CMN 3105: Lecture #14 Nov 14th 2013
Prostitution Part II
YouTube video of Sweden:
Not progressive, cannot have
Left wing and secular
Law in 1999▯ against prostitution
Democracies cannot allow it because it is exploitative, it is not democratic.
They jail only the buyers and help the women
They believe that they have solved the problem because it is off the street corners.
Reality is that the workers have just gone someplace else.
Sweden makes normative positions
Their law is like”punching the air” inefffetive and doing nothing.
The only consensus that exists that there is no consensus.
Sex workers claimed that their lives were placed in danger
(1) living on the avails of prostitution
(2) keeping a common bawdyhouse
(3) communicating in a public place for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. Overall, the applicants claimed that liberty and security violations are not in accordance with the principles
of fundamental justice, as such limitations on their rights are more likely to lead to increases in violence
Prostitution itself is problematic because the harm is deemed intrinsic to the act itself
Always exploitative even if it is done illegally in Canada or legally in Nevada or Holland.
Cannot say it is a gender problem ( with men buying sex services) because what about when homosexuals
buy sex from each other.
Not surprisingly, the Attorney General of Ontario (AGO) submitted that the physical and psychological
harms experienced by prostitutes stem from the inherent inequality that characterizes the prostitute
customer relationship, not from the Criminal Code.
Nature of a prostitutes business that led to violence.
In the opinion of the AGO, what should be stressed is the importance of societal values in shaping law, not
the liberty to behave in a way that offends communal norms.
Right here and left (in Sweden) say th