Quote of the week
Mr Zuma is no ordinary litigant. He is the former President of the Republic, who remains a public figure and continues to wield significant political influence, while acting as an example to his supporters… He has a great deal of power to incite others to similarly defy court orders because his actions and any consequences, or lack thereof, are being closely observed by the public. If his conduct is met with impunity, he will do significant damage to the rule of law. As this Court noted in Mamabolo, “[n]o one familiar with our history can be unaware of the very special need to preserve the integrity of the rule of law”. Mr Zuma is subject to the laws of the Republic. No person enjoys exclusion or exemption from the sovereignty of our laws… It would be antithetical to the value of accountability if those who once held high office are not bound by the law.
Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 18
No, I am not in favour of slavery…..
I have been severely reprimanded by Debbie Toughey from Doctors for Life for my comments about sex workers and the need to decriminalise it. In somewhat melodramatic fashion she states that:
[P]rostitutes are kind and generous people, who for the most part have a low self esteem and are being manipulated, coerced and forced to have sex with men they abhor to line the pockets of pimps and to survive another day….. [W]e want to herd them into one area like the German ghetto’s of the 2nd world war and brand them…. How can you be so insensitive to suggest that the cruelty of being sodomised, raped, tortured, abused, insulted and degraded in the worst form is equivalent to being a female in middle management at a big corporation?
I am, of course, not suggesting anything of the sort. Ms Toughey seems to suggest that any sex for monetary reward is equivalent to rape, torture, “sodomy” and other forms of cruelty. This is not very logical, to say the least. It also suggests quite a bizarre and alarmist view of sex and a strange obsession with sodomy.
I have a slightly different view. For one, in
One does not need to criminalise sex work to stop such abuse, one must just enforce the law. But, of course, the reality is that many sex workers are not subjected to any of these horrors mentioned above. They do have sex with strangers for money – often because they can earn far more money like this than by cleaning toilets – and I suspect that is what really horrifies Ms Toughey.
The sex workers I have spoken to have different views about their jobs. One woman fondly told me about one of her regular clients who brought her pumpkins and pots of home made jam (made by his wife!) from the farm whenever he came to town for a session. Others spoke with some disgust about the clients they had to work with, but said that the money was good and it was thus worth it. This is not much different from any other job.
I would thus maintain that there is no reason to criminalise this kind of work and not other kinds of work unless one has a very peculiar obsession with sex and believes that sex is inherently dirty and disgusting. This obsession with sex comes to the fore where Ms Toughey writes:
And don’t give me that bull about consensual adult sex! Mr de Vos, have you ever been sodomised?
I must say, I do not want to be disrespectful, but as an openly gay man, I find that question hilarious. In any case, consensual sodomy seems to me not to have anything to do with the issue at hand.
