But we're not prostitutes! Sexual minorities and the Criminal Code in Canada

I think it's really interesting that in Canada, sexuality gets regulated through provisions in the Criminal Code against prostitution. And time and time again, members of different groups who are charged under the Code defend themselves by saying that they aren't prostitutes.

In November of 1994, Montreal's gay bar Katakombes was raided. Police arrested a bunch of men, and had proof that people had sexual relations on the premises. The owners and customers in the bar were charged under the bawdyhouse law. The organized mainstream gay community responded by saying that this was not a case of prostitution: there was no exchange of sex for money, so the charges were bogus.

A couple of years later, well known Sylvia, owner of the Fetish Café, was harassed by the Boys in Blue. Charged with keeping a common bawdyhouse, she responded that the men who came to see her paid her for services related to domination and submission. Since there was no sex involved, she maintained the charges were bogus.

In more recent times, bisexual swinger bars have the subject of police harassment in Montréal. The owners and operators have also been charged under the bawdyhouse laws. They too defend themselves by separating out their activities from the work of prostitution: people do not pay for sexual services in their establishments.

Now, it seems to me that if the Criminal Code as it is currently written is used to regulate all kinds of sexuality in public space in addition to prostitution - gay men, fetishists, bisexuals - then we need to address this issue directly. In the first instance, if the cops use bawdyhouse laws to harass different kinds of sexualities in Montréal, perhaps we need to point out in our response that there is an indiscriminate use of existing legislation. It's important to show how this works, so that judges and policy makers understand how certain laws can be used in really different ways to control people's behaviours - even in ways unintended by the law as it was written. This is something street prostitutes already know: cops use municipal regulation around "loitering" or "obstructing traffic in a public place" to ticket prostitutes. It's actually quite rare (at least in Montréal) that street prostitutes are charged with solicitation, which is the section of the Criminal Code designed to control street prostitution.

Secondly, I find it more than a bit bizarre that people stigmatized for "marginal" sexual practices - be they gay men, fetishists or bisexuals - so quickly turn around and distance themselves from "prostitutes". Are they saying that they're the good kind of perverts, not the bad kind of perverts? Or perhaps that they're not perverts at all? Regardless, it seems ironie that people who suffer blatant discrimination in turn perpetuate such intolerance, by reinforcing the stigma against prostitutes.

Thirdly, if we understand that the police use a part of the Criminal code designed to curtail prostitution to police gay men, bisexuals or fetishists, then perhaps all of these people should sit down together and think through the problems with respect to this section of the Criminal Code. This would allow for a really broad response to decriminalization of prostitution and allow gay men to understand that the decriminalization of prostitution benefits them, because it makes it more difficult for the police to rely on this section of the Criminal Code to control public space.