lowman's testimony alternated between discussing how police in Vancouver treat sex workers and debating the actual law -- two areas that he said were intertwined.

"Fundamental changes need to be made at every level," said Lowman, who has publicly advocated for decriminalization.

"It's written through so many layers of our reaction to these women that we need to change it all in order to change the parts."

Oppal is also conducting a less-formal set of hearings known as a study commission to examine broader issues surrounding missing women, including the so-called Highway of Tears in northern B.C.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia ... xpert.html





Sicherheits-Lektion für Sexworker:
Profiling des Serienkillers Jack the Ripper, der vor 100 Jahren in London 5 Sexworker ermordet hat:
www.sexworker.at/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=29533#29533

Gedenktag 17. Dezember - Aktionstag gegen Haßtaten an Sexworkern:
www.sexworker.at/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=803

[Marc of Frankfurt]

maggiesToronto.ca

[Marc of Frankfurt]

Katrina Pacey, a lawyer with the Pivot Legal Society

talks about her efforts to change the laws surrounding prostitution


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt66l3J4Mn4[/youtube]



www.pivotLegal.org

[Marc of Frankfurt]

Sex Work By Law: Bedford's Impact on the Municipal Regulation of the Sex Trade

Elaine Craig

Dalhousie University - Schulich School of Law


October 21, 2011

Review of Constitutional Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2011

Abstract:
The recent Ontario trial decision in Bedford suggests 3 interrelated principles that municipal law makers should consider when formulating bylaws aimed at regulating sex work.

These principles, if upheld on appeal, will inform the constitutionality of both current and prospective bylaws regulating sex work in Canadian cities.

In Bedford, Justice Himel concluded that

1. the constitutionality of laws regulating the sex trade
   must be determined in a legal context which recognizes the violence faced by sex workers.
2. She confirmed that laws that indirectly make sex work more dangerous and harmful
   must be consistent with those principles that our legal system, through its courts, have deemed fundamental to a just society.
3. She recognized that in a just society a
   government is not entitled to jeopardize the health and physical safety of sex workers for the sake of reducing public nuisance.

In order to ensure the constitutional validity of proposed bylaws,
municipal lawmakers will therefore need to consider the impact their bylaws have on the safety of sex workers.





Number of Pages in PDF File: 21

PDF Download
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1947270





.

[fraences]

Experts say police repression is pushing prostitutes into more isolated parts of cities, leaving them more vulnerable to violence.

The Canadian Press

MONTREAL — It wasn't so long ago that prostitutes were a common sight on Montreal's historic lower Main, standing on street corners in high-heeled boots.

For years, the intersection of Ste. Catherine Street and St. Laurent Boulevard was the epicentre of the city's bustling red light district.

Over the past decade, though, nearly all the strip clubs and street-level prostitution has been pushed to the outskirts to make way for a city-backed development of office buildings and trendy shops.

The changes may be good for business -- but they also have sex workers worried about their own safety.

Repression from police has pushed prostitution into more dangerous, isolated parts of the city, making sex workers more vulnerable to violence, said Anna-Louise Crago a sex worker and a clinical coordinator at a sex-trade support and advocacy group known as Stella.

"There's incredibly heavy police repression against any sex workers trying to work on the street in this area," said Crago.

"Criminalization and police repression against sex workers, our clients, and our work places make it impossible to work in safer conditions."

Experts say the same pattern of repression has been repeated in other cities across Canada, making prostitution a more dangerous job.

In Vancouver, police engaged in a decades-long campaign to move prostitutes into the more isolated Downtown Eastside, where serial killer Robert Pickton spent years hunting his victims, said John Lowman, a criminologist at Simon Fraser University.

That made it easy for Pickton and other predators to target women, said Lowman, who testified at the Pickton inquiry.

"One of the things that just about everybody agrees on is that the current laws don't make sense," he said in an interview. "It's a problem that needs a fundamental solution."

It's not illegal to be a prostitute in Canada, but many of the activities associated with prostitution are classified as criminal offences.

Lowman said the ambivalence has caused confusion in the courts and made it difficult for police to do their job.

Efforts to protect sex workers often appear to be at odds with the police's attempt to crack down on prostitution.

That seemed to be the case in December when Ottawa police chief Vern White, faced with a possible serial killer targeting prostitutes, warned them to be extra cautious.

Advocacy groups countered that it was the force's very own tactics of aggressive policing and repression that had forced them into more dangerous situations.

A study by the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS suggests that's the case.

The report, based on interviews with more than 200 sex workers between 2006 and 2008, found a link between prostitutes who reported having been harassed or assaulted by a police officer and the likelihood they were victims of violence in future.

In Montreal, Stella has recorded between 50 and 60 cases of violence, including rape, brutal beatings, and attempted murder against sex workers annually.

Yet only four or five cases reach the courts every year. The victims are often afraid to press charges, said Emilie Laliberte, director of Stella.

Across the country, 171 female prostitutes were murdered between 1991 and 2004, and that 45 per cent of those cases went unsolved, a 2006 Statistics Canada report found.

But because many such killings go unreported, that number is "almost certainly lower than the real figures," a House of Commons sub-committee concluded in 2006.

Since then, of course, grim details have emerged about Robert Pickton, who murdered sex workers in the late 1990s and early 2000s in the Vancouver area.

The debate about how to cut back on the violence may end up being settled by the courts.

The federal and Ontario governments are trying to overturn a lower court ruling in which a judge struck down three laws against prostitution, saying they force people in the sex trade to choose between obeying the law and keeping themselves safe.

Sex workers argue that the laws prevent them from working indoors where it's safer, taking time to talk to a potential client to assess the risk they pose and hiring bodyguards.

The Harper government maintains that protecting victims of exploitation and supporting the enforcement of existing laws should be a priority.

Whatever the Appeal Court decides, its likely the ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The top court's ruling in support of the Vancouver safe-injection site Insite has given advocates cause for optimism. They are hopeful the Harper government will be forced to make changes to the country's prostitution laws.

"That judgment gives us a lot of hope," said Laliberte, who is also a former sex worker.

"For us, it's a really important sign that even though the government doesn't want to respect our rights the courts will."


http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... on-120102/

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... z1iQ4Zyv2q

[Marc of Frankfurt]

Sexworker klagen gegen die Menschenrechtsverletzung durch die Prostitutionsgesetze vor dem höchsten Gericht in Kanada

Sex-trade workers make their case in top court


By Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News
Posted: Jan 19, 2012 9:57 AM ET

Lawyers for the federal government and a group of Vancouver sex-trade workers were in Canada's top court on Thursday to argue the validity of an attempted constitutional challenge to prostitution laws.

Members of the sex-trade community and their supporters rallied outside the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa following the hearing.

They said they were proud to be arguing before the country's top court and to have the opportunity to tell the justices about the rights violations they say sex-trade workers encounter every day.

The Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society and the federal government have been embroiled in legal arguments since 2007 when the group launched a claim that prostitution-related laws violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Former sex-trade worker Sheryl Kiselbach is also part of the case and was in Ottawa for the hearing.
Supporters of sex-trade workers gathered outside the Supreme Court in Ottawa Thursday after a hearing where grounds for a constitutional challenge to prostitution laws were argued.

"I'm feeling hopeful that the judges understand more of the issues," Kiselbach said. She worked in the trade for 30 years and said if the laws were struck down those in the sex trade would be able to work without fear and with more safety. Sex-trade workers who work on the streets, for example, can't take the time to try to assess a customer because of fear of being caught by police, said Kiselbach.

"I think the federal government is trying to protect its legislation. I think that they have not demonstrated that they care about sex workers' rights and sex workers' safety and their willingness and the effort they're putting into fighting my clients is a further example of that," Katrina Pacey, lawyer for the group and Kiselbach, said outside the court.

"As far as I can tell, the federal government seems intent on maintaining Canada's prostitution laws despite the incredible violence and rights violations that they create," she said.

Pacey said the government is using its immense resources to fight a group of vulnerable people and that its legal action has delayed their fight to have prostitution laws struck down for years.

"My hope is that we get to get on to what this case is really about which is sex workers' safety," said Pacey. "It's time for us to recognize that criminal laws have failed by every measure. Sex work happens. Sex workers deserve to be respected and their rights deserve to be respected."

The federal government challenged the original case before it could get to court in British Columbia, and attempted to have it thrown out. The government argued sex-trade workers don't have grounds to launch a claim because it doesn't qualify for public interest standing.


Court to decide if case can proceed

The legal test for granting public interest standing before the court involves demonstrating that:

- The issue is a serious one.
- There is no other reasonable or effective way for the issue to come before the court.
- Those behind the case are directly affected by it.

The British Columbia Supreme Court agreed with Ottawa, and denied public interest standing to the sex-trade workers group in 2008. But that decision was overturned when the group appealed it in 2010.

The federal government, in turn, launched an appeal, and now it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the case can proceed and the sex-trade workers can continue with their challenge.

The court heard arguments Thursday and will issue its decision in the coming months.


Workers argue laws are discriminatory

The group is trying to challenge most of the Criminal Code provisions pertaining to adult prostitution, including those related to bawdy houses, living off the avails of prostitution, and communicating in a public place for the purpose of prostitution.

Prostitution itself is legal in Canada; most of the activities related to prostitution, however, are prohibited by the Criminal Code.

Ultimately, the sex workers in this case are trying to decriminalize the activities.

The sex-trade workers argue the laws prevent them from improving the health and safety of their work, they discriminate against them because of their line of work and they restrict their freedom of expression.

The workers also claim the prostitution laws prevent them from obtaining the protections and benefits that other workers get under labour and employment laws.

'Willy Pickton had his day in court, my clients want theirs'—Lawyer Joseph Arvay

During the hearing Thursday, government lawyers argued that the Vancouver group should not be granted public standing as its case doesn't meet the test because there are plenty of other cases where the country's prostitution laws are being challenged.

"There are avenues and there are many of them," government lawyer Cheryl Tobias told the court. She referred to the Bedford case in Ontario as an example of where prostitution laws are already being challenged.


Community Reaction

CBC readers offer nuanced perspectives. See what you had to say.

Terri-Jean Bedford, a dominatrix, currently has her case at the Ontario Appeal Court. The federal and provincial governments are appealing a lower court decision that found parts of the existing laws concerning bawdy houses, living on the avails of prostitution and soliciting prostitutes in public unconstitutional. Ontario Superior Court Judge Susan Himel said in her ruling that the provisions force prostitutes to choose between their liberty and their safety.

"I personally am very content that we got a very good and a very fair hearing," said government lawyer Cheryl Tobias after her appearance before the court.

Joseph Arvay, acting for the sex-trade workers, said no one else should be arguing their case other than the Vancouver workers themselves. He called the government's approach "insulting and patronizing."

"This case is about whether the court will ensure that the sex workers who work the streets of Vancouver's notorious downtown Eastside will have access to justice," he told the court. "For them, this case is not about vindicating some abstract constitutional principle, but rather, to be able to carry on what is otherwise lawful, legal sex work in a manner that will not cause them grievous bodily harm or even death."

"Willy Pickton had his day in court, my clients want theirs,” he said.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/201 ... -scoc.html

[Arum]

Prostitution: Ontario court gives OK to brothels



TORONTO — The federal government was reviewing its legal options Monday after Ontario's top court swept aside some of the country's anti-prostitution laws, saying they place unconstitutional restrictions on prostitutes' ability to protect themselves.


"There's some elements we like more than others. We'll examine the decision and decide what the next steps are. But I think the position of this government is well-known," Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Postmedia News in Seoul, South Korea. "We view prostitution as bad for society, and we view its effects as particularly harmful for our communities and for women, and particularly for vulnerable women. And so we will continue to oppose prostitution in Canada."


The landmark decision means sex workers in Ontario will be able to hire drivers, bodyguards and support staff and work indoors in organized brothels or "bawdy houses," while "exploitation" by pimps remains illegal. However, openly soliciting customers on the street remains prohibited, with the judges deeming that "a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression."


The Ontario Court of Appeal suspended the immediate implementation of striking the bawdy house law for a year to allow the government an opportunity to amend the Criminal Code.


The decision is binding in Ontario only, but will undoubtedly prompt similar challenges in other provinces.


On the campaign trail Monday after April 23 was set as date for Alberta's provincial election, Premier Alison Redford wasted no time weighing into the debate.


"The ruling allows for Parliament to redefine the definition of a 'Bawdy House' within the next 12 months," Redford said in a statement. "I urge Prime Minister (Stephen) Harper to reconstruct the relevant sections of the Criminal Code to continue Canada's strong opposition to legalized prostitution. As Justice minister, I saw first-hand what this type of life does to families and communities. That is why I am very proud of our Safe Communities programs."


Any decision by the Supreme Court on the issue would apply countrywide.


"It remains open to Parliament to respond with new legislation that complies with the requirements of the charter," the decision says.


Federal opposition parties suggested the government was making an inappropriate response to the ruling, urging it to bring the debate to Parliament to develop a solution to protect vulnerable women at risk.


"I think the response of the Conservative government always implies a moral involvement and moral judgment," said NDP deputy leader Libby Davies. "The issue here is the status of the law and the fact that sex work does take place. The issue for us to respond to is how do we protect and ensure that sex workers' rights are upheld just as any other member of society. That's what has been at the core of these court decisions."


Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae agreed the ruling raised important legal and social issues that needed review. While he didn't want to immediately propose a response prior to studying the matter, he said the ruling also highlighted that elected members of the current government have a problem with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


"They don't take the charter seriously and having failed to take the charter seriously, the courts are going to be insisting that the government do just that," said Rae. "I think that's part of the question and part of the problem."


The government's attempt to salvage its prostitution prohibitions, "implies that those who choose to engage in the sex trade are for that reason not worthy of the same constitutional protection as those who engage in other dangerous, but legal enterprises," three majority justices of the five-judge panel wrote in their decision.


"Prostitution is a controversial topic, one that provokes heated and heartfelt debate about morality, equality, personal autonomy and public safety. It is not the court's role to engage in that debate. Our role is to decide whether or not the challenged laws accord with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."


The appeal stemmed from the legal oddity that while prostitution is not illegal, many activities surrounding it are, including running a brothel or bawdy house, communicating for the purpose of prostitution and living on money earned by a prostitute.


That disconnect led to a constitutional challenge mounted by three sex trade workers — Terri-Jean Bedford, 52, Valerie Scott, 53, and Amy Lebovitch, 33, — who say the laws prevented them from taking basic safety precautions, such as hiring a bodyguard, working indoors or spending time assessing potential clients in public.


In 2010, Ontario Superior Court Judge Susan Himel agreed with them, ruling the increased danger for prostitutes was "simply too high a price to pay for the alleviation of social nuisance."


The debate fell across a backdrop of carnage against street prostitutes, including serial killer Robert Pickton and missing women across Alberta.


The federal and provincial governments appealed for the reinstatement of the three laws that had remained in place until Monday's decision.


It took nine months of deliberation after a week of intense oral arguments last summer and stacks of written material — more than 25,000 pages of evidence in 88 volumes.


Witnesses included current and former prostitutes, police officers, a prosecutor, social and activist organizations, a politician and a journalist.


In the end, three appeal judges — David Doherty, Marc Rosenberg and Kathryn Feldman — formed a majority opinion, with two partial dissenting opinions by James MacPherson and Eleanore Cronk.


The ruling looked for a balanced approach:


- The prohibition on bawdy houses, or brothels, in Section 210 of the Criminal Code, was deemed unconstitutional and must be struck within 12 months unless amended by Parliament;


- The prohibition against living on the avails of prostitution in Section 212 of the code was deemed a partial constitutional violation because it criminalized non-exploitive commercial relationships between prostitutes and others; the justices' solution is to limit the law's application only to pimps, or those living off a prostitute's income "in circumstances of exploitation." This reworked provision takes effect in 30 days;


- The communication law in Section 213, designed to keep the sex trade off the street and away from public view, remains untouched and in full force.


The two judges offering a partial dissent would have also struck down the communicating law, saying: "the communicating provision chokes off self-protection options for prostitutes who are already at enormous risk."


Alan Young, a noted constitutional lawyer representing the three sex trade workers, argued the government had a responsibility not to increase the potential harm against its citizens, even those it deems engaging in an unsavoury trade.


It was not about a constitutional right to prostitution, Young argued, but rather a right to security of the person, which the laws interfered with.


"I ask this government, if it is a responsible government not to waste more time arguing an impossible position in the Supreme Court of Canada — they're going to lose," Young told reporters Monday. He asked instead that the government go back to the drawing board to rewrite the laws in a way that would offer sex workers the same health and safety protections as the rest of the public.


"Stop wasting time advancing a losing position in court," he said to the government.


Scott thanked the court for "pretty much declaring sex workers persons. I didn't think I would see it in my lifetime — but, here we are."


However, Scott said she's still concerned about the men and women who remain on the street.


"What are they going to do? We have to figure out something to make these women and men safe," Scott said, pointing to New Zealand and New South Wales — an Australian state — as models that should be explored by lawmakers.


Young said there should be no fear from the general public in the wake of the declaration and the sky would not fall because bawdy houses are no longer illegal.


"We're not going to see a dramatic change in the way the sex trade operates in Canada," he said. "It's still going to be fairly discrete and not in people's faces. This is a small step in the right direction."


"Forget the law for a moment, this is ethically unsound — no government should be able to jeopardize the safety of its citizens just to send a message," Young said in his arguments to the court. "Nothing is safe, completely safe. But can safety be enhanced by moving it indoors? Absolutely."


Nikki Thomas, executive director of Sex Professionals of Canada, said all levels of government now needed to discuss with sex workers the regulatory framework for opening and running brothels and other aspects of the sex trade. As well, she said, the sex industry needs to convince the public there is no need for them to fear the new regime.


"We are human, we are taxpayers," she said. "We are not going to have fire and brimstone and sex workers raining down from the sky."


Meanwhile, several former prostitutes angered by the decision, said the court's ruling will prevent social workers and police from intervening to rescue underage prostitutes and sends the wrong message to children that prostitution is an acceptable career.


"I worked the street for 15 years and this won't keep anyone safe," said Katrina MacLeod, who now works with Walk With Me, a group working to help women out of the sex trade. "It's more than troubling, it's disgusting."


Bridget Perrier, tearful and angry, held up a metal coat hanger twisted into a baton, saying it is a tool known as a "pimp stick" -- heated up under a flame and then used to whip and beat prostitutes.


"This is what my pimp used on me, every day. I was beaten with one of these. It's not just these, it's curling irons, Tasers, razor blades. I cannot give birth because my inner organs being used and abused from a young age. I entered the sex trade at 12 years of age and everyone needs to be shown a way out," said Perrier, who now works for Sex Trade 101, another group helping women leave prostitution.


She called on anti-prostitution laws to be strengthened to stop men preying on vulnerable women, not loosened.


Michael Morris, lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada, had argued that it was the act of prostitution itself, not the laws, that created danger among sex trade workers.


"The harm being caused is not by the state. The state is not the agent of harm," Morris told court. "The purpose of these laws is to discourage and deter people from engaging in these activities."

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ont ... story.html

[fraences]

Simone de Beauvoir Institute Applauds Court of Appeal for Ontario Decision Related to Prostitution

Simone de Beauvoir-Institut begrüßt Berufungsgericht für Ontario Entscheidungen im Zusammenhang mit Prostitution


The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently ruled that two elements of Canada’s prostitution laws cause harm to women (Canada Attorney General v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186). Specifically, the Court argues that the bawdy house provisions and the living off the avails provisions of the Criminal Code violate the security of individuals who work in the sex trade and, as such, are unconstitutional. In more simple terms, the court argues that prostitution laws put women in the sex trade at risk of violence and that these laws violate the fundamental Charter rights of sex workers.

What the Ruling Means

The ruling removes barriers for women working in the sex trade that increase their vulnerability to violence and harm. It allows them to hire a driver or a bodyguard, for example, as a way to ensure their safety—practices that were previously criminalized (living off the avails provision). It enables women to work together out of the same apartment; this practice was criminalized under the bawdy house laws. The ruling means that women can work more safely and that they can work together.


Why We Support the Ruling as Feminists

• The ruling begins with the explicit statement that the question at hand is not about morality, but is rather one of constitutionality (paragraph 9). As feminists, we support a legal framework in which complex social issues are disentangled from patriarchal moral norms. Historically, the idea that women should not wear pants in church, the implicit condemnation of women who chose to have a child outside of marriage, or the notion that women who dress sexy in some way invite sexual assault and rape are different examples of the ways the patriarchal moral order has framed how women’s actions, behaviours and dress have been considered, in society at large and in the legal arena. Full equality before the law for women is facilitated when “morality” is excluded from legal considerations.

• The decision protects the Charter rights of individuals marginalized and stigmatized through their work in the sex trade. It ensures that Charter rights are considered with regards to vulnerable members of society. Legal analysis that examines the situation of vulnerable members of Canadian society is of particular interest to feminists, given feminism’s commitment to social justice and equality for the disenfranchised.

• The Court of Appeal decision is based on a thorough consideration of evidence, including social scientific research as well as the affidavits of women working in the sex trade. As feminist scholars working in the university, we support legal action and legal reform in which the evidence of women’s diverse lives is considered.

• The decision means that women working in the sex trade will be able to protect themselves against violence in their work. The ruling means that women can work together to increase their safety. As such, this decision encourages women’s collective efforts and their solidarity. We celebrate legal rulings that remove juridical barriers to women’s collective organizing.


Reflections on the Ruling’s Consideration of the Communicating Provisions

The Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision clearly states that the provisions of the Criminal Code related to living off the avails and bawdy houses violate section 7 of the Charter, the right to security of the person. We agree with this interpretation. However, the majority opinion of the Court of Appeal does not find that the communicating provisions related to prostitution also violate the security of the person, and as such lets these provisions stand.

This judgment means that communicating in public around the exchange of sex for money remains criminalized. With regards to this aspect of the ruling, we underline that women’s autonomy in relation to work and sexuality is enhanced when women are afforded every opportunity to communicate. Likewise, we see sex workers’ ability to protect themselves from violence facilitated when they can clearly communicate with potential clients about all matters related to their work.

Should the ruling go forward to the Supreme Court as expected, we look forward to further reflection related to the harm caused by the communicating provisions of the Criminal Code.


Conclusion
This ruling, having considered a wealth of evidence presented, clearly states that specific provisions of Canada’s Criminal Code violate fundamental Charter rights of people working in the sex trade. Legal decisions which exclude morality, which uphold Charter rights of individuals stigmatized by their work, which allow women to protect themselves from violence, and which encourage solidarity among women workers are decisions to be celebrated by feminists.

Signed: Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University, March, 2012

http://www.alliancefeministesolidaire.o ... ppeal.html

[fraences]

STRIP-CLUBS IN KANADA
Nachtclubs gehen die Stripperinnen aus

Tänzerinnen aus dem Ausland mussten Kanada verlassen.
Ausländische Tänzerinnen, die die Männerherzen in kanadischen Nachtclubs höher schlagen lassen, sollen das Land verlassen. Die Regierung will ihre Einwanderungsgesetze verschärfen. Das ärgert nicht nur die Clubbetreiber.


TORONTO –
Die „Leopard’s Lounge“ ist einer der populärsten Nachtclubs Kanadas. In der schummrigen Tanzbar in Windsor bieten Stripperinnen jeden Abend ihrem meist männlichen Publikum exotische Tänze, aufreizende Posen und erotische Shows. Für das exotische Flair sorgen die Tänzerinnen aus dem Ausland. Sie kommen aus mehr als zwanzig verschiedenen Ländern und von den drei Kontinenten Asien, Südamerika, Europa.

Doch nun fällt für viele der ausländischen Striptease-Tänzerinnen im „Leopard’s“ der Vorhang – und nicht nur dort. Denn die kanadische Regierung will ihre Einwanderungsgesetze verschärfen und im Zuge dessen alle ausländischen Darstellerinnen zurück in ihre Heimatländer schicken.

Beruf offiziell anerkannt

Sein Club habe innerhalb weniger Wochen mehr als ein Dutzend Tänzerinnen verloren, sagt Robert Katzman, der Inhaber der „Leopard’s Lounge“. Einige müssen das Land innerhalb von 30 Tagen verlassen. „Viele Tänzerinnen haben sich ein Leben in Kanada aufgebaut und sind geschockt von der Ausweisung“, sagte Katzman im kanadischen Fernsehen. Allein in den Clubs der ostkanadischen Provinz Ontario fehlen mittlerweile 1.000 Darstellerinnen.

Die nackte Wahrheit ist: Bislang lebten die meisten ausländischen Tänzerinnen legal in Kanada. Ihr Beruf war offiziell anerkannt und die Frauen besaßen, wie andere Arbeitnehmerinnen in Mangelberufen, befristete Arbeits- und Aufenthaltsgenehmigungen. Schätzungen zufolge haben die kanadischen Behörden in den letzten 10 Jahren über 1000 Darstellerinnen entsprechende Arbeits-Visa ausgestellt. Viele Genehmigungen waren auf 12 Monate befristet und wurden routinemäßig jedes Jahr verlängert.

Damit ist jetzt Schluss. Die Regierung hat die Ausstellung neuer Visa gestoppt, auslaufende Visa werden nicht verlängert. Einwanderungsminister Jason Kenney sagte, er wolle damit illegale Prostitution und Menschenhandel bekämpfen. Die Gefahr sexueller Ausbeutung für Frauen sei real, so der konservative Politiker.

Die Tänzerin Pearl aus Südostasien ist eine der Frauen, die Kanada verlassen muss. Mehr als ein Jahr hat sie in einem Etablissement gearbeitet und gut verdient. Sie sagte der Agentur QMI, sie sei traurig, weil sie gehen müsse. Ein Teil ihres Verdienstes habe sie stets an ihre Familie geschickt. Ihren Job habe sie gerne gemacht.

Betreiber will Studentinnen anwerben

Hilfsvereine für Sex-Arbeiterinnen dagegen weisen darauf hin, dass gerade ausländische Frauen oft ausgebeutet werden. Viele der Tänzerinnen seien durch ihr Visum an nur einen Arbeitgeber gebunden und von diesem abhängig.

Die Betreiber bestreiten einen Missbrauch. Niemand werde zur Arbeit gezwungen, betonte Tim Lambrinos vom Verband der Nachtclubbesitzer. Vielmehr würden die neuen Gesetze die Probleme nur verschärfen. Viele Stripperinnen würden nun illegal arbeiten wollen, nur um im Land bleiben zu können.

Die ausländischen Darstellerinnen seien für die Vielfalt in den Clubs unverzichtbar, kritisierte Verbandschef Lambrinos. Inländisches Personal sei dagegen schwer zu bekommen. Schätzungen zufolge stammen 5% bis 10% der etwa 35.000 Nachtclubtänzerinnen in Kanada ursprünglich aus dem Ausland.

Für Robert Katzman aus der „Leopard’s Lounge“ ist die personelle Lage so prekär, dass er sich zu ungewöhnlichen Schritten entschlossen hat. Zum Semesterstart wirbt er an der Universität um Nachwuchs. Er verspricht Studentinnen, die bei ihm zum Tanzen anheuern, ein Stipendium von 1.700 Dollar pro Semester. Damit bezahlt er die Studiengebühren, so lange die Zensuren der Studentinnen gut bleiben. Dazu gibt es ein Willkommensgeld von 500 Dollar und einen Umzugskostenzuschuss. Zwei Tänzerinnen hat er so gewonnen.

http://www.fr-online.de/panorama/strip- ... 26512.html