December 4th 2017

Stop causing harm and stop dictating what is consent:

remove the no-touch provision from the By-Law

Speaking as sex workers, as adult entertainers and as allies, we reiterate our position that we support
the ongoing licensing of strip-clubs and body rub parlours, along with the recognition of the harm
ensuing from the no-touch provision . As such, we ask that City Councillors remove the no-touch
provision from the Schedules within the Business Licensing By-Law that relate to Adult Entertainment
Establishments.

Why?

1. Adult Entertainment workers have stated clearly that they have the inherent right and ability to
consent. You should not, and indeed do not have the authority, to legislate that right.

In over 50 interviews with individual sex workers as part of the research project between
Fanshawe and SafeSpace, not one of the workers said that they wanted policies that governed
their involvement in sex work. In fact, they want less policies and more enforcement of their
right to consent.

Consent is the presence of a yes. It is determined by the individual engaging in the act. It is
unjust, paternalistic and harmful to presume to know better than an individual whether they
can consent or not to an activity.

Workers in the Adult Entertainment Establishments have gone on record during the public
participation meetings for this by-law stating that they wanted the ability to choose their own
conditions of work, rather than asking for more regulation and more oversight. They want the
By-Law to reflect their right to consent, a right that is very clearly laid out in our higher order
laws around sexual assault. The right to consent, and the supports in place to ensure that the
workers consent is enacted, includes their right to say yes and to say no, as well as their right to
determine under what conditions a yes is present. Workers have gone on record stating that
signage laying out rules that support their individual ability to consent or not, and effective
security staff would be much more effective at increasing safety than a no-touch provision.

2. As City Councillors, you are required to represent all Londoners, including adult entertainment
workers. On the public record, workers have stated clearly that they do not want the no-touch
provision. Have you heard from current workers stating that they want and feel better protected from
the no-touch provision?
3. As City Councillors, you must ensure that your policies and procedures do not cause harm. The
enforcement of the no-touch provision as it stands, and the threat of ticketing (be it an empty threat
or fully leveraged), is harming workers safety. In order to earn a living wage, touch-based activities are
often essential and workers feel pressured to either risk ticketing, or go to isolated area, to engage in
touching. A unified voice of current workers have clearly stated that the no-touch provision pushes
touch-based activities to unmonitored spaces where there is little safety to be brought by security
guards and other means if a worker needs support because the client has become abusive and violent.

4. As City Councillors, you have the authority to remove the no-touch provision, and there is indeed
precedent for doing so. The Municipality of Niagara does not have a no-touch provision, and as such
touch-based activities are permitted within their Adult Entertainment Establishments.

5. As City Councillors, you are placing workers in a precarious position where they are working under
conflicting laws and policies. Many workers travel on a weekly basis to various municipalities, some of
which they can engage in touch activities, others in which they cannot. There is confusion and an
injustice in requiring that workers ensure they do not get ticketed by these varying jurisdictions.

With all of this in mind, we respectfully ask that you remove the no-touch provision from the
appropriate schedules in this by-law.

If you are unable to do this at this time, we ask that you separate the schedules relating to adult
entertainment from the by-law and engage in a fulsome public consultation with entertainers. This
consultation, as suggested by Councillor Jesse Helmer, must be conducted in such a way that workers
feel safe and that they can speak anonymously. We have heard directly from workers that the process
of public consultation engaged in up until now has left many workers feeling disconnected, unheard and
unable to safely participate. You cannot pass policy that highly affects a given population without that
population having a fulsome say.

Sincerely,

SafeSpace
Anova
Dr. Jodi Hall, Fanshawe College Professor

For more information on Anovas position, please see our Position Statement in favour of a
decriminalized model to federal criminal codes regarding prostitution. We are one agency among many
internationally who support this option, including Amnesty International.