Nevada is not alone. Non-U.S. jurisdictions have decriminalized or legalized prostitution. A recent Canadian case clarified the current status worldwide. In Bedford v. Canada, 2010 ONSC 4264 (CanLII, Sept. 28, 2010) the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that three criminal code sections violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While prostitution is legal in Canada, these penal provisions prevent sex workers from working in the safety of their homes, paying people to help protect them, and finding out about their customers before they decide whether to take the risk of accepting them as customers.
Justice Susan Himel summarized the legitimate reasons for the three statutory provisions thusly in Paragraph 418:
The communicating provision is aimed at curbing the social nuisance associated with public solicitation for the purposes of prostitution, including traffic congestion, noise, harrasment of persons in the area, and the harmful effect of the open display of prostitution on bystanders, including children. Similarly, the bawdy-house provisions seek to prevent harm to the community by protecting community health and safety, and preventing neighbourhood disruption. The living on the avails provision is aimed at preventing the exploitation of prostitutes and profiting from prostitution by pimps.
In Paragraph 421, she found as follows:
1. Prostitutes, particularly those who work on the street, are at a high risk of being the victims of physical violence.
2. The risk that a prostitute will experience violence can be reduced in the following ways:
a. Working indoors is generally safer than working on the streets;
b. Working in close proximity to others, including paid security staff, can increase safety;
c. Taking the time to screen clients for intoxication or propensity to violence can increase safety;
d. Having a regular clientele can increase safety;
e. When a prostitute’s client is aware that the sexual acts will occur in a location that is pre-determined, known to others, or monitored in some way, safety can be increased;
f. The use of drivers, receptionists and bodyguards can increase safety; and
g. Indoor safeguards including closed-circuit television monitoring, call buttons, audio room monitoring; financial negotiations done in advance can increase safety.
3. The bawdy-house provisions can place prostitutes in danger by preventing them from working in-call in a regular indoor location and gaining the safety benefits of proximity to others, security staff, closed-circuit television and other monitoring.
4. The living on the avails of prostitution provision can make prostitutes more susceptible to violence by preventing them from legally hiring bodyguards or drivers while working. Without these supports, prostitutes may proceed to unknown locations and be left alone with clients who have the benefit of complete anonymity with no one nearby to hear and interrupt a violent act, and no one but the prostitute able to identify the aggressor.
5. The communicating provision can increase the vulnerability of street prostitutes by forcing them to forego screening customers at an early and crucial stage of the transaction.
Yosie Saint-Cyr has a great blog post about the decision at Slaw.ca: Decriminalising the Oldest Profession in the World (Sept. 30, 2010).
The court referenced several reports and studies about the experiences of prostitutes in Australia, Germany, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, and Nevada, U.S.A.
Additional resources for more information about legalization of prostitution around the world include:
Organizations
