The Supreme Court of Canada grappled Thursday with the constitutionality of Canada's prostitution law, as demonstrators from both sides of the issue aired their views with colourful flair on its outdoor steps.
Federal lawyer Michael Morris argued that the Ontario Court of Appeal went too far last year when it struck down the Criminal Code ban on bawdy houses on the grounds that the law puts sex workers in danger by forcing them to work outside.
"In the face of a complex social problem, uncertainty and contradicting social science evidence, we submit that the Ontario Court of Appeal erred," Morris argued.
Lawyers for the province of Ontario also argued against any decriminalization.
Several justices made the point that prostitution itself is not in fact illegal, and raised questions about how that should affect many of the key activities related to it that are in fact banned under sections of the Criminal Code.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin raised the question of whether that means that prostitutes should be able to hire security guards and work in secure brothels, off the street.
"It could be Brinks or somebody. I'm not sure they're in that business," she opined, sparking muted laughter in the court.
The Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the section that forbids brothels, but it upheld a ban on communication for the purposes of prostitution, which makes street prostitution illegal.
The court also imposed limits on the section that prohibits living off the avails of prostitution to exclude people such as a sex worker's bodyguard, accountant or receptionist. It said the provision should only apply "in circumstances of exploitation."
'In the face of a complex social problem, uncertainty and contradicting social science evidence, we submit that the Ontario Court of Appeal erred.' —Federal lawyer Michael Morris
Federal and provincial lawyers are arguing that the intent of Parliament is impose limits on prostitution.
"The assertion that prostitution is legal in Canada is misleading. Prostitution has always been and remains more illegal than legal in Canada," argued lawyer Jamie Klukach, appearing for the Ontario Attorney General.
Osgoode Hall law professor Alan Young, who is leading the court challenge, argued the opposite in a passionate address to the court.
Lawyer for sex workers denounces 'fear mongering'
Young slammed the "mythmaking, fear mongering and storytelling" of his legal opponents and the "powerful lofty rarefied statements that don't reflect the law."
He urged the court to set aside moral considerations and stick to the core legal issues.
Young is representing three women at the centre of the case: retired dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford, former prostitute Valerie Scott and Vancouver sex worker Amy Lebovitch.
"This is going to be the day of reckoning here in Ottawa," Bedford, clad in a leather jacket and carrying a small whip, said on the courthouse steps.
- Listen to The Sunday Edition on the legal challenge
- Vote: Should Canada's prostitution laws be changed?
Bedford accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of "wanting to perpetuate these bad laws. That means that he's doing what organized crime wants him to do."
She called on Harper to tell Canadians "what we can and cannot do in the privacy of our home with another consenting adult. I don't believe these laws are just exclusively for sex trade workers; it's for every Canadian to enjoy their right to privacy."
Sex workers have staged high-profile demonstrations in cities across Canada to draw attention to their drive towards legalization.
A coalition of groups held a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court earlier this morning before the start of the hearing. They were among about 100 people from both sides of the issue who were on hand, banging drums and waving placards.
"Criminalization means that, as sex workers, we have no access to the legal system or police protection," said Anna-Aude Caouette, a member of the Montreal group, Stella.
"It also contributes to the stigma and discrimination we face, making it more difficult for us to find social support and to access health services in our communities."
In all, the court set aside five and a half hours to hear from more than a dozen interested parties.
Some groups are arguing for some form of legalization, while others say prostitution must remain against the law.
The case has divided women's groups, pitting sex workers against the front-line organizations that try to help the poor, drug-addicted and often underaged women who become prostitutes.
The Women's Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution argues the law should be changed to make it illegal to be a pimp or a customer, but not an actual prostitute.
They say the sex industry has victimized young women, many of them underage, forcing them into a life of drugs, physical and sexual abuse, and essentially slavery in an illegal industry from which they cannot break free.
The coalition is made up of seven organizations, including the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, the Native Women's Association of Canada, and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.