Thank you.
My name is Georgialee Lang. I'm a lawyer in Vancouver. I was one of the many lawyers that were in the Supreme Court of Canada in June of 2013 arguing in the case of Attorney General v. Bedford, the prostitution case.
I was one of the lone voices that sought to urge the Supreme Court of Canada not to strike down the law, not to legalize prostitution, and my reasons are as follows.
Respect for human dignity is one of the underlying principles upon which Canadian society is based. We know the following from the Rodriguez decision of the Supreme Court of Canada:
That respect for human dignity is one of the underlying principles upon which our society is based is unquestioned.
Further, our Canadian government, in 1949, signed on to the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. One of the key principles that we signed onto was this:
Whereas prostitution and the accompanying evil of the traffic in persons for the purpose of prostitution are incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human person and endanger the welfare of the individual, the family and the community
Prostitution is simply a practice that arises from the historical subordination of women and the historical right of men to buy and exchange women as objects for sexual use. This practice is a disgraceful assault on human dignity. But prostitution not only harms the women and the girls involved, it also entirely undermines the social fabric of Canada. It affects more than those who practise or purchase services. It affects those who are prostituted against their will, it supports a network of interconnected criminal activity, and it forms societal attitudes that devalue an entire category of Canadians.
Now we ought to be proud because our Canadian history underscores Canada's rejection of exploitive behaviour from the decision to compensate the aboriginal victims of residential schools to our denunciation of human trafficking and child prostitution, but to legalize prostitution is to reverse the trajectory that promotes the equality of all persons and embraces the inherent dignity of each person.
Perhaps the best example that the harms inherent in prostitution are not alleviated by legalization is the research from the State of Victoria in Australia, where prostitution was legalized in the 1980s. The research results of Dr. Sheila Jeffreys and Dr. Mary Sullivan, both from the University of Melbourne, and Dr. Janice Raymond, indicates the following.
First of all, the object of legalizing prostitution was harm minimization. Of course, that parallels what the court said in Attorney General v. Bedford. There were safety issues at stake.
It was said in Australia that the legalization of prostitution would assist in eradicating the criminal element, guard against unregulated expansion of prostitution, and combat violence against prostitutes. The reality is that legalization did not eliminate violence; it did not stop street prostitution; it did not provide or produce a safer work environment for women; it did not dignify and professionalize the women in prostitution; and it did not contain the expansion of prostitution. What actually occurred was that legalization in Australia led to a massive expansion of prostitution. Ironically, the growth was mainly in the illegal sector. So while Australia, in the State of Victoria, legalized prostitution, it was the illegal sector that started to grow beyond their expectations, and particularly unlicensed brothels. Once they made brothels legal, a great many people just opened unlicensed brothels.
Legalization of prostitution also did not empower individual prostitutes. The notion was that they would be able to work together as entrepreneurs in legal brothels or set up in their own homes. What happened was that large operators, that is businessmen, dominated the brothel industry. Individuals or small groups of women could not compete at all.
Street prostitution did not disappear, simply because women who work outside have a host of social problems, including homelessness, drug addiction, being underaged, or are not willing to register with brothels or to register with the government.
The legislation that was intended to eliminate organized crime instead brought with it an explosion of human trafficking. Run by international crime syndicates, licensed brothels in the state of Victoria in Australia acted as warehouses for trafficked women.
That is why I say that Bill C-36 is a step in the right direction. It is a step that recognizes that prostitution is the exploitation of women and that it is time for Canadians and our government to step in and do something about it. I applaud the Canadian government for the steps they are taking and for this bill.
I want to address the constitutionality of this new law. There are many who have said that this law won't pass muster, that it will not survive constitutional scrutiny, and that it's simply a waste of money to put this law into effect. I disagree with all of these theories.
When the court in Attorney General v. Bedford looked at the prostitution laws, prostitution was not illegal. You have to understand that they were looking at laws that curtailed certain activities that surrounded prostitution, laws that were nuisance laws. They weren't laws that made prostitution illegal.
What the court did in Attorney General v. Bedford was to determine that running a common bawdy house, which of course under our old laws was meant to prevent neighbourhood disruption and disorder.... They found that denying prostitutes the safety associated with working in a permanent indoor location was grossly disproportionate to neighbourhood disruption, which is what the law curtailed.
In general, the former prostitution laws were designed to combat the public nuisance aspects of the sex trade. It's much too trivial an objective to justify violating prostitutes' charter rights.
The preamble to Bill C-36 sets much broader goals—nothing less than fighting “the exploitation that is inherent in prostitution” and protecting “human dignity and the equality of all Canadians”. No longer is the goal to prevent neighbourhood disorder, or disruption, or nuisance. We have a much broader goal.
Not only does the preamble of our new bill assert that Parliament seeks to denounce and prohibit exploitation and inequality, but it also sets out the aim of encouraging “those who engage in prostitution to report incidents of violence and to leave prostitution”.
Madam Justice McLachlin, in the Attorney General v. Bedford case, said this. In striking down the laws, the nuisance laws, the court made it clear in its decision the following:
That does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted.
That's what Bill C-36 does. Bill C-36 speaks to the concept that the exploitation is a terrible assault on women and children and some boys and men. It cannot continue. This bill, I say, deals with the constitutional aspects. It provides limitations on where and how. In my submission, and in my respectful opinion, this bill will pass constitutional muster particularly with the new preamble.
Thank you for inviting me to speak.