Bad laws, not bad whores: sex workers (2 Viewers)

[xMaNx]

Sex workers have rallied in Sydney to demand an end to "whore-phobic" attitudes and greater protection under anti-discrimination laws.

Chanting "sex worker rights are human rights" and "no bad whores, just bad laws", dozens of protesters marched from the Opera House on Saturday in a bid to have their rights recognised.

Many carried red umbrellas, a symbol of the global movement, while others made statements with T-shirts reading "whore power" and "sluts unite".

"We are human beings, we are people, we do a job and we are continually vilified for that job," sex worker Julie Bates said, noting that little had changed in the way of community attitudes during her 30-year career.

"So whilst we remained silenced ... today is a chance for us to speak to the community, so we have a voice.

"What we want society to see is that sex work is real damn hard work, and ... we provide a service like any other industry."

Organised by the Scarlet Alliance, a peak body representing the nation's estimated 20,000 sex workers, the event was one of several staged in capital cities across the country on Saturday to commemorate International Whores Day.

The alliance is using the occasion to lobby state governments for amendments to existing legislation that covers the industry.

The campaign focuses on NSW, which has the highest concentration of sex workers - about 8,000 - yet has inferior anti-discrimination laws compared with other parts of the nation.

In the ACT, Queensland and Tasmania, legislation protects against discrimination based on legal sexual activity or occupation, essentially giving mistreated sex workers an avenue for recourse.

The most common instances of discrimination reported to the alliance occur during applications for rental properties, bank loans and credit cards.

Sex workers are also forced to pay up to five times more than other advertisers in newspapers, and encounter problems when dealing with police and the judicial system, the alliance said.

It was often seen when women lost custody cases because of negative stereotypes associated with their jobs.

Alliance president Elena Jeffreys said part of the problem stemmed from deep-rooted attitudes within government and mainstream institutions.

"They think that sex workers are not part of the community," she told AAP.

"We are absolutely sick of whore-phobic attitudes.

"Sex work is legalised, decriminalised, brothels are run in a professional and transparent manner, and sex workers are huge contributors to society, yet we face this discrimination every single day.

"It's absolutely untenable and we demand that it be changed."

Bad laws, not bad whores: sex workers - Yahoo!7 News

Discuss

 

[mes ami]

oldest profession got nuthin against it

 

[thongetsu]

lol "sluts unite" sounds like an orgy.

"So whilst we remained silenced ... today is a chance for us to speak to the community, so we have a voice."

Yeah but their voices are usually muffled. I mean, it is pretty hard to talk with a dick in your mouth. I would imagine.

 

[Chemical Ali]

if nothing else I hope some conservative types are outraged by this

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Nothing wrong with whores, and they should not be treated differently by the legal system. There is no reason to assume they will be bad mothers.

However, private companies like banks have every right to "discriminate" against them. Prostitution has a high burn out rate, and it is prudent to be concerned about giving a 30 year mortgage to a sex worker who has no other skills or clear prospects for generating future income.

 

[murphyad]

Nothing wrong with whores, and they should not be treated differently by the legal system. There is no reason to assume they will be bad mothers.

However, private companies like banks have every right to "discriminate" against them. Prostitution has a high burn out rate, and it is prudent to be concerned about giving a 30 year mortgage to a sex worker who has no other skills or clear prospects for generating future income.

Discrimination based on income prospects is obviously not the same as discrimination based on occupation per se.

Please tell me you do not think that people should be discriminated against solely because of the connotations of their profession.

 

[SylviaB]

Please tell me you do not think that people should be discriminated against solely because of the connotations of their profession.

he's saying that private individuals/companies should be allowed to discriminate because of someone's profession.

And he's also saying it's wise not to give a loan to someone who is a prostitute given that they may have difficulties repaying the loan. This is completely different from "hmm i dont approve of her job so i dont want to give her a loan"

 

[murphyad]

he's saying that private individuals/companies should be allowed to discriminate because of someone's profession.

And he's also saying it's wise not to give a loan to someone who is a prostitute given that they may have difficulties repaying the loan. This is completely different from "hmm i dont approve of her job so i dont want to give her a loan"

What you said is cool but i suspect that part of the reason they are protesting at all is because of attitudes like the above in bold.

 

[SylviaB]

What you said is cool but i suspect that part of the reason they are protesting at all is because of attitudes like the above in bold.

yeah, so?

If people don't want to sereve prostitutes then that should be their right because its their property.

I dont think it is the "right thing to do" to discriminate like this but if they want to then they should be allowed to

 

[thongetsu]

LOL a bunch of prostitutes in one place? talk about easy access.

 

[cosmo kramer]

the funniest thing are those softy queers who get offended by the terms "whore" or "prostitute" and demand peopel call them SEX WORKERS

i remember a bunch of people complaining about these gutter sluts invading their neighbourhood in newcastle and these losers were whining about how the PROSTITUTES WERENT BEING TREAETED FAIRLY WAAAH

prostitutes are almost entirely gross anyway so who cares about them

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

What you said is cool but i suspect that part of the reason they are protesting at all is because of attitudes like the above in bold.

People have a right to hold attitudes like that, as much as you or I may agree that they are ignorant and foolish.

I'm all for prostitution, but if people don't want to lend prostitutes THEIR MONEY or allow them on THEIR PROPERTY that's THEIR CHOICE, even if their reasoning is stupid.

 

[murphyad]

People have a right to hold attitudes like that, as much as you or I may agree that they are ignorant and foolish.

I'm all for prostitution, but if people don't want to lend prostitutes THEIR MONEY or allow them on THEIR PROPERTY that's THEIR CHOICE, even if their reasoning is stupid.

Yeah they have a right to hold those attitudes, but suggesting that they have a right to act on those attitudes based solely on property rights to me violates basic notions of fairness.

 

[I Study Hard]

"It was often seen when women lost custody cases because of negative stereotypes associated with their jobs."

What?
Women who are prostitutes shouldn't be given full custody of their children if the father is well equipped to take care of them. A mother with that kind of job would be out at all times of the night and be setting an extremely bad example for any children that are in their care.

 

[SylviaB]

Yeah they have a right to hold those attitudes, but suggesting that they have a right to act on those attitudes based solely on property rights to me violates basic notions of fairness.

the whole basis of property rights is the idea of exclusion.

i.e. you can choose who can/can't use your property.

If anyone is allowed walk into your house and use your shit, then property 'rights' are meaningless.

So naturally, one should be able to exclude whoever they want from using their property.

If government decides who can use your property, then this would mean they have property rights to your property. Which is complete bogus; why the hell should government be able to claim other people's property as theirs?

 

[abbeyroad]

because Karl Marx said so m8

 

[murphyad]

the whole basis of property rights is the idea of exclusion.

i.e. you can choose who can/can't use your property.

If anyone is allowed walk into your house and use your shit, then property 'rights' are meaningless.

So naturally, one should be able to exclude whoever they want from using their property.

If government decides who can use your property, then this would mean they have property rights to your property. Which is complete bogus; why the hell should government be able to claim other people's property as theirs?

You ignore the problems of defining property interaction solely in terms of 'use'. You don't necessarily 'use' property, you can also 'do things' on property. This in itself suggests a more nuanced interpretation of property rights is needed.

Property rights are not inviolable, and should not be inviolable. Property rights allow you to do some things on your land, but not anything you want. There is a necessary aspect of social utility involved in determining what a person can do on their land. If I use my land for unlawful activity, I should not be able to claim immunity simply because I was on my own land. I should not be able to claim exemption from arrest simply because I am sitting in my own home. To allow this would be to abolish any notions of justice in the community. I do not have the right to create nuisance for others and I do not have the right to harm others based simply on property rights. Property rights do not grant absolute freedom as you suppose they do.

Furthermore, the nature of business is different to private home ownership. If you own a business, you are providing a service, ostensibly to the public. If you refuse to provide service to some person or class of persons based solely on personal dislike or a similar factor then that violates basic principles of fairness. If a white man can get a home loan and a black man cannot, that is unfair, because of the public nature of the services involved. A homeowner, in refusing people access to their property, carries no similar obligation of fairness. They are providing no service. If you want to provide a service, you are ethically obliged to uphold some basic principle of equality of opportunity.

 

[abbeyroad]

You ignore the problems of defining property interaction solely in terms of 'use'. You don't necessarily 'use' property, you can also 'do things' on property. This in itself suggests a more nuanced interpretation of property rights is needed.

Property rights are not inviolable, and should not be inviolable. Property rights allow you to do some things on your land, but not anything you want. There is a necessary aspect of social utility involved in determining what a person can do on their land. If I use my land for unlawful activity, I should not be able to claim immunity simply because I was on my own land. I should not be able to claim exemption from arrest simply because I am sitting in my own home. To allow this would be to abolish any notions of justice in the community. I do not have the right to create nuisance for others and I do not have the right to harm others based simply on property rights. Property rights do not grant absolute freedom as you suppose they do.

Furthermore, the nature of business is different to private home ownership. If you own a business, you are providing a service, ostensibly to the public. If you refuse to provide service to some person or class of persons based solely on personal dislike or a similar factor then that violates basic principles of fairness. If a white man can get a home loan and a black man cannot, that is unfair, because of the public nature of the services involved. A homeowner, in refusing people access to their property, carries no similar obligation of fairness. They are providing no service. If you want to provide a service, you are ethically obliged to uphold some basic principle of equality of opportunity.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Property rights are not inviolable, and should not be inviolable. Property rights allow you to do some things on your land, but not anything you want. There is a necessary aspect of social utility involved in determining what a person can do on their land. If I use my land for unlawful activity, I should not be able to claim immunity simply because I was on my own land. I should not be able to claim exemption from arrest simply because I am sitting in my own home. To allow this would be to abolish any notions of justice in the community. I do not have the right to create nuisance for others and I do not have the right to harm others based simply on property rights. Property rights do not grant absolute freedom as you suppose they do.

If you kill or hurt people in your own home, you are violating people's property rights to their body.

If you create excessive noise or smell, you are discharging noxious particles into your neighbor's property and thus violating their property rights.

If you don't let someone into your home or business, you are not violating anyone's property rights.

Furthermore, the nature of business is different to private home ownership. If you own a business, you are providing a service, ostensibly to the public. If you refuse to provide service to some person or class of persons based solely on personal dislike or a similar factor then that violates basic principles of fairness

"Basic principles of fairness." That could mean anything to anyone. Who is to be the judge of what is and is not fair?

 

[SylviaB]

-your whole concept of "fairness" is completely bullshit and unfounded.

You have a house and I don't. It's cold outside and I want in your house, but you exclude me from your property.

omg liek government this is unfair halp plz.


-Businesses have abolsutely zero obligations to society, other than following the law.

If I open a shop, nobody has the "right" to use my shop. It's my property and I'm extending them the privilege of using it.