An ‘important purpose of section 34 [of the Constitution] is to guarantee the protection of the judicial process to persons who have disputes that can be resolved by law’ and that the right of access to court is ‘foundational to the stability of an orderly society. It ensures the peaceful, regulated and institutionalised mechanisms to resolve disputes, without resorting to self-help. The right of access to court is a bulwark against vigilantism, and the chaos and anarchy which it causes. Construed in this context of the rule of law and the principle against self-help in particular, access to court is indeed of cardinal importance’.The right guaranteed s34 would be rendered meaningless if court orders could be ignored with impunity:the underlying purposes of the right — and particularly that of avoidance of self-help — would be undermined if litigants could decide which orders they wished to obey and which they wished to ignore.
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.
BACK TO TOP