Joint Application Record – Volume 30

8525 Court File No. 07-CV-329807PD1 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: TERRI JEAN BEDFORD, AMY LEBOVITCH, V ALERlE SCOTT Applicants and A TTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents A TTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Intervenors AFFIDA VIT OF Dr. Ronald Weitzer I, Ronald Weitzer, of the town of Arlington, Virginia, in the United States, MAKE OATH AND SAY: 1. 1 have been a Professor of Sociology at George Washington University in Washington D.C. since 2000. From 2001 to 2006 I was the Director of Graduate Studies, Sociology, and Criminal Justice at George Washington University. From 1993 to 1999 I was an Associate Professor of Sociology and £i'om 1986 to 1992 I was an Assistant Professor. As my curriculum vitae indicates, I am frequently interviewed and quoted in the media with respect to prostitution issues and the sex industry more generally, and I am one ofthe leading American scholars with expeIiise on the sex industry. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A to this affidavit is a true copy of my curriculum vitae. 8526 2. In my capacity as a professor 1 have taught courses on the sex industry, criminology, deviant behaviour and social control, and qualitative research methods. I have particular expertise on American policies and law enforcement on prostitution and sex trafficking, and have also published articles critiquing methodologies used in some research on the sex industry. 3. I am the author two books, co-author of one book, and editor of several books including Sex/or Sale: Prostitution, Pornography, and the Sex Industry, (New York: Routledge, 2000) which has been translated into Japanese. 1 have written over 50 academic articles, 20 about the sex trade specifically, including comprehensive reviews ofthe research literature in articles titled "New Directions in Research on Prostitution" attached hereto and marked as Exhibit B and "Prostitution: Facts and Fictions," attached hereto and marked as Exhibit C. 4. 1 have had the opportunity to review the affidavits of Janice Raymond and Melissa Farley. In this affidavit, I draw upon my expertise and knowledge regarding research on the sex industry. 1 demonstrate that many of the claims made in the affidavits by Melissa Farley and Janice Raymond are (1) based on an unscientific, ideological perspective that regards all paid sexual services and performances as oppressive and exploitative of women, (2) violate some standard canons of scientific research, and (3) consistently ignore counterevidence from published research studies that draw contrary conclusions. In 2005, 1 published two articles in the journal Violence Against Women that systematically critiqued their writings, "Flawed Theory and Method in Studies of Prostitution attached hereto and marked as Exhibit D, and "Rehashing Tired Claims About Prostitution," attached hereto and marked as Exhibit E. 5. Melissa Farley and Janice Raymond define prostitution in a one-dimensional and simplistic manner, as inherently oppressive, exploitative, and victimizing of workers. Throughout their publications, and in their affidavits, sweeping generalizations are made about prostitution. These claims would raise the suspicions of any social scientist. I will cite just a few of these unfounded or dubious generalizations here, as 8527 examples of the kind of circular, tautological, or otherwise flawed logic that characterizes their writings. Janice Raymond concludes in her affidavit that "prostitution is a form of violence against women." Similarly, Melissa Farley claims that "prostitution is internationally recognized as a form of violence against women." This is simply not true. A relatively small group of anti-prostitution activists, Melissa Farley and Janice Raymond included, hold this opinion, but it is not shared by most scholars and it is disingenuous to suggest that there is any degree of international consensus over this characterization of prostitution. Violence occurs in prostitution, but it is simplistic to claim that prostitution is violence ontologically. Melissa Farley consistently reveals her biased orientation to the subject matter. In her co-authored report on the customers of sex workers in Scotland, Challenging Men's Demand for Prostitution in Scotland, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit F, Melissa Farley and her co-authors state that "prostitution is best understood as a transaction in which there are two roles: exploiter/predator and victim/prey." Melissa Farley writes in her affidavit that "Prostitution is better understood as domestic violence than as ajob." 6. Almost every single item in Melissa Farley's list of conclusions on pages 9 to 12 of her affidavit, and her subsequent elaboration of these points, is either false as presented, unsubstantiated, or the evidence is mixed and inconclusive. Note the frequent use of the overarching term "prostitution," such as "prostitution is linked to ... " or "prostitution causes ... " or "prostitution damages ... " Social scientists use probabilistic language to describe research findings - such as "increases the likelihood of' or "heightens the probability of' or "is more likely than"- but Farley rarely adopts such careful and nuanced terms and instead uses unscientific and deterministic language. 7. Melissa Farley claims that her 9-nation study yielded valid results because it used a large sample. She also claims that some other studies have replicated hers. Her affidavit also cites other studies that purport to reach similar conclusions to her own. However, none of these studies used random, representative samples, and almost all were based on samples of street prostitutes. Yet, the studies are used as the basis for 8528 drawing sweeping conclusions about prostitution in general. In addition, many of the writings she cites were written by staunch anti-prostitution ac6vists. Examples include Evelina Giobbe (founder of the now-defunct group Women Hurt in Systems of Oppression Engaged in Revolt), Susan Hunter, Kathleen Barry, (founder of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women [CATW]), Janice Raymond (former director of CA TW), and Donna Hughes. Hughes and Raymond also hold academic positions, but they are well-known activists in the campaign against prostitution and pomography. Janice Raymond mentions the special issue of the joumal Violence Against Women (October 2004) for which she served as guest editor, and she cites articles published in that issue, by Esohe Aghatise, Melissa Farley, and Gunilla Ekberg (current director of CA TW in Europe), who, not surprisingly, come to same conclusions advocated by Janice Raymond. Mainstream scholars have frequently questioned the claims of these aforementioned writers and have argued that many of their claims do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The writings of these and other anti-prostitution activists often feature anecdotes, non-sequitors, neglect of counterevidence, and failure to cite studies that reach contrary conclusions. I presented some of this counterevidence in my two articles in Violence Against Women that critiqued their work, so it cannot be claimed that they are unaware of studies that contradict their claims. Scientific advances depend on researchers who consider findings that differ from their own, and require due diligence in grappling with and attempting to explain such counterevidence. But these authors simply ignore studies that reach conclusions different from or diametrically opposed to their own. 8. Some ofthe joumals that have published articles by Melissa Farley, Janice Raymond, and other individuals listed above are peer-reviewed joumals, but others are not. Moreover, many of their writings appear in non-peer reviewed reports funded by non govemmental organizations. For example, Melissa Farley's report on brothel prostitution in Nevada was published by her own organization, not peer reviewed, in contrast to the peer reviewed, academic article of Professors Barbara Brents and Kathryn Hausbeck, "Violence and Legalized Brothel Prostitution in Nevada" attached hereto and marked as Exhibit G, whose findings on Nevada's brothel 8529 prostitution are very different from Farley's. In addition, Brents and Hausbeck have published several other peer reviewed articles on Nevada's legal brothels. Several of Janice Raymond's reports have been published by her organization, CATW. Another example is the non-peer reviewed report on customers of prostitutes in Scotland by Melissa Farley and her three co-authors, which was funded and published by the Women's SuppOli Project in Britain. This report was condemned as being both methodologically flawed and ideologically biased by 17 British, Canadian, and Amelican scholars in a submission to the Scottish Parliament in April 2008, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit H. 9. In their affidavits and in their publications, it is evident that Melissa Farley and Janice Raymond are committed to a strict abolitionist policy regarding prostitution, and have been very critical of nations that have adopted some type of decriminalization or legalization (government regulation). In her affidavit, Janice Raymond argues that "decriminalization ofthe prostitution sector is a failed policy." She offers a caricature of decriminalized systems, claiming that there is a "popular fiction that all will be well in the world of prostitution once the sex industry is decriminalized ... " No serious scholar claims that "all will be well" under decriminalization, but some do argue that decriminalization or legalization will facilitate hann reduction. She writes that the problem with prostitution

Load more