The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

QueensLand Hotel V Sex Workers Court Case

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,084 times Debate No: 36351
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




This is the Austrialian Court Case of the Queensland Motel V Sex Workers case.

Pro defends Queensland Motel in this case
Con Defends sex workers in this case
No trolling the debate
Try to keep cussing to a minimum.
1st round is acceptance
2nd round is opening arugements (basicly what you are going to prove and how you're going to do it)
5th Round is closing arguements (No new arguements)

If you have any questions please ask.


..What did I just sign up for?

Well anyway, this debate has been accepted. I'll leave clarifying the events leading up to this debate to Lannan since this round ahs been limited to acceptance only (woops XD)
Debate Round No. 1


In this case I plan to proove that the Sex Workers, mainly Karlaa, had inproperly used the Queensland motel/ hotel as a place of buisness when the hotel was not notified about it.'ll prove that Pro will win this case through the Anti-discrimination Act.

I'll now let my opponent begin his opening arguements for his side before this case gets underway.


My opponent's main point is that the sex worker, known only as GK in court[1], improperly used the Queensland hotel as a place of business without notifying it. Thus, my opponent believes GK's eviction to be justified.
From what I've gleaned, GK had legally paid the hotel for room rental purposes, and had been doing so for quite a long time prior to being evicted[1].
Let me ask my opponent: What exactly does he consider 'proper' use?
According to the Queensland anti-discrimination act in place at the time of the eviction considers the arbitrary discrimination of people based on a plethora of subjects to be illegal[2]. Among these is sexual activity.
The facts established:
1. GK had paid for legal use of the room.
2. GK engaged in sexual activity in the room.
3. Evicting GK based on her sexual activity is considered illegal discrimination under the concurrent Australian anti-discrimination laws at the time.

We've established that the Queensland motel had in fact violated the abovementioned law, but that isn't the only law it has violated in refusing GK access to its premises based on her occupation. Here I'd like to elicit the Australian Capital Territory Discrimination Act 1991[2]
Under this act, it is illegal to discriminate based on the following:
"Sex, sexual harassment, sexuality, transsexuality, age, profession, trade, occupation or calling, relationship status, status as a parent or carer, pregnancy, race, racial vilification, religious or political conviction, impairment, membership or non-membership of association of employers or employees, breastfeeding, spent convictions, disability, religious practice in employment, having had one of the enumerated attributes in the past, or association with person with an above attribute."[2]
The areas covered by this law include:
"Work; employment agencies; education; access to premises; goods, services or facilities; accommodation; clubs; qualifying bodies; professional or trade organisations; requests etc for information."
Prostitution is GK's trade/occupation, and the hotel's denying her access to its services/factilities based on her occupation alone explicitly violates this law. Again, these laws are concurrent, meaning they are in place at the time GK was evicted.

In November 2012, the anti-discrimination law was revised. Legal sex-trade became limited to the following:
Sex work conducted in a legal brothel: Outcalls are prohibited and only 6-8 workers are permitted on premise at all time.
Private or sole operator work: It is illegal for a sole operator to work in conjunction with any other worker[3]
My opponent says: "[I]'ll prove that Pro will win this case through the Anti-discrimination Act."
The only way my opponent could possibly do so would be to use the new tenets of the 2012 Anti-Discrimination law. The eviction to GK occured in June 2010.[4] My opponent cannot therefore use this law to justify the Queensland hotel's obvious discrimination.

-The Queensland hotel violated two concurrent laws.
-The Queensland hotel's actions were illegal and unjustified
-Con's win condition has been fulfilled

Debate Round No. 2


lannan13 forfeited this round.


I extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


I'm sorry but I am unable to finish this debate. please vote Con.


I'd like to thank my opponent and wish him luck in his future debates, vote CON!
Debate Round No. 4


What he said.




While my opponent makes a compelling case against the Queensland hotel with his interpretation of the law, he has failed to register several other laws in this case that directly contend against his points.
I would like to introduce Australia's Liquor Act of 1992. Under Division 6 of this act, which is titled 'Adult Entertainment Permit'[1]

Please consider the following text from the Liquor Act's section 103P:
"(1) An adult entertainment permit authorises the permittee to provide adult entertainment only
(a) in an area of the permittee's premises approved by the commissioner (the approved area); and
(b) during the hours stated in the permit."

As this act pertains specifically to business in liquor and Adult Entertainment, the case stands assuredly against the flesh trader GK, who's improper use of the Hotel premises without a permit to conduct her business is undeniable. Ironically, the defense for GK necessitates categorizing her conduct under occupation, as indicated by my opponent's argument which I will reiterate below:

"Prostitution is GK's trade/occupation, and the hotel's denying her access to its services/factilities based on her occupation alone explicitly violates this law."

The case against GK is that she both wasn't discriminated based on occupation (rather based on her occupational conduct within premises), and that she had violated the 1992 Liquor Act. It is explicitly stated within the act that Adult Entertainment must be licensed.

Furthermore, Queensland Hotel's eviction of GK was not to her occupation, but to her conducting the exchange of her occupation within the premises of the Hotel. Prostitutes are allowed on hotel premises, but prohibiting the practice of prostitution within said premises is entirely up to the hotel management. It therefore has not violated any laws.
Hence the case against the Queensland Hotel fails. GK's eviction was justified.

The Liquor Act argument comes down to the definition of commercial Adult Entertainment. Luckily, Adult Entertainment has been defined by the very same legislatural text source provided[1]. Under section 103N, the following is written:
"(3) Adult entertainment does not include the performance of the following acts—
(a) sexual intercourse;
(b) masturbation;
(c) oral sex.
GK's actions cannot be considered Adult Entertainment as per this definition. Commercially provided sexual intercourse is still sexual intercourse. As explicitly written within the Liquor Act, sexual intercourse is not Adult Entertainment.

Now to address the second argument, which states that GK was evicted based on business conduct within the Queensland Hotel's premises and not based on her actual business or trade. I would like to point out the ludicrous nature of this argument.
Sexual activity without any monetary exchange is permitted, but those with monetary exchange isn't? Is this not arbitrary discrimination? Does this not violate the Queensland anti-discrimination act? The only difference between the cases presented is the monetary exchange. The Queensland Hotel evicted GK not because she was undergoing sexual intercourse, but because she had adopted sexual intercourse as a trade.
The contention, that the Queensland Hotel has violated two concurrent anti-discrimination laws, is affirmed. It's actions were not legally justified, and GK wins the case.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Beginner 3 years ago
This feels like a prostitution debate.. time to open up that one between imabench and Danielle XD
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 3 years ago
I haven't heard of this. Can someone link me to an article about the case?
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
But I wanted a pen*s waggling contest. :(
Posted by Oromagi 3 years ago
In fact, the sex worker lost in court, won her appeal but was overturned by the court of appeals a few weeks ago. She's also been ordered to pay the defendants' court costs. She can still appeal to the high court, but it doesn't sound like she will.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
You know the Sex Workers actually won this case.
Posted by Oromagi 3 years ago
I would be willing to give this debate a shot. I can't say I like the odds, defending an unpopular profession, but there are so few challenges offered with strong, objective arguments on both sides I'd the question. I'd never heard of the case before your challenge, but I did some preliminary googling and thought of a few arguments to support con.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
I want a good debate not a pen*s waggaling contenst.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
'No sentiments'

I would troll the hell out of that had you not outruled trolling :P
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LevelWithMe 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no actual argument(he only revealed his method). Con provided a thorough argument, with a multitude of sources. Pro requested a Con vote.