Tl;dr Repealing prostitution specific criminal laws will not make sex work safe and the questions ought to be - whether, where, and for whom it might be made safe enough, and how a shift in law and policy might facilitate that in Canada. 1/ https://twitter.com/Laurel_BC/status/1224789242850807808

The problem here begins with the persistent claim that there are things that WOULD keep sex workers safe. The evidence appears to only go so far as to say there are things that COULD make it safeR. Several observations. 2/

The risk of violence in the sex industry is very high. There is no evidence violence in the sex industry has been eliminated or even significantly reduced anywhere. The risks that are shown to be reduced in a decrim context relate largely to sexual health risks 3/

Potentially safety enhancing measures generally place responsibility for managing the risk of violence on individual sellers. To what extent can (male) violence be accurately predicted/managed? For whom is responsibility for managing the risk of (male) violence reasonable? 4/

Whether and for whom the risk of violence could be materially reduced is contingent on a variety of individual and social factors. In the Canadian context, different provinces and cities. have very different supports in place to assist sex workers in managing risk. 5/

The vast majority of research about sex work in Canada is conducted with participants from the city of Vancouver where established social and community supports for sex workers exist. Whether the findings related to violence risk management would apply elsewhere is unclear. 6/

As an aside, there are no published studies focussed on individuals whose participation in prostitution results from trafficking or on individuals who have exited prostitution since the #PCEPA was enacted; known effects of new laws relate only to a subset of sellers. 7/

A more nuanced discussion would consider how to create a legally permissible sex industry in Canada, should one be desired, that attends to the actual likelihood of reducing violence, in part by considering where, whether, and for whom risk reduction measures are... 8/

(a) likely to be used and (b) likely to be effective. It is relevant that some people experienced in the sex industry do not accept that decriminalization would reduce their risk of harm. 9/

Back to my original point. In Bedford Himel J found that measures exist with the potential to reduce the risk of violence. She did not find they would reduce the risk. 10/

Another aside. The question of how best to address the high risk of violence in the sex industry in Canada is distinct from the question of the constitutionality of existing criminal laws. It is not clear the current laws are unconstitutional. 11/

Several were upheld by OCJ in R v Boodhoo and a decision in R v Anwar & Harvey is due this month. The relevance of Himel Js findings related to the question of whether legally preventing those measures violated rights when prostitution itself was legal. 12/

One reason cited by Parl for criminalizing obtaining sexual services for consideration was that prostitution could not be made safe. But enacting criminal laws, especially ones that are not enforced and are part of an overall policy that has not been fully implemented... 13/

...will not eliminate prostitution, so the risk of violence will persist. Canada needs to revisit its laws, but simply removing all prostitution specific offences from the criminal code will not reduce the risk of violence. 14/

Perhaps it's time to consider whether incomplete commodification might be a more responsive policy approach for Canada. Removal of criminal laws would shift legal responsibility for prostitution to provinces raising the potential for context specific approaches. 15/

Canada might consider excluding from criminal laws legalized or regulated contexts with potential for meaningful violence risk management, and fully implementing and enforcing existing laws in jurisdictions without that potential. 16/