UK to criminalise paying for sex.

[andyandy]

.. Or at least Jacqui Smith plans to introduce laws which will ensure that anyone paying for sex will do so with the risk of a criminal record.

Jacqui Smith said she expected to see some lapdancing clubs, which have mushroomed in recent years, close and fewer new ones opened under reforms triggered by concerns over a seedy culture of sexual titillation creeping across city centres. She will outline plans this week to criminalise paying for sex with a woman 'controlled for another person's gain'. The new offence will carry a hefty fine and criminal record, which could prevent those caught from getting jobs in sensitive occupations.

The legislation will cover women who have pimps or drug addicts who work to pay off their dealers as well as the rarer cases of trafficked women. This is expected to include the majority of Britain's 80,000 sex workers. Ignorance of a woman's circumstances will not be a defence. Kerb crawlers will be 'named and shamed', while those who pay a prostitute knowing she has been forcibly trafficked could face rape charges.

The measures are highly controversial, with critics arguing that men will seek other outlets if prostitution is driven off the streets. Smith said it was 'not mine or the government's responsibility to ensure that the demand is satisfied', adding: 'Is this something about which people have a choice with respect to their demands? Yes, they do. Basically, if it means fewer people are able to go out and pay for sex I think that would be a good thing.'

The prostitution review will be published this week, followed later this month by new licensing arrangements that are expected to see lapdancing clubs, currently licensed in the same way as pubs, subjected to the same stringent regime as sex shops, allowing local residents more opportunities to object.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/16/prostitution-women-lapdancing

So, the feminists at the heart of government (Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith) are going to strike to achieve one of the ideological underpinnings of the modern feminist movement. What effect will this have upon the prostitution industry? Is criminalisation or legalised regulation the answer?
Discuss! :)

[Damien Evans]

Legalised Regulation, since it's going to keep happening anyway. Regulation has worked pretty well over here.

[TragicMonkey]

Well, what do you expect from a place that makes consensual S&M a criminal offense?

[volatile]

.. Or at least Jacqui Smith plans to introduce laws which will ensure that anyone paying for sex will do so with the risk of a criminal record.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/16/prostitution-women-lapdancing

So, the feminists at the heart of government (Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith) are going to strike to achieve one of the ideological underpinnings of the modern feminist movement. What effect will this have upon the prostitution industry? Is criminalisation or legalised regulation the answer?
Discuss! :)

"She will outline plans this week to criminalise paying for sex with a woman 'controlled for another person's gain'".

That's going to effectively close down the British porn industry too, isn't it?

[volatile]

Well, what do you expect from a place that makes consensual S&M a criminal offense?

R vs Brown was a court ruling and not an act of parliament.

I agree it's a terrible ruling, but let's be clear about what we're talking about.

[TragicMonkey]

R vs Brown was a court ruling and not an act of parliament.

I agree it's a terrible ruling, but let's be clear about what we're talking about.

Oh, well, that makes it all okay then.

"In principle there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sadomasochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sadomasochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty [...]. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized."

The appeal to the European Court of Human Rights failed in 1997, and the decision there was that governments may "protect morals".

So for your own moral good, your government may tell you what you may and may not do in your bedroom of your own free will.

And people think America's run by anti-sex Puritans!

eta: and the quote is from the House of Lords on the appeal. I'm not 100% perfect on UK government, but isn't the House of Lords part of Parliament?

[plumjam]

Damn. I guess this is going to push up prices.
*trepidatiously walks into living room, puts on sad/serious face*
"Darling, I'm afraid we may have to postpone the building of the conservatory."

[Terry]

Oh, well, that makes it all okay then.

"In principle there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sadomasochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sadomasochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty [...]. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized."[...]

Obligatory link with full details of this travesty: http://www.spannertrust.org/documents/spannerhistory.asp

[volatile]

Oh, well, that makes it all okay then.



Oh, it certainly doesn't make it OK. Not at all, not at all. The ruling in R vs Brown (and the fact that it's been upheld on appeal!) is a stain on the recent legal history of my country.

As a judicial interpretation of an existing law, though, it involves a rather different set of issues than those involved in the OP, which is the proposition of a new statutory instrument.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Damn, I thought from the title that maybe the UK was going to socialize it and set up a Nation Sex Service (NSS) similar to the NHS. :o

[andyandy]

Seeing as I have started the thread, I may as well offer my opinions. I think that the prostitution industry (much like the drug industry) is crying out for decriminalisation/legalisation and regulation. Unfortunately legislation on both issues is approached from the start point of ideology (Judaeo-Christian morality or feminist anti-commoditisation) rather than dispassionate utilitarianism which considers the greater good for society.

Even if one gives zero weighting for the "needs/wants" of men who use prostitution, a utilitarian perspective in my opinion would still see prostitution regulated to best benefit the women who work in the industry. Firstly, with openly legalised and regulated brothels, you could cut out the need for a middle man "pimp" taking a significant cut or controlling the women against her will. Instead, each building would employ security guards to prevent trouble, who could intervene by means of an alarm if any violence or intimidation occurred. Secondly, you could provide a " minimum wage" ceiling to reduce exploitation. Thirdly, you could provide outreach to every prostitute with regards to drug addiction, job support, counselling, housing etc. This would ensure that those who had arrived at the profession through abuse, drug addiction or extreme poverty could be helped out of the business. This could be paid for by increased taxation from an openly regulated industry. Fourthly, you could require regular checkups with health professionals to ensure that STDs were not spreading through the community. Fifthly, you could also preside over a stringent crackdown of all non-regulated brothels, and kerb crawlers. Any men using non-regulated services would face a criminal record and a short jail term. This would decimate the trade in trafficked women, and criminal world control of the industry.

Such an approach would not be a panacea. It would have its flaws, but it would produce the best utilitarian outcome for society. The alternative, as proposed by Jacqui Smith, seeks to reduce supply by reducing the demand. But it is based on the feminist ideology of patriarchal oppression, which seeks to see all prostitute as "victims" of male exploitation. If a woman is doing it for economic gain or to fund addiction then she is seen as having no free will in her actions. She must therefore be protected against exploitative males. Such an ideology therefore has no place for choice. But in reality, apart from women held against their will, there is a degree of choice for all women who work as prostitutes. By seeking to reduce supply you take that choice away. The woman who prefers to work as a prostitute because it pays more than flipping burgers at McDonald's still wants the extra money, the woman who wants more money to spend on her addiction still wants to feed her habit. So by attempting to reduce demand but by failing to reducing the reason for supply you end up with the worst of both worlds. You will have the same number of prostitutes competing for a reduced number of clients, the clients themselves who are left will be able to pay less money, and will be the sort of men who are not deterred by a criminal record, and thus more greatly drawn from unpleasant criminal classes. The industry itself will be forced deeper underground, making it more attractive to trafficking, and increasing the exploitation of the women in it.

Nice one Labour.

[Sunstealer]

andyandy sums it up perfectly, those are my thoughts exactly. This legislation is going to make things far, far worse rather than better because this will force it underground and further into the hands of some very nasty people all because of ideology that when put into practise shows how misguided it is. It's a New Labour moniker.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So, the feminists at the heart of government

:rolleyes: That explains it. How come some of them are still alive and kicking? Give them this and their next movement will be to claim that genders are a culturally imposed lie.

[rjh01]

I do not think it goes far enough. Anyone who buys products made with workers that should not be in the country or are underpaid or by workers who are controlled by others should be guilty of a crime. The fact that they did not know about the status of the workers is no defence.

Anyone who argues against me is arguing against the legislation.

[RandFan]

If they want to charge for sex then they should get married like the rest of us.

[lionking]

Legalised (and regulated) prostitution has hardly torn the fabric of society asunder here, as Damien has pointed out. But with regulation goes monitoring of legal brothels, so "sex slaves", or trafficked women I suppose, can't get work in these places. There are still illegal brothels and street walkers, but the system seems to work fairly well. Driving the sex trade further underground is lunacy.

[Wildy]

You're lucky lionking.

SA isn't that progressive, damn conservatives. As far as I know there isn't any proper regulation of the sex industry here because it's still officially illegal.

The police however, do not enforce the law with regards to this as strictly as they could, and I know the department that deals with disabled people has a list of prostitutes that cater for disabled people.

I know that because of the uproar from "moral crusaders" when it was discovered that they do that.

[lionking]

Gee wildy last time I was in Adelaide I didn't have too much troub.................never mind.

[a_unique_person]

Come to the socialist paradise of Australia, and get the government to pay for your service.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/government-to-investigate-health-rebates-for-sexual-massages-20081117-68o5.html

Health Minister Nicola Roxon says she will investigate the "serious allegations" that sexual services were being billed as a massage or acupuncture to attract a health fund rebate.
The practice was revealed after health funds reportedly investigated Chinese community newspaper advertisements offering "young attractive masseuse with a health fund rebate".
"The allegations that are made are serious ones," Ms Roxon told reporters in Canberra.
"I don't want to see public money being used in any inappropriate way."

[Darth Rotor]

Please contact Georg and find out how this fits into freedom of speech. :D

(Georg, I am teasing here. ;) )

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Damn, I thought from the title that maybe the UK was going to socialize it and set up a Nation Sex Service (NSS) similar to the NHS. :o
Not that bad a plan, but only if the Secretary of the NSS is named Phillip Withedix.

DR

[Ivor the Engineer]

I like the idea and think it could work as intended. As the number of clients goes down and mostly violent and otherwise unpleasant clients are left, fewer women will see prostitution as an alternative.

But as with all such schemes, it can only be successful if the law is enforced.

On the other hand, the legalisation of prostitution turns pimps into businessmen, increases the spread of STD's and creates more prostitution, both regulated and unregulated.

[Georg]

Please contact Georg and find out how this fits into freedom of speech. :D

(Georg, I am teasing here. ;) )

DR

No problem. I hope you don´t mind my posts in the other thread, though......:D

[cwalner]

I am not certain why so many people continue to parrot the ridiculous idea that criminalizing an activity reduces demand. Not sure about other countries, but a cursory review of US history shows the opposite. We outlawed drinking alcohol. Demand stayed the same and petty criminals became wealthy organized crime leaders. We outlawed drugs. ditto. Hiring a prostitute is illegal in 49 states, yet the activity persists.

Making it illegal to purchase a product or service does not reduce demand for that product or service!!!

I am also curious. If it were found out that a particular brand of shirt sold at say Wal*Mart (or equivilent type of store outside of US) was found to be made in an overseas factory using child labor, in violation of the laws of the country in which the shirt was sold, are the purchaser of those shirts in violation of the law. Should they be punished for human rights violations?

[Darth Rotor]

If it were found out that a particular brand of shirt sold at say Wal*Mart (or equivilent type of store outside of US) was found to be made in an overseas factory using child labor, in violation of the laws of the country in which the shirt was sold, are the purchaser of those shirts in violation of the law. Should they be punished for human rights violations?
Of course. I'll get EJ Armstrong on it, straight away! :D

[Ivor the Engineer]

I am not certain why so many people continue to parrot the ridiculous idea that criminalizing an activity reduces demand. Not sure about other countries, but a cursory review of US history shows the opposite. We outlawed drinking alcohol. Demand stayed the same and petty criminals became wealthy organized crime leaders. We outlawed drugs. ditto. Hiring a prostitute is illegal in 49 states, yet the activity persists.

Making it illegal to purchase a product or service does not reduce demand for that product or service!!!

I am also curious. If it were found out that a particular brand of shirt sold at say Wal*Mart (or equivilent type of store outside of US) was found to be made in an overseas factory using child labor, in violation of the laws of the country in which the shirt was sold, are the purchaser of those shirts in violation of the law. Should they be punished for human rights violations?

When prohibition was repealed, tax receipts from the sale of alcohol were significantly lower than before it was introduced. I.e. prohibition did reduce the consumption of alcohol.

ETA: An article on prohibition:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441

...alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition--by 30 to 50 percent. Deaths from cirrhosis of the liver for men fell from 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 to 10.7 per 100,000 in 1929.

[geni]

I am not certain why so many people continue to parrot the ridiculous idea that criminalizing an activity reduces demand. Not sure about other countries, but a cursory review of US history shows the opposite. We outlawed drinking alcohol. Demand stayed the same and petty criminals became wealthy organized crime leaders. We outlawed drugs. ditto. Hiring a prostitute is illegal in 49 states, yet the activity persists.

Making it illegal to purchase a product or service does not reduce demand for that product or service!!!

Legal products can be advities far more dirrectly and greatly simplifies the distribution model.

[Soapy Sam]

I predict seedy nightclubs will start selling more light meals and working girls will get fatter.
"We're on a date, officer."

Maybe some of my extensive groupie base will be scared off, but I can barely keep them all satisfied these days anyway.

[andyandy]

I like the idea and think it could work as intended. As the number of clients goes down and mostly violent and otherwise unpleasant clients are left, fewer women will see prostitution as an alternative.

But as with all such schemes, it can only be successful if the law is enforced.

On the other hand, the legalisation of prostitution turns pimps into businessmen, increases the spread of STD's and creates more prostitution, both regulated and unregulated.

So, women who have the choice to leave (and thus have had the choice to enter the profession) will leave, and those that do not have the choice to leave will stay. The people who will be penalised therefore are those who made an active choice relative to alternatives. These people will have their ability to choose to work in the profession curtailed. The people who are left will face lower pay, more violent punters and greater criminal control. Who therefore benefits?

A fully regulated industry could vastly decrease the spread of STDs, weekly checkups for all registered workers or some similar scheme would be vastly preferable to unlicensed unregulated prostitution. A properly regulated industry would also dramatically reduce the demand for an unregulated industry. Clean environments, safe premises, health checked girls, versus stringently enforced sting operations on all illegal brothels with a minimum six month jail term? Who is going to choose the latter?

And yes, proper regulation would probably increase demand, but this is only intrinsically bad if you believe prostitution to be in itself morally wrong. Stripped away from Judaeo-Christian morality or feminist anti-commoditisation, we should not consider the exchange of services between two consensual adults to be intrinsically wrong. If the supply side is suitably cleaned up to minimise exploitation then we should be ambivalent about demand side increase.

[geni]

"She will outline plans this week to criminalise paying for sex with a woman 'controlled for another person's gain'".

That's going to effectively close down the British porn industry too, isn't it?

It would cause issues with producer/performers (although there may be a problem with that under say US law there is no caselaw however). But where the producer is paying two third parties to have sex (in this case the performers) I can't see it haveing any impact.

[CyCrow]

I like the idea and think it could work as intended. As the number of clients goes down and mostly violent and otherwise unpleasant clients are left, fewer women will see prostitution as an alternative.


So the idea is reducing prostitution by making it more unpleasant? Why not go all the way and spit on streetwalkers, stalk escorts and expose them to their neighbours and family (bring paint! Nothing says "I hate you" like a big red "Whore" on your front door), maybe even burn down a brothel? They must surely be persuaded of their erronous ways?


But as with all such schemes, it can only be successful if the law is enforced.

On the other hand, the legalisation of prostitution turns pimps into businessmen, increases the spread of STD's and creates more prostitution, both regulated and unregulated.

Turning pimps into businessmen is bad how? Actually, a lot of so-called "pimps" are women. If you define pimping as organizing prostitution in any way, then you will find that many of them provide services that prostitutes need, and that amicable business relations are not uncommon. Legalisation legalises the work of a "good pimp", while keeping "bad pimping" like intimidation, violence and slavery illegal.

Can you give a source for the assertion that legalised prostitution increases the spread of STDs? I find it implausible and contrary to most reports I have read. At any rate, brothel/escort prostitution isn't a major STD vector in the western world. In fact, among legal prostitutes the STD prevalence is lower than average women of the same age group. Condoms work.

As for more prostutution, I would agree that it being safe and legal increases demand somewhat, but it tends to become less troublesome, so the total level of violence and problems goes down. Why would illegal prostitution increase? Do you have good sources that it does?

// CyCrow

[Egg]

And yes, proper regulation would probably increase demand, but this is only intrinsically bad if you believe prostitution to be in itself morally wrong. Stripped away from Judaeo-Christian morality or feminist anti-commoditisation, we should not consider the exchange of services between two consensual adults to be intrinsically wrong. If the supply side is suitably cleaned up to minimise exploitation then we should be ambivalent about demand side increase.
I'd say on balance I believe prostitution is morally wrong, but I still find myself almost in total agreement with you as far as the legislation goes. I'd rather see the government protecting people, the morality isn't really any of their business.

[CyCrow]

We've had much of this debate here before. What really bothers me is the quality of the arguments used in the public debate. The unholy alliance of radical feminism and conservative prudishness has pushed some of the shoddiest "studies" and most biased research I have seen into "fact boxes" and soundbites.

At least some people have the decency to state that their objection is morally based, that sex outside of marriage is bad, or that is "cheapens" sex. In fact, I believe the latter is an important factor, as it lowers the "market value" of sexual favors. But taking that objection to it's logical conclusion applies just as much to promiscous females. Unsurprising that many of the same deregatory terms are used...

// CyCrow

[Ivor the Engineer]

http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Netherlands-2.htm

THE NETHERLANDS (TIER 1) [Extracted from U.S. State Dept Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2008]

The Netherlands is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor. Within the Netherlands, victims are often trafficked by so called “lover boys”—men who seduce young women and girls and coerce them into prostitution. Women and girls are trafficked to the Netherlands from Nigeria, Bulgaria, China, Sierra Leone, and Romania, as well as other countries in Eastern Europe, for sexual exploitation and, to a lesser extent, forced labor. Men are trafficked to the Netherlands from India, China, Bangladesh, and Turkey for forced labor and sexual exploitation. According to the Dutch National Rapporteur for Trafficking in Persons, the highest risk sectors for labor trafficking are domestic employment, temporary employment agencies, agriculture and horticulture, restaurants, hotels, and construction.

[Ivor the Engineer]

STD's will increase because the unregulated sex trade will also grow. It will grow because there will be men and women who are not able to use or work within the regulated sector. E.g., those women who have turned to prostitution to feed a drug habit; those who have a chronic sexually-transmittable disease; those men who will pay more to not use a condom. Etc.

[CyCrow]

Re: trafficking in the netherlands: That paragraph doesn't contain any quantified info, and could probably apply to most european countries.

STD's will increase because the unregulated sex trade will also grow. It will grow because there will be men and women who are not able to use or work within the regulated sector. E.g., those women who have turned to prostitution to feed a drug habit; those who have a chronic sexually-transmittable disease; those men who will pay more to not use a condom. Etc.

I still haven't seen good reasons for why the uregulated sex trade would grow. Demand would be down, absorbed mostly by the legal sector. Experience from legalization in New Zeeland http://www.justice.govt.nz/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/index.html doesn't even indicate much total growth.

As I have said before, some prostitution is caused by drug abuse, migration issues and poverty. Addressing these issues and giving legal protection to sex workers is a much better solution.

I believe the "prostitution as violence against women" view by radical feminists is very counterproductive, as it redirects effort against a strawman of the real problem. Assuming that all "trafficking victims" want to be "rescued" and sent home has resulted in spectacularly unsuccessful programs. Preventing brothels denies working girls security and decent working conditions.

// CyCrow

[Ivor the Engineer]

New Zealand's SOOBs (Small Owner-Operated Brothels), which basically consist of a few women working together, with no madams or pimps seem another reasonable alternative.

[The Atheist]

New Zealand's SOOBs (Small Owner-Operated Brothels), which basically consist of a few women working together, with no madams or pimps seem another reasonable alternative.

Glad you mention those, that being one of my areas of expertise*!

There is a major - and I believe, well-scoped - study about to be released here to compare five years of legal brothels with the prior illegal situation. Anecdotal evidence of attacks on prostitutes being reduced has come out, but it will be interesting to see what the in-depth study reveals.

It is certainly worth noting that the fabric of NZ society (such as it was) has not yet been torn asunder by legalising prostitution. It has definitely reduced criminal gang involvement.

*because one of my best mates is a part-owner of a SOOB - very nice place it is, too, with a couple of the loveliest girls you'd ever want to pay to have sex with. Luckily, I'm a banned customer because she's my wife's friend as well.

[DanishDynamite]

Quoting George Carlin: "I'll never understand why it is illegal to pay for something which it is legal to give away for free!"

[CyCrow]

If this is passed, I suspect there will be some legal wranglings about 'controlled for another person's gain'. What's the burden and standard of evidence? Can escorts have drivers/bodyguards? Can working girls share an apartment? Hire someone to handle phones? Security? What about boyfriends?

I can understand criminalizing buying sex from someone who is known to be coerced, but it seems scaring the punters with a wide and nebulous definition of 'controlled' is intended.

// CyCrow

[luchog]

I like the idea and think it could work as intended. As the number of clients goes down and mostly violent and otherwise unpleasant clients are left, fewer women will see prostitution as an alternative.
Because that's worked so well everywhere else it's been done. After all, the US is almost completely free of prostitution (well, outside Nevada), and it's never a serious problem anywhere. :rolleyes: