Dear Patricia,
“Three groups have been granted intervenor status,” says Kendra Stanyon, assistant to Alan Young, the lawyer spearheading the challenge. “REAL Women of Canada, a very conservative though theoretically non-religious group, the Catholic Civil Rights League and the Christian Legal Fellowship. These three groups applied together to be granted intervenor status as a “Friend of the Court” under rule 13.02 of Canada’s Rules of Civil Procedure. This status differs from full intervenor status, which was granted to the Attorney General of Ontario very early into the process in that the legal rights conferred upon a ‘Friend of the Court’ are much narrower. Rule 13.02 states their purpose as ‘rendering assistance to the court by way of argument.’ They are not permitted to introduce evidence into the case or unduly delay the proceedings. Rather, their counsel will be given two hours to present an oral argument to Justice Himel before Alan Young is allowed to reply to the arguments tendered by the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Ontario and these Intervenors.”
“We argued in court that morality and religious values were not at issue in our case but the Court of Appeal let them in to have an hour or two to express their views on the state objectives underlying the prostitution laws,” Young says. “I still maintain their perspective is irrelevant, distracting and ideological and we’ll see if the court is moved by their perspective. They will have had their chance to argue earlier this week.” I was present when the lead counsel presented on behalf of the intervenors. He spoke about how the current legislation—which makes the legal job of sex work nearly impossible to do safely—shows a concern for public morals, children and families and is designed to protect against moral corruption. He then brought up two issues where morality is relevant to law—bestiality and cannibalism. He also spoke about how the bawdyhouse laws were first introduced to combat white slavery, an issue that has been highly contested in its own legitimacy. Young will reply on Monday, Oct. 26.
“Why they have the right to interfere is a really good question,” says sex worker rights activist Jenn Clamen. “When the case is based on a human rights issue, where does a moral argument have any place? For sex workers, this is not a debate. The violence that sex workers experience is real and the way sex workers have to do acrobatics around the laws in order to avoid police and incarceration actually does put sex workers’ lives in danger. What these groups are debating are their own issues of whether or not they would do sex work themselves. They need to start thinking about the realities for those that are actually doing it and ways to make it safer. More than 60 sex workers murdered in Canada should really have raised the alarm bells around that, but they’ve got their hands in their pants and prefer to claim the entire industry is violent rather than to listen when sex workers say that the laws are.”
If distance or prior obligation does not permit you to be present at the courthouse, you are free to contact these organizations yourself and express your displeasure at their attempt to stop women from making decisions that offer them security at work. As REAL Women of Canada’s website itself declares, “REAL Women believes that women should have career choices which include the financial option of remaining at home, if they choose…this dedication to the role of motherhood should be encouraged, not discouraged, by our tax laws and legislation. At the very least, government policies should remain neutral on the issue of career choice for women.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Keep up with the challenge here: spoc.ca.
