Earlier this week the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down a decision in the Bedford case, which deals with the laws surrounding sex work.

From the CBC:

The court released a decision Monday on an appeal of Superior Court Judge Susan G. Himel’s high-profile ruling that three provisions of the Criminal Code pertaining to prostitution should be struck down on the grounds that they are unconstitutional.

The Ontario appeal court agreed with two-thirds of Himel’s ruling, namely that the provisions prohibiting common bawdy-houses and living off the avails of prostitution, are both unconstitutional in their current form.

But the court disagreed that the communicating provision must be struck down, meaning that it “remains in full force” and the existing ban on soliciting will continue.

[...]

The court also said that the prohibition of living off the avails of prostitution – as spelled out in Section 212(1)(j) of the Criminal Code – should pertain only to those who do so “in circumstances of exploitation,” and will be amended to reflect that. The changes to the “living-off-the-avails” provision will not come into effect for 30 days.

After the jump we’ll go to responses from Gender Focus contributors, but first here were some responses from other media and feminist organizations (only excerpts: click on links to read their entire reactions):

From WAVAW’s Media Release:

“Once again the legal system is missing the mark on prostitution. Women will continue to go missing and be murdered, if there is no real work being done to aid women. Social programming and funding into women’s services are what is needed. Hiding women from plain sight to create a false sense of safety in community is not the answer. The women who are engaging in sex work are not the individuals creating the violence; it is the men who seek to exploit women’s bodies. Those men come from the very neighborhoods that these judges say they wish to create safety in; they plan on doing this by eliminating the undesirable social consequences of sex work. The undesirable consequences are that men are able to exploit marginalized, at-risk women in Canada” says Darla Goodwin, WAVAW Rape Crisis Centre Coordinator of Aboriginal Women’s Services.

From Pivot Legal Society via Rabble.ca:

“I am very concerned about the continued criminalization of women working on the street. These are the women who face the most charges, face the most violence and have the fewest options” says Pivot Board Member Kerry Porth. “But I am glad to see that the Court recognized that these laws were not put in place to prevent prostitution and that the current legislative scheme does not reflect the values of dignity and equality for sex workers.”

From Laura Johnston at The F Word Feminist Media Collective:

The other strange part about this conclusion is that the Court acknowledged that the evidence demonstrated that women prostituted on the street do not move indoors, even if it’s legal. The record from other countries that legalized brothels showed that there was no movement from the street to brothels following decriminalization. There are many reasons for this. An obvious one is that brothels won’t let women in who struggle with mental illness, addiction, or have other health problems. Another is that many women prefer prostituting on the street because they have more control than in a brothel where the manager negotiates with johns on their behalf.

Now here’s what Gender Focus contributors had to say: Read more