Are the prohibitionists in retreat?

Many people who would like to see prostitution banned seem to have changed tack recently. Instead of saying that the majority of women involved in prostitution are coerced in one way or another, with large numbers of women trafficked, they are now saying that it doesn't matter how many women are trafficked. They are not admitting that their statistics are false but as these statistics are discredited they are starting to say they are unimportant.

However, it seems to me that their entire argument is based on their false statistics, which is why they have always stated them so frequently.

The MP Denis MacShane had said that 25,000 women had been trafficked into Britain. After a poor performance on Newsnight where he was heavily criticised, he is now talking about 'a futile war of statistics'.

A new Association of Chief Police Officers report shows that the number of women trafficked is less than thought. Last year Dr Nick Mai produced research that showed some migrants prefer to work as sex workers because they earn more money and work fewer hours. It has recently been revealed that no men have been convicted and only 3 men cautioned since the introduction of the new law in Britain banning men from paying for sex with a coerced woman. The recent Pentameter 2 police operation failed to convict anyone of trafficking.

In October last year Nick Davies wrote two articles in The Guardian Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution (about Pentameter 2) and Prostitution and trafficking – the anatomy of a moral panic that seem to have caused quite a stir in the anti-trafficking world. The second one shows how the statistics on trafficking have been grossly inflated by some feminist and religious groups. Politicians such as Harriet Harman and Jaqui Smith who have used these false statistics to support bad legislation have now been removed from power.

Amid all the bad news for the prohibitionists was something that at first sight might seem a boost. In July of this year Julie Bindel wrote an article in The Guardian Legalising prostitution is not the answer that says a new report on the effectiveness of Swedish anti-prostitution laws shows that banning men from paying for sex is a good thing. The report said that the number of women involved in street prostitution in Sweden has halved whereas the number of women involved in street prostitution in Denmark and Norway have seen a 'sharp rise'. However, Norway has very similar laws to Sweden, so how can such laws be regarded as a success?

Now it turns out that the figures for Denmark are false. There has not been a sharp rise in street prostitution in Denmark.

The fact is that if we introduce a law to criminalize men who pay for sex in this country it could result in a sharp rise in street prostitution as it has in Norway. The best that could be hoped for is that half of street prostitutes will abandon their traditional red light districts. That is the message of the report on Swedish law.

Also, I would expect the number of women involved in street prostitution to have decreased by a lot more than just a half before the law could be judged a success. Just because street prostitutes aren't seen in their traditional red light districts doesn't mean they aren't still working. I have written more about this on my 'the issues' page on this blog.

Julie Bindel doesn't mention that Norway has similar laws to Sweden. She seems triumphant, but I think she is trying to bluff it out. She says there is no evidence that prostitution has been forced underground in Sweden, but it seems obvious that the lives of Swedish prostitutes has become more unpleasant and dangerous.

Looks like the 'academic consensus' of opinion on the subject that Bindel writes about in her article was correct after all.

To take the emotion out of the issue, it would be good to compare sex slavery to domestic slavery.

If it was true that most women who work as child minders or cleaners were trafficked into the country and coerced into doing this type of work, then it would make sense to ban people from having having child minders or cleaners. The people who use them could be criticised for encouraging a trade that causes misery. We know that there are some trafficked women in domestic slavery and yet it would seem absurd to want to ban people from having domestic help.

Much better to regulate it. This would be the best way to avoid abuse. To want to continue to criminalize many aspects of prostitution to help a tiny minority is wrong for two reasons; not only does it stop lots of women from being able to feed their families but it doesn't help coerced women. In fact it harms the coerced women. The prohibitionists are harming women. So to say that we need to continue to crack down on prostitution to help a tiny minority is wrong.

If you did believe that most women involved in prostitution are coerced, then it would be the traffickers and the pimps who make the profit from the sex industry. Cracking down on prostitution would harm their profits and make Britain less attractive for traffickers. Trafficking would decrease, and in time possibly stop.

If you believe that it is the women themselves who are making the money then cracking down on prostitution means they have to work harder for the money they need; working longer hours, having sex with more men, doing things they wouldn't usually do and don't want to do - such as oral sex without a condom.

That is why it does matter how many women are trafficked. It does matter what proportion of prostitutes are working for much the same reason as most of us are working or coerced into doing it. If you get it wrong, you harm some of the most vulnerable people in society and increase their problems, making worse the things you say you want to cure.

If you are opposed to prostitution, in the past it was possible to say only that you are opposed to trafficking. Who could have a problem with someone being opposed to trafficking? No one likes to think of sex slaves being raped 30 times a day (prostitutes don't have sex with 30 men a day - brothels just don't get that many customers). If prostitution=trafficking then you will get a lot of public support. They know that most people don't want prostitution banned. That is why their false statistics have always been so important to them.

Some people have an ideological opposition to prostitution, even if it occurs between consenting adults. Some feminists and some religious people. Ideological opposition is usually an attempt to justify a visceral hatred. Some feminists and some religious people have a visceral hatred of paid for sex just as some religious people have a visceral hatred of homosexual sex. I think that feminists should think very carefully about who they ally themselves with.

There was a very amusing article in my local free paper this month. Another local paper had had a front page article with a headline something like 'Sinister Brothel Uncovered'. There is an organization called CCAT - Croydon Community Against Trafficking - that pointed out that the paper had been advertising this brothel. This to me shows that concern can be manufactured by the media and politicians to get publicity and support for themselves.

The paper advertises lots of brothels and independent sex workers. CCAT, described as 'an anti-sex trafficking charity' have campaigned against 'adult advertisements'. They are an alliance of feminists and 'church groups'. They call for a boycott of this paper, saying that it is 'making a profit from the exploitation of women'.

I don't know what they are hoping to achieve, men will just look on the internet to find women. I'm sure that CCAT would call for the internet to be censored. Harriet Harman has already called for the PunterNet site to be closed down. That's how dangerous these people are. They want to censor the media and deny freedom of speech. No doubt they would love to be able to censor any attempt to expose their deceptiveness.

They don't care about truth, all they care about is getting their own way, by fair means or foul. All they care about is their weird obsessions yet they pretend they care about the vulnerable. In many countries of the world these types have the upper hand, now they seem to be on the run. That makes me happy.