this excerpt was pulled from the charter case decision by the FIRST group leader. she commented that is was satisfying to see another judge give the abolitionists "evidence" NO WEIGHT....as it deserves...those lying B%$#%es
Assessment of the Expert Evidence
[77] The expert witnesses in this case disagree upon whether a harm reduction approach is of any benefit to sex workers. They disagree in large part because they approach the issue using different language, values and terminology. Generally speaking, the experts called by the Crown view prostitution as inherently violent and harmful. They view safety as impossible given the inherent violence involved and a concept of safety which includes their own viewpoints related to the psychological and emotional safety of sex workers.
[78] Mr. [Chris] Atchison and Ms. [Andrea] Stirling are both quantitative researchers. I find that they take an evidence-based approach to the study of prostitution. The conclusions which they have reached based upon their own research and the research of others leads them to take a position in the debate over prostitution. However, it is not a position which is based on any bias. Both witnesses contributed significant evidence-based opinions to the factual underpinnings of this case.
[79] Dr. Coy and, to an extent, Ms. Smiley, were either unwilling or unable to separate issues such as human trafficking and child prostitution from the concept of the prostitution of adults who were not coerced into sex work. Both are committed advocates for the abolition of the sex industry.
[80] Ms. Smiley has limited research experience, and limited experience in the academic study of prostitution. Of even greater concern was the fact that she was clearly acting as an advocate on behalf of the Nordic model and did not attempt to make any pretense of objectivity. At the very least, those issues significantly limit the weight to be given to her evidence. The latter concern raises an issue about the admissibility of her evidence.
[81] Dr. Coy, throughout her lengthy cross-examination, displayed a complete inability or unwillingness to concede that any viewpoint other than her own could conceivably be correct. It was clear throughout her evidence that she simply views herself as an advocate and that she is not prepared to consider any possibility outside of her own viewpoint. She clearly believes that the only correct outcome is the one that she advocates. She is a qualitative researcher who makes no attempt to maintain a position of neutrality while engaged in the research process. Her bias is apparent to the point where it raises questions not only about what weight, if any, should be given to her evidence, but whether it is admissible at all under the criteria outlined in White Burgess.
[82] The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated clearly that the threshold requirement for admissibility is not particularly onerous. This is a case where the trier of fact is a judge alone, minimizing the risk involved in admitting the evidence. Counsel for the Applicants did not raise an issue regarding admissibility of the evidence. Given those factors, I will admit the evidence. However, given the lack of impartiality and objectivity, and the inability of both witnesses to consider any position other than their favoured ideology, the evidence of the two Crown expert witnesses will be given no weight.
Assessment of the Expert Evidence
[77] The expert witnesses in this case disagree upon whether a harm reduction approach is of any benefit to sex workers. They disagree in large part because they approach the issue using different language, values and terminology. Generally speaking, the experts called by the Crown view prostitution as inherently violent and harmful. They view safety as impossible given the inherent violence involved and a concept of safety which includes their own viewpoints related to the psychological and emotional safety of sex workers.
[78] Mr. [Chris] Atchison and Ms. [Andrea] Stirling are both quantitative researchers. I find that they take an evidence-based approach to the study of prostitution. The conclusions which they have reached based upon their own research and the research of others leads them to take a position in the debate over prostitution. However, it is not a position which is based on any bias. Both witnesses contributed significant evidence-based opinions to the factual underpinnings of this case.
[79] Dr. Coy and, to an extent, Ms. Smiley, were either unwilling or unable to separate issues such as human trafficking and child prostitution from the concept of the prostitution of adults who were not coerced into sex work. Both are committed advocates for the abolition of the sex industry.
[80] Ms. Smiley has limited research experience, and limited experience in the academic study of prostitution. Of even greater concern was the fact that she was clearly acting as an advocate on behalf of the Nordic model and did not attempt to make any pretense of objectivity. At the very least, those issues significantly limit the weight to be given to her evidence. The latter concern raises an issue about the admissibility of her evidence.
[81] Dr. Coy, throughout her lengthy cross-examination, displayed a complete inability or unwillingness to concede that any viewpoint other than her own could conceivably be correct. It was clear throughout her evidence that she simply views herself as an advocate and that she is not prepared to consider any possibility outside of her own viewpoint. She clearly believes that the only correct outcome is the one that she advocates. She is a qualitative researcher who makes no attempt to maintain a position of neutrality while engaged in the research process. Her bias is apparent to the point where it raises questions not only about what weight, if any, should be given to her evidence, but whether it is admissible at all under the criteria outlined in White Burgess.
[82] The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated clearly that the threshold requirement for admissibility is not particularly onerous. This is a case where the trier of fact is a judge alone, minimizing the risk involved in admitting the evidence. Counsel for the Applicants did not raise an issue regarding admissibility of the evidence. Given those factors, I will admit the evidence. However, given the lack of impartiality and objectivity, and the inability of both witnesses to consider any position other than their favoured ideology, the evidence of the two Crown expert witnesses will be given no weight.
