Have you got a link to evidence that the House of Lords threw out the prostitution amendments to the bill? Strange, because Jack Straw announced on 27th Feb that he was dropping those aspects of the bill anyway, in order to secure the bills quick passage through the Parliamentary process:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/28/prisonsandprobation

This was no victory for the Safety First Coalition, and it didn’t happen either this week or last as stated in the blog.

“If the British Government really wanted to do something about prostitution”

They do and they are. There is currently a full review being undertaken of prostitution policies and their effectiveness in other countries, including Sweden and New Zealand, with a view to adopting something similar here. The working party is due to report its findings this Autumn:

http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=343835&NewsAreaID=2

Perhaps in future you could find out the facts before blogging on a subject, instead of just listening to the shite and propaganda you’re being fed by Safety First and our friends from Global Women’s Strike who comprise both Safety First and the IUSW (and Women against rape; black women against rape; the ECP; Wages for Housework; Black Women for Wages for Housework………….)

Wow, I find myself agreeing with John McDonnel! Although I would prefer greater emphasis on the single thing that could dramatically improve the lives of sex workers: to legalise it completely and allow them to work out their own business arrangements so that they have the capacity to protect themselves.

It is difficult for government to ensure a so-called “minimum living wage”, however, as simply demanding one by law would have the unintended consequences of reducing the amount of legal employment available and cause inflation to rise, causing that wage to be worth less than that in terms of spending power. The best government I think government could do would be to dramatically reduce the level of taxation paid by the poorest workers so that they have more control over an income which retains its spending power.

“Perhaps in future you could find out the facts before blogging on a subject, instead of just listening to the shite and propaganda you’re being fed by Safety First and our friends from Global Women’s Strike who comprise both Safety First and the IUSW”

Yes, how dare you listen to actual sex workers with experience of what they’re talking about and who are the ones affected? Didn’t you know that only authoritarian-left theorists, who know that it’s wrong and must be stamped out a priori are the only people allowed to talk about prostitution…?

Cath:

To clear up a bit of the confusion, I suspect that this is a repost of a piece written about 2-3 weeks ago and that the reference to the role of House of Lords is, to some extent, a bit of a confused rendering of a bit of slightly arcane parliamentary procedure in as much as the government did announce that clauses 123-125, which dealt with loitering and soliciting offences, were to be dropped at the end of Feb but the actual point at which they were formally dropped from the bill was at the point at which they were’ negatived’ without a vite by the House of Lords during a debate on 3rd March.

It’s not a victory, rather a stay of execution as the measures in question, covering the removal of the term ‘common prostitute’ from law, reframing of the offences of loitering and soliciting and the rehabilitation provisions, plus a clause on defining the meaning of a brothel, will return some time next year – so that’s another bloody criminal justice bill in the next Queen’s speech.

As for why the government backed off, the official reason is time pressure but reading the debate I can’t help but reach the conclusion that the real issue was that the penny finally dropped that rehabilitation orders are only going to be of any use if you’ve got some idea of what an effective rehabilitation might be and how you deliver it (and resource it, of course), and several submissions which came in during the passage of the bill appear to have persuaded the MoJ that they were coming up short on that rather important point.

That the parliamentary end of things, I’ll let you get on with the rest of the debate.

john b – “Yes, how dare you listen to actual sex workers with experience of what they’re talking about and who are the ones affected?”

That would make sense if the IUSW or the ECP were actually sex workers, but they’re not, they’re authoritarian-left theorists who base their ideology on that of their founder Selma James:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_James

Hmm, both organisations were founded by sex workers, and the IUSW is recognised by the TUC as representing sex workers in the UK.

But I’m sure the part-time involvement 10 years ago of a left-wing feminist writer cancels all that out in favour of, erm, whoever wants to criminalise prostitution this week.

Cath -

Let me start by saying that constructive criticism from more experienced feminist writers is always greatly appreciated. Thank you, and if you’ve time and inclination to continue the discussion, my email address is name.surname at gmail dot com.

In my humble though, if the SFC and other sex workers’ rights groups really did talk ’shite’, as you put it, seventies-style ‘radical’ feminist groups would not be so frightened to allow them a platform, as demonstrated at the Million Women Rise event on the 8th.

There is also a lot of opposition to the ‘Swedish Model’ both within and outside sex workers’ groups – which do contain a large proportion of working prostitutes, strippers, performers and other sex workers, something that would become evident if you’d spent any time talking to them, as I have.

As a feminist and a socialist, I believe that we should be listening to what these women, these workers, actually want, what they believe will help them. I believe that our primary aim should be to protect and empower these women (and some men) – if it isn’t, then frankly we’re just stroking ourselves on our own moral high ground.

Wow, she does look a little kookie, especially her Venezuelan assocation!

But I know the IUSW at least includes sex workers within its ranks as I have attended one of its social events with two friends of mine, who are both sex workers.

Great post, Laurie.

john b – “the IUSW is recognised by the TUC as representing sex workers in the UK.”

Actually it’s not as straighforward as that. The IUSW persuaded the GMB to form a sex workers branch, which the GMB duly did. The GMB is a TUC affiliate, and so the GMB sex workers branch is recognised by the TUC as representing sex workers. However, to date less than 50 sex workers have joined this branch of the GMB.

Interestingly, the Safety First Coalition through the Communication Workers Union tried to get a motion through at this year’s TUC Women’s Conference calling on the Government to adopt complete decriminalisation as in New Zealand. The final conference decision was that the Government should be looking at both New Zealand and Sweden, and that the New Zealand model was not necessarily the best option. I spoke on behalf of Unison in support of the Swedish model, which decriminalises prostitutes and criminalises instead the procurers, and I have to say the biggest round of applause came from the GMB reps…….

john b – “both organisations were founded by sex workers”

No, they were founded by Selma James, who still sits on the board of trustees.

Laurie – “In my humble though, if the SFC and other sex workers’ rights groups really did talk ’shite’, as you put it, seventies-style ‘radical’ feminist groups would not be so frightened to allow them a platform, as demonstrated at the Million Women Rise event on the 8th.”

Lol. Have you met the organisers of MWR? They’re an idealistic, grassroots group of young women who came together because they felt they could achieve something with MWR, and they did. They’re not a ’seventies-style radical’ anything, and I think they should be applauded for achieving so much at their first ever attempt. They weren’t ‘frightened’ to give the ECP et al a voice at the event, they just didn’t invite them. We could argue this one until the cows come home to be honest, all I will say is that claims that the ECP were gagged are untrue, as they weren’t invited in the first place. Theresa MacKay from Unite was invited to speak, but as a rep from her trade union, not as a puppet for the ECP. Their reaction to her being dropped from the speakers list was to incite violence from their supporters, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Laurie – “As a feminist and a socialist, I believe that we should be listening to what these women, these workers, actually want, what they believe will help them”

I completely agree, which is why I won’t listen to the ECP or any other Global Women’s Strike front organisation. For what it’s worth I didn’t agree with the amendments to the criminal justice bill either, as I don’t believe criminalising women who are among the most vulnerable anyway would serve any useful purpose.

But happy to continue this via email. I’ll be in touch. (and apologies if my first post was a bit harsh)

“No, they were founded by Selma James, who still sits on the board of trustees.”

Both organisations claim they were founded by sex workers, with grandees like Ms James providing support and advice. If you’ve got evidence they’re lying, by all means bring it on.

“I spoke on behalf of Unison in support of the Swedish model, which decriminalises prostitutes and criminalises instead the procurers”

Yup, and mine’s a pint of “oh so surprised”. Although I’m not quite sure how you’ve got the chutzpah to characterise Ms James as a left-wing authoritarian, when you’re the one who wants to put people in jail for engaging in consenting sex for money and she isn’t.

I have read enough about this subject now on both sides of the argument to know that most legislative responses to social problems often have unseen and unwanted consequences.

I would never support the criminalisation of consenting sex between adults in a private sitatuation where the primarily woman concerned is able to make a decision as to how she obtains money for whatever reason. The state will never offer financial reward for such a choice in the form of subsidy to remove want, and nor should it by isolating a single group whose problems are in many ways no different from other peoples in terms of financial need or desire for money. Charging £250 an hour is not want. Or in Spitzer’s case £2500 is almost beyond belief.

Street prostitution and some massage parlours are different issues because of their links to drugs, pimping. organised crime and trafficking. However there are caveats, the biggest ones being would criminalisation as per Sweden or legalisation as per New Zealand and some parts of Australia provide the better model both in terms of personal safety and breaking the link with criminality. Certainly in Australia where legality obtains the leap in the number of sex workers has caused problems of supervision and registration. Initial findings from New Zealand appear to show that personal safety has improved and trust in the police for protection has been part of that. The situation in Sweden is complicated by a reluctance on behalf of the government to research the consequences of the laws it has brought in.

The following may be of interest.

http://sensuellqkonsult.wordpress.com/2007/05/26/lies-about-sexwork-in-sweden

http://www.petraostergren.com/content/blogcategory/20/38

http://www.bayswan.org/swed/livjessen.html

Quite frankly I could nor care less what the pro or anti, feminist, moralist or libertarian point of view is as long as it prevents another tragedy like Ipswich. But from what i’ve read so far somebody is going to have to come up with some very convincing arguments that criminalisation is the answer.

Where you have “Making an activity such as prostitution effectively illegal – but just illegal enough“, did you mean to write ‘effectively legal’? Makes more sense that way, especially with the direct comparison to Class C drugs.

Actually, I would suggest that with clampdowns on kerb-crawling and the general abolition of ’safety zones’, many inner cities and their police actually treat prostitutes worse than they do dealers in soft drugs.

Personally, I believe that it is daft to ban the distribution of any good that is desired by a significant minority of the population – whether we are talking about religion in Communist China (or the old USSR), alcohol in Prohibition USA, drugs in most places, prostitution in many.

Unless there is a supply problem that prevents them (ie the first example – but I wonder how many of the people involved in priest smuggling during the English Reformation were habitual avoiders of the Revenue) all that seems to happen is that the omnipresent criminals end up making lots of money from the supplying and, in the general course of them not being universally nice people, ruining lives. I suppose if you were taking a strict utilitarian view of things, you would have to balance the harm done by a hypothetical legal supply versus the harm done by the lesser but more damaging illegal supply. With that context, I would still see little point in even considering banning any goods except automatic and heavy weapons and some morphiates – and that is assuming a relatively competent banning / blockade apparatus.

“Quite frankly I could nor care less what the pro or anti, feminist, moralist or libertarian point of view is as long as it prevents another tragedy like Ipswich.”

Although I think that legalisation will make tragedies like the Ipswich murders far less likely to happen, I don’t believe there is any legal tinkering that could ensure that tragedies like that will never happen. Some murderous acts do not have predictable causes. The best a government can do is ensure are less likely to be victims of such awful crimes and to pursue the perpetrators relentlessly on the few occasions they are committed. Of course, it is our society that currently makes sex workers disproportionately likely to be victims of crime.

Nick – “Although I think that legalisation will make tragedies like the Ipswich murders far less likely to happen”

I don’t think it would have made the slightest difference in that case, and the attempts by the Safety First Coalition to exploit the murders in pursuit of their own agenda is frankly disgraceful. Safety First claim that the women were vulnerable because of the anti-prostitution strategies being employed in Ipswich at the time, and that because of this the women had moved away from safer areas. However, Steve Wright’s trial showed that none of this made any difference, because all the women knew and trusted Wright, so they would have been happy to go with him wherever he suggested.

Nick – “Of course, it is our society that currently makes sex workers disproportionately likely to be victims of crime.”

Spot on.

However, Steve Wright’s trial showed that none of this made any difference, because all the women knew and trusted Wright, so they would have been happy to go with him wherever he suggested.

…which didn’t become apparent before Wright’s trial. Before that, SFC’s belief that forcing prostitutes into more dangerous areas was likely to have been a contributing factor was entirely reasonable – and the most likely explanation based on previous such horrible crimes for what happened.

Did Selma James once run over your dog or something?

The important point about legalisation or de-criminalisation for both prostitutes and clients, is that it creates an environment where those in a vulnerable position feel there is a probability of support if it is needed. It is much more likely that people like Wright possibly and Sutcliffe would not have been able to kill so many if the relationship with law enforcement authorities was more open. I will concede that Wright is an unusual case, but not because he was trusted, what prostitute ever really trusts their clients, but because he killed over such a short space of time.

The experience in Sweden from prostitutes, police and social workers is that although the numbers have reduced in Stockholm they have risen in other cities. No police force or support agency can realistically cover all eventualities because of the constraints on their time and funds. The other experience in Stockholm is that their has been an inability to judge personal safety because of the time it now takes to assess a client before the police may arrive; an increase in pimping and the violence associated with it because the women cannot work on the streets themselves and a lack of information passed to the police about trafficking because of a lack of trust that the women themselves feel towards the authorities.

Sitting on a moral high horse is easy. I hope the the people who get on the horse don’t gloat to much when they see somebody dead lying underneath it.

“a sexually conformist-heteronormative privilege divide”
You lost me at “a”.