getfiscal posted:

i'm not a lawyer but i'm almost certain

lol this is the best way to start a sentence

swirlsofhistory posted:

Do you know why the supreme court decided to look at prostitutes like that? Like, drug dealers don't have a lot of on the job security, but I don't see the court overturning all drug laws. Also, why is harm reduction taken as being the same thing as justice?

i believe it was because the specific laws governing their activity caused them real danger to the security of their persons such that the policy justification was not consistent with section 7 of the charter. for example, not being able to maintain a place of business and not being able to hire security. i don't think there was a specific law against selling sex in canada actually, just against solicitation in public and the various laws prohibiting the infrastructure of selling sex (laws against bawdy houses, laws against living off proceeds, etc.).

which is why some lawyers are now saying that this just re-criminalizes a lot of the interlocking elements of the sex trade such that women will still face danger due to the law. if that's true the courts will strike down the law again. some lawyers on cbc and such are saying the government knows this will happen and are just pandering to the right-wing (who would be outraged otherwise).

Grounded in the reality of the violence and abuse inherent in prostitution—and reeling from the death of a friend to prostitution in Spain—Kajsa Ekis Ekman exposes the many lies in the ‘sex work’ scenario. Trade unions aren’t trade unions. Groups for prostituted women are simultaneously groups for brothel owners. And prostitution is always presented from a woman’s point of view. The men who buy sex are left out.

Drawing on Marxist and feminist analyses, Ekis Ekman argues that the Self must be split from the body to make it possible to sell your body without selling yourself. The body becomes sex. Sex becomes a service. The story of the sex worker says: the Split Self is not only possible, it is the ideal.

Turning to the practice of surrogate motherhood, Kajsa Ekis Ekman identifies the same components: that the woman is neither connected to her own body nor to the child she grows in her body and gives birth to. Surrogacy becomes an extended form of prostitution. In this capitalist creation story, the parent is the one who pays. The product sold is not sex but a baby. Ekis Ekman asks: why should this not be called child trafficking?

This brilliant exposé is written with a razor-sharp intellect and disarming wit and will make us look at prostitution and surrogacy and the parallels between them in a new way.

gyrofry posted:

Bablu posted:

yeah twitter escorts are buttmad over this. so are their sjw hangers on

what is the best way to keep ones finger on the pulse of twitter escorts

two fingers on the wrist while you're getting the other one to flush the evidence

swirlsofhistory posted:

Do you know why the supreme court decided to look at prostitutes like that?

what getfiscal said is correct. remember prostitution is not illegal here, so comparing it to drug dealing is wrong. the laws that were struck down (no public communication, no 'bawdy houses', the money made in prostitution cannot be paid to someone else (pimps but also drivers, bodyguards, etc)) just made this legal activity more dangerous just so that society can ignore that prostitution happens. the court basically thinks -- ok, if you want to make it illegal, make it fucking illegal, but while it's legal then people must be able to pursue their daily lives as prostitutes with no extra danger put on their lives because of some bullshit side laws that merely exist to force prostitution out of the public eye.

you can read the opinion here: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do i don't know about other supreme courts, but SCC rulings are very readable and intelligent, imo.