Alright.....this was the agenda and after that notes that came from the Alliance in terms of the minutes....it should be noted we only had 2 hours and it went fast....we focused on the harms of the laws and the governments obligation to evidence based policy....which if the policy were based on evidence....we would have decrim....
the facts that clients and business owners and other third parties are all criminalized was highlighted as well as the diversity of people working in and purchasing from the sex industry...chris from sex, safety, security and street to screen was awesome
one of my friends discovered through back channels an info sheet which described how abolitionists should manipulate the numbers to suit their cause and submitted it to the committee....
i will make some notes at the end as well;
AGENDA
Opening Remarks by Parliamentary Secretary Marco Mendicino
Introductions
Discussion on key issues and the reforms’ general impact (please prepare up to 3 main
comments that you would like to share)
Discussion on specific issues, for instance:
Impact of new offences focusing on purchasers and “third parties”?
Specific experiences or views you would like to share about the impact of:
o the purchasing offence?
o the offence that prohibits receiving a material benefit from the prostitution of
others?
o the procuring offence?
o the advertising offence?
Specific experiences or views you would like to share about the impact of:
o the new offence that prohibits communicating in public places that are next to
school grounds, playgrounds or day care centres?
o the two offences that continue to apply to both sellers and purchasers who
obstruct traffic in public places for the purpose of selling or purchasing sexual
services?
Do you think that making services available to those involved in the sex trade is
important? If so, what types of services have the greatest impact and why?
Closing Remarks by Parliamentary Secretary Marco Mendicino
Notes from the Alliance;
Who was present at the roundtable?
The roundtable participants are categorized in a simplistic way by government as “decriminalization” and “prohibitionist” perspectives. All people within these perspectives have requested meetings without the other present.
These were the people present for the table on “decriminalization” – I have been told that the list of participants for tables for which one is not present, is confidential:
PEERS (2 people)
Pivot Legal Society (2 people)
SWUAV (3 people)
FIRST (2 people)
SWAN (2 people)
Glen Burchart from the Counter-Exploitation Unit in the VPD
BCCEC
MAP Van/WISH
BCCLA
Chris Atchison & Cecilia Benoit – University of Victoria
WCCSIP
Kate Shannon – BCCFE
Hustle (1 person)
PACE (2 people)
Were people able to speak anonymously (meaning, their actual names were not recorded)?
Participants could have given any name, but they did need to sign in under a name of some kind. Groups were required to submit names as confirmation of attendance, but other people were able to show up on the day of in replace of these people. It’s good to be clear on how many people will come in advance. The committee put up name cards so everyone in the room can read the names of everyone else.
Was there any recoding of the meeting?
There was translation if it was needed, and the Justice people took copious notes, but not sure if they actually did an audio recording. They had a sound tech guy… but they didn’t actually ask if they could record.
Who from the office of the Minister of Justice was in attendane?
Jody Wilson-Raybould was not in attendance. Marco Mendocini, Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Justice, Jessica Prince, lawyer for the Minister of Justice, Nathalie Levman and Mylène Tremblay, lawyers for the Department of Justice (parliamentary). It is important that all of these people hear the perspectives, but it is likely Jessica and Nathalie who will be presenting the information to the Minister and writing the consultation report.
What was the format of the consultation?
A list of questions were sent in advance, to indicate what the committee was most interested in hearing about. They didn’t not follow the questions to the letter but rather they served as a guide. Marco Mendocino started the meeting with a long intro on Bedford, the current laws, etc.
He also read out a statement of the things that have supposedly been found in evidence and that both sides could agree upon, for instance that Women and Indigenous folks are over represented in "prostitution/sex work." He flip flopped on the use of sex work and prostitution and someone later called him out on using the term prostitute when it was their time to speak. He went on to say that men are predominantly the purchasers of sex and women are the sellers and that there is a lot of violence that is experienced by folks in the industry.
He quickly turned the conversation to us, the invitees, by arbitrarily picking a side and we went around the circle so that we could take turns speaking. One challenge was that many didn’t agree with some of what he said. For example, they said that child abuse could lead people to do sex work and that it was recognized to have risks associated. Because many people didn’t agree with what Marco said, many took the time to respond to his comments in their presentations. It will be interesting to see if they say the same things in the coming consultations.
The chair and the lawyers didn’t ask many questions during the meeting. Everyone had a chance to speak to their primary points, then once a complete round was finished, anyone who wanted to speak a second time did.There was no strict time limit (5 minutes) but no one gave him cause to enforce it. We had about 20 minutes at the end where people could raise their hand and make additional comments. The chair was interested and moved by personal and emotional stories, which we know to expect.
See attached Agenda for Vancouver Roundtable to get a sense of what format the meeting took.
Did the consultations separate out prohibitionists from sex worker rights activists?
There were no prohibitionists at the roundtable with Alliance members and other sex worker rights activists. There was a police officer at the Vancouver roundtable, which makes sense for the Vancouver context. When the roundtable was complete and as people left, the prohibitionists were waiting outside the door to go in for their meeting. This can be very off-putting.
Important points to emphasize at future roundtables:
Each law has negative consequences on sex workers. Most important, however, is that when taken collectively, the laws fuel stigma and discrimination against sex workers, clients and third parties, further contributing to sex workers’ marginalize and social isolation.
Emphasize removal of 213 as well, but also the need to move way beyond this to the other laws
Consent is not actually possible to achieve under the new law
Meaningful consultation means the testimony and experiences of people who live the legal regime every day should be weighted differently to those who are not working in the industry
When looking at evidence, look at methodology, who is speaking and how they are framing the questions
There is nothing inherently wrong with selling sex for remuneration – there are other industries that are gendered as well (nursing, for instance)
The risk associated with sex work is NOT inherent to sex work itself
This is a summary of the main points that were emphasized by the Vancouver table “for decriminalization”:
sex work is work and the diversity within the sex industry has to be recognized
law makers must rely on evidence, instead of generalizing about sex workers or stigmatizing sex work
The gov’t has to reaffirm its commitment to an evidence-based approach to law-making and to try to reach those who were not able to come to this consultation in Vancouver
C-36 was not based on evidence and is unconstitutional. It is still preventing screening (in person and online), negotiation of consent reporting of violence or threats of violence, and access to health and other services
The gov’t needs a different approach based on dignity, inclusiveness and respect for each other as people, and it needs to rely on existing Criminal Code provisions to address crimes existing sex workers, not a separate stigmatizing set of laws.
END
so, there you have it....
it was too short, the chair of the committee seemed woefully under educated - which could mean he's open - the police attended in solidarity with decrim supporters...i think it went as well as it could given the time....and we focused on the right things....
when we were leaving all of the feminazi's were there waiting to come in....i wish you all could have seen the stare down between trisha baptie and myself.....awesome.....when i was downstairs in the lobby another notorious feminazi....janine benedet.... was arriving.....
i said "JANINE"!!! and smiled...i don't think she recognized me until it was too late...she smiled and reached her hand out to shake mine....i pulled her in and said...good luck....hilarious....
i went out to the ivanhoe after with some of the others advocates and had some fun which spilled back into my butcher shop....we were up til 2:30am...lol
it always makes you emotionally amped up to attend these things so we needed a little wind down....
please let me know if people have any questions...
thus ends the susie update...
love susie
