Lecture 11 20140405
• Can we think that prostitution needs to be regulated?
• Do we need to criminalize this when we can regulate?
• What is the point of criminal law? Is it to address the problem or solve problem? Is regulation good?
• If we think about it through regulatory frameworks, we can make it that it can provide a benefit.
• Its not prostitution that is illegal, it is everything that happens
• Pimps and brothels (body houses), sons and daughters were punished for living off a parent
• If they wanted to solve the problem of prostitution why can we do it through zoning laws?
• Criminalize the don not the sex worker? Does it need to be? Who gets ostracized or criminalized through this
• And socialization still exists and there are still higher classes prostitution…and this legal argument was
• Street workers who do not have good positions they work in unsafe conditions from victimization and homeless
• CJS can get rid of this off criminal books and you can have less licensing, permits and there is a lot that can be
more stringent, something simple as workplace safety—you have to have public health officials look at.
• It could have more stringent it consequences maybe too costly as there needs to test so they can be safe when
engaging in these articles.
• Somehow it is more harmful than not? It is not going to be anonymous? How does it affect the business? And it
is signifying that it is okay to do this? And what happens when we acknowledge that these people are
prostitutes? It becomes more public.
• It is not clear how many are being victimized?
• Maybe this is something that can be a function so it can be with the status of it?
• Changing it to a health issue rather than criminalizing it.
• The abortion case: the government does not do anything to striking down the law, and nothing really fills that
void where one option where the government does nothing which means it becomes regulated anywhere.
• Is there a deeper problem? Regulation can do similar things as law criminalization itself and it can be stricter. It
may not solve anything just a different name—it seems to be getting away from law marking something as
• Everyday mundane level and if we treat it like an everyday work place maybe it changes the situation—how
does that change the career or approach? Would we be more accepting?
• Morality is not gone—maybe it comes out in another place? Like keeping a clean restaurant like clean people
for the job? • The government may restrict prostitution—maybe less workers now that it is acknowledged.
• It works in a bureaucratic way.
Geographies of Rights
• “Troubling dimensions of municipal law and geographies of rights”
• What about the everyday traffic code?
• There are still other types of marginalities happening? There are things that are not taken in account?
• Ellickson—right to not be impeded
o Rules of street behaviour are not violations of freedom by foundations of it
Foundation of the freedom—streetcars clutter the road, I should have my right to go around in
my escalade. It is a very cogent article especially car owners.
• Waldron—“one of the most callous and tyrannical exercise of power in human times”
o This idea is the most ideal form of tyranny
o It seems that the traffic code is stated, it is gone to contested to hegemonic—it is understood as a
public economic use, getting from point a to point b.
o If that’s the point of getting places that are safe.
• What are your thoughts on the use of rights here?
o How do you balance?
• Tamil Protest: blocking people during rush hour and uproars about protest—do it in the safe zone, do it in a safe
zone that is not in anyone’s way?
o Something about protests we don’t like the idea of infringing my mobility rights and taking up space.
• AfroFest Permit denied
o It bought 50 thousand people to the area on the weekend and it became too popular and there was
music being played later than 11 pm, too may cars parked on the road and public urination etc. All
these reasons to move people put of a particular place.
o The town of the detractors is they want others to go away to other places? • Beggars as obstacles
o Loo argument—the law as rhetoric, that the law says beggars are a freedom of expression—begging is
a form of expression
o Function can trump expression—the law itself said by the author is not about regulating people its
about regulating space
o Legislation does not targeting particular people but governs activities and space.
o Valverde say that the regulation of space through municipal law or uses of space rests on the logic of
rights—that’s why the freedom of expression fail because of the function of the space trumps freedom
Sets out the terrain for arguments—what gains traction?
What gains traction isn’t about?
Governed through uses not people?
“Claims that rest on legal personhood seem to have little purchase in a legal world of activities,
things and spaces”
We now accept it as it is. It wasn’t clear or what was clear in what was happening or going from
point a to point b.
o Law as constitute of equality
Their right to protest is only in this particular space
Here we think of law as constitute of equality—these laws governing space is understood as a
basis of creating equality.
Blomley: Liberal Geography
• Highly individualized treatment
o The encounter with a beggar like a sandwich board (they are in our way and stopping me from going to point a
to point b)
o Two actors with competing interests (stopping to go to point a to b and the stopping of the beggar who wants
o Narrow method of only focusing on you and the sandwich board (beggar)
• Flattens Social Difference
o No difference between you and beggar—your back ground does not matter o What matters that governing international with mutual respect and tolerance
o You should not impede the beggar for money just as the beggar should not ask you for money about mutual
respect, almost a childish way of thinking.
o Not understanding the background from where you are coming from both considered equal worth and merit.
o They are both of equal worth and merit
o Both they cannot impede each other
Some how this is the foundational equality (not impeded, even the beggar should be unobstructed)
o Mobility is given top priority.
“To be free is to be mobile”
Change the way the terrain work
Ashley Smith case—smuggling the rights back in—understand this is what the traffic code does, similar