SWAN Reading

What workplace safety concerns did participants report?

[LECTURE: Participants reported a number of workplace safety concerns and structural barriers to obtaining legal assistance while working and living with precarious status. Commonly reported workplace safety issues included robberies, client violence, mistreatment by massage parlour/apartment bosses and/or other workers, being reported by neighbours, and random police checks and raids.] [DEFINITION: Precarious status refers to an insecure immigration status that can make a person's ability to remain and work in the country uncertain.]

What were the main structural barriers to obtaining legal assistance reported by participants?

[LECTURE: Participants reported a number of workplace safety concerns and structural barriers to obtaining legal assistance while working and living with precarious status.]

How did participants' willingness to seek help from police and/or lawyers vary?

[LECTURE: Seeking help from police and/or lawyers was situation dependent – participants were more inclined to report violence experienced in their personal lives but hesitant to report workplace incidences.]

What strategies did some participants use instead of reporting workplace problems?

[LECTURE: Some attempted to resolve workplace disputes independently, relied on massage parlour owners and colleagues for support, and/or turned to police as a last resort.]

What did some participants report about seeking legal justice?

[LECTURE: Others reported not reaching out or feeling as though they did not have the means to obtain legal justice.]

Why were participants with temporary resident status often afraid to involve police?

[LECTURE: Commonly, those with temporary resident status were afraid of involving police for fear of detention and deportation due to their status.] [DEFINITION: Detention means being held by authorities; deportation means being legally removed from a country.]

What barriers to seeking help from police and/or lawyers were commonly reported?

[LECTURE: Perceived barriers to seeking help from police and/or lawyers included language barriers, high cost, having to disclose sex work status, and sex work stigma.]

What role did grassroots organizations play in helping participants?

[LECTURE: Given these barriers, some participants reported relying on grassroots organizations, including S.U.C.C.E.S.S. and SWAN, for legal assistance.] [DEFINITION: Grassroots organizations are community-based organizations that develop from and work directly with local communities.]

Why did one participant say SWAN was helpful?

[LECTURE: “I think because our SWAN organization supports women, including those working in this industry, they understand us better. We don't need to explain the work procedures much; it's straightforward. You can provide a general overview, and they will understand. Also, I think SWAN has many professional legal experts who have a better understanding.” (P11, PR)]

How did participants with permanent residency generally differ from those with temporary status in seeking help?

[LECTURE: Those with PR reported experiencing fewer barriers to seeking help, namely having ‘legal status’, and thus were more inclined to report workplace violence to police and/or seek out lawyers for legal help.]

Why did having PR make some participants more willing to report workplace violence?

[LECTURE: Having ‘legal status’ reduced barriers to seeking help, and those with PR were more inclined to report workplace violence to police and/or seek out lawyers for legal help.]

What factors could make reporting workplace violence more difficult for people without legal status?

[LECTURE: Those without legal status definitely wouldn't report. Also, those who don't speak English well, for them, even explaining what happened would be difficult, so they might not report it.]

What strategies did the majority of participants use to ensure workplace safety?

[LECTURE: The majority of participants expressed that they relied on their own efforts and means to ensure workplace safety.]

What did participants mean by keeping a ‘low profile’?

[LECTURE: Participants reported keeping a ‘low profile’ to avoid drawing attention to their immigration status, staying out of trouble, complying and compromising with clients and bosses rather than escalating the situation, and aiming to be model citizens.] [DEFINITION: Keeping a ‘low profile’ means avoiding attention or conflict in order to reduce perceived risks associated with immigration status.]

What did participants do to avoid escalating workplace situations?

[LECTURE: complying and compromising with clients and bosses rather than escalating the situation]

What mentality did participants adopt to avoid problems?

[LECTURE: aiming to be model citizens]

How did participants use the idea of ‘luck’ when making sense of workplace harms?

[LECTURE: Participants also often referred to luck when attempting to make sense of their lived realities and workplace harms.]

How did temporary resident participants perceive their status compared with PR and citizenship?

[LECTURE: Those with temporary resident status often perceived themselves to have “lower status” than those with PR and/or citizenship.]

Why might PR participants still avoid reporting workplace problems?

[LECTURE: Even if I do, the boss might decide not to run the business anymore. If I report it, all the [women] might leave, and the shop will close down. So, even if you suffer a bit, the boss won't report it to the police.]

How did some participants describe the relationship between workplace safety and reporting to police?

[LECTURE: “Yes, because, in this line of work, we usually prefer to avoid trouble whenever possible, right? Even if the boss encounters such situations, she might just brush it off and try to keep the peace. Theoretically, I could report incidents to the police, but if I do, the boss might decide not to run the business anymore.” (P22, PR)]

How did some temporary visa holders perceive calling the police?

[LECTURE: “It all depends on luck. There is no other way to solve this problem. We all think that if you call the police, it's all up to luck. If you're lucky and encounter a reasonable police officer, maybe he won't check your work permit, but they may not be able to control it. So, we won't take the risk for those uncertainties.” (P04, tourist visa)]

What did participants report about their knowledge of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) prohibition on sex work?

[LECTURE: Most participants, regardless of immigration status, shared that they were confused by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) prohibition on sex as well as overarching sex work laws.]

How did participants describe the laws surrounding sex work?

[LECTURE: Many shared that they felt the laws were a ‘grey area’, varied by city (i.e., municipal bylaws), and were difficult to understand.] [DEFINITION: A ‘grey area’ refers to a situation participants perceived as unclear or difficult to interpret.]

What did some participants think about the IRPR ban on sex work?

[LECTURE: Notably, some participants expressed that they found the IRPR ban on sex work discriminatory.]

Why did some participants find the IRPR prohibition confusing?

[LECTURE: The government says you can't work, even if you have status. I wonder why only this industry is restricted, while others are not. We wonder why people with work permits can't work in the industry they want.]

What did some participants find confusing about Canada's sex work laws and immigration rules?

[LECTURE: “I find the Canadian laws regarding ‘sex work’ quite strange. Is it legal or not? If it's legal, then why can't other people who work in this industry immigrate? … So, actually for us, this law is very confusing, and we don't know what it means.” (P07, current student visa, previous tourist visa)]

How did participants' perceptions of police enforcement vary?

[LECTURE: Some shared that despite the plethora of laws, they did not feel as though police enforced them, while others feared arrest and/or detention if found working illegally.]

How did participants with PR generally view the IRPR regulations?

[LECTURE: Common sentiments expressed by participants with PR was that the IRPR regulations did not affect them resulting in an increased sense of security while engaging in sex work.]

Why did PR participants feel more secure engaging in sex work?

[LECTURE: “The key is that I have legal status now. […] Has it affected me? I think it's been fine because I have legal status, so I can work in this industry, right?” (P12, current PR, previous work permit)]

What were participants' views on a sex work visa?

[LECTURE: When asked specifically about thoughts and perspectives on a sex work visa, participants’ views were divided.]

What benefits did participants who supported a sex work visa identify?

[LECTURE: Those in favour of a sex work visa stated that it would afford them with improved job security, enhanced economic situations, and reduced discrimination.]

What concerns did participants have about a sex work visa?

[LECTURE: However, most participants expressed concerns over having a sex work record or label associated with such a visa, which may have implications for future immigration applications.]

Why did some participants want to conduct sex work discreetly?

[LECTURE: Some expressed that they wished to conduct sex work discreetly and this visa would ‘out’ them to authorities.]

What other concerns did participants have about a sex work visa?

[LECTURE: Others shared that this visa would not function to remove sex work stigma but perpetuate it, would be difficult to implement, and ultimately would not be possible as it would be at odds with the current prostitution legislation and immigration ban on sex work in Canada.]

What was one participant's concern about having a sex work visa?

[LECTURE: “Well, I don't think I would because it would definitely create a record somewhere that I have this kind of visa. I am worried about bias. It's not good for your record.” (P05, current work permit, previous student visa)]

What did most participants say about changing sex work and immigration laws?

[LECTURE: When asked about what and how sex work and immigration laws should be changed, most participants discussed the benefits sex work decriminalization would afford.]

What benefits did participants associate with sex work decriminalization?

[LECTURE: Participants in favour of sex work decriminalization shared that it would contribute to increased stability and security while working, fewer reports by neighbours, enhanced protection and ability to seek help, anonymity through not having to apply for a permit or label, and decreased discrimination.]

What did participants say decriminalization could mean for workplace safety?

[LECTURE: “This way, we can also protect ourselves. If we encounter someone trying to rob us, we can say seriously that we are calling 911, right? You can't escape or do anything, and others won't say anything about us. For us, it's a kind of invasion.” (P07, current student visa, previous tourist visa)]

Why did some participants prefer decriminalization over a sex work-specific visa?

[LECTURE: Participants opted to support full decriminalization of sex work rather than the issuance of a sex work-specific visa.]

Why did participants prefer full decriminalization over a sex work visa?

[LECTURE: This is largely because they believe that a sex work visa would only continue to perpetuate sex work stigma (e.g., through labelling or record creation of sex work status), be at odds with current sex work legislation in Canada and be logistically difficult to implement.]

What workplace violence did the discussion identify among im/migrant women in sex work?

[LECTURE: Im/migrant women face continued interpersonal and structural violence in the workplace including client violence, massage parlour/apartment owner coercion, interpersonal conflicts with colleagues, robberies, and police raids.] [DEFINITION: Interpersonal violence occurs between individuals, while structural violence arises from broader social, legal, or institutional structures that create or reinforce harm or disadvantage.]

Why do im/migrant women in sex work largely underreport violence to authorities?

[LECTURE: Im/migrant women in sex work largely underreport violence to authorities due to the multiple barriers in accessing the criminal justice system, stigma around sex work, fear of police intervention and/or detainment, and concerns over sharing their sex work status with external parties.]

What intersecting macrostructural determinants shape im/migrant women's responses to workplace violence?

[LECTURE: These findings illustrate the intersecting macrostructural determinants that work to shape the behavioural attitudes and self-protective mechanisms of im/migrant women in sex work]

What three factors intersect to create reluctance and distrust in police intervention?

[LECTURE: the intersections between the immigration ban on sex work, current prostitution laws, and the pervasive stigma surrounding sex work result in a reluctance for and distrust in police intervention as well as other formal channels including various forms of legal aid/counsel]

What are individual-level strategies?

[LECTURE: Im/migrant women opt for individuallevel strategies to ensure their own safety such as adopting a model citizen mentality to life and work as a way to ‘stay out of trouble’, tolerating violence from third parties (e.g., clients, robbers, bosses, colleagues), and ultimately isolating oneself from society in order to remain hidden or ‘unseen’ (Wong et al., 2011).] [DEFINITION: Individual-level strategies are actions individuals take themselves to manage risks when broader systems do not provide adequate protection.]

How did participants use ‘luck’ to explain workplace violence?

[LECTURE: Participants will often describe events like workplace violence (e.g., robberies, police raids) as simply being the result of ‘bad luck’ while the absence of police presence/intervention or workplace harms are attributed to ‘good luck’.]

What did previous research identify about im/migrant women in sex work under a precarious status/labour lens?

[LECTURE: a group that faces employment insecurity, low wages, limited social and workplace protections, and an inability to exercise rights due to a lack of citizenship in destination countries]

What distinction did this project reveal regarding immigration status?

[LECTURE: Our project reveals a dichotomy of perspectives between those holding temporary resident status (i.e., tourist, worker, student visa) and those with permanent residency (PR).] [DEFINITION: A dichotomy is a distinction between two contrasting categories or groups.]

What workplace concerns did temporary visa holders report?

[LECTURE: Participants with temporary visas reported a number of workplace concerns and challenges such as experiencing constant worry and fear, working in secrecy to evade police intervention, and experiencing a low sense of security/stability due to uncertain visa status, particularly around visa expiration and renewal.]

How did precarious immigration status contribute to underreporting workplace harms?

[LECTURE: Fear surrounding precarious immigration status compounded by structural barriers such as a lack of language proficiency, financial insecurity, and inadequate pathways to obtaining legal status results in the underreporting of workplace harms to employers and authorities, perpetuates inequities, and entrenches women in precarious positions.]

What risks did temporary visa holders associate with police interaction?

[LECTURE: Temporary visa holders work and live under constant fear of police raids, street checks, and detainment and/or deportation.]

Why did some temporary visa holders feel skeptical about changing their status?

[LECTURE: Given the lengthy application process for PR and the accompanying education and language requirements, many temporary visa holders express skepticism at the ability to change their temporary status due to a lack of pathways towards citizenship and are ultimately held responsible for their lack of status.]

How did PR holders generally perceive their immigration status?

[LECTURE: Participants who obtained permanent residency (PR) perceived this as equivalent to having full citizenship and often used terms like “citizen”, “legal”, and “having status” interchangeably to describe their PR status.]

How did obtaining PR affect participants' sense of security?

[LECTURE: Participants overwhelmingly perceived obtaining PR as having accomplished their end-goal and as such experienced a sense of security in their work and living situations.]

What did participants associate with having PR?

[LECTURE: Having PR was often tied to ideas of increased workplace safety, access to protection under human rights laws, enhanced flexibility and autonomy in the workplace (e.g., ability to screen and refuse clients), as well as the opportunity to make long-term plans and goals (e.g., education and training, transition out of sex work).]

Did some participants perceive PR and citizenship as different?

[LECTURE: Some shared that they did not perceive a difference between PR and full citizenship and as such had no intentions of obtaining full citizenship.]

What distinction does the reading make between PR and citizenship?

[LECTURE: However, as per the Government of Canada, there is a clear distinction between PR and full citizenship – while PR status is more secure and less precarious than temporary resident status, PR status can be revoked under a defined set of circumstances, such as inadmissibility as a result of criminality, resulting in a removal order.]

What does the reading say about participants' understanding of PR?

[LECTURE: This disconnect in understanding of the full implications of PR status further exemplifies the inaccessible nature of immigration laws and regulation that place im/migrant women of this status at an enhanced risk of criminalization.]

What is multi-layered criminalization?

[LECTURE: Im/migrant women in sex work face multi-layered criminalization via prostitution laws (i.e., Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA)), trafficking provisions, municipal bylaws, as well as the immigration ban on sex work (i.e., IRPR).] [DEFINITION: Multi-layered criminalization means that multiple overlapping laws, regulations, and legal systems can simultaneously create criminalization, restrictions, risks, or penalties for the same group.]

What forms of law contribute to multi-layered criminalization of im/migrant women in sex work?

[LECTURE: prostitution laws (i.e., Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA)), trafficking provisions, municipal bylaws, as well as the immigration ban on sex work (i.e., IRPR)]

What is PCEPA in the context of multi-layered criminalization?

[LECTURE: Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA)] [DEFINITION: PCEPA is the federal legislation governing criminal offences related to prostitution and sex work in Canada.]

What is the IRPR in the context of multi-layered criminalization?

[LECTURE: the immigration ban on sex work (i.e., IRPR)] [DEFINITION: IRPR refers to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, which contain immigration rules and provisions affecting people in Canada with different immigration statuses.]

What other legal mechanisms contribute to multi-layered criminalization?

[LECTURE: trafficking provisions and municipal bylaws]

Who faces the greatest risk from the overlapping legal framework?

[LECTURE: These overlapping pieces of legislation place temporary visa holders at the greatest risk for workplace violence, social isolation, underreporting of occupational safety concerns, and detainment/deportation by police.]

What risks result from the overlapping pieces of legislation?

[LECTURE: workplace violence, social isolation, underreporting of occupational safety concerns, and detainment/deportation by police.]

What model of sex-work legislation did Canada enact in 2014?

[LECTURE: Canada enacted end-demand legislation in 2014 – a partial decriminalization model of sex work intended to decrease the demand side of sex work without criminalizing those on the supply side (i.e., sex workers).]

What is an end-demand model?

[LECTURE: a partial decriminalization model of sex work intended to decrease the demand side of sex work without criminalizing those on the supply side (i.e., sex workers).] [DEFINITION: An end-demand model focuses criminalization primarily on purchasing or demand rather than directly criminalizing sex workers who provide sexual services.]

What does the reading argue about Canada's end-demand model?

[LECTURE: However, this model still serves to criminalize sex work overall]

What risks does the end-demand model place workers at according to the reading?

[LECTURE: it places workers at risk of exploitation, increased surveillance, harassment, perpetuated barriers to justice, as well as the risk of detention and deportation for im/migrant workers.]

What did participants believe full decriminalization could improve?

[LECTURE: Participants in this current study shared their views on how a model of full decriminalization of sex work would potentially improve working conditions, increase safety, protect their identities, and decrease the stigma surrounding sex work.]

Why did participants support full decriminalization rather than a sex work-specific visa?

[LECTURE: Participants opted to support full decriminalization of sex work rather than the issuance of a sex work-specific visa]

What concerns did participants have about a sex work-specific visa?

[LECTURE: they believe that a sex work visa would only continue to perpetuate sex work stigma (e.g., through labelling or record creation of sex work status), be at odds with current sex work legislation in Canada and be logistically difficult to implement.]

What has SWAN advocated regarding the IRPR?

[LECTURE: Advocacy groups, such as SWAN, have long since called for the IRPR to be repealed, citing discrimination on the grounds of legal status and further entrenching women in precarious work environments with no legal recourse.]

What could happen if temporary visa holders report a crime while working in sex work?

[LECTURE: if temporary visa holders attempt to report a crime (e.g., robbery while at work), they face risk of detention and deportation]

What could happen if workers remain silent because they fear repercussions?

[LECTURE: if workers remain silent for fear of repercussions, then perpetrators of violence can continue to act with impunity.] [DEFINITION: Acting with impunity means being able to commit harmful or unlawful acts without facing consequences or accountability.]

What did the overlapping pieces of sex-work legislation require im/migrant women to navigate?

[LECTURE: The overlapping pieces of sex work legislation also place an increased burden on im/migrant women as they must navigate the complex and often confusing legal landscape surrounding their profession.]

What barriers contributed to misinformation about sex-work laws?

[LECTURE: Due to language barriers, the inaccessibility of resources, and the lack of accessible and accurate information, women in our study instead turned to peers and other informal sources of information, often resulting in misinformation surrounding the legalities of sex work.]

How did stigma contribute to problems accessing legal information?

[LECTURE: The lack of vetted information also highlights the systemic problems inherent in sex work, namely the stigma surrounding sex work, which inhibits open communication among sex workers and instead pushes women to seek information exclusively within their social circles.]

What problems did some participants experience with immigration consultants?

[LECTURE: participants reported varying degrees of success when accessing immigration consultants as they were provided with conflicting information and had limited means to confirm accuracy.]

What did many PR participants believe about the IRPR?

[LECTURE: In the case of women with PR status, many participants largely ascertained that the IRPR did not affect them]

What risk were some PR participants unaware of?

[LECTURE: many were unaware that they could still be penalized under the Criminal Code under prostitution and trafficking laws, placing them at risk for possible revocation of their status.]

What recommendations does the reading make regarding information for temporary residents?

[LECTURE: Make available information and resources specifically aimed at explaining implications of the IRPR on sex work for those with temporary resident status (i.e., work permit, tourist visa, international student visa).]

What does the reading recommend regarding decriminalization?

[LECTURE: Decriminalize sex work in Canada to ensure that all sex workers have access to their basic human rights, including health, social services, and access to legal and labour protections.]

What does the reading recommend regarding the IRPR?

[LECTURE: Repeal the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) ss.183(1) (b.1),196.1(a),200(3)(g.1), and203(2)(a) – provisions that currently place im/migrant sex workers at increased risk of violence, as well as risk of subsequent arrest, detention, and deportation.]

What information does the reading recommend making available to PR holders?

[LECTURE: Make available information and resources specifically designed for permanent residency holders about the implications of working in sex work.]

What community-level supports does the reading recommend?

[LECTURE: Implement community-level supports and programming that address social isolation, help facilitate understanding on sex work laws, and workplace protections (e.g., peer programs).]

What are the main sources of criminalization faced by im/migrant women in sex work according to the conclusion?

[LECTURE: Im/migrant women in sex work are notably marginalized as they face multiple, overlapping sources of criminalization including the immigration ban on sex work and over-reaching, regressive sex work laws.]

What other challenges do im/migrant women in sex work face?

[LECTURE: stigma surrounding sex work, workplace violence, language barriers, discrimination, and social isolation]

What do these intersecting systemic and structural factors cause?

[LECTURE: As a result of these intersecting systemic and structural factors, im/migrant women experience continued obstacles in seeking legal recourse and assistance to protect and promote their own health, personal well-being, and safety.]

What individual-level strategies did im/migrant women use to ensure safety and security?

[LECTURE: Im/migrant women in this study instead relied on individual-level strategies to attempt to ensure safety and security, which often led to accessing inaccurate information from within their social networks, tolerating compromising situations or arrangements with third parties (e.g., clients, robbers, bosses, colleagues), underreporting workplace violence to law enforcement or employers, attributing positive and negative experiences to a sense of ‘luck’, as well as isolating themselves from society in order to remain hidden and unseen.]

What happened when temporary resident participants sought help from law enforcement?

[LECTURE: due to the immigration ban on sex work, participants with temporary resident status who do seek help from law enforcement face the risk of detention and deportation]

What effect can the risk of detention and deportation have?

[LECTURE: serving to enable and protect perpetrators of the violence against them.]

What is the authors' conclusion regarding the IRPR?

[LECTURE: It is our conclusion that the IRPR continues to violate and infringe upon the human rights of im/migrant women in sex work in Canada]

What do the authors call for regarding the IRPR and sex work?

[LECTURE: we call for the continued efforts to repeal the IRPR and urge the government to work towards full decriminalization of sex work.]