Background

The B.C. Coalition of Experiential Women (BCCEW) was formed out of two regional meetings of women in and from the sex industry in 2002 and 2004. In 2005 we became a consortium of sex worker activists mandated as a mechanism for the voices of experiential women to support the development of legislation and policies; peer driven programs and services; and work toward the elimination of oppressive systems and forces that create harm within the sex industry.

The BCCEW has since become the BC Coalition of Experiential Communities to include members representing male and transgendered sex workers.

BCCEC is currently project driven and consists of members who have over 40 years combined experience in advocacy, direct service delivery and management, as well as over 60 years experience in all facets of the sex industry. The BCCEC remains grounded in the issues of individuals in and from the sex industry and may serve as a:

  • consultative body of perspectives on sex work issues;
  • a host organization for sex worker workshops, events and initiatives;
  • research body to increase sex workers’ participation in knowledge development by and for workers

BCCEC members have been major contributors to sex worker organizations in Vancouver BC, Kamloops, Prince George and Surrey/Whalley, most notably the Mobile Access Project, The Naked Truth (an online forum for dancers who also do events like “Dancers for Cancer”), New Hope (Prince George drop in program), among other organizations.

The British Columbia Coalition of Experiential Communities (BCCEC) is a consortium of sex worker activists who work to eliminate the oppressive systems and forces that create harm for individuals in the sex industry.

We support diverse perspectives and experiences in the sex industry however we do not support enforcement or rehabilitation models that promote the continued criminalization of sex workers or perpetuate sex worker dependency on social programs.

Our Mission

The BCCEC is a mechanism for the voices of experiential communities to:

  • influence legislation and policies that provide for sex workers inclusion;
  • advocate for a continuum of peer driven programs, initiatives and services to support those who are forced into the sex industry to transition safely;
  • Advocate for the rights of sex industry workers to work free from harm and enjoy the benefits of their labour.
  • The BCCEC may also serve as a:

-consultative body of expertise on sex industry work issues;

-Host organization for sex worker workshops, events and initiatives; and

-Research and data collection body.

Advertisements

Opening the Doors- Short version 2011

Opening the Doors Report- Short 2011[1]Opening the Doors- Final Report
BC Coalition of Experiential Communities 2011

Project Background and Rationale

During the .Developing Capacity for Change Project.-coop development work shops, workers expressed how a trade association and a branding or certification process could support safer work conditions over all and stabilize the existing safer indoor venues that exist now. The development of occupational health and safety training was also seen as a way to give people entering and in the sex industry the tools to make safe decisions about their work. It was agreed that all stake holders including business owners and consumers should be engaged to contribute to the design of the future of our industry.

Currently a charter challenge is underway to bring down the laws governing sex work. This action will only be successful if as an industry we can prove adult consensual sex industry workers are making an informed decision, have access to resources, are of legal age to engage in the sex industry and that ethical sex industry business owners do exist. In the next 10 years we must agree to respect each other and treat each other with dignity. This will be an enormous task but an absolutely necessary one none the less. If we cannot demonstrate the ways in which we have traditionally maintained the stability of our industry, the system at large will most likely impose whatever laws it sees fit and we as an industry will be faced with another disaster.

With this in mind, the BCCEW/C set out to engage sex industry workers in beginning the process and determining whether or not there is industry support for such an action and what the structure of such an organization might look like.

Dr. Lowman’s response to Lee Lakeman of vancouver rape relief

here is John Lowman’s response to Lee Lakeman’s attack on his testimony at the Missing Women’s Commission of Inquiry. Lowman’s article includes some interesting history on these issues in Canada, including on the perspective of the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women.

Missing Women, Feminism and Prostitution
Outsiders to the Sister Outsiders: A Response to Lee Lakeman/Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter
John Lowman, SFU School of Criminology, November 6, 2011
On October 13th 2011 Vancouver Rape Relief and Women Shelter posted on its web site1 Lee Lakeman‟s commentary on my testimony at the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry.
Lakeman accuses me of numerous sins, including “sleight of hand, trick of phrase [and] ideological advocacy.” In this vein, she claims that when I responded to a question about my research on prostitution, I neglected to mention “forty years of feminist work on this issue demanding decriminalization of the women and the criminalization of pimps and johns and bawdy house owners,

http://24.85.225.7/lowman_prostitution/HTML/MISSING_WOMEN/Misssing_women-feminism-prostitution-Lowman_response_to_Vancouver_Rape_Relief.pdf

Sex workers celebrate court ruling – Federal statutes violate Charter rights, says Ont. judge

 
By Laura Baziuk, The Province; with files from Postmedia NewsSeptember 29, 2010
 
 
 Vancouver’s sex workers celebrated a historic day Tuesday after an Ontario court judge struck down three federal prostitution laws.

“I didn’t think this was possible within my lifetime,” said Kerry Porth, executive director of the PACE Society, which promotes safe working conditions for the city’s prostitutes.

“For once, the court has finally heard what sex workers and our allies have been screaming for years.”

In a trial started in 2009 by three Toronto prostitutes, Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himel ruled that the laws that forbid running a bawdy house, communicating for the purpose of prostitution and living of the avails of prostitution are unconstitutional.

The provisions “are not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice,” Himel wrote in a 131-page decision, released Tuesday.

The laws “force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their security of the person as protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Prostitution is not illegal in Canada, but many aspects of prostitution have been criminalized by Parliament. The Ontario ruling takes effect only in that province, but if upheld on appeal would apply across the country.

Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the government is “very concerned” about the court’s ruling and is “seriously considering” an appeal. It has 30 days to do so.

Data from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics suggest the number of homicides against prostitutes has remained steady over the past two decades. From 1991 to 1999, police reported 72 prostitute slayings. From 2000 to 2008, there were 70.

“I don’t think that any of us thought when we began this trial . . . that the outcome would be this sweeping and overwhelmingly incredible,” said Sue Davis, an active sex-trade worker and member of the B.C. Coalition of Experiential Communities.

“I think it gives hope to sex workers all over Canada.”

She dismissed critics’ concerns that Ontario could become a hot spot for sex tourists now that brothels can be legal.

“There will not be a sudden flood of women working on the street — a sudden flood of men seeking sex,” Davis said. “Nowhere has that proven to be the case.

“What will happen, though, is that we will be able to move forward on labour organizing, having review boards and complaints processes so that we can finally weed out some of the exploitive people that do operate in the sex industry, and eliminate child exploitation and human trafficking.”

She and other advocates said the battle is still far from over.

Katrina Pacey, a lawyer with Vancouver’s Pivot Legal Society, said groups must continue to lobby local and provincial governments to make conditions safer for prostitutes all across Canada. lbaziuk@theprovince.com

twitter.com/laurabaziuk

© Copyright (c) The Province
 
 
 

Ontario Superior Court judge strikes down prostitution law

Ontario Superior Court judge strikes down prostitution law

Kirk Makin

Globe and Mail Update
Published Tuesday, Sep. 28, 2010 1:12PM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Sep. 28, 2010 1:56PM EDT
//

Ontario’s prostitution law fell Tuesday after a judge ruled that it endangers the very women it is meant to protect.

More related to this story

In a landmark decision striking down the core of the controversial law, Ontario Superior Court Judge Susan Himel said that the law forces women to operate their business furtively in an atmosphere of constant secrecy and danger.

“By increasing the risk of harm to street prostitutes, the communicating law is simply too high a price to pay for the alleviation of social nuisance,” Judge Himel said in her 131-page ruling which took almost a year to produce.

“I find that the danger faced by prostitutes greatly outweighs any harm which may be faced by the public,” she later added.

The ruling means that the law can no longer be enforced in Ontario. If the decision were to be upheld on appeal, it would topple the use of the prostitution provisions across the country.

In the short term, however, the Ontario Crown is expected to seek a stay of execution that would permit police to temporarily continue enforcing the law.

Three prostitutes launched the challenge in an attempt to bring Canada into line with other nations that have relaxed their enforcement of prostitution, including New Zealand, Australia and Germany. In particular, the litigants challenged three key provisons relating to communicating for the purpose of prostitution, living off the avails and keeping a common bawdy house (brothel).

The litigants would have viewed winning on one of them as a major triumph. They hardly dared to imagine gutting the law entirely.

“We got everything,” the lawyer behind the challenge, Alan Young, yelped as he read the concluding portions of the decision. “We did it!”

Mr. Young said that the judge refused to suspend the effect of her decision while the government moves to fill the legislative gap.

“It takes effect right now,” he told reporters at Toronto’s downtown courthouse.

If upheld on appeal, the decision will plunge Parliament back into the extremely divisive and complicated job of criminalizing an activity that is not itself illegal.

Indeed, successive governments have been branded hypocritical for taking a legal act and erecting criminal impediments to every aspect of carrying it out.

Judge Himel said that any doubt about the dangers to women was dispelled when serial killer Robert Pickton’s targeted women in a killing spree at his Vancouver pig farm.

She heard evidence during a weeklong hearing last year that as many as 300 sex-trade workers, most of whom were street prostitutes, have disappeared since 1985.

“It is estimated that street sex work makes up less than 20 per cent of prostitution in Canada, but they appear to account for more than 95 per cent of the homicide victims and missing women,” said a key witness for the litigants, Simon Fraser University criminologist John Lowman.

Judge Himel stressed that several other provisions relating to the sex trade remain in effect. These include prohibitions against child prostition; impeding pedestrian or vehicular traffic; and procuring.

She said that these are sufficient to give police the power to keep prostitutes from bothering passersby or turning neighbourhoods into sleazy dens of iniquity.

Judge Himel also said that pimps who threaten or commit violence against prostitutes can still be prosecuted using other sections of the Criminal Code.

“In conclusion, I respectfully reject the argument made by the (Crown) that a legal vacuum would be created by an immediate declaration of invalidity in this case,” she said.

However, Judge Himel gave the Crown a 30-day window in which to make arguments against legalizing bawdy houses on account of a concern that “unlicenced brothels may be operated in a way that may not be in the public interest.”

Mr. Young tried to prove that the women’s constitutional right to life, liberty and security were jeopardized by repressive laws that exacerbate the perils of a notoriously hazardous profession. The litigants argued that there is no harm to a sexual act between a consenting prostitute and her client.

Sporadic attempts have been made over the years to chip away at aspects of the prostitution law, but the challenge was the first in two decades to aim for a broad sweep of its provisions.

With the Charter challenge almost certain to reach the Supreme Court of Canada, both sides amassed a vast body of evidence, including dozens of witnesses.

Lawyers for the federal and Ontario Crown focused on proving the inherent dangers of prostitution – whether it is conducted in a car, an open field or a luxurious boudoir. They also argued that prostitution is inherently degrading and unhealthy, and should not be encouraged as a ‘career choice’ for young women through a slack legal regime.

The prosecutors urged Judge Himel not to intrude on the terrain of legislators who have studied and vigorously debated prostitution provisions. They said that, even if prostitution were made legal and moved indoors, it would still entail a high degree of danger its practitioners.

“Any time you are alone with a john, it is dangerous,” federal Crown Michael Morris told Judge Himel. “There is no safe haven when you are involved in prostitution. There is overwhelming evidence that johns can become violent at any moment.”

However, Prof. Lowman countered that prohibiting communication renders prostitutes unable to “screen” potential clients, hire security or move behind the relative safety of closed doors.

He said that he purposely delayed his challenge until after the Pickton trial, cognizant that the Supreme Court insists on strong evidence of actual harm, rather than abstract arguments.

Prof. Lowman also testified that, according to public opinion polls and research, a majority of Canadians believe that prostitution between consenting adults should be legal.

“So do the Bloc, Liberals and NDP, according to the 2006 parliamentary report of the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws,” he said. “Clearly, Canadians are ready to end what one judge has characterized as the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ state of Canadian prostitution law.”

Several cities – including Toronto, Victoria, Windsor, Calgary and Edmonton – charge fees to licence body-rub establishments despite the general understanding that many sell sexual services.

“We have this strange situation where the biggest pimps in the country right now are municipal governments,” Prof. Young told the court. “It’s just another irrationality of the law.”

The hearing grew heated when Prof. Lowman said that many of the Crown’s experts have a history of lying to foreign legislators, conducting simplistic research, fabricating scare stories and employing absurd rhetoric to help stall the global liberalization of prostitution laws. He accused them of travelling the world trying to convince permissive governments of their errors.