Court refuses to hear BC sex workers' case

A group of Vancouver sex workers seeking to challenge the constitutionality of Canada's sex-trade laws says it will continue its fight despite being handed a defeat in BC Supreme Court Dec 15.

It's a fight for safety, human rights and equality before the law, says the Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society (SWUAV), which brought the case forward.

Justice William Ehrcke ruled that the Downtown Eastside group will not be permitted to challenge the laws that criminalize them because its members are no longer themselves employed in the sex trade.

The decision — issued just two days before the Dec 17 International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers — is being roundly condemned by sex-trade worker groups and human rights advocates.

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Court_refuses_to_hear_BC_sex_workers_case-6020.aspx

I'm beyond pissed about this. They wouldn't even hear their case? How can we expect to make strides towards rights for all people if they're being dismissed as not even valid?

Sex workers have a right to live free from violence, and the North American laws surrounding sex work make it difficult for them to do that.

The cases MUST involved actual people harmed under the law, not people who use to be harmed, or will be harmed in the future, the case must involve someone who is being harmed today. This is the same rationale being used in the US Courts to kick out all the Obama is NOT a citizen case, the court ruled the people bringing the action do NOT have standing, for, while citizens of the US, standing is reserved to the US Congress and the Congress's right to decide who is President when they count the electoral votes.

Now the courts will occasionally work around this problem, for example in Roe vs Wade the court ruled that the Plaintiff's, even through no longer pregnant, still had an interest in challenging the Anti-Abortion laws of the US for they could become pregnant again (The Court for years before 1972 avoided the issue on standing grounds for by the time the case arrived at the Supreme Court, the mother had given birth or the pregnancy had ended for some other reason and as such the plaintiff no longer had standing).

Sorry, they need someone who is in the business Today to do this challenger, my question is why can they NOT find one? Could it be that the majority of women in the "Business" do NOT want to be in the "Business" and thus prefer it to be illegal? That is the question for the court, why is it EX-sex workers NOT sex workers of today challenging this law? Many pimps are "Ex-Sex Workers" and a major concern for the courts. Just comments why the court made the ruling it did.

where at least one of the parties is a current sex worker. Here are some articles surrounding their court challenge: http://www.spoc.ca/pm2008.html

Many organizations composed of former AND current sex workers support decriminalization.