In The Meanwhile

I am currently working on a very interesting article. It concerns a court case which was finally decided on the eve of the 2010 Soccer World Cup. Of course part of South Africa's concern at the time was the expectation of trafficked prostitutes en masse to entertain our international guests. We therefore considered the legalisation of prostitution in order to regulate it in some way.

In respect of the court case I am referring to, it was conservatively named "the Kylie case" or more specifically, Kylie v CCMA and others. Simply put it involved the unfair dismissal of a prostitute from her brothel. Of course this brothel had been disguised in the form of legal employment. The case went through a labour tribunal, onto a Labour court and was thereafter appealed in the Labour Appeal Court. The final court held that a prostitute was entitled to labour rights, which in South Africa are constitutionally entrenched rights. It also held that in principle, because of a prostitutes susceptibility to infringements on her dignity that she was involved in an employment sphere which made her an especially vulnerable person. Accordingly that a court ought to extend constitutional protection to prostitutes for the reasons stated above.

It is a very interesting decision which is both celebrated by some and abhorred by others, as it would be in most countries. The significance of this decision defies the historical conservative approach adopted by South African courts in respect of illegal employment. It may therefore be seen as a leap forward into a new era of our constitutional dispensation. However the reasoning employed in the judgement present many anomalous implications and inconsistencies.

What I have attempted to do is point out these inconsistencies and exploit them. Once it is done, I will upload it and place it under the "thoughts" tab. I should complete it by the end of this week. In regard to the other articles I am working on, watch this space!