Sex work on trial
On June 13, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the controversial case, Bedford v. Canada, in which the country’s prostitution laws will be challenged as unconstitutional.
Will this result in a wholesale change in legal rights for those involved in the sex trade?
The members of Concordia’s Simone de Beauvoir Institute hope so: they have been granted Intervenor status before the Supreme Court and will be present for the hearing in order to argue for the rights of sex workers.
For Viviane Namaste, Concordia University Research Chair in HIV/AIDS and Sexual Health, the timing is especially gratifying. “This recognition from the Supreme Court shows that our work here at the Simone de Beauvoir Institute is of nation-wide importance.”
The fact that this decision is a controversial one is nothing to be afraid of: at issue is a question of human rights, not moral aspirations, explains Namaste. “We need to consider whether or not laws related to prostitution increase the violence faced by sex workers. For the Institute — and for many Canadians, including Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, the three women who have brought this case to the Supreme Court — there is no question that Canada’s current laws violate fundamental Charter rights. The Supreme Court has to decide whether or not current prostitution laws are at odds with the right to security of the person.”
The Simone de Beauvoir Institute was granted Intervenor status for this case because the expertise of its members can help elucidate the court. “Just to offer one of many examples of how the institute is implicated in this discussion, we regularly offer a course called Framing the Prostitute,” says Namaste. “We take a hard look at how debates about prostitution are framed, as well as what the rights of sex workers are. We show our students that to defend the rights of sex workers is not an anti-feminist position — quite the contrary. Striking down laws which put women at risk of violence is fundamental to feminist politics.”
The three-part argument that the Simone de Beauvoir Institute will put forth in front of the Supreme Court firstly states that not all feminists are opposed to prostitution. Secondly, they ask the Court to consider the legal framework of harm in Canada, suggesting that for many feminists, the exchange of sex for money does not constitute the legal threshold of harm.
Finally, the institute raises the importance of clear communication with regards to sexuality. Canadian laws currently prevent street sex workers from communicating with potential clients.
Yet communication is necessary to give consent. As Namaste explains, “Since laws prevent sex workers from communicating with potential clients, a context is created in which they cannot give their consent. The Simone de Beauvoir Institute opposes laws which prevent women from giving their consent to sexual activity.”
Namaste says that the ultimate goal of the Simone de Beauvoir Institute as it intervenes in this Supreme Court case is to “help clarify feminist positions on these complex issues so that we can help the court understand the diversity of feminist perspectives on prostitution.”
Related links:
• Concordia University’s Simone de Beauvoir Institute
• Viviane Namaste's profile on Research @ Concordia