On communication laws and criminalization of prostitution…

Some feminists also argue that the most vulnerable women in prostitution are the ones who work on the streets. These same feminists also argue that no women who enters into prostitution chooses to engage in prostitution freely, especially those who work on the streets. However, referring back to the definition of actus reus which refers directly to a theory of human agency, if women who enter into prostitution do not have the agency to choose to freely enter into prostitution, then a contradiction presents itself with this feminist analysis. This contradiction being that if prostitutes cannot choose (and thereby, not have human agency) to engage in prostitution if prostitution is defined as oppressive and exploitative, then how can prostitutes be committing a criminal act if a criminal act (the act of solicitation) must entail the actus reus, which ultimately recognizes human agency and choice.

On voluntariness and criminalization of prostitution…

Some feminists also argue that women who enter into prostitution do not choose to do so freely. If all the above holds true, especially in absence of other options, any act or omission must be involuntary, then the criminalization of prostitution is a contradiction to the concept of voluntariness, which is a component of actus reus. Specifically, if all women who enter into prostitution are victims and they do not choose to enter into prostitution because the absence of other options, then they cannot be held criminal responsible for their actions. This is true especially for those women who are often labelled as the most marginalized and vulnerable, like Indigenous women who live and work on the streets.

Welcome to the (not-so-new) new feminism: the criminal regulation of Indigenous bodies and sexuality. Colonialism, eh?