| Summary: | 碩士 === 東吳大學 === 政治學系 === 101 === Does “mechanical equality in formality” ensure people’s substantive equality or does it only suffice in legal terms, but in fact ignore the diversity of citizens? To answer this question, this thesis examines the course of amendment of the Article 80, Section 1, Sub-section 1 of the Social Order Maintenance Act (the prohibition of sexual transition article).
By summarizing controversial issues in the judicial law for this constitutional interpretation and utilizing Iris M. Young’s political theory of differences, this thesis tries to analyze the courses, results and future status of amending the prohibition of sexual transition article. Afterward, this thesis analyzes the prohibition of sexual transition article to answer the question of: whether the disadvantaged sex workers’ situation will be improved by the amendment or not?
The finding of this thesis provides evidence which the government were used to ignoring the reality that there are many disadvantaged sex workers in the sexual industries when they dealt with the issue of sexual transaction. Furthermore, the new law focuses on restraint rather than substantive protection and ignores the specific characteristics of the disadvantaged sex workers as usual. In order to comply with the mechanical equality in formality, the amendment leads to a "comprehensive prohibition of sexual transaction" which result contradicts with the original purpose of constitutional interpretation. In view of above-mentioned analysis, this thesis points out the policy of sexual industries take care neither of mechanical equality in formality, nor the diversity of sex workers.
|
|---|
