A Busy Day on Home Affairs
Wedensday we will be debating the Criminal Justice and Home Affairs Bill. There will be at least two important amendments. First of all Jack Straw will be moving his amendment to strengthen protection for homeowners who tackle burglars. Unfortunately, it turns out it does nothing of the sort, it was all for PR purposes, so we will be tabling our own amendment. Then there is the homosexual hate crime amendment. I have huge difficulty with this. As most of you should know I have long supported homosexual issues (boy does that sound patronising!) including repeal of section 28, civil partnerships, adoption. But I am offended by this clause, because I think all these hate crimes clutter up the statute book, when we should be able to use exisiting law - incitement etc - to prosecute. For example, last week Matthew Parris suggested cyclists should be decapitated. It should be perfectly possible to prosecute Matthew for incitement, if there was evidence, without brining in “hate cyclist” legislation. Finally Fiona McTaggart is hoping to table her amendment to make it illegal to buy sex, thus moving the law away from the prostitute and on to the client. Any views on that? I am undecided at the moment.
Tony Makara said on January 4th, 2008 at 6:53 pm:
The misery of prostitution will only ever be compounded by those who advocate that prostitution is some sort of legitimate business transaction. The reality is that prostitution cheapens the individual who can be bought and is very often abused violently as part of the transaction. Prostitution does no favours to society, it degrades those involved and spreads disease which men pass on to their wives at home.
Graeme Archer said on January 4th, 2008 at 7:00 pm:
Happy New Year Mr Vaizey. I hope you decide to vote against the ‘homosexual hate crime’ clause thing. It doesn’t put you against the side of the angels. I’m a happily married/civil-partnered gay man, and I think the proposed law is ridiculous. If someone gets mugged, it doesn’t really matter their orientation - the bad thing is that they got mugged. This psycho-pathologisation of crime is not a good thing, however good the motives of those who propose it. Since it’s new year, I’ll presume that Labour have good intentions, and are not merely attempting to buy off some votes in a typically leftish balkanisation type thing!
I wrote about this once on Conservative Home I think, hang on lemme look. Here it is:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2007/01/grame_archer_on.html
… not a bad last line if I say so myself!
“any country which requires legislation for basic human decency is almost certainly missing the real problem”.
Ted said on January 4th, 2008 at 7:11 pm:
On the first point I hope you manage to put something better on the statute book. On the hate crime amendment I agree with Graeme, though perhaps am not as forgiving as he is on the Governments motives. Looks to me like another attempt to try to divide the Conservatives. While a violent crime against someone on basis of whether they are gay, black or muslim is outrageous so is an violent attack on a straight person etc. It’s insulting to the latter victim for the state to say that the crime against them was less serious. Fiona MacTaggart’s amendment - surely you are not serious? It is not a crime to sell sex so how can it be a crime to buy it - either you make both punter and prostitute guilty or neither. The existing crimes of soliciting is matched by the crime of kerb crawling and address the public nuisance.
phantom said on January 4th, 2008 at 9:19 pm:
The question with all of this is if people ought to be instructed on what to think, say and do.
Is there any mention in the highway code about not making any disparaging comments about blue cars? If not, why not?
Because the highway code is utilitarian in nature. It is to stop us from colliding on the road. It prevents harm. It doesn’t seek to ‘improve us’.
Now sure, I too don’t like discrimination of homosexuals. Section 28 was bad (and quite shameful for the Conservatives, I’d add).
But is it right to introduce rules on what not to say?
I agree, incitement to violence is something else. Yet that is already banned and for perfectly good reasons.
Yet, if I don’t like someone and happen to voice it, I don’t think I ought to be committing a crime.
I recall how Lenin is to have said that it would take a ‘new human’ for communism. Essentially the old human would have to be ‘improved’ to make a good communist. We all know what happened. For decades eastern states tried to ‘improve’ people. A Bulgarian friend of mine told me once how she’d been subject to ‘socialism classes’ back at school.
I wouldn’t say it was a riveting success.
People need not be told what values to have. It is not the role of government to do this.
In fact, it ought to be us shaping the state, not the state seeking to shape us.
Very much the same thing applies to prostitution. It’s a moral issue. Yet we all have our personal values.
Sure, there is such a thing as public morality. Yet so too is there a private morality. What we do in privacy ought not be subject to the dictum of the state where it is of concern to no-one else but us. The exchange of intimacy and money between two private individuals affects the state and wider society in what way?
If we allow state intervention here, what purpose privacy?
But the most important aspect in the government’s Criminal Justice plans at the moment I feel is the proposed ban on the possession of ‘extreme’ pornography. The same arguments as above apply.
What people do in private cannot be subject to ‘public morality’, else the state crosses the threshold into your home in a way hitherto unimagined.
If homosexual hate crime is to instruct us on how to speak, ‘extreme’ pornography is threatening to intervene in how we are to think. (Lawyers are warning of ‘thought crime’ entering the statutes with this one.)
In essence it is for the state to stay out of our personal affairs, our private space. Sure, it is there to prevent serious harm, also in the private shere, but it is not there to regulate and manipulate our personal values.
More so, on a personal level one of our chief duties as citizens of a free society is to tolerate offence. For if we all seek to have those silenced whose views offend us, I think we’ll find very quickly, that we’re all equally gagged.
In multifaceted, multicultural societies such as our own the wish for protection from any sort of offence is the least helpful, least practicable demand possible.
We should always remember that, if in doubt, we ought to err on the side of liberty.
Observer said on January 4th, 2008 at 10:01 pm:
It seems to me that the homosexual hate crime amendment is yet one more piece of legislation, designed not to serve a useful legal purpose (as you quite rightly say there is perfectly adequate legislation elsewhere that could be used or adapted) but rather a political purpose. By badging legislation for certain groups, whatever form that group may take, it allows politicians to say to that group aren’t we wonderful, vote for us, regardless of the practical effect of that legislation.
On the prostitution issue, there is understandable concern at human trafficking and exploitation of women, and this is in theory is designed to reduce that. To my mind though there are a number of objections to it. The first, as some of your other contributors have said is that if two freely consenting adults in private decide to exchange money for sex, whose business is that but their own. Secondly I find it hard to see that it will make any real difference in practical terms to the real issue. Men will continue to pay for sex and women, either willingly or forced, will provide it. It seems to me that the real issue is and should be those women who are involved in prostitution because they are forced to do so, either by others or because of drug and mental issues, or simple lack of other choices. Could we solve that better by bringing prostitution into the open, legalising it, licensing and regulating it. Use the licence money to fund drug rehabilitation programmes, offer training, counselling etc. to help those not in it from choice make other choices. Identify those women who are forced into it. Police time and effort could then be spent targetting those who stay outside the licensing system which would probably by definition inviolve a far higher percentage of women who are forced into it, and can really help them.
Justin Hinchcliffe said on January 4th, 2008 at 10:01 pm:
First of all I disagree with Tony (the first poster). We are never going to rid society of prostitution. It is, of course, the world’s oldest profession! I don’t accept that it necessarily “cheapens the individual”. Don’t take my word for it, make contact with organisations representing sex workers.
I am not sure about the government’s clause on gay hate crime (simply don’t know enough about what they are proposing). Maybe their intentions are good, but wrong, as Graeme suggests? What I do find slightly odd is your description of gay men, of which I am one, as “homosexuals”. I think that is a rather old-fashioned and jaded word and not one modernisers such as your good self should be using.
Wishing you and your family a Happy New Year.
Justin Hinchcliffe - Chairman, Tottenham Conservatives
canvas said on January 4th, 2008 at 10:43 pm:
Ed, the kerb crawler should be made ‘the criminal’. Most street prostitutes are drug addicts and therefore they are extremely vulnerable. It’s the kerb crawler who exploits these vulnerable sex workers - and kerb crawlers destroy the quality of life for many families and neighbourhoods. Please name and shame them!!! Let’s help get the prostitiutes off the drugs and send the kerb crawlers to jail. thank you.
Sean Fear said on January 5th, 2008 at 12:13 am:
Both proposed laws are ridiculous, and are being suggested because “something must be done”, in order to make legislators feel a warm glow of righteousness.
John F said on January 5th, 2008 at 12:17 am:
The antiquated sex laws in the UK should be swept away. The anti sex laws in the UK are usually based on the opinions of disgusted of Tunbridge Wells writers.
Countires like Australia have no such problems, brothels (or massage parlours) are legal the stipulation being that they are run by women. One I believe in Melbourne is now quoted on the stock market.
Speaking as a person who has worked in many parts of the world, traveling through places like Brazil, the Far East etc, I have not problem with giving a girl a monetary gift, even in the UK I have no problem with that at all.
The main problems in the UK are the dangers the girls face from punters, drugs, pimps etc, however to fine men or even the girls is stupid.
So what should be done,
1. Legalise borthels and massage parlours along the same lines as they are in Australia, Holland, Germany etc.
2. They should be licensed by the local authorities the stipiulation being that they can only be owned and operated by women.
3. They should be subject to the same health and safety laws as other businesses, so the girls, or boys (yes there are boys too) have access to health checks etc.
The main objective is to get it off the streets so its safer for the girls and to put a stop to the trafficing of foreign girls into the UK and I think properly regulated, legalised prostitution would be a much more sensible way of helping to stop the current problems.
I agree with those who say that the neighbourhood problems are unacceptable and yes prosecute the men who cause the trouble, however their are other laws that can be used like the “Breach of the Peace” laws we have in Scotland
I think there are also lot of myths about girls who sell their bodies. In my experience many do it firstly because they are gorgeous, second they enjoy sexy fun and thirdly they think well why not get paid for something they enjoy.
I agree the the dangers faced by the girls in the current times is unacceptable, however how does this compare with the dangers women face in their own homes from fathers, male relations, husbands, partners etc.
Speaking as one who enjoys the company of sexy ladies any law against paying girls will not stop me. No I don,t cruise the streets, I simply go online or have the numbers of girls I already know,, so tell me how are you going police that and the millions of other men and women who do the same. By the way, include the many high court judges, lawyers, lords and members of parliament who also pay for girls. Surely there is nothing more hypocritical in the UK than legislators pontificating about and making laws stopping prostitution and then availing themselves of their services,, its the kind of hypocrasy this country is internationally famous for
So Ed my advice is this, before you make up your mind, go ask the girls what they would like to see, all of the girls I talk with say legalise brothels just as I have set out and frankly I agree with them.
phantom said on January 5th, 2008 at 1:19 am:
Canvas,
You seem to highlight street prostitution as a particular problem.
Yet, street prostitutes evidently supply a demand.
As long as the government still actively discourages the formation of brothels, and deters soliciting, how are we going to magic away street prostitution?
Tories ought to know about market forces, right? If a demand is present and you shut off a supply stream, what tends to happen?
Anyhow, the essential ‘crime’ of a kerb crawler is to wish to buy sex. As such the only thing which differs from the customers of any other prostitutes is the locality. Does that – on its own – warrant imprisonment? I think we need to think hard what it is we actually want to lock people up for – along with the rapists, murderers.
It is true that street prostitution is the most vulnerable end of prostitution. It is also true that a large proportion of the women are addicts. It is also fair to say that it is the kind of prostitution that most blights an area and which we all therefore would most like to see come to an end.
I do not think that women driven into street prostitution by addiction should be punished in any way.
Yet the demand to punish kerb crawlers seems merely to suggest a desire to punish ‘someone’ for what is going on, rather than to find a lasting solution.
Prostitution is truly the oldest profession.
Any attempts to terminate it for good it are doomed to failure. We simply have to accept human nature and acknowledge that it exists.
Therefore it is more important to assure that things happen safely and with a minimum of harm to the women involved and to society at large.
As long as we ban brothels it is hypocritical to suggest street prostitution ought to be stamped out, as it is based on the utopian fiction that we can make prostitution go away altogether.
The fact is it has to exist in some space. It should do so legally and with proper regulation.
Just ‘coming down hard’ on people will not get us anywhere.
In no way am I excusing prostitution or belittling its problems.
But the status quo does not work. Making law more severe may look good for the tabloids but serves little purpose on the ground.
Tizzy said on January 5th, 2008 at 1:21 am:
‘5 fresh pieces of law a day is good for you’ somewhat defines this Labour gvt.
I am fed up of the majority being told what to say and do by minority groups. As you comment, there are more than enough laws on the books as it is.
Why would any sane person want to prosecute Parris, to use your example, in the first place? It’s his job to write, the editor to OK the piece before publication, and the reader to pass comment, much as I’m doing here. Stop protecting idiots.
On the subject of prostitution, a survey of male clients in 2000 submitted that 1 in 10 had used the services of a prostitute (NB Tony Makara: it doesn’t mention whether male or female). In 1949, the figure was 1 in four.
There are too many diverse topics within the sex industry to write on here and so will confine myself to commenting that licensed brothels are the best option for adults.
Will Parbury said on January 5th, 2008 at 3:57 am:
Wednesday not Wedensday! If you want to run the country at least learn to spell. Not convinced that we should lock punters up for it. Naming and shaming in the press, a rehabilitation course looking at the lives of prostitutes and large fines should help in the first instance followed by tagging and removal of driving licences for repeat offenders.
beverly johnson said on January 5th, 2008 at 8:33 am:
I am an escort , I voluntarily decided to become one. Why because it was the only way that I could achieve security and empowerment as a female. I come from a poor background left school when I was 16. No prospects , I saw my girl friends drifting into single motherhood unhappy relationships dead end jobs. I worked for about a year as a shelf stacker with a leading supermarket group. Prospects in another 10 years I might make it to be in charge of a section in the store!! I enjoyed sex and saw the opportunity to take advantage of this and manage my own life. Today at 29 I own my house and a flat ( place of work ), I pay taxes through my ” PR ” company, I have investments for the future and a pension plan, I work hard at present but am very much my own mistress and answer to noone , I estimate that when I am 35 I will have sufficient money to keep me for the rest of my life and will be able to enjoy myself.
Street prostitution shopuld be better controlled as the girls who work in it generally have not chosen that life. Escorts and massage parlours should be legalised as the girls there usually have made a conscious career choice. The police already have sufficient power to control sex trafficking the problem is they fail totally except for an occasional PR raid to do anything. Also you have to remember that with the freedom of movement within the EU most of the girls coming here are now from member countries so are not illegals
Janice Small said on January 5th, 2008 at 5:37 pm:
Hate crime can be used as a vicious tool to persecute rather than it’s intended use. I have taken soundings from my gay friends who say they do not need it. Again, the police will not have the increased manpower to implement this law and physical violent crime will increase.
Prostitution. I have changed my mind on this. I used to think that if women wished to sell their bodies and were not used by pimps then that was their choice. However, with the increase in human trafficking for prostitution (read slavery) we have to take a harder line on this. I am still open to argument on licensed brothels because we can help the drug addicts and the vulnerable.
I am afraid that this smacks of a government that cannot stop meddling rather than making a real difference to people’s lives and personifies the control freakery of New Labour. I also think that this has not only been thought up by the politically correct left but then taken up by the spin doctors who think this is a stick to beat the Tories with by, hopefully, exposing us as homophobic and racist.
Terry said on January 5th, 2008 at 8:32 pm:
Ed, so encouraging to hear that on the gay hate crime you are effectively protecting traditional moralists like me - refreshing as well.
S Jamieson said on January 5th, 2008 at 9:05 pm:
I am reminded that in my young single days, on occasion I would buy my date a meal and drinks in the hope of “scoring” I suppose it was a form of paying for sex.
I am not sure how this law would be enforced. Street offences are fairly easy to enforce but there are web sites and magazines which advertise prostitutes. Presumably the rendevous is in a hotel room or at her “business” premises- neither can legally be classified as a brothel. Thinking about it further, if two adults come to what is in effect a business arrangement, what has it got to do with the state.
Rather than seek to impose new laws, maybe the state should try to enforce exisiting ones properly. Yes to street offences, yes to keeping a brothel, yes to properly policing the drug laws (too many young women and men take up prostitution to feed a habit) and one must say that were the nations borders policed properly then the influx of sad exploited young women to this country would be stemmed.
I read some years ago that it was calcuated there were several thousand prostitues active (both part and full time)in the West Midlands!!! I suppose that to criminalise them and say their on average, ten to twelve clients per week would add significantly to the National DNA and figerprint base- and a fat lot of good would be achieved
Tizzy said on January 5th, 2008 at 11:14 pm:
Ed, did you drop my comments? They were waiting for moderation yesterday - nothing has appeared.
jean shaw said on January 6th, 2008 at 8:32 am:
Given that the Women’s Institute voted at their Conference last year in favour of the legalisation of prostitution since it was the only rational means of protecting working girls why are we considering laws which will simply drive it further underground.
Also why are we considering further laws when the Police have ample powers to prosecute the real criminals i.e those who live off immoral earnings. If the Police cannot implement existing laws what is the point of adding any more .
As Beverly says one of the few ways women can achieve success and security is by providing a service which men really need . If it was not such a service how can you explain why thousands of emancipated BRITISH women in control of their own futures can charge fees of upto £500 per hour in London and throughout the rest of the country the average hourly fee is over £100 . The Conservatives should support such a clear example of supply and demand and market economics
jim hamilton said on January 7th, 2008 at 4:00 pm:
As widower in my forties with 2 teenage children with a full time job it is a good thing I can afford to pay for sex. I have tried dating agencies but to no avail so paid sex is the only outlet I have other than masturbating.
Fortunately after a couple of what might be described as disappointing encounters I have now found a lady who satisfies my needs and is at the same time good company. Whilst it is a business transaction it is like all business transactions so much better when the buyer and seller have mutual respect for and a degree of friendship with one another.
As other contributors have said the Police have ample powers already to deal with the seedier side of the business so no more laws are required except to legalise the activity and give protection to the escorts primarily women but also men who provide the service.
Tony Makara said on January 7th, 2008 at 10:31 pm:
Jim Hamilton, men who use prostitutes are misinterpreting what sex and a relationship should be. Sex is a bonding act of intimacy within a loving relationship. When sex occurs outside of a relationship either casually or through prostitution it becomes about using another person as a vessel for personal gratification rather than rather than being a positive experience that brings two people closer together. This inevitably changes the mindset of the individual who starts to see the casual sexual partner as being ‘an object’ rather than a person. Prostitution debases not only the prostitute but ultimately for the client destroys the true meaning of the sexual act.
jim hamilton said on January 8th, 2008 at 8:55 am:
Tony, To an extent you are correct I am certainly in need of personal gratification because I am in a situation which leaves me unfulfilled sexual. I agree that sex when paid for does not involve a loving relationship which is one of the main reasons men ( particularly married men)enter into paid sex because the last thing they want is a relationship which gets complicated/emotional.
However I disagree about your point about prostitution debasing the prostitute , to my knowledge none of the ladies who work in the establishment I visit feel in any way debased . In fact they regard their position as positive, they see that men are willing to pay significant sums of money to have sex , the men may have a choice as to which lady they have sex with when they come in but after that the lady is in control.
Also certainly by having a regular lady as I now do you build up a relationship , in my job I visit lots of companies and you build up a relationship with your suppliers and customers to the extent that they become friends. This is the situation with the lady I visit we have paid sex but we are now friends and I have no doubt that when either of our situations changes we will stay in touch.