Government policy on prostitution
Good to see that the Government hasn’t caved in to calls to make red light districts legal under the guise of “toleration zones”. After all, what happens where you set them up is that some women work in them and receive some measure of protection and support, but others are forced, perhaps through fear of identification, to work outside the zone with no protection at all. The zones become a magnet for organised crime and drug dealing, and British police begin colluding with gangs of people smugglers who have enticed women to the UK with the promise of work or the threat of violence.
My opinions are formed by my experience observing an excellent harm reduction project, now defunct, in the Brick Lane area. The workers used to joke blackly about the tourists on their Jack the Ripper walking tours, who failed to realise that they were passing through one of London’s busiest red light areas, where women were beaten up by pimps and punters every week. I chatted to women using the outreach workers as an early warning system about known violent customers and prostitutes who were missing; women who spoke of punters bargaining them down to two or three pounds, and they took it because someone else would if they wouldn’t; women who couldn’t speak to us for fear their pimps would see they weren’t working; women with weeping sores on their mouths and infected abcesses from injecting, who nonetheless still got plenty of custom.
I’m not talking about middle class women “working” from a suburban bedroom, but about women selling sex on the streets, from “massage parlours” and bedsits. I can’t see prostitution as a choice, just as another form of violence against really vulnerable women. The current vogue amongst leftist women is to urge that prostitutes unionise: I’m unconvinced of the value of this, not least because it might expose women to greater violence from their pimps, and I don’t like the message that prostitution is a job like any other. I believe in women’s autonomy, but that’s hard to reconcile that with my belief that most prostitution is not a choice, but something women are forced into by lack of choice.
Of course, despite what many local communities blighted by prostitution on their streets understandably think, the real problem is not the women selling sex but the men who pay for sex. Let’s ASBO a few kerb-crawlers, put their photos in the paper, and see whether they come back for more.
It’ll be interesting to see what their full response to the Paying the Price consultation proposes when it’s published next month. I think our priority has to be offering opportunities for women to exit prostitution. In the short-term this means a harm-reduction strategy, plus a well-funded network of easy-access women-only hostels, both wet and dry, and drug treatment programmes that are available immediately, with no waiting list, as appointments tomorrow or next week mean nothing to women with chaotic lives. It means ratifying the UN Convention on Trafficking and treating women who have been trafficked as victims, giving them secure immigration status and the right to remain in the UK, so we have some chance of getting convictions. It means not criminalising prostitution, as we do at the moment. Unbelievably it is still possible to prosecute young people selling sex if they “persist” in doing so, according to government guidance. Though I generally support the use of ASBOs to clean up areas, asbo’ing women to stop them selling sex results, in the breach of the order, in sending them to prison for an offence no longer punishable by imprisonment.
In the long term, it means taking a long hard look and action to stop at the patterns of grooming of young vulunerable women, who are captivated by older boyfriends who flatter them, treat them, and get them selling sex. And it means tackling domestic violence, drug abuse and women’s homelessness, no easy feats. But above all, it means accepting that prostitution is not the romanticised “world’s oldest profession”, and it doesn’t always have to be with us, if we decide to make a determined effort to end the exploitation of women and children.
Well, it seems as though you have a choice:
1. You can treat adults as adults, and accept that if I want to agree to have sex with someone in exchange for money, I can make that choice. That makes being a prostitute exactly as legal as being a window-cleaner. Pimps beating up women, “buying” illegal immigrants and forcing them into prostitution and the like is still illegal.
2. You can decide that prostitution is immoral, and that people should not have the right to consent to commercial sex. In this case, it makes far more sense to go after the punters (who usually have jobs, houses and cars) rather than after the street women (often homeless / “vulnerably housed”, hard to find, and easily replaced by a stream of naive exploitable girls).
Though I generally support the use of ASBOs to clean up areas, asbo’ing women to stop them selling sex results, in the breach of the order, in sending them to prison for an offence no longer punishable by imprisonment.
Yes, that is the purpose of an ASBO - to convert the commission of a series of low-grade anti-social offences into one for which one can be imprisoned. As such ASBOing your local prostitute is no different from ASBOing the troublesome hoodie’d teenager down the road.
In the long term, it means taking a long hard look and action to stop at the patterns of grooming of young vulunerable women, who are captivated by older boyfriends who flatter them, treat them, and get them selling sex.
I agree that we need to build a society where people are able to take responsibility for themselves and so don’t fall into these grooming traps. If we build a society where someone’s first resort is to stand up, stand tall and take responsibility for his actions, rather than looking around and expecting someone else to provide for him and take away his troubles, we will be going a long way to building the sort of society where children will not approach adulthood whilst remaining vulnerable to that kind of exploitation.
The current vogue amongst leftist women is to urge that prostitutes unionise: I’m unconvinced of the value of this, not least because it might expose women to greater violence from their pimps, and I don’t like the message that prostitution is a job like any other. I believe in women’s autonomy, but that’s hard to reconcile that with my belief that most prostitution is not a choice, but something women are forced into by lack of choice.
Quick responses from this leftist non-woman:
– It might expose some women to greater violence, true, but isn’t it still a good thing if women - along with all other sex workers - have a choice to join a union (even if some of them choose not to exercise that choice)?
– Does it send a message that “P is a J like any other”? Out of deference to Jo’s position, I won’t make a joke about the NUS, but instead I’ll refer to various unemployed workers’ unions that have appeared throughout the history of the labour movement: we don’t think these are illegitimate just because being unmployed isn’t a job like any other? Unions can play an important, constructive role in lots of different contexts. (I see that the GMB leaflet for sex workers offers resources for people who “would like to leave the sex industry but are not sure how to”.)
– Finally: lots of people with shit jobs they’d like not to have may feel - and may be - forced into them through lack of choice, but again, that’s not a reason for discouraging them from organising collectively (or for not encouraging them to organise collectively). Workers’ rights don’t run out just because the degree of exploitation reaches a certain level of intensity.
I don’t think unionisation is a panacea, and I’m sure there are lots of obstacles in the way of the creation of an effective union, or unions, but I still don’t see why it shouldn’t - along with some of the other initiatives you mention - be a significant part of a programme to improve the lot of sex workers.
Whoops: missed out a word there: “isn’t it still a good thing if those women…” et cetera…
Antonia - have you read Melanie Phillips’ history of the suffragettes, ‘The Ascent of Woman ?’. You seem to be on the side of the angels in their struggle aainst brutish, lustful men, in true Victorian style.
“the real problem is not the women selling sex but the men who pay for sex”
“every currrent of twentieth century feminist theory had its nineteenth or eighteenth century counterpart. All the groupings and distinctions of modern feminism were present then.
The Magna Mater Melanie presents us with the seperatists, nineteenth-cenury Julie Bindels or Catherine MacKinnons, for whom men, their sexuality, their violence, are the problem. Biology is destiny – for blokes. We meet a Polly Toynbee who would like the children of the feckless or immoral to be raised by the State. We meet the free-love exponents and the Puritans. All sorts and conditions of women.
Melanie points out that today’s feminists are still grappling with the questions of the nineteenth century. Are women demanding equality because they are equal to men ? Or will true equality lead to a better world, because women are morally superior to men ?”
Sam, I think I’m more with point 2, though I don’t think prostitution is immoral, more that most prostitution is coerced and women put into a position where they have little or no choice. As for grooming, I think it’s more about self esteem and having effective early warning signals rather than self-reliance: I’ve read evalautions of some interesting early intervention projects with young women who are at risk of coercion into prostitution. The risk signals are similar to many of those for other undesirable outcomes, which points to a need for better family support and suport for disadvataged kids in general, to raise their expectations and self esteem.
Chris, of course you’re right. It’s the emphasis on unionising at the expense of other measures and the fact that pressure to unionise often accompanies agitation for legalisation that irritates me, I think. I also think having forums for women involved in prostitution to have their voices heard is really important, and should have said so.
Laban, that book is on my long list of must-buy-soons. I’ll try to get round to it shortly. I was trying to explain to your commenters earlier that I wasn’t a lesbian feminist (they rather failed to grasp my point), but as you have correctly identified, on this issue I come closest to the traditional lesbian feminist / radical feminist position than my usual socialist feminism lite with a hefty dash of liberal feminism.
Antonia, I think you have entirely the right priorities.
Unfortunately they’re also the priorities which cost money and take time to deliver results, which means the actual policy will be ASBOs, more ASBOs and even more ASBOs because that looks to the middle classes like the government are doing something even if it doesn’t actually solve the problem, just shifts it out of the way for a bit.
> I was trying to explain to your commenters earlier that I wasn’t a lesbian feminist (they rather failed to grasp my point)
I completely understood your point, thanks, but I don’t think you grasped mine.
Sorry, I only skimmed it: was it more than a facile point about the English language?
Unity: let’s wait and see when the new policy is announced later this month. I hope you’re wrong.
Do you have any evidence for your claim that the British police are likely to collude with people smugglers? If so I trust you have referred it to a body reponsible for investigating such matters.
The starting point as regards street prostitution is that the perpetrators are prostitutes and kerb crawlers and the victims are the people who live in, work in the affected areas. Both groups of perpetrators should be made to take responsibility for their actions.
It may be the case that it is easier to get kerb crawlers to modify their behaviour and that tactically it makes sense to focus on them. However fairness dictates that the pictures of street walkers and kerb crawlers should appear side by side for public disapproval.
Sam, I think I’m more with point 2, though I don’t think prostitution is immoral, more that most prostitution is coerced and women put into a position where they have little or no choice.
I agree, nearly. Actually, I do think prostitution is immoral (equally so whether you are a buyer or a seller) but I don’t think immorality is in itself grounds for illegality. We can agree that forcing someone to do anything they don’t want with threats of violence is illegal - it seems a more odious thing to force someone to prostitute themselves than to force someone to clean windows, although that should probably only affect the level of punishment rather than the illegality of the act itself.
Coercion is the point where we step onto rather thin ice, though. There’s nothing actually illegal about “If you really loved me, you’d do X”. It may be the act of an immoral fetid piece of pond scum, but unless act ‘X’ is illegal in and of itself, whining, begging or cajoling someone to perform it can’t be illegal. So, if we remove kidnapping, threats of violence and the like from the equation, merely persuading a woman over the age of consent to sell her body can’t be illegal unless the actual act of prostitution itself is illegal.
So we’re back to considering whether an adult should have the right to chose to sell sex. Absent force or coercion, we’re mostly in middle-class suburban bedroom territory here, and I think you would agree that a woman who makes a genuinely free choice to have sex in exchange for money should be able to do so.
That, unfortunately, puts you with me in point 1. If you think that it should be legal for someone to make a genuinely free, un-coerced and unpressured choice into prostituting themselves, the act of prostitution can’t be illegal. That, in turn, means that the punters aren’t breaking the law, and so there’s little you can do to shame them and stop them. Your one remaining opening would be to decide that prostitutes picking up men on street corners were guilty of unlicenced street trading, which would give you a route into ASBO-ing the kerb crawlers.
As for grooming, I think it’s more about self esteem and having effective early warning signals rather than self-reliance: I’ve read evalautions of some interesting early intervention projects with young women who are at risk of coercion into prostitution. The risk signals are similar to many of those for other undesirable outcomes, which points to a need for better family support and suport for disadvataged kids in general, to raise their expectations and self esteem.
I would say that self esteem is the natural consequence of self-reliance. The very act of taking responsibility for your actions is a statement that what you do matters. Being willing and able to try and better yourself is a strident claim that you have value and worth.
Self-esteem without self-reliance, by contrast, is a house of cards. If every time you are faced with a setback, your response is that somebody else ought to help you, somebody else ought to do something, you are making the statement that you aren’t worth exerting yourself over - that nothing you can do could possibly make a difference, because you’re so worthless. If you can maintain your self-esteem whilst thinking those thoughts, you’re not being entirely rational.
PaulW - you’ve missed my point, which was that the introduction of toleration zones would lead to the police colluding with people smugglers, as many of the women working in those zones would have been enticed here by the promise of legitimate work by the traffickers, and the police would be turning a blind eye to their activities in the zones. I’m glad that legislating for the creation of such zones is no longer being thought about.
Sorry, I disagree with you that prostitutes and kerb crawlers are equally perpetrators. Most street prostitutes are very vulnerable women, and exposing them to public shame would only increase their vulnerability without enabling them to do anything about it. There is often not an option for them to just stop - particularly if they are controlled by a pimp, are homeless or drug dependent. Whereas it is clear that kerb crawlers have far more choice in their actions.
Most street prostitutes are very vulnerable women, and exposing them to public shame would only increase their vulnerability without enabling them to do anything about it. There is often not an option for them to just stop - particularly if they are controlled by a pimp, are homeless or drug dependent.
But if you manage to scare away all the punters, they will have to just stop, because there won’t be any more customers. We can agree that the kerb crawler has more moral culpability than the homeless teenager trying to earn the price of a hot dinner and somewhere warm to sleep, but I think you’re kidding yourself if you think that cracking down on kerb-crawlers but leaving the women alone is really any kinder to the women. As you crack down on kerb-crawlers, you will reduce their number, and so further depress the price of sex. The vulnerable women will be driven to do even more for even less money, because they’ll all be even more desperate as you’ve just dramatically reduced their income.
I will agree that going after the kerb crawlers is a far more effective way of stopping street prostitution than arresting the women, but I am unconvinced that it is in any way easier on the women.
For Sam: you say ‘that is the purpose of an ASBO - to convert the commission of a series of low-grade anti-social offences into one for which one can be imprisoned’.
I’m not a lawyer, but I work in a Crown Court where ASBOs imposed by magistrates are not infrequently overturned on appeal on the grounds that they were imposed ’simply for the purpose of increasing the available sentence beyond the maximum which would otherwise be laid down by statute for the conduct which is prohibited’ (R v Morrison, EWCA Crim 2237 (26 July 2005)).
In the same ruling, the Court of Appeal held that ‘An Anti-Social Behaviour Order, though it may prohibit conduct which is also a distinct offence, must be justified by reference to the statutory requirements of section 1C(2)(a) and (b). Caution should be exercised in the making of an Anti-Social behaviour order if the behaviour in question would in any event be a criminal offence.’ (i.e. does the criminal behaviour actually cause harrassment, alarm and distress? That stems from a previous case when it was held that the harrassment, alarm and distress caused to a large supermarket by a shoplifter wasn’t enough to trigger an ASBO).
The court also said that ‘If a breach of an ASBO consists of no more than the commission of an offence for which a maximum penalty is prescribed by statute, it is wrong in principle to pass a sentence for that breach calculated by reference to the five year maximum for breach of an ASBO. Rather the tariff is determined by the statutory maximum for the offence in question.’
In December of 2003, John Berlau learned of the death of Teresa Howell. Howell was an “escort” who went by the name “Summer Breeze” and worked out of a Georgetown townhouse.
Berlau wanted to do an exposé on the Washington sex trade. He tried to infiltrate several local “sex communities” operating on web sites such as [link removed by Antonia] but was not successful. Then, as now, he tried his usual “if you do not work with me I will give you negative publicity” stunt but apparently the members of these communities did not take him seriously.
Since then, Berlau has developed an obsession with prostitutes. On occasion, he has participated in “sting” operations with local police forces. He will work with them to entrap prostitutes, and then try to get information out of them. A typical arrangement is that if they will help him with this exposé he still dreams of writing, he will “fix” things with the police. Another typical arrangement is that if they will “take care of him” he will “take care of them”!
Not long ago Berlau, in conjunction with Reason magazine, one of the usual outlets for his writing, was going to announce this as a show of how influential the libertarians, or more properly, neocons, are. This was leaked and local prostitutes booed Reason’s Jacob Sullum off the stage in Las Vegas.
As part of the preparation for this story, Reason contacted web developers who had made sites for escorts and tried to extract information from them. In most cases, the Berlau “talk or be smeared” tactic was used. Senior people at Reason, including Jacob Sullum, Charles Paul Freund and Nick Gillespie supported these activities.
Berlau is at it again. This time, he has targeted Korean-operated massage establishments. Just recently, he assisted in entrapping a “masseuse” at Kim’s in Annandale. It is not known what “compensation” Berlau received along the way.
This is the worst kind of journalism. If Berlau can’t get his facts honestly, he should try something else. What he is doing is extortion, and he is doing it in the context of a potentially unhealthy obsession.
I did not write the above comment. There is someone making a concerted effort to discredit John Berlau, as well as me, and has been engaged in an online campaign to do so, here, on Craigslist, and elsewhere on the internet.
The Berlau/Reason/prostitution story is patently a false one.