Discretion is now optional?

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

In my opinion Blanket privacy is not a right... the child molester who abuses children does not have a right to privacy ... the "rights" issue in this debate should be the right of sex workers to operate in a safe environment yet we are here debating if TJB should name name... the anti sex work groups must love this ... there is no ground swell of sex workers moving to name names or out people why because they understand it will not be in their interest... yes people are sympathetic to TJB's frustration but let's be honest she is a retired sex worker fighting for a cultural change to happen in our society she has put years into this fight... let's not be so quick to condemn her.

 

Instead let's galvanize our fight on the issues... sex workers don't need to be saved....*** "they need their right to safety respected by their government."***

 

This is a fight about rights... we are just distracted from the real rights that are at stake.

Just my opinion

 

Blanket safety is not a right! Child molesters shouldn't be able to operate in safety! I know you don't mean to imply that's the case, Ice4fun. Neither should you infer that Phaedrus meant child molesters have a right to privacy. Once you commit a crime, you obviously lose a lot of rights... privacy, safety, freedom...

[Ice4fun 78396]

Blanket safety is not a right! Child molesters shouldn't be able to operate in safety! I know you don't mean to imply that's the case, Ice4fun. Neither should you infer that Phaedrus meant child molesters have a right to privacy. Once you commit a crime, you obviously lose a lot of rights... privacy, safety, freedom...

 

Just to be clear I was not making an inference in any way regarding Phaedrus so if you or others have read it that way it was certainly not my intention. I was giving my opinion with the idea being we are focused on privacy rights when for me the issue is about the workers right to safety.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

OK, fair enough. I wasn't criticizing and I do agree that safety is an important right as well. The trouble for me is when is it OK to remove the right to safety to keep the right to privacy, or remove the right to privacy to keep the right to safety? We shouldn't be so quick to throw away or support certain rights just to suit our cause.

 

One can say safety trumps privacy or freedom trumps safety or privacy trumps freedom, and on and on. Then it just becomes a subjective mess where depending on your cause it's OK to trample certain rights in favor of your own.

 

I prefer not to get down in the mud and leave the hyperbole to the politicians. We're better than that.

[MightyPen 67414]

If you want to stand up for rights, you have to stand up for those rights for everyone. ... Well, you'd be amazed who's a suspected terrorist, when someone really wants to see what you're up to or put you back in your place. Yes, YOU.

Thanks for this.

 

My favourite expression of this sentiment incidentally comes from A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper:

So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

 

Sir Thomas More:

Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

 

William Roper:

Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

 

Sir Thomas More:

Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you,

where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

The hearing is better than the reading: