I was looking at the Harlot's Parlour site and I read about the English Collective of Prostitutes' campaign to stop the prosecution of Sheila Farmer. This was of interest to me because I have said on this blog that the laws about prostitution make women unsafe and should be changed. Her case graphically illustrates what I and many others have been saying.
There are many women up and down the country who make a good living from prostitution working on their own from their own flats without ever coming into contact with the police. What they do is legal. Sheila Farmer was apparently one of these. However, it is often not safe. She was viciously attacked by a man who raped her repeatedly, tried to strangle her and kept her tied up for hours.
After this she decided to work only with other women. Her flat was raided by the police, she was arrested and faces up to seven years in prison. This has happened to a number of women, and apparently they are often also often accused of 'money laundering'.
Also found on the Harlot's Parlour site is a discussion of the recent case of Hanna Morris. Hanna called the police when violent men brandishing shotguns raided one of the flats she operated threatening the women inside by throwing petrol around with the intention of setting fire to the premises with the women present. Hanna called the police with the expectation that they would pursue, capture and hopefully convict the violent men that had attacked the women whom she represented. The police chose to close Hanna’s business and begin a prosecution against Hanna that could have put her in prison for seven years.
Sheila Farmer's case doesn't seem to have made it into the newspapers, but not long ago Claire Finch's did. The police raided her house and charged her with brothel-keeping. This article in the Times is about Claire and Hanna's cases.
Street prostitution is a very different kind of prostitution, but here also the law makes women unsafe. This article in the Guardian shows this. A raft of new legislation has served only to shunt thousands of women out of well-lit, residential locales and into desolate, semi-industrial wastelands. David Wilson, professor of criminology at Birmingham City University, has suggested managed zones where sex workers can work safely, decriminalisation, or even full legislation. Some women's groups, however, decry these measures as 'legitimising the abuse of women'.
I think that these feminists have got it completely wrong. It is current legislation which 'legitimizes' the abuse of women. They should support changes in the law that will result in fewer women being killed, injured and raped. Women know what they need to do to keep themselves safe, and feminists should listen to them instead of ignoring them or shouting them down.
The Harlot's Parlour site has information about the ideas of two radical feminists, Andrea Dworkin and Catharine Mackinnon. Despite their extremism they have had a lot of influence on feminism and attitudes to laws on prostitution.
I don't believe that sex workers are doing anything wrong, but I'm not so sure about people who aren't sex workers but make money out of sex workers. I don't know if Sheila Farmer, Hanna Morris or Claire Finch are in that category. I have nothing against prostitution, but the best type of prostitution is where the women take the profits and are not told what to do by anyone else.
In Soho the sex workers in the walk ups are not breaking the law because they work alone. Most sex workers who work from flats on their own would I guess rent from a landlord who has no idea that prostitution is occurring on the premises, or if they do know turn a blind eye. Or maybe they have a mortgage or have paid outright for the flat.
I thought maybe a similar arrangement worked in Soho. I know that the granddaughter of Paul Raymond owns a lot of property in Soho. However, I have been becoming increasingly aware that there are people who organize the women and would be taking much of the profit.
I was told recently that all of the women at my favourite walk up in Soho have been told not to do oral sex without a condom. Probably a good thing, but I didn't realize that they are all told what to do. Someone else said that the reason one of the flats in Old Compton Street was not used for a while was because of a 'change of management'. A couple of the women have talked about their 'bosses' (in both cases a woman).
The sooner we get sensible changes in legislation the better. Then not only will women be safer but they will be better able to organize themselves and keep the profits from their work.
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Friday, May 20, 2011
Friday, December 31, 2010
at last some sense
Deputy Chief Constable Simon Byrne, who acts as the Association of Chief Police Officer’s lead on prostitution, called on the Government to consider overhauling Britain’s various prostitution laws.
The last three paragraphs of this newspaper article say it all:-
Many sex worker groups, however, say only full or partial decriminalisation of the sex trade will dramatically improve safety. They say the anti-brothel legislation which prohibits more than one person selling sex in a single property forces women onto the streets and away from the comparative safety of a group.
"The law as it currently stands makes sex workers vulnerable to the police, criminals and vigilantes," said Catherine Stephens from the International Union of Sex Workers. "We are criminalised if we work together. I know of brothels that are regularly targeted by gangs because they know they won’t go to police for fear of being arrested themselves."
She added: "If we want to make sex workers safer we need an intelligent and informed debate on Britain’s prostitution laws based on evidence and not misinformed stereotypes. The law doesn’t just fail to target violence and exploitation, it actually facilitates it. Would we be safer working together? Yes. Is that legal? No."
I hope that people listen to him.
The last three paragraphs of this newspaper article say it all:-
Many sex worker groups, however, say only full or partial decriminalisation of the sex trade will dramatically improve safety. They say the anti-brothel legislation which prohibits more than one person selling sex in a single property forces women onto the streets and away from the comparative safety of a group.
"The law as it currently stands makes sex workers vulnerable to the police, criminals and vigilantes," said Catherine Stephens from the International Union of Sex Workers. "We are criminalised if we work together. I know of brothels that are regularly targeted by gangs because they know they won’t go to police for fear of being arrested themselves."
She added: "If we want to make sex workers safer we need an intelligent and informed debate on Britain’s prostitution laws based on evidence and not misinformed stereotypes. The law doesn’t just fail to target violence and exploitation, it actually facilitates it. Would we be safer working together? Yes. Is that legal? No."
I hope that people listen to him.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
debate in the House of Lords about new legislation
In my last posting I wrote about the debate on the new legislation that I heard on Woman's Hour on the radio. This was about clause 14 and 15 of Policing and Crime Bill which makes men criminally liable for 'paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force'. It comes into force on April Fools' Day.
Two women debated each side of the issue, Cari Mitchell from the English Collective of Prostitutes and Anna Van Heeswijk from Object. I wanted to find out more about Object so I went to their website http://www.object.org.uk/
On this site was a lot of false statistics and false arguments. I will deal with some of these in my next posting, but the most interesting thing for me was a link on this page http://www.object.org.uk/index.php/component/content/article/3-news/78-victory-as-peers-vote-for-women-not-pimps-and-punters to a pdf file of the debate in the House of Lords in November of last year http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/lhan128.pdf
What was interesting was that 12 people spoke in the debate and 6 were for the new legislation and 6 were against it unless it was modified by amendment. Males and females were equally divided on the issue. 3 men and 3 women spoke on each side.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer spoke first and she said some very sensible things. After saying that coercion in prostitution was unacceptable she said this.
“I am not speaking to defend men who buy sex. I am moving this amendment in response to concerns about the effect that this legislation will have on some of the most vulnerable women in our society ...”
She went on to say this.
“Those who support Clause 14 say that making men criminally liable for, 'Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force', will drastically reduce the demand for such services and reduce the incentive for traffickers to traffic women. That belief contains two assumptions that I do not believe are correct: first, that most prostitutes are trafficked women; and secondly and more importantly, that this legislation will make that trade lessen and disappear by further criminalising the sexual services trade. The supporters of the Bill do not accept that it will drive the trade underground and endanger the very vulnerable women that they seek to protect.
If I believed that the Government’s assumptions were true I would support Clause 14. However, I have looked carefully at the evidence and it does not support those two assumptions. First, there is the evidence on trafficking, which we have had a lot more of since debating this in Committee. The Home Office figures on the number of people working in the sex trade who have been trafficked have themselves been widely challenged. That was no surprise to us because we quoted in Committee the work that was just being published by Dr Mai and that had been funded by the ESRC.The Guardian report of 20 October also produced many more questions about the veracity of the Home Office figures.
Be that as it may, let us suppose for a moment that the Home Office is right about the figures. The next question to answer is whether as a result of the provisions the sex trade will disappear, or whether it will continue to exist but as a less dangerous place for women to work. There is lots of evidence on that from countries all over the world, including the US, which, with the exception of one or two states, has a highly criminalised system. For us, however, the most persuasive evidence came from those who work with women in the sex trade and those who work with the women themselves. I want to share with the House some of what I have heard since we debated this in Committee.
As far as those who are trying to improve the life of women in the sex trade are concerned, I shall simply cite, for instance, Georgina Perry from the Open Doors project in the East End of London. This project has been going since 1993, and it sees about 1,200 women a year who work in indoor sex and about 300 who work on the streets. Many are migrant women. They do not believe that the percentage of those who are trafficked is significant at all, but that the women who they work with are there because of economics, not force. They believe that it is essential to tackle health issues, first and foremost, and to support the women. They are deeply worried by these clauses.
In theory, many academics who have studied these issues for years and years are, equally, deeply against the Bill — I am sure that Ministers are aware of their names. Perhaps most persuasive are those who see the really terrible side. Women Against Rape are also deeply worried by these clauses. When we debated the provisions in Committee, the Government stated that this new offence, “is distinct from rape because there is no requirement to show that the defendant knew or ought to have known that the prostitute was threatened or deceived”. — [Official Report, 01/7/09; col. 278.]
As these provisions introduce a lower tariff, there will be a temptation to prosecute under them even in cases where prosecutions should be directed at the offence of rape. It is extremely rare to successfully convict someone of rape, particularly in such cases.
However, the most persuasive case for my amendment is made by the women themselves through the English Collective of Prostitutes and the International Union of Sex Workers. I am aware that supporters of Clause 14 are somewhat dismissive of these women’s comments and claim that they often represent the views of pimps and exploiters. However, that is not the case with the women I have met who have attended many meetings in Parliament. These women are very fearful that the trade will be driven underground.
We need to look again at the evidence from the JCHR, which made its case forcefully. It referred to the likelihood of the measure having unintended consequences, including driving prostitution further underground and increasing the vulnerability ofprostitutes. I do not think that the Government have provided new evidence to assuage the JCHR’s fears.”
She ended by saying this.
“However, in this instance I am deeply worried that the Government are pursuing a line that will increase these women’s vulnerability and will not solve the problem. We should be looking at better enforcement of existing law rather than creating this new offence.”
Lord Morrow spoke some rubbish about the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade and the 175th anniversary of the release of all British colonial slaves in relation to contemporary 'sexual slavery'. He went on to talk about the issue of forcing prostitution further underground.
“I am of course aware of the argument that says if you make it an offence to buy sex from someone subjected to force, you will push forced prostitution underground and women will suffer more. I do not believe, however, that this stands up to close scrutiny.
If we do not make it an offence to buy sex from people subject to force, women will continue to be drawn into forced prostitution and more and more will suffer.
If, on the other hand, we do make it an offence to buy sex from women subject to force, some men will think again, mindful of the fact that the shame of being caught buying sex from someone subject to force will be considerable, and fewer women will suffer.
Moreover, we must not forget what the Swedish police have told us; namely, that making buying sex an offence does not push prostitution underground in the sense of being beyond the law’s protection. Pimps have to advertise to their punters and reel them in, and it is in doing this that they give themselves away and the police can move in and take action.”
He is wrong because forced prostitution is rare in this country. The law will impact women who are not forced, and make their lives more difficult and dangerous. He seems to be suggesting that the police will always be able to find and arrest pimps. This seems such a strange thing to say. It's like saying the police will always be able to find and arrest drug dealers. If that was possible, there would be no drug-addicted street girls. Even I, who speaks out against drugs, can understand the argument for legalising some drugs (such as heroin) so that drug taking is no longer forced underground.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland decided that a few 'facts' were called for. She said this.
“Let me remind the House about numbers. The average age in Europe for entry into prostitution is 14.”
“Seventy five per cent enter before their 18th birthday.”
“Ninety-five per cent become hooked on class A drugs.”
Baroness O’Cathain then decided to give a few 'facts' of her own.
“According to the Home Office, as many as 70 per cent of the women involved in prostitution were drawn into—bullied into—prostitution as children.”
“Let me give you some facts: 85 per cent of women in prostitution say that they were physically abused as children; 70 per cent spent time in care; and 45 per cent have experienced sexual abuse.”
“We are so often told about prostitutes who regard prostitution as a business, one where some make much money, and can shut out of their minds what they are doing. But, if the research is to be believed, they are in a very small minority. According to that research, 90 per cent of prostitutes say that they want to escape prostitution, but they do not feel able to do so.”
“More than half the prostitutes involved in one study said that they had feared for their life at least once.”
I don't have to tell you that all of these facts are wrong. What do you think of a democracy where baronesses can make decisions that affect large numbers of women, some of whom are the most vulnerable people in society, based on false statistics, some of which are provided by a Home Office that is dishonest and has its own agenda? Remember that Baroness Miller had already stated that the Home Office statistics were not to be trusted.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland thinks that she can help poor mothers by taking their money away from them. She said.
"... or they are poor and are doing it to support their children. What kind of society allows the degradation of a mother, with all the social and health issues involved, to support her children? We can do better than that."
Both Baroness Howarth and Baroness O’Cathain talked about teen runaways and girls in care. These are common stereotypes of women who become prostitutes.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer restores my faith in baronesses.
One statistic is interesting. '90 per cent of prostitutes say that they want to escape prostitution'. If you did a poll of sex workers in walk ups in Berwick Street Soho, it would not surprise me if 90 per cent said they would prefer to be doing something else. I mention Berwick Street because I am familiar with it. There are many walk ups close to the market. I wonder how many of the sex workers would like to get up early in the morning in winter and work on Berwick Street market all day. Some would, some wouldn't, but there is nothing to stop them.
A lot of the talk was about strict liability which is a technical issue that I won't go into. Except to say that some people are trying to change the whole basis of how law works in our society for the worse.
Two women debated each side of the issue, Cari Mitchell from the English Collective of Prostitutes and Anna Van Heeswijk from Object. I wanted to find out more about Object so I went to their website http://www.object.org.uk/
On this site was a lot of false statistics and false arguments. I will deal with some of these in my next posting, but the most interesting thing for me was a link on this page http://www.object.org.uk/index.php/component/content/article/3-news/78-victory-as-peers-vote-for-women-not-pimps-and-punters to a pdf file of the debate in the House of Lords in November of last year http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/lhan128.pdf
What was interesting was that 12 people spoke in the debate and 6 were for the new legislation and 6 were against it unless it was modified by amendment. Males and females were equally divided on the issue. 3 men and 3 women spoke on each side.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer spoke first and she said some very sensible things. After saying that coercion in prostitution was unacceptable she said this.
“I am not speaking to defend men who buy sex. I am moving this amendment in response to concerns about the effect that this legislation will have on some of the most vulnerable women in our society ...”
She went on to say this.
“Those who support Clause 14 say that making men criminally liable for, 'Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force', will drastically reduce the demand for such services and reduce the incentive for traffickers to traffic women. That belief contains two assumptions that I do not believe are correct: first, that most prostitutes are trafficked women; and secondly and more importantly, that this legislation will make that trade lessen and disappear by further criminalising the sexual services trade. The supporters of the Bill do not accept that it will drive the trade underground and endanger the very vulnerable women that they seek to protect.
If I believed that the Government’s assumptions were true I would support Clause 14. However, I have looked carefully at the evidence and it does not support those two assumptions. First, there is the evidence on trafficking, which we have had a lot more of since debating this in Committee. The Home Office figures on the number of people working in the sex trade who have been trafficked have themselves been widely challenged. That was no surprise to us because we quoted in Committee the work that was just being published by Dr Mai and that had been funded by the ESRC.The Guardian report of 20 October also produced many more questions about the veracity of the Home Office figures.
Be that as it may, let us suppose for a moment that the Home Office is right about the figures. The next question to answer is whether as a result of the provisions the sex trade will disappear, or whether it will continue to exist but as a less dangerous place for women to work. There is lots of evidence on that from countries all over the world, including the US, which, with the exception of one or two states, has a highly criminalised system. For us, however, the most persuasive evidence came from those who work with women in the sex trade and those who work with the women themselves. I want to share with the House some of what I have heard since we debated this in Committee.
As far as those who are trying to improve the life of women in the sex trade are concerned, I shall simply cite, for instance, Georgina Perry from the Open Doors project in the East End of London. This project has been going since 1993, and it sees about 1,200 women a year who work in indoor sex and about 300 who work on the streets. Many are migrant women. They do not believe that the percentage of those who are trafficked is significant at all, but that the women who they work with are there because of economics, not force. They believe that it is essential to tackle health issues, first and foremost, and to support the women. They are deeply worried by these clauses.
In theory, many academics who have studied these issues for years and years are, equally, deeply against the Bill — I am sure that Ministers are aware of their names. Perhaps most persuasive are those who see the really terrible side. Women Against Rape are also deeply worried by these clauses. When we debated the provisions in Committee, the Government stated that this new offence, “is distinct from rape because there is no requirement to show that the defendant knew or ought to have known that the prostitute was threatened or deceived”. — [Official Report, 01/7/09; col. 278.]
As these provisions introduce a lower tariff, there will be a temptation to prosecute under them even in cases where prosecutions should be directed at the offence of rape. It is extremely rare to successfully convict someone of rape, particularly in such cases.
However, the most persuasive case for my amendment is made by the women themselves through the English Collective of Prostitutes and the International Union of Sex Workers. I am aware that supporters of Clause 14 are somewhat dismissive of these women’s comments and claim that they often represent the views of pimps and exploiters. However, that is not the case with the women I have met who have attended many meetings in Parliament. These women are very fearful that the trade will be driven underground.
We need to look again at the evidence from the JCHR, which made its case forcefully. It referred to the likelihood of the measure having unintended consequences, including driving prostitution further underground and increasing the vulnerability ofprostitutes. I do not think that the Government have provided new evidence to assuage the JCHR’s fears.”
She ended by saying this.
“However, in this instance I am deeply worried that the Government are pursuing a line that will increase these women’s vulnerability and will not solve the problem. We should be looking at better enforcement of existing law rather than creating this new offence.”
Lord Morrow spoke some rubbish about the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade and the 175th anniversary of the release of all British colonial slaves in relation to contemporary 'sexual slavery'. He went on to talk about the issue of forcing prostitution further underground.
“I am of course aware of the argument that says if you make it an offence to buy sex from someone subjected to force, you will push forced prostitution underground and women will suffer more. I do not believe, however, that this stands up to close scrutiny.
If we do not make it an offence to buy sex from people subject to force, women will continue to be drawn into forced prostitution and more and more will suffer.
If, on the other hand, we do make it an offence to buy sex from women subject to force, some men will think again, mindful of the fact that the shame of being caught buying sex from someone subject to force will be considerable, and fewer women will suffer.
Moreover, we must not forget what the Swedish police have told us; namely, that making buying sex an offence does not push prostitution underground in the sense of being beyond the law’s protection. Pimps have to advertise to their punters and reel them in, and it is in doing this that they give themselves away and the police can move in and take action.”
He is wrong because forced prostitution is rare in this country. The law will impact women who are not forced, and make their lives more difficult and dangerous. He seems to be suggesting that the police will always be able to find and arrest pimps. This seems such a strange thing to say. It's like saying the police will always be able to find and arrest drug dealers. If that was possible, there would be no drug-addicted street girls. Even I, who speaks out against drugs, can understand the argument for legalising some drugs (such as heroin) so that drug taking is no longer forced underground.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland decided that a few 'facts' were called for. She said this.
“Let me remind the House about numbers. The average age in Europe for entry into prostitution is 14.”
“Seventy five per cent enter before their 18th birthday.”
“Ninety-five per cent become hooked on class A drugs.”
Baroness O’Cathain then decided to give a few 'facts' of her own.
“According to the Home Office, as many as 70 per cent of the women involved in prostitution were drawn into—bullied into—prostitution as children.”
“Let me give you some facts: 85 per cent of women in prostitution say that they were physically abused as children; 70 per cent spent time in care; and 45 per cent have experienced sexual abuse.”
“We are so often told about prostitutes who regard prostitution as a business, one where some make much money, and can shut out of their minds what they are doing. But, if the research is to be believed, they are in a very small minority. According to that research, 90 per cent of prostitutes say that they want to escape prostitution, but they do not feel able to do so.”
“More than half the prostitutes involved in one study said that they had feared for their life at least once.”
I don't have to tell you that all of these facts are wrong. What do you think of a democracy where baronesses can make decisions that affect large numbers of women, some of whom are the most vulnerable people in society, based on false statistics, some of which are provided by a Home Office that is dishonest and has its own agenda? Remember that Baroness Miller had already stated that the Home Office statistics were not to be trusted.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland thinks that she can help poor mothers by taking their money away from them. She said.
"... or they are poor and are doing it to support their children. What kind of society allows the degradation of a mother, with all the social and health issues involved, to support her children? We can do better than that."
Both Baroness Howarth and Baroness O’Cathain talked about teen runaways and girls in care. These are common stereotypes of women who become prostitutes.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer restores my faith in baronesses.
One statistic is interesting. '90 per cent of prostitutes say that they want to escape prostitution'. If you did a poll of sex workers in walk ups in Berwick Street Soho, it would not surprise me if 90 per cent said they would prefer to be doing something else. I mention Berwick Street because I am familiar with it. There are many walk ups close to the market. I wonder how many of the sex workers would like to get up early in the morning in winter and work on Berwick Street market all day. Some would, some wouldn't, but there is nothing to stop them.
A lot of the talk was about strict liability which is a technical issue that I won't go into. Except to say that some people are trying to change the whole basis of how law works in our society for the worse.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
prostitution debate on Woman's Hour this morning
There was a discussion of prostitution and new legislation on Woman's Hour this morning, on BBC Radio 4. If you want to hear it, it can be downloaded as a podcast at the BBC website.
Changes in the law will affect prostitution and the licensing of lap dancing clubs in England and Wales. Cari Mitchell from the English Collective of Prostitutes and Anna Van Heeswijk from Object debate the impact of the legislation.
Cari Mitchell stated that police have been given additional powers to arrest and criminalise women who work on the streets.
She also stated that the impact of the legislation is that women going to have to work longer hours and take more risks in order to earn the money that they need. In Scotland where similar legislation has already been introduced there have been nearly double the number of reported attacks on sex workers.
Anna Van Heeswijk was asked about the idea that this type of legislation will force prostitution underground and will make life more difficult and dangerous for the women involved. As you know if you have read this blog I have said more than once that I oppose recent legislation for exactly this reason. Anna Van Heeswijk gave her answer and I have quoted it below because it is crucial to the debate. I have given a point-by-point reply to what she has said below the quote.
I think the idea that prostitution will be pushed underground is a genuine concern of a lot of people. But if you think about it actually doesn’t work in that way. If punters can find women then so can those who are wanting to provide exit services and support services for those women. If we look at countries such as Sweden and Norway where they have completely criminalised the purchase of sex and completely decriminalised those who are sold for sexual purposes, the women have no fear of coming forward because they are not going to be criminalised in fact they are going to be supported and actually the number of women in prostitution has decreased with more women being helped to exit. And importantly the European police have said that now Sweden is no longer an attractive destination for traffickers. The number of men paying for sex has decreased and it just creates a whole shift in cultural attitudes so that is no longer seen as acceptable.
This is my response to what she said:
1. If punters can find women then so can those who are wanting to provide exit services and support services for those women.
The new legislation will make it more difficult for punters to find women and more difficult for people wanting to provide exit services and support services for them.
2. If we look at countries such as Sweden and Norway ... the women have no fear of coming forward because they are not going to be criminalised ...
As Cari Mitchell stated that police have been given additional powers to arrest and criminalise women who work on the streets. This means that women will be even more fearful of reporting to the police crimes committed against them, including violence. The legislation will not affect the readiness of women to come forward for exit and support services.
Some more women will accept services (if they can find them) because they will have had their choice to earn money through prostitution in relative safety taken away from them. Life will be made so difficult that some women will have to give up prostitution. Others will continue. The ones who continue will be the poorest and the most drug addicted, the most vulnerable ones.
3. ... the number of women in prostitution has decreased with more women being helped to exit ...
If you legislate against something and force it underground then there will be fewer people involved in it. However, the ones who are still involved are harmed. That's the point. No one is saying that the number of women involved in prostitution will stay the same.
The reason why more women are leaving prostitution is not because they are helped to exit. It's because they are being forced to do something that they don't want to do.
You may say that if half of all lap dancers or prostitutes give it up then that is something. However, these women will live in poverty and will no longer be able to pay a mortgage, rent or bills. Not such a good result for them. Why can't they decide for themselves what is best for them?
4. Sweden is no longer an attractive destination for traffickers.
The numbers of women who have been trafficked has been grossly overestimated. It is in the interests of people who want to ban all prostitution to overestimate it, and to talk about pimps and children, as Anna Van Heeswijk did. I object to coercion in prostitution but most prostitutes are not coerced. Anna Van Heeswijk used the phrase "those who are sold for sexual purposes" to imply that all prostitutes are coerced. It is people like her who are doing the coercing.
5. The number of men paying for sex has decreased and it just creates a whole shift in cultural attitudes so that is no longer seen as acceptable.
It is true that the number of men paying for sex has decreased in places like Sweden. I don't think that paying for sex is a bad thing. I believe in the liberal principle that people should decide for themselves what they believe is good or bad, if it does not harm others. It is not acceptable for lobby groups or the state to tell us what to do or to try to control our behaviour. They have no right to 'shift cultural attitudes' and tell us what is 'acceptable'. Especially when we know that they are dishonest. They pretend that they only want to help the vulnerable but they have a hidden agenda. They use false statistics and false arguments. And they know they are doing it.
It is very important for women to have the choice to make money out of what can loosely be describes as 'the sex industry' without having sex. Lap dancing clubs and some massage establishments offer women this choice. By closing lap dancing clubs some women will live in poverty while others will become prostitutes. This doesn't help women, and it seems strange that some feminists want to do things that harm women.
Middle-class feminists don't want to understand how poor and vulnerable women live, and I don't believe they actually care. It is puritanism dressed up as ideology. A nonsensical and dishonest ideology at that, opposed to the liberal values our society is based on. They are more motivated by the idea of restricting men than enabling women.
Changes in the law will affect prostitution and the licensing of lap dancing clubs in England and Wales. Cari Mitchell from the English Collective of Prostitutes and Anna Van Heeswijk from Object debate the impact of the legislation.
Cari Mitchell stated that police have been given additional powers to arrest and criminalise women who work on the streets.
She also stated that the impact of the legislation is that women going to have to work longer hours and take more risks in order to earn the money that they need. In Scotland where similar legislation has already been introduced there have been nearly double the number of reported attacks on sex workers.
Anna Van Heeswijk was asked about the idea that this type of legislation will force prostitution underground and will make life more difficult and dangerous for the women involved. As you know if you have read this blog I have said more than once that I oppose recent legislation for exactly this reason. Anna Van Heeswijk gave her answer and I have quoted it below because it is crucial to the debate. I have given a point-by-point reply to what she has said below the quote.
I think the idea that prostitution will be pushed underground is a genuine concern of a lot of people. But if you think about it actually doesn’t work in that way. If punters can find women then so can those who are wanting to provide exit services and support services for those women. If we look at countries such as Sweden and Norway where they have completely criminalised the purchase of sex and completely decriminalised those who are sold for sexual purposes, the women have no fear of coming forward because they are not going to be criminalised in fact they are going to be supported and actually the number of women in prostitution has decreased with more women being helped to exit. And importantly the European police have said that now Sweden is no longer an attractive destination for traffickers. The number of men paying for sex has decreased and it just creates a whole shift in cultural attitudes so that is no longer seen as acceptable.
This is my response to what she said:
1. If punters can find women then so can those who are wanting to provide exit services and support services for those women.
The new legislation will make it more difficult for punters to find women and more difficult for people wanting to provide exit services and support services for them.
2. If we look at countries such as Sweden and Norway ... the women have no fear of coming forward because they are not going to be criminalised ...
As Cari Mitchell stated that police have been given additional powers to arrest and criminalise women who work on the streets. This means that women will be even more fearful of reporting to the police crimes committed against them, including violence. The legislation will not affect the readiness of women to come forward for exit and support services.
Some more women will accept services (if they can find them) because they will have had their choice to earn money through prostitution in relative safety taken away from them. Life will be made so difficult that some women will have to give up prostitution. Others will continue. The ones who continue will be the poorest and the most drug addicted, the most vulnerable ones.
3. ... the number of women in prostitution has decreased with more women being helped to exit ...
If you legislate against something and force it underground then there will be fewer people involved in it. However, the ones who are still involved are harmed. That's the point. No one is saying that the number of women involved in prostitution will stay the same.
The reason why more women are leaving prostitution is not because they are helped to exit. It's because they are being forced to do something that they don't want to do.
You may say that if half of all lap dancers or prostitutes give it up then that is something. However, these women will live in poverty and will no longer be able to pay a mortgage, rent or bills. Not such a good result for them. Why can't they decide for themselves what is best for them?
4. Sweden is no longer an attractive destination for traffickers.
The numbers of women who have been trafficked has been grossly overestimated. It is in the interests of people who want to ban all prostitution to overestimate it, and to talk about pimps and children, as Anna Van Heeswijk did. I object to coercion in prostitution but most prostitutes are not coerced. Anna Van Heeswijk used the phrase "those who are sold for sexual purposes" to imply that all prostitutes are coerced. It is people like her who are doing the coercing.
5. The number of men paying for sex has decreased and it just creates a whole shift in cultural attitudes so that is no longer seen as acceptable.
It is true that the number of men paying for sex has decreased in places like Sweden. I don't think that paying for sex is a bad thing. I believe in the liberal principle that people should decide for themselves what they believe is good or bad, if it does not harm others. It is not acceptable for lobby groups or the state to tell us what to do or to try to control our behaviour. They have no right to 'shift cultural attitudes' and tell us what is 'acceptable'. Especially when we know that they are dishonest. They pretend that they only want to help the vulnerable but they have a hidden agenda. They use false statistics and false arguments. And they know they are doing it.
It is very important for women to have the choice to make money out of what can loosely be describes as 'the sex industry' without having sex. Lap dancing clubs and some massage establishments offer women this choice. By closing lap dancing clubs some women will live in poverty while others will become prostitutes. This doesn't help women, and it seems strange that some feminists want to do things that harm women.
Middle-class feminists don't want to understand how poor and vulnerable women live, and I don't believe they actually care. It is puritanism dressed up as ideology. A nonsensical and dishonest ideology at that, opposed to the liberal values our society is based on. They are more motivated by the idea of restricting men than enabling women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)