The UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women


There is ongoing debate in the Northern Territory regarding a new bill concerning what is now called sex work but used to be known by the more common name of whoring. The Sex Industry Bill is making the womensz unhappy, but not in the way you might think. Actually, just about anything can set off the great female ire these days so why is anybody surprised? What is notable is when the womensz don’t get upset. This last occurred in 1962 when Gladys Beckett’s husband Albert performed some feat which has since been lost in the mists of time but which was known to have made Gladys very happy indeed.

Albert threw himself into his brand new combine harvester not long after.

Unhappy sex worker clients can sue.

For those struggling with the wayward progressive pidgin English, sex worker clients means men who go to brothels to get their end in. I think.

The Australian arm of the Women’s Human Rights Campaign (a global movement) welcomed the proposed removal of criminal penalties for selling sexual services but warned that other changes would give “pimps and buyers of prostituted women” ­unfair opportunities to sue.

Helen Pringle, a WHRC spokeswoman, said the draft law appeared to break Australia’s obli­gations under the UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

I have to admit that the UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was a new one for me. At first I had considered that I had clicked on the Babylon Bee by mistake, but it’s all real. What the convention actually means is that no woman anywhere must ever suffer any inconvenience, particularly as a result of her own actions.

I suppose that it will be closely followed by the UN Convention for the Safe Petting of Kittens Everywhere, the UN Convention for Above Equal Rights for Transgendered Binary Aboriginal Football Players, and the UN Convention for Men who Have to Lug Around their Offspring in Backpacks.

Actually, that last one has little hope of getting through but I thought that I’d give it a shot for those poor downtrodden metrosexuals out there.

Just what the obligations that Australia must adhere to under the UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is not clear, but certainly David Leyonhjelm found out this week that merely making a suggestion to women is going to cost you at least the price of the yarn required to knit a pair of Sarah Sea Patrol’s yoga pants.

What the womensz are particularly upset about is that in their zeal to obtain equal rights for the whores, sorry, sex workers, they made the tragic mistake of actually obtaining equal rights.

Prostitutes would be exposed to damages claims for poor performance under Northern Territory Labor’s draft legislation to legalise sex work, lawyers have warned.

You see, going into a brothel to have a bonk will soon be a contract as there is a monetary exchange. Unfortunately for the womensz, contract law implies obligations on both parties. So if a hooker, sorry, sex worker takes the coin but then doesn’t actually do the dirty deed then the client of the sex worker would have redress to get his money back.

Feminists have responded to this new development with the maturity, mental clarity and originality of which they are famed.

“Empowering men to sue women who withdraw consent to sexual acts legitimises sexual ­assault as a contractual obligation,” Dr Pringle said.

Feminist Legal Clinic principal solicitor Anna Kerr said provisions allowing unhappy customers to launch damages claims were “abhorrent and must be ­removed … This legislation adds duress to (sex workers’) circumstances by introducing the prospect of being sued by clients or pimps should they want to withdraw their consent to sexual acts.

“This is a rapists’ charter, at odds with the criminal law of ­sexual assault, which rightly provides no recourse or punishment for withdrawal of sexual consent,” Ms Kerr said.

That’s right; if you insist on getting what you’ve paid for you’re now a rapist. Or at least guilty of sexual assault under a rapist’s charter, whatever the hell that is. So when the womensz want to sell their bodies for money that is empowering, but when the mens want what they paid for then that’s sexual assault. I know that this is difficult to follow but please pay attention as there will be a short test at the end of it and the loser has to visit one of these brothels as a trip report.

One thing is for certain, these prog femmos really are not very good at all at the whole capitalism bit. Which is why they’re always after equality; the modern dirty word for Communism.

This article was originally published at, where Adam Piggott publishes regularly and brilliantly. You can purchase Adam’s books here.