The criticism from opponents of the bill comes as a Senate committee begins three days of hearings on Tuesday into the legislation, known as C-36.
Critics, some of whom will testify before the Senate committee, are complaining that the hearings are tilted in favour of witnesses who support the bill.
They say Justice Minister Peter MacKay, who will lead off the hearings Tuesday, is not adequately consulting lawyers, academics and sex-workers who say the bill is deeply flawed.
“What sex workers are asking for is a proper and thorough research and evaluation process before we proceed with new laws,” said Katrina Pacey, litigation director of Pivot Legal Society, a Vancouver group that advocates for prostitutes.
“We hope the Senate will decide that this process has been too rushed and that C-36 is too risky. Instead, what we are seeing is what looks like a process that’s going to push it through as quickly as possible.”
On Monday, MacKay’s press secretary said that prostitution “hurts Canadian communities and the most vulnerable Canadians.”
“The proposed legislation would protect our communities — in particular women, children, and those who are at risk of being drawn into prostitution — from the dangers associated with prostitution, including violence, drug-related crime, and organized crime,” Clarissa Lamb said in an email.
Lamb said the government has sought the views of Canadians, including through an online consultation and input from groups representing sex workers, municipalities and “faith-based organizations.”
“One central theme was clear throughout: that Canadians want safe communities in which to live and raise their families.”
The Senate committee, which has a majority of Conservative senators, will hold a special “pre-study” of the bill, even though it has not yet been passed by the House of Commons.
Senators will hear from dozens of witnesses voicing both support and criticism for the bill that was introduced in early June by MacKay.
Their meeting follows similar public hearings held by a Commons committee of MPs in July.
The government wants to expedite parliamentary examination of the bill because the country’s old prostitution laws were struck down as unconstitutional last December by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Critics say there is a misunderstanding that the court gave Parliament a firm deadline — Dec. 20, 2014 — to pass new legislation.
In fact, they say, if nothing happens by then the country will simply be without a prostitution law.
“There is absolutely nothing that will limit Canada’s ability to enact new laws after that date,” said Pacey.
“The sky is not going to fall on that date. There is absolutely no rationale to rush through Bill C-36, given the number of voices that have not been heard.”
Under the government’s proposal, the law would target johns and pimps with criminal penalties if they buy sex from prostitutes.
And although the government has said it wants to end exploitation against prostitutes, it also proposes to penalize them if they sell sex in certain public places.
Initially, the bill was vague, citing places where children could “reasonably” be expected to be present.
In July, the Conservative-dominated committee of MPs amended the section, saying prostitutes could not sell sex next to a school, playground or daycare centre.
Critics say the bill could force the sex trade underground and that prostitutes will have less time to screen their customers on dark streets, putting them at increased risk of being harmed.
Critics also complain they are given little time to speak at parliamentary hearings and are outnumbered by supporters of the bill invited to attend.
Kerry Porth, a former prostitute who now chairs the Pivot Legal Society’s board of directors, appeared before MPs in July.
“I spoke from my experience as a former sex worker who worked in the context of addiction and poverty and occasional homelessness. Not a single question was asked of me.”
Other current or former prostitutes were “either aggressively questioned” by MPs or “heckled” by people in the public gallery, she said.
Original Article
Source: canada.com/
Author: BY MARK KENNEDY
No comments:
Post a Comment