Jelena Vermilion, executive director of the Sex Workers Action Program in Hamilton, told CBC that her organization had hoped Canadian lawmakers would pass a decriminalization bill, but “no one had the courage to do it, so sex workers are suing the government to fight for their rights.” The offence against material benefits does not prevent sex workers from using their profits in legitimate business situations. For example, they can use their material benefits to buy gifts for others, provide for their families, pay for shared housing, or hire an accountant or lawyer. Those who receive material benefits from a sex worker in these contexts will not be prosecuted. In a December 20, 2013 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the laws in question. They delayed the implementation of their decision – which also applied to Ontario sections – by a year to allow the government to draft new laws. After announcing the decision, Valerie Scott explained in the media that sex workers must be involved in the process of developing the new legislation, regardless of the decision: “The problem here is the politicians, although they know us as clients, they don`t understand how sex work works. They will not be able to write a half-decent law. It will fail. That`s why you need to bring sex workers to the table in a meaningful way. [18] [19] CASWLR “is the first constitutional challenge to the provisions of CEPA initiated by sex workers, and the first to challenge all provisions individually and in conjunction with the argument that they violate the human rights of sex workers to dignity, health, equality, safety, autonomy and security of persons working in the sex industry, including their right to safe working conditions.” The group said in a press release. It is illegal to sell sexual services near an area where a person under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present. In particular, school grounds, playgrounds or daycares.
The government says the change removes the Supreme Court`s concerns while preventing children from being exposed to prostitution. Opponents say the provision requires sex workers to travel to dangerous and isolated areas, which will limit their ability to screen clients and negotiate terms. The groups argue that instead of recognizing the rights and well-being of sex workers by decriminalizing sex work, the federal government has created a set of criminal laws called the Protection of Exploited Communities and Persons Act (CEPA) that replicate the same harms. The government says criminalizing those who “create a demand for prostitution” limits the appeal to sex workers. Opponents say criminalizing this exchange pushes them underground and therefore makes the situation more dangerous for sex workers. The Pivot Legal Society says the provision “violates the security of sex workers` privacy rights.” The Canadian government and sex work groups promote CEPA as a “final demand” model. This is sometimes referred to as the Nordic model, as it was first adopted in Sweden, Norway and Iceland. PCEPA attempts to end sex work by making it illegal to purchase sexual services, i.e. by “stopping demand”.
However, it creates sex work offences that don`t just apply to clients: it actually makes almost all sex work-related activities illegal. This is done by criminalizing the work of sex workers and third parties (which may include managers and drivers, as well as friends and family who provide other types of support). Criminalization threatens all sex workers in all areas of sex work. In particular, it threatens sex workers of colour, Indigenous sex workers, sex workers who use drugs, transgender workers, low-income and homeless sex workers, and sex workers with precarious immigration status. In Canada, CEPA has had a catastrophic impact on the lives and livelihoods of sex workers. It deprives them of their basic human rights, including the right to control their own bodies and sexual activity. This makes them targets for surveillance and racial profiling. They face the unwanted and unwanted presence of the police in their lives, resulting in a constant threat of arrest, charge, detention, deportation, detention and conviction. Even if sex workers are not charged, arrested, or deported, police attention can have other implications: it can mean being evicted from work and living spaces, attacked by neighbors or partners, and devalued as community members and skilled workers. Ultimately, PCEPA is an attack on the legal, financial and physical autonomy of sex workers. Tracy Gregory, founder and executive director of the Sudbury Sex Workers Advisory Network, said that no matter what happens in Ontario Superior Court, she suspects the case will end up before the Supreme Court of Canada.