SC: 'Earn livelihood instead of selling body'

[Guest guest]

SC: 'Earn livelihood instead of selling body'

Tuesday, February 15, 2011,

New Delhi, Feb 15: The apex court showed its sensitivity to the cause of sex

workers who were forced into the flesh trade due to poor economic conditions.

The Supreme Court said, " A woman is compelled to indulge in prostitution not for

pleasure but because of abject poverty. If such a woman is granted opportunity

to avail some technical or vocational training, she would be able to earn her

livelihood by such vocational training and skill instead of selling her body. "

Buzz up!

A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra who were

hearing a case related to the murder of a sex worker and were exploring ways of

rehabilitating them into the Indian system without them having to face

prejudices of any sort.

The judges bench suggested that the sex workers be given vocational training to

wean them off the flourishing flesh trade in India. The SC added to the thought

and said, " We direct the central and the state governments to prepare schemes

for giving technical and vocational training to sex workers and sexually abused

women in all cities in India. "

There were an estimated 6,88,751 registered sex workers, while National Aids

Control Organisation (Naco) estimates the original figures to be 12.63 lakh. The

highest number of sex workers were from AP (1 lakh), Karnataka (79,000), and

Delhi (37,900).

The apex body also clarified that apart from the training, the goods produced by

them would also find a good market. " If technical training is for some craft

like sewing garments, then some arrangement should also be made for providing a

market for such garments, otherwise they will remain unsold and unused, and

consequently the woman will not be able to feed herself. "

http://news.oneindia.in/2011/02/15/sc-earn-livelihood-instead-of-selling-body-ai\

d0113.html

[Guest guest]

Dear Editor

/message/12558

By suggesting simple (simplistic) solutions to complex issues the learned(?)

judges only have managed to trivialize the situation.

The suggested remedies have never been proved to be effective. A cursory

analysis of hundreds of rehabilitation-by-vocational-training schemes would have

enabled the honorable judges to come out with a more considered and mature

response.

Sewing-classes and candle-making solutions have a rich history of failure. Such

simple-minded responses betray a lack of understanding of the dynamics involved.

It also reveals a strong patriarchal bias. Worse still it shows wishful

thinking.

Regards

C Ananda Rao

e-mail: <anandarao313@...>