Madame deSade

I am a plaintiff in a court test of Canada's bawdy-house laws. This law suit against the Federal Government has been proceeding for almost three years. The decision was released on September 28th, 2010. Professor Alan Young, a very prominent Canadian lawyer and Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall York University, heads the legal team for the three plaintiffs. The case was heard by Judge Susan Himel of the Ontario superior Court.

It is not unlawful to work as a prostitute, yet the accompanying criminal prohibitions make it virtually impossible to pursue this lawful trade in a safe and secure environment. The court action challenged some sections of the Criminal Code: Sections 210 (bawdy house), Section 212 (1)(j) (living on the avails) and Section 213(1)(c) (communication for the purpose).

The bawdy house prohibition denies the sex-trade worker a safe haven for pursuing this lawful trade and the living on the avails provision prevents the sex-trade worker from hiring the services of a manager, driver, bodyguard, etc. We are all aware of the many prostitutes who have been murdered or have disappeared in recent years throughout Canada.

The Safety Argument was brought under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was argued that the law is too arbitrary since the harms to society caused by the law distinctly outweigh benefits to society gained by the law. We presented many witnesses and other evidence to support this argument. It is often referred to as the "Safe Haven Initiative". Court case details about the Safe Haven Initiative can be found by clicking here.

The present constitutional challenge is unique from a technical legal perspective in a number of ways, including the two following facts. Previously no empirical evidence concerning the operation of these laws was introduced into court. Secondly, the laws were previously challenged on the basis of economic liberty, vagueness and freedom of expression.

Since the previous decisions the Supreme Court of Canada has not been apprised of numerous studies commissioned by the Federal Department of Justice in 1987, and the Report of the Federal/Provincial Working Group on Prostitution in 1998. These studies documented the ineffectiveness of the current laws in achieving their stated purpose and suggest that the Supreme Court may have ruled differently in the past if this evidence had been available.

Overturning the law will allow sex-trade workers to come off the streets and operate safely from private property under the full protection of the law. It will end this discrimination against women.