I have a confession to make.  I don’t really see myself as a “protester.”  I am not one who naturally chooses to hold up a sign and yell at the top of my lungs, and in fact sometimes I wonder how effective such approaches are.  But last weekend I took part in a protest at Queen’s Park in Toronto.  The goal was to demonstrate to the public that not everyone wants prostitution legalized in Canada.  Timea Nagy, who is a sex trafficking survivor, and Katarina McLeod, who worked in the escort industry for 15 years, were there as well to express why they do not support legal brothels.

My friend Kat and I attended the protest together, and took the rest of the day to unpack many thoughts.  Here are some of our reflections:

Protest at Queens Park. Photo Source: Toronto Sun

The Numbers

As you can see from the news clip, our group was not very large.  A few more joined after the footage was taken, bringing our number to around 30.  The pro-prostitution side has many vocal supporters who are keen to come show their support at various events, and some in our group were discouraged that our numbers on Saturday paled in comparison.

But the reality is that we were there on behalf of victims of trafficking and exploitation, who could not come protest because they were not allowed to.  I wonder how many of them would have showed up if they had the opportunity.  Also, there was no money in it for us to show up.  We took time out of our schedules to be a voice for those who could not represent themselves, not because we were protecting monetary interests.  In contrast, many of those who show up to support legalization are there because they are protecting their means of making money, or their “right” to pay for sex.  Self-interest is a strong incentive for people to show up.  For this reason, I was not surprised by the turnout, but hope that in the future there will be more who are willing to stand up for others.

The Chant

Following the media interviews, our group decided to walk to the edge of the road to hold up our signs for traffic to see, and chant loud enough to be heard by pedestrians.  The sign that Kat and I ended up holding said this: “Would men pay for sex if they went to JAIL for it?”  The chant went like this:

“Free the women, charge the johns!”

This is where the effectiveness of protests becomes an issue for me.  Chants and signs do not tell the whole story.  I was fully in support of yelling “free the women,” and ideologically I also support charging men who pay for sex, because their demand is what fuels the industry of sex trafficking.  I fully agree with Sweden’s approach of criminalizing the purchase of sex because it has decreased prostitution as well as human trafficking.  However, does the complexity of what we are proposing come across clearly in a two-line chant?

I believe that charging men who pay for sex is part of the solution, because it is their actions that make trafficking and pimping profitable.  But I also believe in the necessity for restorative justice.  Yes, throwing someone in jail gets them off the street so they cannot keep exploiting others.  But then what? They carry our their sentence in a place where they can meet more like-minded people, learn how to tighten up their game, and hit the streets without having experienced any remorse, or healing, or heart change.

So many of the men who feel entitled to women’s bodies were raised by fathers who did not respect women.  Like father like son.  In my mind there is absolutely no excuse for someone to hurt and exploit another, but I can see how easily it can happen when a person’s role model is setting a poor example.

Katarina McLeod and Timea Nagy leading the protest at Queens Park

The Deeper Things

Yes, we need to prevent legalization of brothels.  Yes, we need to criminalize the buying of sex.  But we also need to really examine what justice means.  We need to set up a system in which men can receive healing from the hurt and abuse of their past.  We need to teach young boys about how to respect and cherish women instead of using their cash to rent body parts.  We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage so that women who would otherwise be vulnerable can at least have a shot at something that does not put them in danger.  We need to do much more than “charge the johns.”  Despite this not fitting on a sign, my hope is that our chant, our signs, and our presence will get people to ask questions, because lives are on the line.

The Community

Michelle & Kat - Fighting human trafficking together!

The anti-trafficking community in Canada really is amazing. It was an honour to spend Saturday fighting alongside people I love and respect so much.  I also got to meet some HFTS blog readers, which is one of my favourite things in the world!

Reflecting on the day’s events with my friend Kat was so good for me, because it reminded me that though writing a blog is important, maintaining face-to-face relationships and connections is vital.  If we want to be effective in ending human trafficking and the abuse of women, we must know each other and fight together.  For those of you who came out last weekend, thank you!

Yesterday was a big day in Ontario regarding prostitution laws.  The Ontario Court of Appeal, the province’s highest court, legalized brothels based on the argument that “Ontario’s current anti-prostitution laws place unconstitutional restrictions on prostitutes’ ability to protect themselves.”

If you are new to this issue or want to understand today’s ruling in simple terms, here is a summary of what has happened to date.

Pre-September of 2010:

According to the law, prostitution itself was legal but everything surrounding it was illegal.  For example, it was illegal to:

1. Communicate for the purposes of prostitution  - ie. soliciting on the street

2. Live off the avails of prostitution – ie. pimps living off the money they receive from exploiting women and children, or someone in the trade paying for their child’s education with money from prostitution

3. Keep a bawdy house - ie. operating or working out of a brothel, which could include residences used by groups of women

Leading up to September 28th, 2010:

Dominatrix Terry-Jean Bedford and ex-prostitute Valerie Scott (along with Amy Lebovitch and their lawyer Alan Young), launched a constitutional challenge of Canada’s anti-prostitution laws. In simple terms, they wanted prostitution and everything surrounding the actual act to be decriminalized.

September 28, 2010:

The Ontario Superior Court ruled in favour of their proposal by striking down the three anti-prostitution laws.  This meant it was no longer illegal to keep a bawdy house (brothel), communicate for the purposes of prostitution, or live off the avails of selling sex.  The federal government appealed the Ontario Superior Court’s decision, in effect reversing it until it was looked at again by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

March 26, 2012, Ontario Court of Appeal:

Five judges found that banning bawdy houses and living off the avails of prostitution were unconstitutional, but agreed with the Crown that the open solicitation of prostitution should be illegal. What exactly does this mean?  It means that those in the sex trade can legally run or work out of brothels in Ontario, as well as hire drivers, bodyguards and support staff.  From a legal standpoint, it makes prostitution just like any other taxable profession.  Bodyguards and staff can legally be hired as early as April, but the brothel ban is still in effect for up to a year, giving the Crown the chance to appeal.   This would mean that the case will go before the Supreme Court of Canada.  Whatever they decide will be the ultimate decision and will affect the entire country, not just Ontario.

Dominatrix Terry-Jean Bedford stands to celebrate the Court's decision Monday. Photo source: Kevin Van Paassen, Globe and Mail

There is no question that Canada’s prostitution laws have not made sense or protected women.  The fact that prostitution itself has been legal while everything surrounding it has been illegal makes for poor lawmaking.  New prostitution laws are absolutely necessary, but that is where my agreement with the pro-sex work group ends.  They want the laws changed so that the entire industry is decriminalized, making the sex trade a fully legal.  But there are many, myself included, who want the laws changed so that women can be empowered to leave the trade, as the majority of those in the sex trade desperately want out but have no exit strategy.

Terry-Jean Bedford and her group assume that they are the only ones who will be affected by the Court’s ruling.  They assume that most working in the sex trade have chosen to enter it willingly and that this will empower them to work like any other tax-paying citizen.  But here are some of my concerns:

It is not the law that makes prostitution dangerous.  Prostitution is inherently dangerous. Even when it is legal or “high end,” women are encouraged to have panic buttons and learn skills that get them out of life-threatening situations.  Is this the type of industry we want to promote as a career choice for young girls?  Terry-Jean Beford herself entered the trade as a teenager, manipulated by an abusive boyfriend.  There are definitely some who make a decision as adults to prostitute themselves, but it is incredibly naive to think that most enter in this way.

Global studies have demonstrated that whether prostitution takes place indoors or outdoors, many women experience post traumatic stress disorder as a result of being in the trade.

The ruling allows those in the trade to hire bodyguards, drivers, and support staff.  For the small minority who is able to call the shots, this could arguably make them safer.  However this provision does absolutely nothing to protect the unfortunate majority which includes trafficking victims and those who are manipulated and controlled by pimps.  Though the Court clarified that no one can live off the avails of “exploitation,” now pimps and traffickers can pose as drivers and bodyguards, giving them a legal loophole to continue exploiting women and children.

Those who are pro-prostitution often us the case of Robert Pickton, a BC man who savagely murdered dozens of prostituted women, as an example of why legal brothels would make women safer.  But Angel Wolfe, the daughter of one of the women killed by Pickton, points out that legal brothels would make it more difficult for police to get warrants for sweeps that uncover victims of trafficking and abuse.  Now it is easier to hide trafficking victims.

When you legalize any component of the prostitution industry, you increase demand for paid sex.  This gives the green light for traffickers to increase supply to help meet that demand.  If a “legal” woman refuses a john because he seems unsafe or because she does not like him, where is he going to take his fantasies instead?  Trafficking victims are the ones who will end up with the most abusive and violent men, as their so-called “bodyguards” now have the competitive advantage of their girls being willing to “do anything.”

What bothers me is that I have never heard people like Terry-Jean Bedford or those who are pro-prostitution mention victims of trafficking or exploitation, except in an attempt to sweep them under the rug and disconnect them from the argument altogether.  Are we so blinded as a society that we think we can disconnect prostitution from trafficking and exploitation?  This certainly did not work in Amsterdam or Las Vegas, where trafficking networks run with seamless efficiency due to high demand for paid sex.

Window of Opportunity:

The Crown will doubtless apply for a stay from the Supreme Court, meaning that this decision would be decided in the highest court of Canada.  That will be the final decision for prostitution law in our country. As this Globe and Mail article states:

The landmark decision is binding on Ontario courts and sets up a final showdown at the Supreme Court of Canada next fall or in early 2013.

This means that right now we have a window of opportunity to push our government to change prostitution laws.  The Court’s responsibility is to make sure that laws are not unconstitutional, but the Crown’s responsibility is to actually create laws that are good for society.  This means that we must do everything we can to encourage our Members of Parliament to push our country in the opposite direction – away from a fully legal sex industry that promotes exploitation – and towards laws that protect women and decrease demand for paid sex.

We should be looking at the example of Sweden.  In contrast to legalization or full decriminalization of prostitution, Sweden’s approach has significantly cut down human trafficking levels. It has criminalized the purchase of sex while decriminalizing the selling of it. This has decreased demand for paid sex, reducing monetary incentives for traffickers to set up shop. Because its success has encouraged other countries to adopt it, this approach is now known as the “Nordic Model.” This is the direction we should be headed.  You can read more about the Nordic Model here.

What You Can Do Now:

As my friend John MacMillan has aptly pointed out, Courts are not swayed by public opinion – in fact when the Charter is involved, the role of a court is often to protect the rights of a minority from public opinion.  Petitioning the government is our best course of action right now.  If you want Canada to head in the direction of the Nordic model that prevents exploitation instead of supporting a fully decriminalized prostitution industry, here are three steps you can take:

ONE.  Print this petition, fill it with signatures, and send it to your Member of Parliament at the House of Commons >> Petition Swedish Model.  Don’t know who your representative is?  Find out here.

TWO.  Contact your Member of Parliament and let them know how you feel about this issue.  They need to know that Canadians care and that this is priority.  Don’t know what to say?  Here is an outline. Personalize it and send it to your MP.

THREE.  Hope for the Sold is currently raising funds to make a documentary about legalization of prostitution and its connection to sex trafficking. We believe that film is a powerful way to help sway opinion and change minds, and our hope is that this film will have an impact that will help governments around the world take an approach that prevents trafficking and exploitation as opposed to legalizing an industry that us full of violence and abuse.  Due to the generosity of blog readers, small businesses, friends, and family, we have raised $23,000 to date.  We have $57,000 more to raise.  As soon as we have $80,000 we will hit the road.  Clearly this is an urgent matter, so please consider supporting this project!  All donations are eligible for tax receipts.  Watch our pitch video and support the film here.

4.  Please stay tuned.  This week I will give you further instructions from the Crown on how to proceed. We MUST be a united front on this issue, and currently there is a plan being formed. Please check back this week to find out how you can be part of this movement.  As my friend Tara Teng says: This is NOT the time to stand by and do nothing.  We have a window opportunity. Let’s use it.

I leave you with this question: do we care more about the rights of women who want to sell their bodies, or the rights of the exploited who desperately don’t want to?  Let’s see the Court’s decision not as a tragedy but an opportunity – as it forces our government to decide where they really stand on this issue.

This weekend I received this message from Benjamin Perrin, author of Invisible Chains: Canada’s Underground World of Human Trafficking:

One of the things that “Invisible Chains” mentions you can do to help combat human trafficking and sexual exploitation in Canada is to write a letter to the editor when the topic comes up on the news. Well it has in a big way.

Kirk Makin is a “justice reporter” for the Globe and Mail. On Saturday, June 4, he wrote a 2,224 word piece cheerleading for legalizing prostitution. If you’ve read “Invisible Chains”, you know how devastating that would be for victims and the gift it would be to traffickers.

A link to Makin’s story can be found here.

If you’re willing, please take 5 minutes to write a LETTER TO THE EDITOR in your own words on why Canada should NOT legalize prostitution. It is so critical that the other side of this issue be heard.

Your letter should be less than 150 words, and must include your name, mailing address and daytime phone number. You can email your letter to: letters@globeandmail.com.

Thank you for taking a few minutes to speak up for those being sold!

To help you write your letters, here are some posts you can read:

• Dear Rob Ford: My Letter to the Mayor of Toronto
• Should Canada Legalize Prostitution? Panel Discussion with Gunilla Ekberg, Lee Lakeman & Trisha Baptie
• Prostitution Law for Dummies: Ontario’s Recent Court Ruling in 9 Simple Points
• The Booming Escort Service Industry: Another Reason Why Legalization of Prostitution is a Bad Idea
• A Swedish Sex Worker’s Thoughts on the Criminalization of Her Clients

Let’s write when it counts!

Michelle Brock

Last week I wrote a post about Toronto councillor Giorgio Mammoliti’s proposal to create a red light district on Toronto Island. You can read it here. As promised, here is my letter to the Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto, regarding Mammoliti’s proposal.

*Update: Mayor Ford’s response below!*

Dear Mayor Rob Ford,

My name is Michelle Brock and I am a documentary film maker and writer at www.hopeforthesold.com, a blog about sex trafficking. I am also an Ontario resident. I recently had several concerned readers contact me in regard to Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti’s proposal of having a red light district on Toronto Island. From what I understand, Mammoliti is currently preparing a report on the matter, which he plans to bring to your attention sometime this spring.

Though regulating brothels would provide the city with some tax revenue, I would like to present you with the negative consequences of a regulated, legal prostitution industry. The proposed location adds its own set of repercussions.

Amsterdam is often heralded as an example of how a government can regulate the prostitution industry. Though the Amsterdam government had thought legalization and regulation would make organized crime easier to control and women safer within the industry, the opposite has proven true.

In 2003, a mere 3 years after the brothel ban was lifted, the City Council realized their actions had invited Nigerian and Estonian criminal groups into the area. Because legalization increased demand for paid sex and men from all over the world flocked to the region, human traffickers saw an opportunity to fill the supply side. Trafficking comes in threes – people, drugs, and guns – and the mayor of Amsterdam has called their decision to legalize an abysmal failure. The city is now back tracking by shutting down big sections of the red light district.

Project SECLUSION in Canada has found human trafficking suspects to be linked to other organized criminal activites such as conspiracy to commit murder, credit card fraud, mortgage fraud, immigration fraud, and organized prostitution, in Canada or abroad. We do not want more of these people flocking to Toronto.

Once demand for paid sex begins to increase, it will be impossible to contain it to an island. Illegal brothels, massage parlours, and strip clubs would spring up in other parts of Toronto as well. Following legalization in Victoria, Australia, illegal establishments quickly outnumbered legal ones at a rate of three and four to one. Escort services out of private residences and hotels are becoming the new mode of prostitution, which is almost impossible to regulate.

I understand that if Justice Himel’s ruling to strike down prostitution laws stands up to the appeal, you will be in the difficult position of having to make decisions about regulating such an industry in Toronto. To avoid this position, I would encourage you to speak up against the legalization movement. If the ruling does stand up however, I strongly advise you, on behalf of the anti-trafficking community, not to accept Mammoliti’s proposal of creating a red light district on Toronto Island. Though legalized prostitution would itself increase demand for paid sex, a sex island would increase it even more dramatically due to its novelty. Because demand for paid sex is an opportunity for human traffickers and pimps to provide supply, a red light district to increase tax revenue is not a wise move.

In contrast to legalization or full decriminalization of prostitution, Sweden’s approach has significantly cut down human trafficking levels. It has criminalized the purchase of sex while decriminalizing the selling of it. Women are offered exit programs. This has decreased demand for paid sex, reducing monetary incentives for traffickers to set up shop. Because its success has encouraged other countries to adopt it, this approach is now known as the “Nordic Model.” This is the direction we should be headed.

The costs outweigh the benefits when a regulated red light district becomes a tourist attraction. Tax revenue is not worth it in the long run when organized crime sees an opportunity to make money too.

I hope this gives you some points to think about regarding Mammoliti’s proposal. Thank you for your service and dedication to Toronto. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or want more information!

Some concerned HFTS readers recently sent me articles about a shocking proposal coming from Toronto Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti:  the creation of a red light district on Toronto Island.  This really should not come as a surprise, as a regulated brothel district was one of Mammoliti’s central campaign tenets in his (cut-short) run for mayor last year.

His argument?  It would provide millions of dollars in revenue for the city and provide a well-defined area where the sex trade can flourish.  Mammoliti told CBC news that such a place would increase Toronto tourism as well, and is planning to discuss it with Toronto’s mayor Rob Ford soon.

In response to these developments, I am writing a letter to both the councillor and the mayor (you can read it here).  I would encourage our readers, especially those living in Toronto, to write to them as well.  Contact information for Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti is:

Toronto City Hall
100 Queen Street West, Suite B27
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2

councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca

Mayor Rob Ford’s contact information is:

Office of the Mayor
Toronto City Hall,
2nd Floor,
100 Queen St. West,
Toronto ON M5H 2N2

mayor_ford@toronto.ca

Here are some points you can include in your letter:

• Though a sex island would probably increase tourism, are large groups of men seeking paid sex the kind of tourist we want more of?

• When Amsterdam lifted its brothel ban and began a regulated prostitution industry, sex trafficking became easier and organized criminal groups moved into the area.  The City Council has since tried to back track by shutting down huge sections of the red light district and the mayor has called the lifting of the brothel ban an abysmal failure.

• When demand for paid sex begins to increase, it will be impossible to contain it to an island. Brothels, massage parlours, and escort services will likely spring up in other parts of Toronto as well.

I will give Mammoliti the benefit of the doubt that he is simply seeking tax revenues and is unaware of the implications a red light district would have on Toronto Island and the rest of the city as well.  Now it is our responsibility to tell him that the big picture looks very different, and that increasing demand for paid sex is a recipe for more sex trafficking, exploitation of women, and organized crime.  An island like the one proposed would draw crowds for the novelty of it, and it would be difficult to back track later on.

For articles on Giorgio Mammoliti’s proposal, check these out:

• Red light district pitched for Toronto Island by CBC News
• Mammoliti pushes for Toronto Island brothels by TheStar.com
• Build red-light district on Toronto Islands, Mammoliti suggests by The Globe and Mail

Get more informed on the legalization debate – this will help you as you write your letters/emails. You can also download and sign this letter from EVE and send it to your member of Parliament.  Special thanks to Carly Romano for raising this to my attention and dialogging with me this weekend!

Michelle Brock

**Update: read my letter to Mayor Ford and his response here**  Read more about legalization of prostitution in Ontario here.

If you have watched our film on sex trafficking in Canada, you will recognize the “Swedish model” as a strategy that has worked to curb sex trafficking and the exploitation of women in Sweden.  In 1999 Swedish government criminalized the purchase of sexual services and decriminalized those selling it, ensuring that men would be held responsible for prostitution and that women would have access to exit programs.  Due to its success, the law has been adopted in other Nordic countries.

Gunilla Ekberg, who played a key role in creating the Swedish model, is one of my favourite researchers and a well sought-after human rights consultant.  You can imagine my delight upon discovering that she was headed to BC!

On International Women’s Day last week, I had the opportunity to attend a panel discussion in Victoria entitled “Prostitution and Women’s Equality: Imagining More for Women,” organized by EVE (Formerly Exploited Voices now Educating) and REED (Resist Exploitation, Embrace Dignity).  The panel consisted of Gunilla Ekberg, EVE’s Trisha Baptie, and and Lee Lakeman from the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres.  Prostitution law was the topic at hand, which is quite timely in light of the Bedford case and the push for legalization of prostitution in Canada.

THE HIGHLIGHTS:

• Trisha Baptie, who worked in the sex trade (both indoor and outdoor) for 15 years, kicked off the discussion by sharing that prostitution is violence against women that is “born out of sexism, classism, racism, poverty, and other forms of systemic oppression.”

• Lee Lakeman spoke about her experience answering crisis calls at sexual assault centres, explaining how social service cuts in the BC area led to more calls from prostituted women.

• The descriptions given by trafficking victims and “local prostituted women” were always similar.  This trend pushed rape crisis centres to take an official position on the prostitution issue.

• Due to the physical harm on the body and how paid sex contributes to the dehumanization of women, they believe that prostitution is violence against women and should not be legalized. Lakeman suggested that as a country we must look at how poverty and racism play into prostitution, and to not lord our wealth over other countries but forgive debts and build foreign aid to protect the vulnerable around the world.

Gunilla Ekberg, who participated in the negotiations at the UN Palermo Protocol and has directed several national and multilateral projects to combat human trafficking in the EU, had the following to say:

• Many pro-prostitution groups use Germany and the Netherlands as examples of where Canada should head regarding prostitution law.  Both countries have decriminalized prostitution, making it legal to buy sex.  Instead of proving that this approach works, these two countries are actually a case in point of how legalization fails to protect women, decrease trafficking, or curtail organized crime.

• On October 1, 2000, the Dutch Parliament decided to remove the provision in the criminal code that criminalized the brothel.  This came after 20 years of debate on how one would control organized prostitution.  The lifting of the brothel ban created a new economic sector, allowing anyone to establish a brothel, escort service, or massage parlour by simply applying for a license from the municipality.  The municipality cannot refuse such requests, and in fact many brothels are even found in farm houses.

• Contrary to popular belief, almost all those in brothels are independent contractors. They can easily receive a license, most regions simply requiring show of ID and a payment.  As independent contractors, their well-being is not guaranteed by the brothel owners. Many brothel owners have said in interviews that what happens behind the door is not their responsibility as long as it does not interfere with the commerce of the brothel.

• Though some rooms have a panic button, women struggle getting to it when they are in danger with a violent man.  Some in Canada argue that indoor prostitution is safer that street prostitution. But it is not the place that harms you – it is those who are paying for your body that cause harm.

• When you have a legal sector, police back off, and traffickers are drawn to the area. In 2003 and 2004, Amsterdam City Council realized that they had invited Estonian and Nigerian ‘mafia’ into the area, who can easily get girls into the country with ‘tourist’ visas.

• In an effort to have more control, the government said that girls need to meet with a social worker before getting a license.  A Turkish pimp who owned 100 brothels in the Netherlands sued the government for this mandate, on the basis that such an initiative would hinder his profits under corporate law. When you legalize prostitution, you enable organized criminal groups to establish corporations with rights to sue the government over lost profit. Is this what we want in Canada?

• Germany lifted their brothel ban in 2001.  To improve conditions for those in prostitution, they offered special social insurance benefits to those who wanted it.  The first evaluation of the law found that most of the women in the legal sector were from other countries. The second evaluation showed that the conditions of those in prostitution had not changed, and in 5 years only a handful of women (about 5) had taken advantage of the special social insurance benefits. In addition to this, the new law did not help women exit prostitution.  The law had failed to do what they had hoped.

• Therefore the German government finds itself in the same situation as the Netherlands. Traffickers have organized large brothel conglomerates with the rights of corporations, and both countries are trying to backtrack.  Is this what we want for Canada?

This can be contrasted to the approach Sweden took in 1998.  From 1994 to 1998, the percentage of women in Parliament rose from 27% to 47%.  The law they created, which criminalized the purchaser of sex, addressed the narcissistic sexual behaviour of men.  How has this worked?

• When the law came into effect, police in Demark noticed that traffickers were setting up shop there instead.  This demonstrates that traffickers try to avoid places with hostile laws regarding prostitution.

• Pimps, traffickers, and johns are convicted together in one trial, so that the victim only has to testify once.  This ensures efficiency in the system and protects the victim from even more emotional trauma.

• One woman from Russia was trafficked and sold around apartments in Stockholm.  She was forced to service over 500 men in 3 weeks, and said afterward that if it had not been for the law, she would have been dead.  The law made them stop the abuse and helped her to realize she had value.

• Violators of the law are dealt with swiftly, whether they are well-known or not.  Two famous football players, a police chief, a lawyer, two politicians, a CEO of International Securitus, and a Supreme Court judge, are among those who have been convicted recently.

• Twelve years after this law came into effect, a special government inquiry, led by the chancellor of justice (highest legal position in Sweden) was conducted.  It found that the number of people in street prostitution had halved since 1998.  In comparison to neighbouring Denmark (which does not have such a law), Sweden’s market for paid sex had plummeted.

• When asked about deterrence, the majority of men responded that legislation or public shame would deter them from paying for sex. This shows that the law can help change behaviour of some.

Instead of backtracking, like Germany and the Netherlands, Sweden is taking these laws further.  A new bill is coming into effect on July 1, extending prison terms for men who are convicted under the law.

Ekberg was hoping that the bill would also enable the courts to convict Swedish men who pay for sex in other countries with a similar prostitution law, but that portion did not pass.  ”Next battle!” she says.

The event ended off with some discussion and questions, including a statement from one person arguing that women should have the right to prostitute themselves, and that prostitution and trafficking were not the same thing.  To this, Lee Lakeman replied: “The brilliance of patriarchy is disintegration of issues,” and Trisha Baptie questioned:  “Why are we standing for our individual right to prostitute instead of standing with our sisters?”

Thank you Gunilla, Trisha, and Lee for sharing your experience and expertise with us, and for showing us that Canada can do better for prostituted women.

For more reading, check out Max Waltman’s article:  “Prohibiting Purchase of Sex in Sweden: Impact, Obstacles, Potential, and Supporting Escape”, and a Solutions Journal article entitled “The Swedish Approach: A European Union Country Fights Sex Trafficking”.

You can also get more information about the legalization debate at the EVE and REED websites.

What do you think about the Swedish model? About legalization?  If you attended the event, either in Victoria or Vancouver, I would also love to hear your thoughts below.

Michelle Brock

The last seven days have been kind of a big deal in Ontario when it comes to human trafficking and prostitution.  If you have somehow missed it in the news or are unclear as to what actually happened last week, here is a list of the basics you must know.

• Two sex trade workers, Terry-Jean Bedford and Valerie Scott (along with Amy Lebovitch and their lawyer Alan Young), launched a constitutional challenge of Canada’s anti-prostitution laws.  In simple terms, they want prostitution and everything surrounding the actual act to be decriminalized. This would make prostitution legal, allowing sex workers to operate freely. (To be more precise, the process of prostitution would be allowed.  Check out what John posted in the comments section to understand this more).

• Last week on September 28th the Ontario Superior Court ruled in favour of their proposal.  As a result, now in Ontario it is no longer illegal to keep a bawdy house (brothel), communicate for the purposes of prostitution, or live off the avails of the sex trade.

• Bedford said that is was like emancipation day for sex workers, because now they can work from the safety of their homes instead of facing the dangers of the street.  Valerie Scott said that now sex workers can “pick up the phone and call the police to report a bad client.”

• Not everyone is celebrating.  Many claim that prostitution and sex trafficking are linked. MP Joy Smith, who works with victims of trafficking, had girls call her in tears when they found out about the Ontario court ruling.

• Police point out that in some cases trafficking victims are unwilling to cooperate with police because they fear their traffickers.  In such cases, police have been able to charge the trafficker with living off the avails of prostitution.  Now they can no longer do this.  This means that pimps cannot be charged for living off the money that their girls bring them through forced prostitution.

• Some argue that prostitution is a chosen profession, just like any other.  However several studies show that most ‘sex workers’ chose their ‘profession’  because of dire circumstances that were not based on real choice at all.  Many are too drug-addicted and manipulated by pimps to make their own decisions.  Benjamin Perrin points out in his CBC radio interview and Globe and Mail article that though Bedford is a confident woman in her 50s today, her affidavit tells the story of a childhood filled with physical, psychological, and sexual abuse.  At 16 years old while she was under provincial child protection, she met “an abusive 37-year old drug dealer and drug addict” and was sold for sex to fund their drug addictions.

• Anti-trafficking groups want Canada to adopt the Swedish model of dealing with prostitution, which criminalizes the men who buy sex and offers the sellers of it with help to leave the industry.

• Justice Susan Himel, who made the court decision, stated that the information about sex trafficking brought to her attention was “incidental and not directly relevant to her decision.”  In other words, she does not believe there to be a link at all between prostitution and sex trafficking.

• The federal government is going to appeal the court ruling in an attempt to reverse the decision made by Himel.

The debate about prostitution and human trafficking in Canada is going to be quite a hot one for a while.  Here are a couple of resources that can help you gain an understanding about the ruling and the prostitution debate.

• CBC radio audio interview with MP Joy Smith and Benjamin Perrin
• Globe and Mail Sweden’s Fix: jail the johns by Benjamin Perrin
• Article Former Prostitutes Picket Trade by Calgary Sun
• Article Prostitution laws struck down by Ontario court CBC News
• Prohibiting Purchase of Sex in Sweden: Impact, Obstacles, Potential, and Supporting Escape by Max Waltman
• End Modern Day Slavery Now website
• Official Superior Court of Justice Record for Bedford vs. Canada
• CTV News video interview and write-up about why so many are concerned.
• Cops rail against prostitution ruling by Toronto Sun

I promise to keep you up to date with how this develops.  What do you think about the Ontario court ruling?  Feel free to post a comment to kick off the conversation!

Michelle Brock

According to an article by Sheila Jeffreys, the prostitution industry is changing.  In the Western world, brothels are being replaced by escort services which use the internet and cell phone to connect women with buyers.  This has huge implications for policy-makers who are trying to curb trafficking. Why?  Because traditional strategies are no longer valid.

Some policy-makers promote the legalization or decriminalization of prostitution, arguing that it makes sex workers safer and combats organized crime.  But Jeffreys says that “these assumptions are based upon the idea that prostitution will take place in brothels which can institute health and safety codes, and enable easy identification of the illegal brothel industry which can be closed down.” The escort sector, which operates through cell phones and delivers women to private houses, hotel rooms, and cars by the roadside, is beyond regulation.

In Queensland, Australia, where prostitution was legalized, 75% of prostitution is composed of outcall or escort services.  The Queensland PLA annual reports state clearly that legalization has failed to discourage illegal prostitution, mainly because of the development of the escort sector.  In both Queensland and the Netherlands, the illegal sector is larger than the legal sector.

Escort prostitution used to be seen as fancy, even classy.  But it has grown to include a broad bottom layer that consists of mostly foreign women and girls who are extremely vulnerable.  The so called “safety advantages” of legalization only benefit a small minority of women; it can only apply to brothel prostitution since there is no way of monitoring or preventing risks in the escort and street prostitution sectors.

Therefore, legalization of prostitution is an out-of-date strategy, and policy-makers should focus on other solutions if they are serious about reducing sex trafficking.

To read Sheila Jeffrey’s full article, “Brothels Without Walls: the Escort Sector as a Problem for the Legalization of Prostitution,” it is available for purchase here (students can gain access through their college/university online journal archives).  For more on this topic, check out our last two articles on legalization:

Post #1: Swedish Sex Worker’s Thoughts on the Criminalization of Her Clients

Post #2: Author Victor Malarek Responds to Swedish Sex Worker’s Statements

Michelle Brock

We received quite a few comments and messages from sex workers and pro-legalization individuals regarding our recent post on the criminalization of men in Sweden.  I’ve decided to write another post in response to the comments we received.

I’d like to begin with a response I received via email from Victor Malarek, an investigative journalist and senior reporter for CTV’s W5.  He has spent a considerable amount of time in Europe, specifically addressing the trafficking of Eastern European women and girls into Western Europe and North America.  He has talked extensively to victims, pimps, traffickers, johns, government officials, and people who rescue and counsel human trafficking victims.  He has been in the thick of it, on the front lines, watching how traffickers operate.  He has also seen first hand the effects of legalization on trafficked women, and written two books, The Natashas: The New Global Sex Trade, and The Johns: Sex for Sale and the Men Who Buy It, addressing some of these very issues. Here are his thoughts on our post:

“The pro-prostitution organizations…which are basically individuals used as fronts by the sex industry (which is only interested in making huge amounts of money), will come out of the woodwork and vociferously attack any group that fights legalization and decriminalization of the flesh trade.

The arguments put forward by the pro-prostitution groups are specious and full of lies and propaganda.  The fact is that wherever legalization has been implemented, it has led to a monumental failure in all aspects of the so-called trade.  It has always led to more and more women trafficked, and has not led to an improvement in the condition of women ensnared in the trade.

The pro-prostitution groups’ position against trafficking is a ruse.  Their attempts to separate trafficking from legalization are a divide and conquer tactic…they know full well that huge numbers of trafficked women make up the trade. To see how bad the situation is where legalization has been implemented, read ‘The Johns’ and what has happened in Amsterdam!  Moreover, the legal and illegal brothels in several Australian states which have legalized are filled with Southeast Asian women.  These women do not speak English, they don’t have any money.  They don’t have the business acumen to set themselves as business contractors.

It is interesting that in ALL my talks in Canada, the U.S., Australia, Britain, Ireland, Copenhagen, Madrid, Helsinki, Kiev…reps from the pro-prostitution orgs come out in force to take me on, and after my speech, not a peep!  Because they know I know B.S. when I hear it and can challenge their claims with ease.

My issue here is one of social justice for the vast majority of women who are forced into the sex trade fiasco…not the minority of twits who yell and scream on behalf of the sex industry!”

Legalization grows the size of the sex industry, which includes a rise in demand for paid sex.  When local women cannot provide enough supply, women migrate from other countries to take advantage of the financial opportunities.  If it ended here, I would not be blogging about legalization.  the problem arises when traffickers also see opportunity, and begin funneling girls into these countries where demand is booming.  Supply and demand, it’s simple economics!  If you were a trafficker, would you be drawn to a country where  men were criminalized for giving you business, or to a country where they felt free to roam?

Amsterdam legalized prostitution in 2000 and is known for its red light district.  Though the goal was the regulate the industry in such a way that helps women and reduces organized crime, in reality trafficking of girls and women has increased.  This has led the government to take some serious action.  Read these articles for more info on this:

Does Legalizing Prostitution Work? by Helene Mees

Stag Parties Fuel Sex Trafficking by BBC News

Amsterdam Buys Brothels in Red Light Cleanup by Google AFP

Turn Our the Red Light? by Newsweek

The Netherlands Rethinks Sex and Drugs by Olivia Ward

Mayor Unveils Plan to Clean Up Amsterdam’s Red Light District by CBC News

In 1999, Sweden passed a law the prohibits the purchase of sexual services.  Under this law, men who use prostituted women or buy sexual services are criminalized and nailed with a fine and/or or up to six months in prison.  Meanwhile, the women are not criminalized, but offered exit strategies to get them out of prostitution.  Though the majority of Swedes supported this law, there are a few that are not so pleased.

Here is a short interview with Swedish sex worker Pye Jacobsson, who has some serious issues with the legislation.  We have added our response to the interview below, addressing how this all relates to sex trafficking.  Please watch the clip, read our comments, and add yours.

• To begin, Jacobsson criticizes how the law states that “no prostitution is prostitution out of free will” and that “every woman engaging in prostitution is a victim.”  In our opinion, maybe the Swedish government did go a little too far in making this statement. We know that there are some women (usually white, middle-class) who choose to make this their profession for one reason or another. However, the majority of women and girls in prostitution do not have the luxury of sitting in an IKEA furnished room with a coffee, cigarettes, nice clothes, and a coy smile while chatting on camera about their choices when it comes to sex work.  If you throw in some drugs, second-hand clothing, and the watchful eye of a pimp, you’ve got yourself a more realistic picture of what the majority have for a work environment.

• Jacobsson claims to be representative of sex workers in Sweden. Maybe she is representative of her circle of sex worker friends.  She alludes later in her interview to the fact that they are able to compete against foreign sex workers because their clients feel safer with Swedish women.  Who does she mean by foreign sex workers?  The ones that came by their “free will” to prostitute themselves on the cold streets of Stockholm?  I highly doubt the is representative of these individuals as well.  Therefore, Jacobsson only represents Swedish middle-class sex workers who work indoors. This means she cannot speak on behalf of the sex trade industry, specifically when it comes to trafficking victims.

• She continues to criticize the law because it has had so many amendments.  To this we say: just because a law is not perfect does not mean it cannot be improved upon. It’s not about the law itself but the spirit of the law, which aims to protect those who are victimized.  Even laws regarding crimes like murder and drunk driving have developed over the years.  Ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade was an implementation nightmare, yet it was taken on because it was the right thing to do.  And eventually the trade came to an end.  Sure, business owners were no longer able to use slaves, and many revolted because their “rights to use free labour” were being taken away. But the law dictated that the rights of the downtrodden had to prevail over the profits and “rights” of the slave masters.   It is the same with prostitution.  Because sex trafficking increases when prostitution is legalized or tolerated, we believe that sex workers must make a sacrifice in order to spare those who are victims.

• Jacobsson expresses her concern that there are a number of women in the strip and porn industry who have had their children taken away from them.  I wonder, what is this number in comparison to the number of mothers who have lost their children to traffickers? Or the number of children that have been born with Johns as fathers?

• She claims that the law is responsible for the increased stereotypes of prostitutes; that the law makes society view them as less human – and that as a result sex workers are treated more poorly by the men that use them.  But what I would say to her is this:  the men that are willing to come rent your body parts already see you as less than human! Human beings are more than sexual objects.  Paying to have sex with a prostituted woman/sex worker is inherently dehumanizing because it takes the wholeness out of the woman’s humanity. So don’t tell me that it is the law that dehumanizes prostituted women.  Men do it just fine on their own.

• I think the most outrageous argument Jacobsson brings to the table is when she says that the normal way for the police to find out about trafficking victims is from “good clients, who report trafficking victims when they discover them.  She claims that now that the law is in place, these men are afraid to report them because buying sex is illegal, and therefore trafficking victims have no one to rescue them.  It is incredibly naive to think that there was ever a point in history where the users of prostituted women were the heroes that rescued victims of sexual exploitation by giving police the necessary alerts between their sexcapades. The financially secure CEO with five kids and a wife was calling the police regularly with updates on the trafficking situation in Sweden.  Right.  Sure, there may have been a few girls that were rescued from tips received by “nice Johns,” but if the Johns weren’t the ones creating demand there would be no trafficking problem in the first place. Jacobsson’s assertion that Johns need to feel safe while they fuel the industry through demand – so they can “rescue” victims –  is absurd.

• Finally, Jacobsson says that women are not offered exit programs.  But in fact the Representatives of the Prostitution Unit in Stockholm, a group that helps individuals leave prostitution, say that 60% of the people they have had contact with between after the law was put into place have left prostitution permanently.  Many of these women pointed to the law (and the funded exit programs) as their reason for seeking help.

According to Gunilla Ekberg’s article, The Swedish Law That Prohibits the Purchase of A Sexual Service: Best Practices for Prevention of Prostitution and Trafficking in Human Beings, here are some more facts about the law’s effectiveness Sweden.

• When buyers  risk punishment, the number of men who buy prostituted women decreases, and local prostitution markets become less lucrative.  By 2004, the number of buyers in Sweden had fallen by 75%-80%.

• Human traffickers now have to transport girls to various hidden locations and move them around, which requires more money,  more time, and more local contacts. As a result, traffickers (in conversations recorded during crime investigations) have expressed frustration about setting up shop in Sweden, and choose other, more profitable destinations.

• According to the testimonies of human trafficking victims, since the law was put into place, traffickers prefer Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain, where prostitution is legalized or tolerated, and men are not criminalized.

Though Pye Jacobsson makes some good points in defending her group of sex workers in Sweden, she fails to see that prostitution and sex trafficking cannot be separated.  This has been seen time and time again in several global contexts.  And because they are linked, the world should follow Sweden’s model by criminalizing men who pay for sex and offering exit programs to the majority of women and girls who are, in fact, victims.

Your thoughts?

Michelle Brock