![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lavendersparkleSo, it began as a little story on the Today program about how a group of local newspapers had decided to stop printing adverts for 'massage parlours' and 'escorts'. "Well" I think, "at best it will result in sex workers just advertising elsewhere at worst it will lead to some sex workers working the streets and being in more danger, but fair enough, it's their newspaper, they can refuse adverts they don't like."
But then, it is revealed that the newspapers were persuaded to drop the adverts after talks with some part of the government connected to Harriet Harman. That's right folks, of all the things the equality minister could find to spend her time on, making life more difficult for vulnerable women is one she picked.
And then, the bombshell. Slipped into this bizarre story of government interference in classified ads, Harman declares that they are considering making prostitution illegal. I would have thought such a major change in criminal law, criminalising a great swathe of the population might have deserved it's own announcement rather than being slipped past sleepy Radio 4 listeners as a tangential point. The way in which the minister for equality framed the issue is rather telling about her attitude about the role of the state:
"Do we think it's right in the 21st Century that women should be in a sex trade or do we think it's exploitation and should be banned?"
Those are the two options. There are no other possible positions on the topic. Either you think that women should be in the sex trade or you think it should be illegal. You can't think that women shouldn't be in the sex trade but that making prostitution illegal will cause more problems than it solves or that prostitution is immoral but that it isn't the states business to interfere with consensual transactions between consenting adults. No. If it's wrong it should be illegal according to the world view of Harman. She wouldn't understand liberalism if it came and bit her.
Even better is the justification for why prostitution should be illegal: to stop human trafficking. It's a bit like trying to stop smuggling by making drinking alcohol illegal. It's over the top and won't work because what you really need to stop human trafficking is to make prostitution more secretive and underground and criminalise absolutely everyone who might come into contact with trafficked women. That's going to make it easier to find and help trafficked women.
"But surely" you ask "they must be planning some kind of consultation with effected groups on this?" Indeed Harman did say that they were going to consult "groups such as the Women's Institute, community organisations, Church and other faith groups." Now, I'm a card carrying G@d botherer but I would have thought that if you were planning to change laws relating to prostitution under the pretense of helping women exploited in prostitution you might, perhaps, put sex worker organisations higher up on you consultation list than churches, or at least on the list at all. This was a feature of the Today program feature as well. They had Harriet Harman to speak for the government and an expert on local newspapers but no one to give a prostitute's perspective. For all their feigning of concern for their welfare, they would prefer for prostitutes to remain silenced.
On the plus side, good old David Howarth is repaying our effort in electing him by saying that a ban could put women in more danger.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7153358.stm
But then, it is revealed that the newspapers were persuaded to drop the adverts after talks with some part of the government connected to Harriet Harman. That's right folks, of all the things the equality minister could find to spend her time on, making life more difficult for vulnerable women is one she picked.
And then, the bombshell. Slipped into this bizarre story of government interference in classified ads, Harman declares that they are considering making prostitution illegal. I would have thought such a major change in criminal law, criminalising a great swathe of the population might have deserved it's own announcement rather than being slipped past sleepy Radio 4 listeners as a tangential point. The way in which the minister for equality framed the issue is rather telling about her attitude about the role of the state:
"Do we think it's right in the 21st Century that women should be in a sex trade or do we think it's exploitation and should be banned?"
Those are the two options. There are no other possible positions on the topic. Either you think that women should be in the sex trade or you think it should be illegal. You can't think that women shouldn't be in the sex trade but that making prostitution illegal will cause more problems than it solves or that prostitution is immoral but that it isn't the states business to interfere with consensual transactions between consenting adults. No. If it's wrong it should be illegal according to the world view of Harman. She wouldn't understand liberalism if it came and bit her.
Even better is the justification for why prostitution should be illegal: to stop human trafficking. It's a bit like trying to stop smuggling by making drinking alcohol illegal. It's over the top and won't work because what you really need to stop human trafficking is to make prostitution more secretive and underground and criminalise absolutely everyone who might come into contact with trafficked women. That's going to make it easier to find and help trafficked women.
"But surely" you ask "they must be planning some kind of consultation with effected groups on this?" Indeed Harman did say that they were going to consult "groups such as the Women's Institute, community organisations, Church and other faith groups." Now, I'm a card carrying G@d botherer but I would have thought that if you were planning to change laws relating to prostitution under the pretense of helping women exploited in prostitution you might, perhaps, put sex worker organisations higher up on you consultation list than churches, or at least on the list at all. This was a feature of the Today program feature as well. They had Harriet Harman to speak for the government and an expert on local newspapers but no one to give a prostitute's perspective. For all their feigning of concern for their welfare, they would prefer for prostitutes to remain silenced.
On the plus side, good old David Howarth is repaying our effort in electing him by saying that a ban could put women in more danger.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7153358.stm
