PHIL 1040G Tutorial #6
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Western University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2821
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by JudgeChinchillaMaster916
PHIL 1040G: Ethics, Law, and Politics
Tutorial Week #6: Sex Work Lecture Review
What types of activities count as sex work?
Is there something morally wrong about sex work? Are the judgements that people have about sex work grounded on reason or prejudice?
Moral Debate/Legal Debate
Legal debate: Should sex work be criminalized under the law?
-
In Canada, selling sexual services is not a crime but
communicating for the purpose of selling such services and purchasing sexual services are both crimes. This is odd.
Moral (and ethical) debate: Pertains to the 2 questions: (1) Should certain aspects of sex work be commodified/commercialized
—i.e., treated and turned into a commodity? (2) is sex work inherently
exploitive?
Focus is on Moral Debate: Is sex work ‘work’ or exploitation?
Legitimate work: Described as ‘the oldest profession in the world.’ Why would people think that sex work is merely exploitation?
Exploitation: Long-standing issue of taking advantage of women and other vulnerable peoples. Historically, due to certain inequalities, women have largely been subjected to sex work (more than others) and men are the ‘purchasers. Are we certain this is real work or just a system of oppression? Question:
What would politicizing sex work as legitimate wrk entail? -
What was the first thing again
-
It would require de-stigmatization
-
It would require us to legalize and decriminalize sex work
-
We would need to normalize it, have society accept it
-
It would mean that sex workers won’t be committing legal acts
Question:
What other concerns are raised about sex work being exploitation? -
It takes advantages of individuals, mostly affecting women and vulnerable groups
Currently, 2 conflicting narratives: (1) that sex work is legitimate work and (2) that its exploitation. -
Both are important to think about: (1) we need to make sure that if this is a legitimate form of work, that
there isn’t a stigmatization and judgment placed on sex workers and (2) we need to remember that the woman who largely work in the sex industry, but also some vulnerable groups, do so, because they unfortunately have no other means to make a living.
Mac and Smith
Highlight these narratives in their book, “Revolting prostitutes: the fight for sex workers' rights.”
1
[p. 33-
onwards beneficial for quoting in your essay]
They identify a tension between the sex positive “Happy Hookers” who seek decriminalization
and the “Exited Women” who experienced harm and support criminalization
. [bottom of p. 35-37]
-
“Both sometimes represent the debate as a simplified binary opposition: 'Happy Hookers' (who enjoys sex work and thus support decriminalisation) versus 'Exited Women' (who experienced harm in the sex industry and therefore support criminalisation)” (35).
1
Mac and Smith argue it’s important to carve out a space for “the unhappy sex worker,” who “is forced – usually by economic necessity –to continue choosing survival over a noble exit” (39).
1
-
“Being critical about sex positivity in the sex worker movement should not mean pretending sex is incidental. We can explore the sexual experiences of people in the sex trade in a way that respects the
PHIL 1040G: Ethics, Law, and Politics
Tutorial Week #6: Sex Work Lecture Review
diversity of those experiences - whether they are bad or good - and doesn't overwhelm the conversation about labour rights” (37).
1
Martha Nussbaum
In “Whether From Reason Or Prejudice: Taking Money For Bodily Services”, she argues it is unreasonable to think that sex work is not a legitimate job. She argues the issue comes down to stigma. The stigma is rooted in various moralistic views that we have about sex work being immoral and prostitution.
2
First, she covers the history of stigma in wage labour. She points to a “class-based”
history of an inappropriate way of taking money for anything. Historically, the commodification of bodily labour of any kind was seen as inappropriate. Only the wealthy were able to do things without pay and thus, without stigma. Others needed to be paid!
Nussbaum suggests that this attitude about not
being paid for bodily labour has “seeped” into some of the attitudes we have towards some working people in general, including sex workers.
2
Her main point:
We take money for performing all kinds of bodily services (e.g., factory worker, domestic servant, nightclub singer, philosophy professor, massage therapist). She claims that sex work is analogous to
these other types of jobs [see pgs. 701-707 for detail explanation of her reasoning] and thus, there is nothing
particularly wrong with taking money for sexual acts.
Even though we recognize today that people need to be paid for the work that they do, Nussbaum says history has influenced the stigma of sex work and being paid for it.
2
Question: What are other sources of stigma? Note:
The terms ‘prostitution’ and ‘prostitution offences’ are problematic because even though ‘sex work’ is the accepted terminology today, it is judged negatively. There is no neutral language (e.g., like MAiD). This plays a major role in stigmatizing the narrative around sex work. Bedford VS Canada
In December 2013, The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled that 3 components of the law (Criminal Code of Canada) about prostitution violated Sec. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (i.e., the right to security of the person).
4
Three female sex workers successfully challenged these laws; the SCC ruled in their favor. The 3 laws that were deemed unconstitutional:
1.
The Bawdy House law (SCC ruled grossly disproportionate): Prevented sex workers from establishing brothels. Indented goal was to maintain a safe society. However, it was grossly disproportionate because it prevented sex workers from working in fixed and safe locations. It also interfered with health checks and health interventions because there was no standard location for sex workers to go to and it prevented safe houses from being established, increasing the risk of sex work. 2.
The “living off the avails” law (overboard): Intended purpose was to prevent the exploitation of sex workers by pimps. But it prevented safety measures of the sex workers (e.g., they couldn’t develop work-
relationships that were non-exploitive such as with secretaries and drivers). 3.
The communication law (grossly disproportionate): (i) Ultimately prevented sex workers from communicating, i.e., it silenced them, which made their job even riskier. (ii) Prevented sex workers from negotiating, advertise, share information, couldn’t ask questions of potential clients. (iii) Prevented sex workers from screening clients and setting terms with them.
Bill C-36, The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act
PHIL 1040G: Ethics, Law, and Politics
Tutorial Week #6: Sex Work Lecture Review
Established in November of 2014. Based on “Nordic Model.” Criminalizes the purchase but not the sale of sexual services. Meant to be a harm reduction approach. New laws that came under effect: Purchasing offence;
Advertising offence; Material benefit offence; Procuring offence; IMMUNITY: Sellers of sexual services.
However, Bill C-36 was legislated under the assumption that ‘the best way to end prostitution’s harm is to bring
an end to its practice.’
Problems:
It is clearly articulated that the goal is to end sex work. Furthermore, these laws are no different than
the ones that were deemed unconstitutional in Bedford V Canada.
Question:
Is Bill C-36 fair? Does it protect sex workers? Is it practical? Will this increase/decrease stigma?
Bibliography
1.
Smith, M., & Mac, J. (2018). Revolting prostitutes: The fight for sex workers' rights. Verso Books.
2.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1998). “Whether from reason or prejudice”: taking money for bodily services. The Journal of Legal Studies, 27(S2), 693-723.
3.
Canada. Department of Justice. “Prostitution Criminal Law Reform: Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act.” https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/c36fs_fi/
. Last accessed February 25, 2023.
4.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982
, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982
(UK), c 11.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help