An Ontario courtroom is hearing a case that questions whether Canada’s prostitution laws hold up under the law.
The case involves two persons Hamad Anwar and Tiffany Harvey who have been charged with over two dozen sex-related charges each.
The duo had been running an escort agency, and each faces charges for advertising sexual services, for profiting via sex trade as well as for procuring someone to offer sexual services.
One of the experts who testified for the defence in the court, academic Chris Atchison said that new law, often referred to as Bill C-36 has made it less safe for people in the sex trade.
New Law Vulnerable To Legal Challenge
The duo were charged after city police busted the escort service in November 2015. The accused are being represented by celebrated Toronto lawyer James Lockyer.
While Lockyer doesn’t dispute the two were running an escort agency, he has challenged the charges under three provisions of the law:
- Advertising sexual services of someone else
- Gaining financially or otherwise from others’ sexual services
- Procuring people to offer a sexual service
According to experts, there had been a high probability of the prostitution law being challenged legally.
Law Based On Nordic Countries’ Model
Passed in 2014, the new law, referred to as the Nordic model, has criminalized the advertising and the buying of sex but has decriminalized its sale.
As per proponents, this was the right model as it punishes people who buy sex, not those who sell it. However opponents claim that it forces sex work into underground and also that it penalises advertising which help sex workers to screen their clients.
Megan Walker, the executive director of the London Abused Women’s Centre, stated that Prostitution is “male violence against women”, which is a “serious barrier to gender equality” and is also incompatible with human rights principles.
In his testimony, Atchison has stated that the deep divide between the opponents and the supporters of the new prostitution laws was a reflection of the vastly differing opinion between “radical feminists” and those advocating for “harm reduction.”
He noted that one of the witnesses testifying for the Crown, Maddie Coy, was approaching the issue by viewing the sex industry “as an institution of the patriarchy”, and sex work as “violence against women”. He called it the “prohibitionist, radical feminist perspective.”.
The opposing side which includes people like Atchison considers sex workers as “making choices and engaging in labour.”
Nordic Model Not Working As Claimed
Atchison has claimed that the studies which show that the sex industry has shrunk in Sweden, which has enacted similar laws, are being conducted by those who have “a vested interest ‘ in the model succeeding and therefore don’t “reflect reality”
He also said that the lesser number of street sex workers being reported could be due to technology referring to the increasing use of cell phones and the Internet.
