sex work and the law in south africa hit and miss
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Sex work and the law in South Africa – hit and miss?

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 12

Sex work and the law in South Africa hit and miss - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Sex work and the law in South Africa – hit and miss?. Liesl Gerntholtz Director – Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre . Current legal position. Sex work is a statutory offence.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Sex work and the law in South Africa hit and miss' - kaya

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
sex work and the law in south africa hit and miss

Sex work and the law in South Africa – hit and miss?

Liesl Gerntholtz

Director – Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre

current legal position
Current legal position
  • Sex work is a statutory offence.
  • The Sexual Offences Act 23 of 1957 criminalises sex work in terms of section 20(1)(aA) – it states that any person who has unlawful carnal intercourse or commits an act of indecency with any other person for reward, is guilty of an offence.
  • Range of other laws and by-laws that also impact on sex work.
efforts to decriminalise sex work 1
Efforts to decriminalise sex work 1
  • 1994 – advent of democracy brought with it a recognition of the need to review the legal approach to sex work / prostitution (debate about terminology – O’Regan J in Jordan judgment declines to choose);
  • 1994 – SWEAT was formed in Cape Town; DECPRO also formed, but later fell away;
  • 1995 – the Department of Health requested CALS to investigate options to regulate sex work – produced a draft bill that decriminalised sex work;
  • 1996 – Gauteng Cabinet Committee on Safety and Security and Quality of Life mandated the Gauteng Ministry of Safety and Security to draft a policy on the regulation of sex work – recommended decriminalisation and document distributed for comment – promising initiative.
efforts to decriminalise sex work 2
Efforts to decriminalise sex work 2
  • The Committee established a Task Team and in 1997, TT’s final report recommended decriminalisation;
  • 1997 – support for this position from the ANC during its national conference (resolution taken to remove all legislation that crminalises commercial sex work) and another province, Western Cape;
  • 1997 – first SA country report to CEDAW, government admitted that current legislation on prostitution may be unconstitutional;
efforts to decriminalise sex work 3
Efforts to decriminalise sex work 3
  • In 1997, the South African Law Commission began an investigation into sexual offences against children – this investigation inevitably led to a consideration of broader issues relating to sexual offences and the Minister of Justice instructed the Commission to expand the investigation to include sexual crimes against adults;
  • The SALC decided to produce four discussion papers – the first dealt with substantive law relating to sexual offences against adults and children; the second dealt with process and procedure, the third concentrated on adult prostitution and the final one on pornography. This discussion paper was released for public comment in 2002
  • 1998 – Commission on Gender Equality produced a position paper recommending decriminalisation and proposed a process of legal reform.
efforts to decriminalise sex work 4
Efforts to decriminalise sex work 4
  • 2000 – conference on sex work in Cape Town – consensus that decriminalisation was the best option;
  • 2001 - second national conference – focused predominantly on health issues, especially HIV and AIDS, but also recommended decriminalisation.
jordan v the state
Jordan v The State
  • Judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court – October 2002;
  • Case related to an incident that occurred in 1996;
  • High Court found that section 20(1)(aA) was unconstitutional and case was referred to CC for confirmation – based on the equality clause (the section only penalises the sex worker).
  • Also involved a consideration of the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act that deal with keeping of a brothel – High Court found these did not violate the Constitution.
jordan v the state1
Jordan v The State
  • Several amicii briefs – CALS, SWEAT, Reproductive Health Research Unit – examined the human rights and health implications of criminalisation.
  • CALS – unfair discrimination on the basis of sex and gender – disproportionate impact of the legislation on women – became the central issue during argument.
jordan v the state2
Jordan v The State
  • Majority decision – Ngcobo J supported by 5 other judges, including then JP;
  • Judgment short to the point of saying almost nothing!
  • Court found that the section did not discriminate as it applied to both male and female prostitutes – “section is gender-neutral”;
  • Agreed that the section did “make a distinction” between the sex worker and client, but since the purpose of the legislation was to “outlaw commercial sex”, and the sex worker was more likely to be a “repeat offender”, this was a constitutionally permissible distinction.
jordan v the state3
Jordan v The State
  • Comments that raised many concerns:
  • “.. by engaging in commercial sex work, prostitutes knowingly accept the risk of lowering their standing in the eyes of the community, thus undermining their status and becoming vulnerable”
  • Found that sex workers have a choice and may therefore choose not to engage in sex work.
jordan v the state4
Jordan v The State
  • Minority judgment by O’Regan and Sach, supported by3 others – more thoughtful:
  • Found that the section did discriminate against women – sex workers are overwhelmingly female and clients male – indirect discrimination;
  • Legislation the focuses primarily on the sex worker – directly reinforces a pattern of sexual stereotyping that conflicts with equality;
  • Also found that the section violated the right to privacy.
why to from here
Why to from here?
  • Advocacy and lobbying after Jordan stagnated with exception of a few key organizations;
  • 2006 – SALRC paper on trafficking – equates sex work with trafficking;
  • 2006 – amendments to the Sexual Offences Act – leaves the provisions on sex work intact.