The 100 year-old Bias: “Prostitution” Laws in Canada ( 1892-1988)
I mentioned in a previous post that at one point many religions attempted to save “prostitutes” from damnation by “saving them”, and taking them off the streets. At one point, this notion of saving these souls transformed into punishing them for their actions and for simply existing – what happened?
It is important to understand the evolution (if any) of the attitude towards sex workers and sex work in the Canadian judicial system. The past tends to influence the future, and if our past was bleak, then we need to do all we can to change our future. Canada has been guided by a patriarchal system, and this has tended to be a great influence on many of the laws that have been passed in Canada. In the past, the laws regarding the sex trade in Canada have not always been favourable towards sex workers, and more often than not, they have been troubling.
The Criminal Code first came into fruition in 1892, and the Vagrancy Law deemed prostitutes as vagrants, and thus as a result made prostitution a criminal offence (The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights & Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, 2006)
In Section 175 (1)(c) it was stated that: “a common prostitute or nightwalker [who] is found in a public place and does not, when required, give a good account of herself” was a vagrant (The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights & Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, 2006)
So, what was the issue with this law?
For starters, it was VAGUE – what does a “good account” mean?
This law was targeted at WOMEN and not MEN – “herself”. A woman who was alone at night in public = illegal and it did not specify anywhere that the woman in question had to be engaging in a sexual activity of any sort.
Also, a bawdy house (another name for a brothel) law was issued, which decreed that it was “an offence to keep a bawdy house, to be an inmate in a bawdy house, or to be found in a bawdy house” (The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights & Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, 2006)
Does this sound frighteningly similar? That is because this is still in effect in 2015.
___________________________________________________________
The criminal laws branched out to be inclusive of procuring (being a “pimp” or a “madam”) and living on the avails (The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights & Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, 2006)
These were said to be placed as a protective measure for women and children against exploitation. It is said that the addition of these laws was due to the fear of a “white slave trade”, and were influenced by paternalistic ideals (The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights & Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, 2006)
Again, this is still in effect in 2015.
___________________________________________________________
1972 – The Criminal Code changes! …a little bit
*Remember the bawdy house + procuring laws were still in effect, but almost 80 years later, the Vagrancy Law is changed because the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, as well as other groups and organizations, recommended reform of the law in 1970
Introducing the Solicitation Law
In Section 195.1 of the Criminal Code, it now stated that: “Every person who solicits any person in a public place for the purpose of prostitution is guilty of a summary conviction offence.” (The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights & Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, 2006)
Now sex workers were NOT allowed to communicate their services in public (AGAIN, this still exists in 2015) – the act of soliciting became criminalized
This law, unlike its predecessor, was mindful of the fact that a sex worker could be either a female OR a male as they used the gender neutral term “person”
Well what exactly does the word “solicit” cover – could you still strike up a normal conversation without actual using the words that would implicate you? What about customers who sought out sex workers? What about the persistence with which someone could pursue a potential client?
What exactly does the term “public” constitute? Could somebody be solicited in a vehicle – something that many would consider to be a private space?
_________________________________________________________
Due to the many interpretations of the law, some amendments were made:
1982: Bill C-127 defined a prostitute as “a person of either sex who engages in prostitution”; the procuring section of the Criminal Code also became gender-neutral (The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights & Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, 2006)
_____________________________________________________________
2 major national studies into sexual exploitation offences were initiated:
A) The Badgley Commission – study that looked into the sexual exploitation of children and youth
This was a reality check for Canadian society as people discovered the early age at which many enter into prostitution (14 years of age), as well as the role of procurers in drafting youth into the sex trade industry
B) The Fraser Committee – goal = to study problems arising from “street prostitution”, and social and economic determinants
Discovered that financial hardships played an important role for those entering “prostitution”
Deemed prostitution as a social problem, requiring both legal and social changes
Recommended: “governments commit themselves to removing social gender inequalities, ensuring the provision of social programs for women and children, and directing more funding to community groups involved with current and former prostitutes”
(The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights & Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, 2006)
****** There is a lot more information that is specific in regards to the two studies mentioned above, and I have only briefly skimmed the content and the findings, as well as implications of these studies. To find out more information, you can click on the following:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2599932&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&File=111#ftnref39
______________________________________________________________
1985 – The Communicating Law or Bill C-49 or Section 213
The Soliciting Law of 1972 was replaced with the communicating law:
“Communication in a public place for the purposes of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the services of a prostitute” = criminalized
Goal = “to address the nuisance problem; it wasn’t to address the overall prostitution issue” (The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights & Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, 2006)
NOW, both men and women selling sexual services AND clients were at risk of prosecution; vehicles became acknowledged as public places
_____________________________________________________________
It became an “offence to obtain or attempt to obtain the sexual services of a minor, and increasing the maximum penalty to 14 years for anyone convicted of living on the avails of the prostitution of a minor” (The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights & Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, 2006)
______________________________________________________________
Current Law will be discussed in detail in the upcoming posts!
Interesting to note: In the span of almost 100 years, “prostitution” in itself was never illegal in Canada, but rather the who, what, where, when, and how were criminalized
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, & Subcommittee on
Solicitation Laws. (2006). The challenge of change: A study of
Canada’s criminal prostitution laws. Retrieved from
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?
DocId=2599932&File=0
