(no subject)
Oct. 5th, 2009 11:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
There's a really interesting legal case about to be fought here in Toronto: a challenge to Canadian prostitution laws surrounding locale, communication and employment.
Here's the Toronto Star article.
To boil it down, lawyer Alan Young (he's great! I heart him!) is arguing, on behalf of two sex workers, that forcing prostitutes to work in transient conditions (instead of, say, an apartment or house they rent or own), and preventing them from hiring staff (say, security guards, or, more banally, accountants) makes them more vulnerable to violence. He & his clients would like to have those provisions struck down.
I am in favour of his argument! Sex work is a dangerous profession; sex work isn't going to disappear anytime soon; the role of law is to protect, not endanger.
I am looking forward to seeing how this plays out. If possible, I'm going to attend part of the case, which starts tomorrow.
Here's the Toronto Star article.
To boil it down, lawyer Alan Young (he's great! I heart him!) is arguing, on behalf of two sex workers, that forcing prostitutes to work in transient conditions (instead of, say, an apartment or house they rent or own), and preventing them from hiring staff (say, security guards, or, more banally, accountants) makes them more vulnerable to violence. He & his clients would like to have those provisions struck down.
I am in favour of his argument! Sex work is a dangerous profession; sex work isn't going to disappear anytime soon; the role of law is to protect, not endanger.
I am looking forward to seeing how this plays out. If possible, I'm going to attend part of the case, which starts tomorrow.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-05 06:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-06 04:34 am (UTC)