Here is an interesting informed Facebook Post on Laura's Case -
https://www.facebook.com/wendynilaig...57578017420565
' I want to make a brief, pedantic, lawyerly point about Laura Lee's court challenge because the media reports are slightly misleading and I think it's important people understand the argument she's making.
They're describing her argument as one based on a "right to privacy". That implies a sort of Roe v Wade, get-government-out-of-our-bedrooms argument. Which is not really it. Her argument is actually based on the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which may sound like the same thing but is actually much broader. Among other things, it protects the individual's right to be free from arbitrary or insurmountable state-imposed obstacles to the exercise of lawful activities of significance in one's personal life.
When the European Court found in favour of Alicjia Tysiac, who was denied a legal abortion in Poland and subsequently went blind, and in favour of Ms C, who had no pathway to a legal abortion in Ireland, Article 8 was the basis of their decision.
Laura's legal team is arguing that the anti-sex work laws breach this right by making it more dangerous for her to engage in the lawful activity of providing sexual services for pay. It is essentially the same argument that was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in Bedford v Canada, under the Canadian Charter's right to security of person. Laura's team are asserting that this same right to security of person is encompassed within the Article 8 right to respect for private life.
Fundamentally it's about sex worker health and safety, not some kind of neoliberal consumerist "freedom of choice" position. I think it's important this is clarified because god knows her opponents will seize on the ambiguity.'
Public post, so feel free to share.
Ride them on the beaches!
Reply With Quote