Canada’s Trans* Rights Bill Now Endorses Bans in Washroom and Gendered Spaces

Canada’s trans* human rights bill C-279 was amended by a Senate committee, in a way that makes it legal to ban trans* people from washrooms and gendered spaces appropriate to their gender identity.

Sen. Donald Plett, Conservative member of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, added a legal exemption for “any service, facility, accommodation or premises that is restricted to one sex only, such as a correctional facility, crisis counseling facility, shelter for victims of abuse, washroom facility, shower facility or clothing changing room.”  The amendment passed with six of the committee members supporting it, four opposed, and one abstention.

There were two other unanimous amendments made.  One added the category of “sex” to the protections in the Criminal Code (which has long been a bizarre and serious omission from hate crimes legislation).  The other removed the definition of “gender identity” which had been added in the House of Commons as a condition of passing the bill, back in 2013.  Because the bill has been amended, it would need to return to the House for a final vote before being enacted.  It is thought unlikely that the bill would be brought forward before an election call — and now, if it did, the bill’s original proponents would oppose it — meaning that C-279 is almost certainly dead.

“The very act that is designed to prohibit discrimination is being amended to allow discrimination,” the bill’s Senate sponsor, Grant Mitchell, pointed out.  “It holds people who are law-abiding, full-fledged and equal members of our society accountable for the potential — the very, very long-shot potential — that someone would misuse this to justify a criminal act.” (The transcript has not been posted yet, but the videocast is still available)

Sen. Plett has long claimed that the bill would be exploited by pedophiles and rapists to attack women and children in washrooms, a claim that has been repeatedly debunked by law enforcement officials and other experts:

“Minneapolis Police Department: Fears About Sexual Assault “Not Even Remotely” A Problem. Minneapolis police spokesman John Elder told Media Matters in an interview that sexual assaults stemming from Minnesota’s 1993 transgender non-discrimination law have been “not even remotely” a problem. Based on his experience, the notion of men posing as transgender women to enter women’s restrooms to commit sex crimes “sounds a little silly,” Elder said. According to Elder, a police department inquiry found “nothing” in the way of such crimes in the city… [Phone interview, 3/11/14]”

Additionally, criminal activity in a washroom or gendered space would continue to remain criminal regardless of the gender of the perpetrator.  On the other hand, trans* women face very real dangers when institutionally housed with men or made to use segregated facilities according to their birth sex.

Nevertheless, bathroom-related fearmongering has been the cause of several petitions and campaigns to kill trans* human rights legislation in North America.  It has also started to spawn draconian bathroom-policing bills (some of which ignore the actual genital status of the person, even though genitals are allegedly the rationale for the law):

“Building managers who “repeatedly allow” trans people to use the bathroom that accords with their gender identity would, however, face up to two years in jail and a maximum $10,000 fine under the proposed law.

“… If passed, the law could tighten how Texas defines gender, not only singling out transgender people, but those who have chromosomes that don’t fit the strict definition laid out in the bill, like intersex individuals. The bill reads:

” For the purpose of this section, the gender of an individual is the gender established at the individual’s birth or the gender established by the individual’s chromosomes. A male is an individual with at least one X chromosome and at least one Y chromosome, and a female is an individual with at least one X chromosome and no Y chromosomes. If the individual’s gender established at the individual’s birth is not the same as the individual’s gender established by the individual’s chromosomes, the individual’s gender established by the individual’s chromosomes controls under this section…”

Plett’s reasoning essentializes trans* women as being “biological males” (“… and I will use ‘men’ because I believe they are biological men — ‘transgender,’ but biologically, they are men”), and asserts that they are inherently a threat to cis* (non-trans*) women.  When it was pointed out that his amendment would require trans* men to use womens’ facilities, Plett appeared indifferent, and he later referred to a young trans* man as “she.”  Plett added that he believed his amendment would allow “separate but equal treatment.”

Bill C-279 would affect only areas under federal jurisdiction, such as federal facilities, the Armed Forces, federal agencies, and First Nations reserves.  But it had been seen as a potentially important symbol of human rights protection to have specific federal inclusion.  Canadian human rights commissions consider trans* people written into legislation, but without explicit inclusion, there remains a possibility of an overturn in court precedent (where application is not as certain).  Meanwhile, companies that take direction from federal legislation continue to not see a need to develop policies for trans* employees.

The Northwest Territories was the first Canadian jurisdiction to pass trans-inclusive legislation, in 2002.  Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan all have provincial protections.  In British Columbia, a similar bill, M-211, has been blocked by B.C. Liberals, who refuse to allow it to face a vote or discussion.

Former Member of Parliament Bill Siksay first introduced a trans* human rights bill in 2005, and continued to reintroduce it in every Parliamentary session, until it eventually passed in the House of Commons. However, it was awaiting ratification in the Senate when a federal election was called, which killed the bill.  In 2011, Siksay left federal politics, and Randall Garrison reintroduced it as C-279.  In 2012, many trans* people stopped campaigning for the bill when the characteristic of gender expression was deleted from the bill, and a definition of gender identity was added.

(A version of this article also appears at Rabble.ca and The Bilerico Project)

Could Canada’s Anti-Sex Work Bill C-36 Also Stifle LGBT Speech?

Slightly over a week ago, Canada introduced legislation to replace the anti-prostitution laws that had been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Conservative government has been trying to race Bill C-36 through both the House and the Senate simultaneously, at breakneck speed.  But the text of the bill has raised questions about its constitutionality.  Sex workers, mainstream media and even many Nordic model proponents and abolitionists agree that it places sex workers in even greater danger than the previous laws did.

But is there also a poison pill within the legislation that could be used to stifle LGBT and sex-positive speech?

Firstly, here is what the dubiously-named “Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act” does:

• It re-criminalizes communicating for the purpose of commercial sex.  While there is said to be an exemption for the sex worker themselves, that exemption only applies if the communication is not in a public place and/or not “where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present” (a minor doesn’t actually have to be present), and not in the presence of another sex worker under the age of 18 (one controversy has arisen because underage sex workers can be charged if they work together for safety).  The law had been struck down previously because it put sex workers in unsafe situations by limiting their ability to screen clients, and negotiate what they were willing and unwilling to do.
• It re-criminalizes the “common bawdy-house,” defined as a place “for the practice of acts of indecency, a place that is kept or occupied or resorted to by one or more persons.” This criminalizes massage parlours and strip clubs, if commercial sex occurs on their premises, and also prevents sex workers from having their own (or collective) space away from home to meet with clients.  The bawdy-house law had been previously struck down because it prevented sex workers from working collectively indoors.
• It re-criminalizes “living off the avails…” (as “receiving a material benefit that derives” from the sale of sex). It does provide an exemption (subject to interpretation) for some roommates, spouses and children who live with sex workers, provided that nothing can be construed as an exploitative situation and no drugs are provided to the sex worker.  This also criminalizes escort agencies, and it is unclear how liable referrers, drivers, bodyguards, associates and other business partners could be.  This had also been previously struck down because it prevented sex workers from working together or making business arrangements that improve their safety and circumstances.
• It now officially criminalizes the purchase of sex.  This is new (previously, it had been legal but associated activities were illegal), and it’s because of this that people are claiming the law is based on the Nordic model of prostitution laws, which aim to end demand while supposedly not targeting sex workers themselves — but Canada’s law goes very clearly beyond that point in several ways.  While many are claiming that this law will inevitably be struck down as unconstitutional, the Harper government’s gambit strategy is to criminalize sex work, so that it is no longer legally relevant whether the laws make it unsafe.
• Something else that is entirely new is that the law criminalizes advertising “sexual services.”  Newspapers and websites are legally liable if commercial sex advertisements are found within their publications, and consequences can include fines or imprisonment — again with an exemption for the sex workers themselves, provided it is not in a public place and/or “where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present….” Weirdly, it appears that the Internet may be defined as a place where persons under the age of 18 can be reasonably expected to be present, for the purposes of this bill.

“Sexual services” is not defined, and I have asked elsewhere if this term could eventually be stretched in such a way that it ultimately bans porn.  The bill contains extensive search and seizure powers that at the very least provides all the legal teeth that such a ban would need.  Others have also asked if the vague nature of this term could be used to target sexual health services, sex-positive counseling, sex toys and more.

If the phrase “where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present” is reminiscent of Russia’s “homosexual propaganda” law, that may be by design — Canada’s criminalization of sex work owes more to Russia’s anti-prostitution laws than to the Nordic model.

(If anyone is interested in background of these specifics, I have posts at Rabble.ca about what the bill explicitly does, and how the bill makes a seriously flawed and damaging conflation between sex work and human trafficking.)

The Poison Pill

The new criminalization of “sexual service” advertising, however, is especially concerning.  Given the way that print and online publications are to be held liable for commercial sex advertising, there are serious implications for Canadians’ freedom of speech.  Beyond the obvious loss of advertising revenues that an LGBT publication might endure, there could also be wider-spread censorship if that legal liability also extends to Internet Service Providers (ISPs), for any such advertisements that could be found on their networks.

The question is not as absurd as it sounds.  It was only last July that Conservative MP Joy Smith loudly cheered Britain’s new law which required ISPs to institute a content filtering system requiring Britons to opt in if they want to be able to access anything deemed to be obscene or pornographic.  At the time, she had promised to flag this for the party to make a top priority, she said she was absolutely certain that the Prime Minister would be interested in taking action, and then nothing else has ever been said publicly about it.  Meanwhile, Joy Smith has been the Harper Conservatives’ most vocal proponent of Bill C-36, and given many comments by her Conservative Party colleagues, it would seem that she also had a hand in drafting the bill and / or lobbying for it among Members of Parliament.  And the only groups that have been very happy with Bill C-36 have been a number of religious groups, who seem to be the only consultants that were listened to.

Filters have caused minor controversies in Canada before, such as when Tim Hortons had to apologize for blocking DailyXtra from WiFi users.  However, they’ve not improved very much, over time, and have never been applied in a global fashion.

If ISPs are legally liable for (or could be threatened with legal liability for) advertisements of sexual services found on their networks under the terms of C-36, then out of necessity and self-preservation, ISPs would need to institute a content filtering system, nationwide.  Unlike Britain’s, there may not be an opt-in alternative.  This would be doubly reinforced if pornography were deemed a “sexual service” (i.e. by acting as an intermediary) at some point.

Where this becomes especially a concern for free speech is that content filters are incredibly arbitrary, and any filter system designed to effectively intercept commercial sex advertising would inevitably be overly broad.

The result of the filters implemented in Britain has been a deliberately quiet reduction in access to a great many things:

“The filters block a wide variety of content, from hardcore porn to extremist political sites… those “porn blockers” have already proven to be ineffective, blocking plenty of harmless sites and failing to tell the difference between sex education forums and porn. In one case, a domestic abuse helpline was blocked as inappropriate material, while many actual porn sites are still accessible through the filters.”

Back in January, The Guardian‘s Laurie Penny asserted that blocking more than porn was both the intent and the inevitable consequence of the government’s content filtering initiative.  Casualties of the filter system had included “helplines like Childline and the NSPCC, domestic violence and suicide prevention services.”  The New Statesman reported in December that one ISP advertised that its filters would block gay and lesbian content:

“BT have since reworded this description to remove the ‘gay and lesbian’ reference, but given that their filtering is provided by an unnamed “third party supplier” it seems highly unlikely that the filter itself has changed overnight – merely the description.”

What is and isn’t allowed still can’t be determined except through trial and error.  The Cameron government had to draw up a whitelist to force-allow sites that have been noticed to have inadvertently run afoul of the censor.  But the scope of the filters has grown since its initial introduction to also include discussions deemed politically radical — an addition stated to be because of the possibility of the propagation of terrorism.

While a C-36 inspired filter system would operate differently because of what it’s intended to block — advertisements of sexual services, rather than pornography — that doesn’t mean that the filters would be any less clumsy.  While search terms like “escort” would be natural flags for a filter system, ISPs that are worried about legal repercussions would necessarily include a wider array of tags, to try to prevent anyone from getting around the filters.   Given the subjective nature of the term “sexual services,” something that’s open to wide interpretation, this could result in the “just in case” mentality, where businesses and individuals apply the rule in an overly broad way, to avoid any possible complaints or legal liabilities. And then there’s the problem of filtering images, which don’t of themselves have keywords other than the descriptions assigned to them.

Given the avid support that MP Joy Smith has shown to both C-36 and content filtering — as well as the Bill’s obvious pandering to far right groups that have called for a Canadian equivalent to a Russian-style “homosexual propaganda” law — it’s a reasonable question to ask.

Canadians concerned about this possibility can contact their MP (who can be determined through a search on the parl.gc.ca main page), and civilly but clearly ask for assurance that the ban on sexual service advertising in C-36 could not be used in this manner.  They’re also encouraged to find out more about what the bill does, and voice their opposition or their concerns about how this affects sex workers.  They should CC their message to Minister of Justice Peter MacKay, and if their Member of Parliament is a Conservative, they might also want to copy an interested member of the opposition, such as Françoise Boivin (NDP), Sean Casey (Lib.) or Elizabeth May (Greens).  This must be done quickly, however.

Bill C-36 will be voted on at Second Reading on Monday June 16th, after Question Period at 3:00pm.  From there, it could proceed to Third (and final) Reading, or to a committee stage for amendments (although it appears the Conservatives prefer to pass it as soon as possible).

(Crossposted to The Bilerico Project)

C-36: Conflating sex work with human trafficking

I recently asked whether the vague definition of “sexual services” and definition of the Internet as a public space could be used to make the anti-prostitution Bill C-36 ban pornography.  Regardless of how one feels about porn, such a thing would certainly require a debate, and it’s a question worth asking.

I also looked at the obvious aspects of C-36 that have sparked outrage from sex workers, and occasionally even from abolitionists.

There are further discussions as well — more concrete than speculation, but still under the surface of the legislation itself.

Conflating sex work with human trafficking

Anti-prostitution Bill C-36 explicitly puts sex work on the same footing as human trafficking and conflates the two in law.  Indeed, they have been consciously equated by Peter MacKay and by the bill’s proponents.

The rhetoric used when introducing the bill also does this, through employing a language that claims that people (particularly women) sell themselves or are sold as commodities, rather than simply selling a service.  Under this line of thinking, it is considered impossible that sex workers might retain any personal autonomy.

Human trafficking certainly exists, although not as frequently as it is often claimed (studies that claim high numbers of trafficking incidents often similarly conflate it with sex work). The fact that it happens less often does not mean that we should care less or believe that the occurrences of it are somehow less horrible — but it does justify recognizing when the scope of it has been unjustly stretched beyond what human trafficking actually is.

The UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (or Trafficking Protocol) defines human trafficking as:

“The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs….”

Human trafficking doesn’t always include border migration, and the exploitation isn’t always about the selling and buying of sex, but the consistent elements are that one person ends up controlling another, via unethically-obtained consent or no consent at all, for the purposes of exploitation.

These circumstances sometimes do occur with sex work, but they aren’t inherent to it.  Sex work does not always have elements of coercion, of control, or of vulnerability. Sex work actually includes a variety of trades, including street work, escorting, stripping, lap dancing, professional domination, massage, survival sex, porn, and more, making it difficult to generalize about it in an absolute fashion.

The Harper government (and supportive media) has had to paint sex workers, advocates and organizations as rare outliers, in order to maintain the illusion that sex work is always exploitative. A great many sex workers have a considerable degree of personal autonomy and independence.  However, those who are in exploitative circumstances are always those who are disproportionately visible, because they will justifiably make contact, seek help and make themselves visible. Unfortunately, this means that the dire circumstances experienced by those who do seek escape become interpreted as being representative of sex work as a whole.

Worse, using the term “human trafficking” interchangeably with sex work actually confuses the issue significantly, diverting funds and energy away from where it’s needed and toward combating legitimate sex work as well.  This makes it impossible to get clear and realistically comparative data, and reallocates funding away from effective anti-trafficking initiatives.  It undermines the fight against trafficking and tarnishes the organizations that try to do the needed work, making it much harder to address actual human trafficking.  And it has allowed far right moralists who are more interested in controlling peoples’ sexual habits seductively hijack the dialogue that once considered womens’ autonomy and choice to be important.

Under Bill C-36, for example, the emphasis is placed on exit services.  But victims of human trafficking have specific (and often urgent) needs that go far beyond exiting sex work.  These start with citizenship: far too often, the response to a trafficked person in Canada is to rescue them from an exploitative situation, and then deport them to the very same conditions that made them vulnerable to exploitation.  Certainly, without citizenship, access to other social services and the tools they need to begin lives free of exploitation becomes difficult or impossible.

And while sexual exploitation justifiably triggers anger and requires remedy, human trafficking also involves far more than sexual exploitation.  It is believed that there are nearly 21 million trafficked persons, worldwide, according to an estimate by the International Labour Organization.  Of these, 4.5 million are victims of sexual trafficking.  The issue of persons exploited for sexual labour is urgent, yes.  But it does not encompass the whole problem of human trafficking.  The approach of Bill C-36 allows the public to believe that we’ve addressed everything that matters.

The embarrassing fall of Somaly Mam — who resigned after questions were raised about her autobiography, tactics and alleged coaching of shocking stories about sex trafficking — should provide a strong cautionary tale about how we can sometimes react to the issue by willingly disregarding or failing to check key facts.

If sex workers did not have to feel targeted by authorities or ashamed to reveal who they were, they could in fact become key allies in detecting and identifying where and when sexual trafficking occurs.  Besides…

“Kung said the employees were required to share rooms in two five-bedroom homes owned by their boss, Tony Van Den Bosch.

“They had no privacy in the house. The owner would come in and out as he pleased and would enter people’s rooms,” Kung said.

“In addition, Kung said, the workers were asked to pay rent once at the beginning of the month, and an additional $200 “tip” on top of their monthly rent in the middle of the month, for the double-bunked rooms.

“… The employer also regularly asked the workers from Mexico for their passports and would hold them for periods of time, alleged Kung.

“Two of them were fired and sent back to Mexico after raising concerns about their working and living conditions. Two of them actually fled in the middle of the night one night because they were so afraid…”

How is sex work inherently always incontrovertibly equivalent to human trafficking, but the Harper government’s Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) program not?

The paternal infantilization of women and the idealized rescue of exit services.

Bill C-36 assumes that everyone engaging in sex work is a victim. By doing so, this government ignores the experiences of people who choose to engage in sex work.  Unless there is direct force or coercion involved (which is procuring, something that was still illegal before this law was introduced), there are two intersecting factors that motivate people to engage in sex work: poverty and opportunity.  The balance between each will vary per person.

While promising to invest money in exit services, the same government fails to address one key driver — poverty — and completely disregards the other as non-existent.

Between driving wages down with anti-union policies, the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) program, cuts to the public sector, refusing to address economic and gender disparities…  the Harper government is a major driver of that poverty. If the choice is to earn as much in two weeks working at a McJob as one could earn in a few nights doing sex work, then that’s not really much of a choice, is it?

Certainly, there’s no talk about addressing job opportunities and wages that would provide a reasonable alternative.  Despite the stigmas, danger and even criminalization, sex work is one of the few ways that people might have to escape oppressive economic circumstances.

And by taking away any ability to work in visible spaces or safe spaces, the Harper Conservatives are driving the industry underground, creating vulnerabilities. The only thing that the government is offering is funding for exit programs.  Leave or else.  This bill does everything possible to ensure that exiting sex work is the only option.

The rescue industry

The Conservatives have pledged $20 million toward exit programs and enforcement.  It’s not known how much of that money will go to increased policing costs.

Exit programs are one area where a person really has to wonder how a law is going to be used.  Will law enforcement be used to push people into exit programs?  Will there be coercion or obligation to participate in them?  Will access to assistance or public services be conditional upon participating in an exit program?  If a person does not want to participate in an exit program, will the penalty be charges for things they would not have otherwise been punished for?  Will participation in exit programs be the only way a sex worker can avoid losing custody or visitation of their children?  Will religious institutions (similar to or allied with those who advised the bill, even) be administering these exit programs, and will proselytization be a part of the exit strategy?

Some of these questions sound appalling or absurd, but there are certainly precedents south of the border where these became the consequence of anti-prostitution laws which push exit programs.

A matter of advice

In crafting Bill C-36, there was a clear reliance by the Harper government on the advice of far right religious organizations like REAL Women of Canada and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and virtually no weight given to the people directly impacted by the legislation.

One of the organizations that stands to benefit from the $20 million that the Harper Conservatives have pledged to invest in exit programs is [free-them], which describes itself as an anti-trafficking organization.  But the organization appears to have a moralist slant that extends beyond that mandate.  When MP Joy Smith (who the organization describes as “Free-Them’s ally in fighting human trafficking”) issued a statement in support of Britain’s mandatory porn opt-in policy, [free-them] was quick to follow up with a similar statement:

“Children need to be protected from pornographic images that over time can desensitize our youth and create a false sense of sexual reality, and even lure children into a situation of exploitation that no child should ever experience. As Prime Minister Cameron clearly states, this regulation is not banning legal pornography, but rather increasing an extra level of security and protection from pornography getting into the hands and viewership of youth and children that should not be exposed to this. As adults, we have a responsibility to the young generations growing up to protect and defend children and youth…”

If it’s difficult to conflate human trafficking with all of sex work, then it’s even harder to equate it with the entirety of pornography.  Exploitation does happen in porn, yes, but in this case, there is also a highly visible contingent of participants who have been obviously not trafficked, and have relative personal autonomy.

The longer one follows the threads of Bill C-36, the clearer it becomes that it is far less about exploitation, and far more about legislating a specific moral vision.  And in the process, the issue of trafficking itself has become hijacked.

Footnote: While I had never set out to become an activist for sex workers’ rights, I’ve come to believe that the freer and more empowered a sex worker is, the less opportunity exists for exploitation, and the more opportunity there is to escape it if it happens. Criminalization achieves the opposite effect.

(crossposted to Rabble.ca.  Concerned about progressive media in Canada? Support rabble.ca)

Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act: an overview

I recently asked whether the vague definition of “sexual services” and definition of the Internet as a public space could be used to make the anti-prostitution Bill C-36 ban pornography somehow.  Regardless of how one feels about porn, such a thing would certainly require a debate, and it’s a question worth asking.

That is, however, speculative.  The bill itself contains many clearer aspects that have sparked outrage from sex workers, and occasionally even from abolitionists, as well (though the objections vary).

The Canadian government’s public consultation on sex work — which sex worker advocates felt had been slanted to try to sell the “Nordic Model” of anti-prostitution law — was reported to have shown that a majority of Canadians want the selling of sex to be legal for the sake of the people who engage in it, but a mix (slight majority) of Canadians support criminalizing the buying of sex.

Apparently Justice Minister Peter MacKay decided that meant that Canadians wanted sex work criminalized in such a way that sex workers wouldn’t always be technically charged, but it would be otherwise made totally impossible to work legally and safely.  Rather than honour the safety concerns raised by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Harper government has actually exacerbated the situation in hopes of forcing sex workers into exit programs.

“The purchase and sale of sex has never been illegal in Canada,” MacKay said explicitly. “That changes today.”

It is, of course, the government’s hope that by completely criminalizing sex work, the Supreme Court of Canada’s argument — that anti-prostitution laws do harm to sex workers by preventing them from working safely — becomes irrelevant.  Courts never concern themselves with whether circumstances are made safe enough to commit a crime.  And that’s why it has decided to criminalize the buying of sex in addition to re-criminalizing everything that was struck down (with a few narrow exemptions for sex workers themselves)… and throw in some new restrictions for good measure.

(It’s alleged that an unpublished Ipsos Reid poll reportedly contradicts this government position, but the results of that poll are being withheld)

Pivot Legal Society has condemned the bill:

“This cynical, dystopic model does not resolve the problems found by the Court in Bedford to be unconstitutional, and adds new ones such as the prohibition on advertising. The Charter rights engaged by this proposed law include life, liberty, security of the person, freedom of expression and equality. Arguably all are breached.

“This is not the “Nordic” approach, nor is it a Canadian variation on the “Nordic” approach. It is an unconstitutional variation of our broken laws that impose more danger, more criminalization, and fewer safe options, contrary to the requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada to address these dangerous and ineffective laws.

“This made in Canada model will lead to continued epidemic of violence against sex workers in Canada…”

What the bill does:

1) Sellers are not criminalized or targeted… except when they are.

It’s claimed that Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act targets buyers of sex but doesn’t target those who sell it.  That is incorrect.  Sex workers can absolutely be charged:

• if they work in the presence of sex workers under 18 years of age — even if they’re under 18, themselves;
• if they work at home where children reside, if it’s asserted that the children are being negatively affected (and what about having to go visit grandma all the time… is that a negative effect?) — more on this in a moment; and
• if they communicate in “a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,” stop traffic, etc. (the penalty for this could be up to five years in prison)

The mixed signals on charging sex workers opens up some ability for law enforcement to use the potential for charges (and the lack of clarity on what is legal) to manipulate people.  This could result in the threatening of charges in order to intimidate a person into incriminating themselves or incriminating others (perhaps even falsely, in order to escape trouble).  This lack of clarity could also be used to scare people into pleading guilty (regardless of whether it’s true) to seeming lesser charges, in order to escape risking more frightening legal possibilities.

Regardless of the exemptions included in the bill, there are still institutional barriers to keep sex workers from receiving assistance from police or communicating with them with confidence.  For example, the search and seizure powers make no exemption for sex workers themselves.  Even if they can’t be charged for advertising their own services, what’s to stop police from seizing their computers and targeting their current and past clients in one fell swoop?  It’s incredibly naive to think that the rapport between law enforcement and sex workers would be improved in any way by this law.

Could the legislation affect access to social services as well, if those services aren’t specifically exit-related? Or custody of children?  Even if a sex worker cannot be charged for advertising sexual services in a particular situation, might it still violate a lease by being classified as a criminal act?  The implications are uncertain.

2) Communication.

The law against “communicating for the purpose of…” — which put sex workers in unsafe situations by limiting their ability to screen clients and negotiate — is back, and is actually made more restrictive by applying it to “a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present.” That last part is key: a minor doesn’t actually have to be present, there only needs to be an undefined reasonable expectation (and it will be up to the courts how widely that can be interpreted).  Your car could be a public place.

In the case of sex workers who have children, even if their children can be kept unaware of their parent’s pursuits and are never present when they see clients, does their home become a “public place?”

It’s still never safe for buyers to communicate to buy sex, but where does it become safe for a sex worker to communicate to sell sex? If they can only communicate from home and without the use of the Internet or public spaces, well, that certainly complicates things.  Bill C-36 distinguishes itself by targeting indoor sex work so that it becomes impossible to engage in safely, even if you’re the sex worker who is supposed to be exempt from the law.

A bar is still a public place, but it’s not “a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present.”  So it’s legal-ish or closer to legal-ish, and the penalties for anyone caught are smaller. So now, the Harper government has made sex workers safer by pushing them into darkened spaces with clients who have been drinking.

But at the same time, there is a disincentive for bar owners to allow sex workers to communicate on their premises, for fear that it could be claimed that the bar or management might be materially benefiting from the presence of sex workers in some way (i.e. increased sales and patronage).  So then there is a constant harassment of anyone in a bar who is suspected of being a sex worker.

By tactical reasoning like this, it becomes a strategic minefield in which people are forced to take more chances, and place themselves in the spaces of people they wouldn’t normally trust, simply because those people are likewise willing to take the risk of associating with them.

Communication can’t be understated.  If one can’t take the time to negotiate clearly, has to speak in code to avoid detection, and has to resort to an imply / infer scenario, then it makes it impossible to screen clients to see how agitated they might be, creates an automatic mutual distrust between workers and dates, and makes it hard to set limits about what types of sexual act one is or isn’t willing to perform.  This was a key issue at the heart of the Superior Court of Ontario and Supreme Court of Canada rulings that originally struck down the three anti-prostitution laws replaced by this bill.

3) The Bawdy-house rules.

The ban on “common bawdy-houses” is back, with the bawdy-house defined as a place “for the practice of acts of indecency, a place that is kept or occupied or resorted to by one or more persons.”

This targets massage parlours (if sex is exchanged) and strip clubs (if sex is exchanged).  Additionally, if a sex worker keeps a separate address to work from, it’s considered a bawdy-house. So now by law, sex workers can only work from their homes.  Because it’s oh so much safer for everyone to know where you live.

Of course, one can imagine the condemnation that’s going to be heaped upon sex working mothers who work under the same roof that their children live under, regardless of whether the kids are ever actually present when anything is happening.  But the law actually pushes them to do that.

Sex workers sometimes share a separate address, or prefer to work in places like massage parlours or strip clubs, so they can work together for mutual safety.  Under this law, that’s not a legal option.

4) What constitutes a material benefit from the sale of sex?

“Living off the avails…” returns as “receiving a material benefit that derives” from the sale of sex. It does provide an exemption (subject to interpretation) for some people who live with sex workers, provided that nothing can be construed as an exploitative situation and no drugs are provided to the sex worker:

“… evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person received a financial or other material benefit from those services…” except “in the context of a legitimate living arrangement with the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived…”

How that will be interpreted remains to be seen.  It’s not entirely clear if this provision targets assisting arrangements from referrers, drivers, bodyguards, associates and other business partners, if something beneficial (not necessarily cash) is exchanged.  The Justice Minister says it’s up to interpretation of whether the associate is exploitative in any way.  Sometimes, the practical application of something like this is to arrest all, use the law to maximum advantage, and let the courts worry about whether or not a situation is exploitative, after the fact.

Escort agencies, massage parlours (if sex is exchanged) and strip clubs (if sex is exchanged) are all banned by this provision, with a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison.

5) The new ban on all advertising of sexual services

This bill reaches further than anything previous, by banning all advertising of sexual services.  Anyone who knowingly provides a space in which to advertise (whether in newspapers, online message boards, websites, or any other form of media) can face fines or imprisonment.

Beyond the obvious questions about freedom of speech, this raises other questions.  How much legal responsibility does an Internet service Provider (ISP) shoulder if sexual service advertising is accessed through its networks?  What steps does it need to do to avoid legal action, and how engaged will ISPs need to become in tracking such advertising?  Does this raise questions for other areas of privacy and freedom of speech for Canadians?  When I asked if C-36 might ban porn, one of the lines of reasoning was that the threat of legal action could push ISPs into instituting arbitrary and overly broad content filters, just to be safe.

And finally, is the Internet a public place? MacKay explicitly referred to online advertising, so that would seem to mean that it is interpreted that way in the law.  And while it’s said that sex workers would not be charged for advertising their own services, if the Internet is widely interpreted as a public place “where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,” that exemption for them might not apply to Internet advertising.

It could almost end up working like entrapment.

Tomorrow: Conflating sex work and human trafficking

(crossposted to Rabble.ca DentedBlueMercedes.  Concerned about progressive media in Canada? Support rabble.ca)

Could anti-prostitution Bill C-36 also ban porn?

One of the concerns that has been raised about Bill C-36 is that “sexual services” is not defined.

Terri Jean Bedford, one of the plaintiffs in the case that overturned the previous anti-prostitution laws, has raised this question a number of times, without receiving an answer.  A professional dominatrix’s job, after all, involves fulfilling a fantasy, and may not include any actual sex acts at all.  Does sex have to happen in order for there to have been a “sexual service?” Where is that line drawn?

It’s because of this vague nature of the terminology that some are asking if the wording could also inadvertently ban advertising and / or paying for sex toys or the services of a sex therapist.  Advertising sexual health services could also come into question.

Is porn a “sexual service?”

Is a sexual service exchanged via pornography?  It could be argued that porn acts as an intermediary, at least, so it might be a question that is subject to the interpretation of whichever judge happens to hear it.

There are people at both ends of the political spectrum who oppose pornography and would be amenable to a ban on it — from the right usually because of concerns about morality, and from the left often because of concerns about the portrayal of women and the possibility that it contributes to rape culture.  There are also opponents at both ends of the political spectrum as well, and for the purposes of this question, it is up to readers how they feel about the prospect of such a ban.  However, people of all political stripes would hopefully agree that such a sweeping form of censorship should at least require a lengthy debate.

Under the original terms of the bill, concerns about advertising sex already treads into the realm of censorship and freedom of speech.  If that is coupled with flawed and vague terminology, it’s reasonable to ask how far beyond the original intent that could be taken.

If the bill could be used to ban porn (and that question might remain entirely speculative until something actually does wind its way through the court system), all it would take is for someone wanting to close their local porn shop to try to sue them for — or push for them to be charged with — advertising sexual services.  There’s no guarantee that anyone would succeed at that, but the possibility that it might is a question worth asking.

Key mechanisms in C-36

There are mechanisms within the bill that would certainly assist such a use of the law.

The bill includes search and seizure powers for materials that are “obscene, a crime comic, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording or an advertisement of sexual services.”  To be fair, all of those items besides “advertisement of sexual services” are already listed in the Criminal Code as materials that can be seized, currently.  But aside from the obviously important proscription of child pornography, none of those other things are characteristically illegal to buy or possess anymore (in the case of voyeuristic recordings, their actionability hinges upon how the recording is obtained), and so we don’t see searches and seizure of pornography, except through some federal departments like the Canada Border Services Agency, which simply confiscates material.  However, this law does ban advertisement of sexual services outright, so there would be greater enforceability.

Additionally, for the purposes of this law at least, the Internet is considered “a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present” — or at least the Harper government sees this phrasing as the best mechanism to include online advertising.

With both the search-and-seizure powers and definition to include online media in the bill, even if it turned out that porn was not legally interpreted as a sexual service, C-36 still provides the structural basis needed to build an anti-porn law, with a minimal amount of effort required.

Soft censorship and stealth

Bill C-36 would allow the Harper Conservatives to institute a ban on porn without appearing to be pro-censorship.  A significant portion of the Conservative base uses freedom of speech as a rallying point, especially when it comes to divisive speech, tabloid-style and gotcha journalism, and hateful (though not necessarily legally hate) speech.  Even calling out hateful speech or non-legal consequences for speech can interpreted as censorship by this contingent.  So if the government wanted to establish a ban, it would probably need to be done by stealth, and look like an accident.

Regardless of how broadly “sexual services” is defined, the ban on advertising could conceivably be used to pressure Internet service providers (ISPs) to institute a content filter system much like MP Joy Smith had been calling for, only months ago.  That is, if ISPs are threatened with the possibility being held legally accountable for any ads obtained through their networks, a content filter then appears to be the path of least resistance.  And no matter how specific ISP programmers might try to be, content filters have a tendency to be arbitrary, overly broad, and filter unintended content, just to be safe.  Even if a solid ban cannot be accomplished, soft censorship would remain possible.

Where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present: the legal tactic

The eerie phrasing of “a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present” first raised this question in my mind, because it sounds very much like the legal tactic used in Russia’s law banning all “homosexual propaganda” (that is, anything that portrays LGBT people positively — and I’m not speaking hyperbolically when I say that).  When that law passed, the Canadian and American religious right applauded the move, and began debating ways to bring such a law to North America.  Although it could be a haphazard trek from point A to B, each win that occurs in between provides red meat to key elements of the social Conservative base, and injects legislation into the bedrooms of the nation.

“Instead, the official reiterated the government’s position that political parties and candidates, not Elections Canada, would be responsible for increasing voter turnout under Bill C-23.”

“Instead, the official reiterated the government’s position that political parties and candidates, not Elections Canada, would be responsible for increasing voter turnout under Bill C-23.”

That’s the altogether revealing comment that might have slipped past you in a Hill Times article last month which showed that a 2008 Elections Canada ad which was seemingly critical of industry — and which Conservatives had pointed to as evidence that Elections Canada needed to be stripped of the ability to encourage people to vote — never actually aired in the first place.

“The ad—a 25-second video that contrasts urban pollution and emissions to an evergreen forest as it urges youth to “vote, shape your world”—was created for Elections Canada but cancelled in 2007 by the newly installed chief electoral officer that year, Marc Mayrand.”

The obvious irony — that the allegedly partisan commercial was pulled because it was considered not objective enough, and yet is being used to silence impartial voter encouragement — is significant on its own.  But it becomes that much more jaw-dropping in the face of the Harper government’s position: that it was important to end impartial voter drives, in favour of clearly partisan ones.

Stephen Harper has made no secret that his aim is to reshape Canada so that the Conservatives become the nation’s “natural governing party.” He’s been arguably helped by the fact that the anyone-but-conservative vote has been split among three parties, with few other distinctions among them — especially since the NDP dropped socialism from its platform and the Liberals have been adept at obscuring their own neoliberal track record.  The hypocrisies already noted about the Harper government’s “Fair Elections Act” have already revealed that this bill is intended to help achieve this natural governing status, but the comment above reveals that the use of the bill goes much deeper than the mainstream media has already realized.

Porn opt-ins, soft censorship and buttbuttinating personal responsibility

On Monday, British Prime Minster David Cameron announced that internet service providers in the U.K. would be required to filter out online porn as part of several new rules to come into effect by the end of the year.  Adults will still have the ability to opt in to view porn, but filtering will be the “unavoidable choice” default that ISPs will need to provide.  The same day, Twitter announced that it would be implementing a tagging system to fight porn, apparently at the British government’s urging.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), Tom Copeland, revealed that an opt-in idea like Britain’s had been discussed in Canada off and on for several years.  On Tuesday, Conservative MP for Kildonan-St. Paul, Joy Smith, expressed a wish to implement the initiative in Canada, calling it a “common sense approach” to protect kids.  She has promised to flag this for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to address when Parliament resumes.

Soft Censorship

The initial rationalization being given is that as an “opt-in” policy, nothing is actually being “censored.”  It sounds like it’s just as easy as unchecking a box, to opt back in.  Easy, right?

Unfortunately, reality doesn’t work that way, and it would be impossible for an opt-in scheme to become anything other than a softer kind of censorship.

“This Website is Unavailable”

The biggest concern being raised so far is the inaccuracy of filters, and their tendency to affect many things that are not actually porn.  Cameron has already had to concede that the filters required in the U.K. could end up blocking sexual health, sex-ed and clothing and / or novelty stores.  There’s really no guarantee that discussions about womens’ reproductive health, sex workers’ rights, transsexuality and more would escape the filter, and remain available to the general public, rather than just those who opt to view porn.

The implementation would almost certainly target consensual BDSM (an acronym for bondage & discipline / dominance & submission / sadomasochism), given that the filter announcement was accompanied by a declaration that  it would be illegal to produce or possess anything that could be considered “violent” or that simulated rape — something that drew fire from former MP Louise Mensch, who commented on Twitter: “It is not for our government to police consensual simulation, between adults, of one of women’s most common fantasies.”  [The U.K. already has an unusual and related legal precedent in which the House of Lords ruled that a person could not legally consent to violence (aside from things like surgery), although subsequent rulings have left that legal landscape a bit unclear.]

Tumblr illustrated the problem with filters when it drew some complaints over the weekend for flagging and tagging blogs as “NSFW (not safe for work),” or “Adult,” applying filters, and preventing tagged blogs from showing up in searches. Terms like “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual,” “transgender” and more were affected — words that could just as easily call up a porn niche as summon a wealth of social discussion.

Autostraddle notes:

“Although Tumblr’s settings page allows users to opt out of hiding NSFW posts in searches, it seems blogs that have been labeled NSFW (with or without their consent) have not been appearing in searches at all, basically blocking them from gaining new followers through anything but reblogs and word-of-mouth. In addition, many noticed that a whole host of vaguely “adult” tags, including those listed above, are now unsearchable on some mobile apps, including Tumblr for iPhone.”

The effect of targeted tags being dropped from search engines and functions cannot be understated — and could easily become a naturally organic consequence, as search engines and algorithms adapt to the “new normal.”  Soft censorship.  Say goodbye to your favourite LGBT blog.

If that last comment sounds melodramatic, then note that Tim Horton’s also had to apologize for blocking the gay and lesbian news website Xtra from WiFi users (also over an apparently busy weekend), after LGBT people and allies began lobbying to boycott the coffee chain.  Once filters are a factor, this is hardly an unusual occurrence.

And as discussions become inadvertently filtered, they become less accessible and less traveled… factors that almost inevitably drive their ranking down on complex search algorithms like those used by Google.

Clbuttic Mistakes

Filters have improved somewhat since the legendary problem reported by Dick Cheney’s staff, when the installation of new filters targeting offensive words (like “dick”) prevented them from accessing the then-Senator’s own website.  Even so, there are endless examples of filters overreaching and doing what they were never intended to do — sometimes with hilarious results.  Even still, one occasionally runs across a phenomenon known as “The Clbuttic Mistake” — a phenomenon of mangled text that results when auto-format filters replace words considered rude or offensive with milder counterparts, without accounting for context.  In these sorts of situations, “classic” becomes “clbuttic” (18,700 instances on Google), “constitution” becomes “consbreastution” (3,240 instances), “assassination” becomes “buttbuttination” (2,040 instances), and more.  While the filters being sought by the British PM perform differently — preventing the display of a page, rather than changing its text — their programming will inevitably be just as arbitrary.

Good luck finding your town’s website if you live in Dildo, NL.

It gets even more difficult when it comes to trying to filter images, which don’t of themselves have keywords other than the descriptions assigned to them.  The broadest filters could make significant swaths of classic art inaccessible, while still letting actual porn through.   As noted at The Cracked Crystal Ball II:

“Let us assume that we have a computer system available to us which can identify nudity in images.  How do we differentiate between the nudity of a great piece of classical artwork and a playboy centerfold type of picture?  Is there in fact a difference?  What a commercial sites that sell sex toys?  Are they to be deemed “pornographic”?  

“Or, come to that, how does one differentiate between a novel with a sex scene and a pornographic story?  Where does the line exist between “legitimate” art (as the anti-pornographers see it) and porn lie?  … and is there any meaningful way to differentiate that a blocking system could identify?”

The arbitrariness of keywords is not the only thing likely to make a filter be applied in an overly broad way.  Obscenity is a perpetually subjective concept, always open to interpretation by individuals.  This often results in the “just in case” mentality, where businesses and individuals apply the rule in an overly broad way, to avoid any possible complaints or legal liabilities.

A Homosexual Propaganda Law for the Internets

And indeed, to many social conservatives, LGBT news sites are considered pornography, or at the very least as potential gateways to pornography.  Linda Harvey of Mission America illustrated this vividly last May on her talk show at WRFD radio, in Columbus, Ohio:

“Homosexual-themed pornography is extremely accessible to young people if they ever visit any websites covering the gay agenda as news. For instance, if your child was during a report on same-sex marriage just researching the political issue and visiting sites that are sympathetic to the social and political goals of the homosexual movement may quickly bring them in touch with explicit images because many of the homosexual news blogs have soft-porn gay dating sites or worse as ads. So what is the reaction of your son or daughter to such graphic images?

“If they feel a curiosity it may start a process of wondering if they could be homosexual. This is not true of course but the really tragic thing is they are not likely to share this question with you the parent, it just seems too personal. If they follow up and visit these sites some will experience sexual feelings and mistake these for the pervasive fiction of some inborn gay identity. After all, isn’t this the message that kids get everywhere that ‘some of you are destined for homosexuality and there is nothing you can do about it so just go with it and be proud’?”

Protecting children from witnessing homosexual love and involuntarily becoming gay as a consequence was the public rationale used by Russia when it enacted its law banning “homosexual propaganda.” But the law affects any public statement, action, publication or gesture that can be seen as LGBT-positive, including Pride parades and events, affirming publications and support groups, and far more.  On Monday, four Dutch tourists were the first foreigners arrested under the ban, when they interviewed passers-by about their views on the ban for a documentary on human rights.  Days ago, Russia also went a step further by making it illegal to “offend the feelings of religious believers.”  Self-described “human rights consultant”and American evangelical Scott Lively has on multiple occasions taken credit for the ban in Russia, encouraging Hungarian legislators to:

“criminalize the public advocacy of homosexuality. My philosophy is to leave homosexuals alone if they keep their lifestyle private, and not to force them into therapy if they don’t want it. However, homosexuality is destructive to individuals and to society and it should never publicly promoted. The easiest way to discourage “gay pride” parades and other homosexual advocacy is to make such activity illegal in the interest of public health and morality…”

[Lively is one of the evangelists who inspired Uganda’s “Anti-Homosexuality Bill.”]

Censoring Silence

In the highly polarized and politically charged atmosphere of the past few years, it’s no secret that there are interest groups with a thirst to censor anything favourable to their ideological opponents.  The will certainly exists.

Much of the censorship proposed lately is rationalized in the name of protecting children, but the list of things that people assert that children should be protected from can quickly balloon into a monster.  Last April, I wrote a three-part series (1, 2, 3) on how social conservatives even targeted the Day of Silence (a day in which LGBT students and allies refuse to speak, as a way of protesting the silencing effect of anti-gay and transphobic bullying and harassment) as offensive:

“Acceptance of others has been conflated with “encouraging experimentation,” and lately also equated to corruption of children and “mental molestation.”  To many, it’s all inseparable.  In this mindset (coupled with heads-as-empty-vessels theory), even silent solidarity with LGBT kids corrupts children sexually and indoctrinates them into homosexuality.”

When CAIP’s Tom Copeland spoke to the Canadian Press, he noted:

“The discussion has gone on forever and a day, mostly it starts around child pornography and what can be done to combat it and whether or not Internet service providers can play a role, or should play a role,” Copeland said.

“And then every once in a while somebody decides, ‘Well, we need to take this further, it needs to include general pornography sites’ -which aren’t illegal – ‘it needs to include hate sites.’ It needs to include any number of sites that somebody all of a sudden has a burr in their britches about.

“And generally the industry has said we can’t possibly block all of these sites.”

That last point is important.  Requiring a block on all porn becomes a burden on ISPs, especially as technology and the means to evade it changes at rapid pace.  And in giving ISPs the responsibility of “protecting” people from porn, they may also inherit the legal liabilities.  One man recently filed suit against Apple for allowing porn on iPhones, blaming the company for the failure of his marriage and a porn addiction.  In an opt-in world, what kind of legal liabilities do ISPs face, if some porn does slip through?  And if there is the spectre of legal consequences, doesn’t it incentivize the over-application of filters?

There are, of course, many fears that opt-in policies could lead to censorship of other kinds of content, by being exploited erosively, in the same way that restrictions and regulations have been continually implemented in the U.S. to limit and gradually eliminate womens’ access to abortion, and making moves to do the same with contraception.  It’s not inconceivable that an opt-in policy could be instituted and then gradually widened to things that are “controversial” — like sex ed, abortion, sex workers’ rights, environmentalism, transsexuality, atheism, evolution….

Personal Responsibility

Even if that didn’t happen, it’s still the height of laziness to put the burden of parental and personal responsibility on the state.

But then, society has a serious double-standard on issues of personal responsibility.  We’ve been increasingly seeing messaging blaming women for rape, blaming the poor for their own poverty, and blaming minorities for racial strife, in the dubious name of “personal responsibility.”  And yet when it comes to actual personal responsibility in terms of parenting and individual choice, people cry for the government to establish soft censorship to do the job of instructing kids.

The calls for “parental rights” when it comes to shielding their kids from LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying education prove to be a hypocrisy as well, given that those parental rights are easily punted to the wayside when it comes to subjecting other parents’ kids to squishy fetus dolls in candy bags or grisly aborted fetus posters displayed outside schools or family events, to recruit children in the war on womens’ reproductive rights.  It would seem to be that only one kind of parent is supposed to make decisions for everyone else’s children.  And in calling for a national porn opt-in requirement, it’s almost a weird kind of “we’ll happily abdicate the responsibility to the state, as long as the state is doing what we want” sentiment.

Meanwhile, MP Smith has already indicated that she sees it as irrelevant if things get pushed into the cybercloset as a consequence of the measure:

“What you have to weigh on this is how can we better protect our children. It’s not going to be perfect. Nothing we do is going to be perfect. But it’s one more step to protecting our children. And what I’ve heard is people say, oh, as an adult it’s embarrassing for me to have to do this. And my answer to that is, unchecking a box can’t be too much of a price to pay when it comes to protecting and nurturing our children. So it’s not about censoring anything, it’s about protecting the children. And we know the harmful impact of pornography on children because research is showing that. And so this is something that Prime Minister Cameron has done that has been really bold and it’s been collaborative and I think we need to have this conversation right here in Canada and take some of these steps.”

We wouldn’t want the kids to sear their eye sockets, after all.

Won’t Somebody Please Think of the Children?

And this is where we get to the point of the debate that few want to discuss: the possibility that sexual curiosity may be a natural part of youth, one that in practice will probably not be thwarted by an opt-in law, anyway.

As the Toronto Star pointed out, David Cameron’s plan conflates child pornography with youth porn consumption.  Regardless of what one feels about the latter, it mostly happens when kids wilfully seek to view porn, and they have also often proven to be remarkably able to evade security, anyway.  It’s concerning that people are seriously considering changing the fundamental nature of the Internet and seriously squelching the dialogue of some communities, in favour of something that may not achieve its stated goal in the first place, and would be better accomplished by parents monitoring and better educating their kids.

No one can deny that there are some pretty abysmal and misogynistic forms of porn out there, forms we’d obviously rather not be plastered everywhere that kids travel — and that’s why the Internet has organically evolved to mostly limit that sort of thing to spaces where it is deliberately sought out.  You typically don’t get porn in Teh Google unless your search terms are keyed to find it.  And The Huffington Post isn’t likely to advertise porn, since it’s bad for business and readership retention.

It’s not perfect, certainly, but throwing out very positive resources on sexuality that can be found — like Scarleteen — in the process is an unreasonably nuclear option.  It’s not like there’s a lack of (free!) resources already available for parents who want to eliminate any risk of their children burning their eyes.

But it would seem to me that better parenting would be less focused on protecting kids from knowing anything about sexuality, and focused more on keeping good lines of communication open, so that kids are comfortable asking their parents questions while they’re figuring things out.

Either way, given the way some proponents push the idea of soft censorship, it can’t help appear as though some teens have a better handle on sex and sexuality than many adults.

(Crossposted to rabble.ca)

Harper’s Theological Crossroads.

Right from when it was first proposed during the May 2011 federal election, the Office of Religious Freedom (ORF?) was met with the accusation that it was an attempt to pander to its base, concerns that it would overstep the boundary of what Canada should be doing in foreign nations, and skepticism that it could be instituted in any kind of way that would be fair and balanced for all religions.  As it turns out, it’s becoming not very popular among Evangelicals, either.

One of the clearest examples of late is RoadKill Radio’s interview with Jim Hnatiuk, who is the leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada.  Hnatiuk, of course, has a vested interest in dissuading far-right conservative voters from supporting Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, but what’s noteworthy is the particular aplomb with which RKR commentators lead the discussion, and continue what appears to be an ongoing conversation among dominionist-leaning (those who seek to legislate their morality) Evangelicals.  (Incidentally, the RKR commentators also indicate their support for Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill in that same webcast)

The growing discontent with the Office of Religious Freedom parallels an increased dissatisfaction with the Harper government on other fronts.  Anti-abortion Members of Parliament have been breaking ranks and speaking in defiance after the Prime Minster’s Office quashed a motion that sought to reopen the abortion debate in the guise of condemning sex-selective abortion.  The Supreme Court’s decision partially upholding hate speech legislation against Bill Whatcott has rankled many and been characterized as curtailing religious freedom, as well.  In the case of the Office of Religious Freedom, RKR’s Ron Gray dismisses it as pandering and “window dressing to attract Canadians, people of faith.”  Hnatiuk seems to object to the image of religious diversity projected during the launch, before characterizing the Office as a deflection from these and similar events (at 8:46 in the video):

When I saw the office being established… and I looked on the website of some of the presentations that were taking place around its establishment with all of these minority faiths standing behind the Prime Minister and I said “Oh my goodness, they’re actually believing that they’re going to benefit from this and that this is all about them and not about more votes and not about the attacks on the Christian freedom that we have in Canada….”

The Harper Conservatives have been coming to an ideological crossroads for some time, now, one that many predicted when the party achieved its majority government, but realized that it could lose power just as quickly if it appeared too radically conservative on social issues.  Theocons became energized at the thought of being now able to legislate according to ideology, only to face the realization that the Conservatives are more concerned with maintaining power.

Only weeks before the ORF, Whatcott and sex-selective motion controversies, the Harper government came under fire for a Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) donation of $560,000 for Crossroads Christian Outreach in Uganda, given that the organization had an anti-gay position statement on its website, and was doing work in a nation where anti-gay positions have fomented a volatile culture of violence and hatred toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people.  In classic Conservative fashion, Julian Fantino ordered a review, and then reported it completed, later that evening:

“… Minister Fantino’s office contacted LifeSiteNews Monday night to say that the review was complete and Crossroads’ funding would remain in place.”

MPs have demanded a full audit of CIDA, but that is unlikely, now that the entity is being folded into the department of Foreign Affairs.  It remains to be seen what will be made of the report coming down shortly which notes how funding to theological groups have risen significantly, while funding to non-theological groups has stagnated:

Some examples: Africa Community Technical Services received $ 655,000 from CIDA in 2010, almost three times more than in 2005. On its website, the NGO says it carries out its duties “under the authority of the scriptures” and “seeks to glorify our Lord Jesus.”

Cause Canada says: “We pray that our identification with Jesus, our concern for justice and our practical demonstration of God’s love […] attract people to Christ,” on its website. This Alberta NGO received $ 483,000 from CIDA in 2010, an increase of 32% compared to 2005.

This rise in money to religious groups also comes at the expense of womens’ programs, which have been shut out in many cases:

Then there’s the $495,600 CIDA grant to Wycliffe Bible Translators of Calgary, which works so that aboriginal people in far-flung corners of the world can read the scriptures in their native languages.“It’s okay to translate the Bible,” says Nicole Demers “But there are aboriginal women here who are dying.”

In fact, adds Demers, groups seeking CIDA funding are being told to leave the phrase “gender equity” out of their grant applications.

And it’s becoming clear that the controversies are only going to get rockier for the Conservatives as people become more aware of them and as the Canadian social landscape becomes even more polarized.

So it’s significant that Harper’s flagship promise to theological conservatives is floundering.  Because as Jim Hnatiuk points out, these were the expectations of something like an Office of Religious Freedom (at 6:14 in the video):

Predominantly, worldwide, we see the whole issue of the Islamic worldview being predominantly the ones that are persecuting Christians — and others, and other faiths as well, but you know, by and large, it’s Christians out there.  So if that is, if they’re going to be setting up an Office of Religious Freedom that can, they have to be saying, you know, in one sense, we’re going to really speak out against these… this, uh Islamic uh what do they call it a [could not make this word out]…  

So if our government is saying that they’re going to be, I guess my point is, fight against, fight for religious freedom, they’re gonna be, they’re saying we’re going to start fighting against these Islamic regimes…

Best laid plans, and all…

(Crossposted to Rabble.ca)

Canadian Evangelical audio program comes out in favour of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Sort of.

Well, perhaps it isn’t a coming out per-se, since it’s questionable as to whether they were ever “in.”  But RoadKill Radio commentators Kari Simpson and Ron Gray have more or less made their position known on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill during an interview with Christian Heritage Party leader Jim Hnatiuk, who tacitly agreed.  The interview highlighted the growing antipathy among Canadian Evangelicals toward Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Office of Religious Freedom, which will be a topic for another post.  But here’s what they said (starts at 4:54 in the video):

SIMPSON: The Minister responsible for this Office of Religious Freedom is Minister Baird, am I not right?  And Minister Baird has recently been in the news for two important issues.  Wasn’t he the one who condemned and vilified a Christian organization that received $500,000 in funding to help drill wells in… a third-world country… because they had issues related to Biblical truths on homosexuality on their website?  And is this same Minister Baird who’s responsible for this Office of Religious Freedom that I believe gave $200,000 to a group in Uganda to fight Christians that were trying to bring in laws that would help curb the epidemic of death as related to AIDS and HIV in that country…

GRAY: And the only country in sub-Saharan Africa that has succeeded in reducing the rate of AIDS in…

SIMPSON: Oh well, minor details, there you go Ron, the truth, again, that’s not allowed…

The first organization Simpson referred to was Crossroads, of course, and the issue about Crossroads’ website statement on homosexuality was that those kinds of views have been fueling the anti-gay hatred that led to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and an intensified environment of homophobic hatred and violence in Uganda.  The second group referenced is an initiative to counter the anti-gay fear and hatred pervading that nation.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been more commonly referred to as the “Kill the Gays” bill, although there is some debate about whether the death penalty will still be in the final draft.  Here are the other things it contains:

• A definition of “homosexuality” which is so vague that almost anyone could be convicted of it;
• A definition of “aggravated homosexuality” which is overly-broad. If the death sentence remains in the bill, then aggravated homosexuality is the charge to which it would apply. Proponents of the bill represent aggravated homosexuality as referring to pedophilia, but it actually also includes people who are afflicted with HIV (whether they were aware of it or not), who have sex with a person who has a disability (whether the act was consensual or not), and “serial” commission of any of the included and overly-vague offenses) — having gay sex more than once would be included;
• A weird “intent to commit” clause that could open any physical contact to interpretation;
• A financial incentive for people to accuse others of trying to seduce them;
• The targeting of friends, family and landowners for aiding / abetting LGBT people, for failing to report LGBT people, and for renting a room to LGBT people (via a strange reinterpretation of the word “brothel”);
• A 3-year sentence for officiating a same-sex marriage, and a life sentence for being in a same-sex marriage or presenting a same-sex partner as a spouse (it’s not specified whether said marriage needs to occur in Uganda, but keep reading…);
• The criminalization of advocacy for (or even defending) an LGBT person, with a sentence of 5 – 7 years;
• The criminalization of anyone who fails to report in under 24 hours anyone who is gay, who witnessed a same-sex wedding, who rents a room to a gay person, who advocates for LGBT people, or who commits any of the other above acts, with a sentence of up to 3 years;
• The criminalization of any of the above offences regardless of whether or not they occur in Uganda, provided they involve a Ugandan citizen, or a portion of the offense occurs within Uganda (i.e. the “failure to report” part). Extradition demands are also included;
• The nullification of any treaties or portions of agreements which run contrary to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill; and
• The granting of wide, sweeping powers to the Minister of Ethics and Integrity Minister to enforce the act, effectively giving the power to initiate a witch hunt.

Male homosexuality has been illegal in Uganda since colonial British rule in the 19th Century, and is already punishable by up to life imprisonment. In 2000, wording was amended so that lesbianism could be criminalized as “gross indecency between two persons of the same sex,” which carries a term of seven years’ imprisonment. So all of the above are in addition to this status quo.

So that’s the bill that Kari Simpson and Ron Gray are cheering on. While it’s possible that they are unaware of some or all of the things in that bill, I’d consider it unlikely, given their converations with Scott Lively, who has been an occasional interviewee at RKR and who advocates for things like total criminalization of LGBT advocacy.

Incidentally, Gray is wrong about Uganda’s progress in the fight against AIDS.  From the UNAIDS World AIDS Day Report, 2012:

In West and Central Africa, Ghana was at the top of the list with a drop of 66% followed by Burkina Faso at 60% and Djibouti at 58%. The Central African Republic, Gabon, Rwanda and Togo, achieved significant declines of more than 50%. Other countries with significant declines in the region include Burundi, Cameroon, Mali and Sierra Leone where the decline was more than one third. Ethiopia achieved a 90% reduction in the rate of new HIV infections in the last decade. Despite a 25% reduction in sub-Saharan Africa, the region accounted for 72% of all new HIV infections worldwide in 2011.

In fact, the report has indicated that Uganda’s problem with HIV has been getting worse, and attributes it to declining condom use.

Ron Gray is a former leader of the Christian Heritage Party.  Kari Simpson is a Vancouver-based activist with Culture Guard, a group that has influenced Parents’ Voice and other groups across Canada that are fighting against LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying education.

C-279 Passes Third Reading (Hansard)

C-279 passed Third Reading, on a vote of 149 – 137.  Aaron Wherry gives the early breakdown:

“Randall Garrison’s bill was supported by the New Democrats, the majority of Liberals (Judy Sgro and John McKay abstained), the Bloc Quebecois, Bruce Hyer, Elizabeth May and, by my unofficial count, 17 Conservative MPs: Erin O’Toole, Bernard Trottier, Terrence Young, David Wilks, Laurie Hawn, Michael Chong, Chris Alexander, Shelly Glover, Kellie Leitch, Cathy McLeod, Deepak Obhrai, Gerald Keddy, Jim Flaherty, John Baird, James Moore, Lisa Raitt and John Duncan.”

Before the Third Reading vote, there were three votes on clusters of amendments:

• Amendment cluster one, Division no. 642 (defining Gender Identity as per the first half of the Yogyakarta definition): 152 to 134.
• Amendment cluster two, Division no. 643 (dropping gender expression, and adding classes that have already been added to human rights legislation since the bill was originally drafted): 148 to 140.
• Report Stage, Division no. 644 (concur the bill in with the amendments): 150 to 137

If you’re wondering how your MP voted on the amendments, today’s Hansard is up.  No one paired in any of the votes (so in answer to one query, no, Justin Trudeau didn’t pair to make up for not being present), although there were some abstentions from the votes on amendments. Earlier in the day, Rob Anders tabled the notorious poll / petition which he actively solicited responses for through his website:

“Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present, on behalf of thousands of people who sent these to my office, petitions in opposition to Bill C-279, otherwise known as “the bathroom bill”, that would give transgendered men access to women’s public washroom facilities. These constituents feel that it is the duty of the House of Commons to protect and safeguard our children from any exposure and harm that would come from giving a man access to women’s public washroom facilities. I present thousands of signatures on behalf of the riding in Calgary West, and I know that there are many others that have gone to other members in this place.”

The votes at Third Reading are as follows: