PAYING FOR SEX TO BE BANNED BY GOVT
EXCLUSIVE Crusade to end shameful slave trade
By Nigel Nelson Nigel.Nelson@People.Co.Uk
14 September 2008
Paying prostitutes for their services could be outlawed to stamp out sex slavery.
A new law - due as early as November - would hand out hefty fines to men and women convicted.
Ex-Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart said: "I hope we can legislate to stop men buying sex - and if a woman wanted to purchase a sexual service from a man, that would also be illegal."
At present, it is illegal to sell sex in the street, although hookers can work from brothels.
But ministers hope by acting against punters rather than prostitutes they can end the sickening international trade which has brought at least 18,000 sex slaves into Britain.
Ms Mactaggart said: "Women who enter prostitution as teenagers are often threatened and bullied so they are kept in it.
"They have very little choice or control over their lives, so we should target the men who have money instead."
A new survey commissioned by women's minister Harriet Harman showed 58 per cent of people back the proposals.
And six out of ten said they would be ashamed if they found out a family member was working as a prostitute. Ms Harman said: "The majority agree paying for sex should be made illegal if it helps stop the trafficking of women for sexual exploitation."
She is backed by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and Solicitor General Vera Baird.
http://www.people.co.uk/news/news/tm_he ... _page.html
Kritische Diskussion der vermeldeten Opferzahlen:
viewtopic.php?p=41299#41299
.
Länderberichte GROSSBRITANNIEN:
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
Stimme einer Escort-Lady
Sexarbeiterin antwortet
auf den unsäglich einseitigen Report "Big Brothel" (s.o.):
Ich bin ein Sexworker – beraubt mich nicht meiner Existenzgrundlage
I'm a sex worker – don't take away my livelihood
The 'Big Brothel' report paints women in my industry as victims. Some may be – but to generalise is patronising and offensive
All comments (808)
o Lara
o guardian.co.uk,
o Wednesday September 17 2008 13:41 BST
"Sex for £15" and other such findings, including on the availability of unprotected sex, have made the headlines after the release of the Big Brothel report, the culmination of the Poppy Project's research into off-street prostitution. Due to the fact that such "findings" have been reported out of context – for example, only in 2% of cases was unprotected sex on offer, as highlighted in Diane Taylor's brilliant article Really lifting the lid? – all this report has served to do is to paint a very bleak picture of the off-street sex scene which any socially-conscious individual would quite rightfully abhor [verabscheuen].
There are many problems with the report, not least the fact that the research was conducted by male researchers posing as prospective clients. [Scheinfreier jetzt nicht nur bei der Polizei (agent provocateur), sondern auch im Namen der Wissenschaft gegen Prostituiton?!] Given this, such findings as the average age of the women being 21 have to be taken with a large pinch of salt. It is not unheard of for women in their 30s to be "advertised" as being 21. At the very least, knocking five years off a woman's age is accepted as an industry standard; thus, adding five years to the woman's advertised age will give a more accurate picture. Furthermore, the report found that 75 different ethnicities were "on offer". I don't doubt this is true, but parlours have been known to try to pass off Thai women as Japanese, to give but one example. I would suggest that, knowing the industry as I do, the actual number of women of different ethnicities on offer is somewhat smaller.
Somewhat predictably, the Big Brothel report also slams the likes of the ITV2 series Secret Diary of a Call Girl as depicting an unrealistic, glamorous off-street sex industry quite removed from the reality. But can a group of male researchers posing as clients, conducting telephone research and not even visiting the brothels in question, really claim to have uncovered the truth about "what is going on" in the industry?
I am an off-street sex worker. I don't live a Belle de Jour-type existence, but nor am I the trafficked/drug-addled/pimped victim the Big Brothel report would have you believe. The reality of my working life lies somewhere between the two.
I feel obliged to state at this point that I have a good degree from a good university, as so many people assume we do this job because we are poor, uneducated souls. I say "we" because I am not alone – I know many, many women who work the length and breadth of the UK in the same way as I do. I cannot speak for all these women, of course, and I do not intend to try to do so, but suffice it to say that my situation is not an unusual one.
So, what is my situation? I am a single mother with two young children aged 4 and 6. Prior to doing this job – and it is a job – I was employed as a PA in a large, city-based firm. My job was a typical 9-to-5 – which, as everyone who has ever worked in such a job will know, means 7:30am to 6:30pm by the time you take into consideration travelling and (unpaid) overtime. I was dropping my children off at breakfast club at 8am and collecting them at 6pm, by which time we would all be completely knackered. The children go to bed at 7:30pm, meaning we were left with precisely 90 minutes to prepare and eat our evening meal, have baths, get ready for bed and read bedtime stories. It was like we were living in a whirlwind. I felt I never saw my kids – let's face it, I didn't (much) – there was certainly never much time for playing or talking or simply just sitting cuddling on the sofa. The guilt was getting to me. I was unhappy. I hoped they weren't, but I was never sure. Yet, despite the long hours I spent away from home, I was earning just enough to make ends meet. Sure I could pay the mortgage [Hypotheken-Zahlungen], but we'd never had a family holiday. By the time my monthly pay packet came around, I would have literally just a few pounds in the bank.
It was by no means a desperate existence – we always had enough food, and the house was always heated – but it was quite empty from my point of view. My children are fantastic human beings and I wanted to spend more time in their company without us suffering financially, it was as simple as that. I wanted a job which would allow me to work flexible hours to fit around the children's schooling, fewer hours, but without taking the drop in wages which a part-time office job would have lead to. Escorting seemed like the natural solution. I say "natural" because it felt natural to me. I am well aware that this is not a job everybody could do. But as a sexually-aware and sexually-experienced woman in her mid-30s, the thought of having sex with strangers did not terrify me. I remember thinking that I might even enjoy it (and that has proved to be the case).
I work from a flat on which I pay the mortgage – I do not have any landlord to worry about. I charge £150 per hour and I get enough enquiries to enable me to choose my own working hours. In a typical day I drop my children off at school at 9am, return home, shower and get changed into my alter-ego, Lara (we never use our own names). I then might have an hour's appointment at 11am and another at 1pm, leaving me with a break of an hour in between to shower and refresh myself. I then fetch myself a late lunch and am at the school again to collect my children at 3:30pm. It works. I never see more than two clients a day; most days I see only one; on other days none at all. Yet in just three hours' work I can earn the same as I used to earn in a week working at the office.
Such is the taboo of sex work, that it is difficult to tell anybody what I do for a living. These taboos are created and exacerbated by reports in the media of all prostitutes being drug addicts and "dirty". Promiscuity amongst women is still deemed to be something to be frowned upon. In order to make excuses for our behaviour (because excuses have to be made, of course – no "normal" woman would choose prostitution for a living) reports such as Big Brothel promote the victim status of prostitutes, making such sweeping generalisations such as "if the women do not have pimps as such, their money will likely go to fund their coping strategies, such as drugs and alcohol". I find such a statement both patronising and offensive. I do not have a pimp, and nor do I feel the need for "coping strategies". I am not au fait with drugs and drink only on social occasions. Contrary to what Big Brothel would have you believe, my money pays the mortgage and bills; it pays my income tax and national insurance; it buys food and clothing for my family and, this summer, it paid for the first holiday my children have ever known.
My clients are on the whole middle-aged businessmen. I have never been treated with anything less than respect by any one of them. I have not been physically or sexually abused by any of them. Of course I have my security systems in place should anything go wrong, but so far nothing has. My children have their mother now, and not just on a part-time basis. I have time with them to enjoy their childhoods, without any of us suffering financially. I am not making big bucks – but I am earning a little more money to boot.
Big Brothel calls for the purchase of sex acts to be criminalised, in order to stem what it calls the "rise in demand for prostitution" which, it asserts, "fuels trafficking". The report does not seem to take into consideration that the type of people who benefit from trafficking, be it for prostitution or otherwise, are likely to pay scant regard to the law; as, indeed, are the men who wish to purchase sex from trafficked women. Criminalisation would only serve to drive the industry further underground, leaving the women who are victims of trafficking even more vulnerable.
Conversely, making criminals of all men who pay for sex would result in myself and thousands of other women who choose to work in this industry becoming unemployed, and thus instead of contributing to the state (through our taxes) we would be taking from the state in the form of income support, housing benefit and so on. This is how we make a living; it's an industry that prevents many, many women and their children from living on the breadline. If you are going to take our livelihoods from us, the consequences will be devastating.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... men.gender
.
auf den unsäglich einseitigen Report "Big Brothel" (s.o.):
Ich bin ein Sexworker – beraubt mich nicht meiner Existenzgrundlage
I'm a sex worker – don't take away my livelihood
The 'Big Brothel' report paints women in my industry as victims. Some may be – but to generalise is patronising and offensive
All comments (808)
o Lara
o guardian.co.uk,
o Wednesday September 17 2008 13:41 BST
"Sex for £15" and other such findings, including on the availability of unprotected sex, have made the headlines after the release of the Big Brothel report, the culmination of the Poppy Project's research into off-street prostitution. Due to the fact that such "findings" have been reported out of context – for example, only in 2% of cases was unprotected sex on offer, as highlighted in Diane Taylor's brilliant article Really lifting the lid? – all this report has served to do is to paint a very bleak picture of the off-street sex scene which any socially-conscious individual would quite rightfully abhor [verabscheuen].
There are many problems with the report, not least the fact that the research was conducted by male researchers posing as prospective clients. [Scheinfreier jetzt nicht nur bei der Polizei (agent provocateur), sondern auch im Namen der Wissenschaft gegen Prostituiton?!] Given this, such findings as the average age of the women being 21 have to be taken with a large pinch of salt. It is not unheard of for women in their 30s to be "advertised" as being 21. At the very least, knocking five years off a woman's age is accepted as an industry standard; thus, adding five years to the woman's advertised age will give a more accurate picture. Furthermore, the report found that 75 different ethnicities were "on offer". I don't doubt this is true, but parlours have been known to try to pass off Thai women as Japanese, to give but one example. I would suggest that, knowing the industry as I do, the actual number of women of different ethnicities on offer is somewhat smaller.
Somewhat predictably, the Big Brothel report also slams the likes of the ITV2 series Secret Diary of a Call Girl as depicting an unrealistic, glamorous off-street sex industry quite removed from the reality. But can a group of male researchers posing as clients, conducting telephone research and not even visiting the brothels in question, really claim to have uncovered the truth about "what is going on" in the industry?
I am an off-street sex worker. I don't live a Belle de Jour-type existence, but nor am I the trafficked/drug-addled/pimped victim the Big Brothel report would have you believe. The reality of my working life lies somewhere between the two.
I feel obliged to state at this point that I have a good degree from a good university, as so many people assume we do this job because we are poor, uneducated souls. I say "we" because I am not alone – I know many, many women who work the length and breadth of the UK in the same way as I do. I cannot speak for all these women, of course, and I do not intend to try to do so, but suffice it to say that my situation is not an unusual one.
So, what is my situation? I am a single mother with two young children aged 4 and 6. Prior to doing this job – and it is a job – I was employed as a PA in a large, city-based firm. My job was a typical 9-to-5 – which, as everyone who has ever worked in such a job will know, means 7:30am to 6:30pm by the time you take into consideration travelling and (unpaid) overtime. I was dropping my children off at breakfast club at 8am and collecting them at 6pm, by which time we would all be completely knackered. The children go to bed at 7:30pm, meaning we were left with precisely 90 minutes to prepare and eat our evening meal, have baths, get ready for bed and read bedtime stories. It was like we were living in a whirlwind. I felt I never saw my kids – let's face it, I didn't (much) – there was certainly never much time for playing or talking or simply just sitting cuddling on the sofa. The guilt was getting to me. I was unhappy. I hoped they weren't, but I was never sure. Yet, despite the long hours I spent away from home, I was earning just enough to make ends meet. Sure I could pay the mortgage [Hypotheken-Zahlungen], but we'd never had a family holiday. By the time my monthly pay packet came around, I would have literally just a few pounds in the bank.
It was by no means a desperate existence – we always had enough food, and the house was always heated – but it was quite empty from my point of view. My children are fantastic human beings and I wanted to spend more time in their company without us suffering financially, it was as simple as that. I wanted a job which would allow me to work flexible hours to fit around the children's schooling, fewer hours, but without taking the drop in wages which a part-time office job would have lead to. Escorting seemed like the natural solution. I say "natural" because it felt natural to me. I am well aware that this is not a job everybody could do. But as a sexually-aware and sexually-experienced woman in her mid-30s, the thought of having sex with strangers did not terrify me. I remember thinking that I might even enjoy it (and that has proved to be the case).
I work from a flat on which I pay the mortgage – I do not have any landlord to worry about. I charge £150 per hour and I get enough enquiries to enable me to choose my own working hours. In a typical day I drop my children off at school at 9am, return home, shower and get changed into my alter-ego, Lara (we never use our own names). I then might have an hour's appointment at 11am and another at 1pm, leaving me with a break of an hour in between to shower and refresh myself. I then fetch myself a late lunch and am at the school again to collect my children at 3:30pm. It works. I never see more than two clients a day; most days I see only one; on other days none at all. Yet in just three hours' work I can earn the same as I used to earn in a week working at the office.
Such is the taboo of sex work, that it is difficult to tell anybody what I do for a living. These taboos are created and exacerbated by reports in the media of all prostitutes being drug addicts and "dirty". Promiscuity amongst women is still deemed to be something to be frowned upon. In order to make excuses for our behaviour (because excuses have to be made, of course – no "normal" woman would choose prostitution for a living) reports such as Big Brothel promote the victim status of prostitutes, making such sweeping generalisations such as "if the women do not have pimps as such, their money will likely go to fund their coping strategies, such as drugs and alcohol". I find such a statement both patronising and offensive. I do not have a pimp, and nor do I feel the need for "coping strategies". I am not au fait with drugs and drink only on social occasions. Contrary to what Big Brothel would have you believe, my money pays the mortgage and bills; it pays my income tax and national insurance; it buys food and clothing for my family and, this summer, it paid for the first holiday my children have ever known.
My clients are on the whole middle-aged businessmen. I have never been treated with anything less than respect by any one of them. I have not been physically or sexually abused by any of them. Of course I have my security systems in place should anything go wrong, but so far nothing has. My children have their mother now, and not just on a part-time basis. I have time with them to enjoy their childhoods, without any of us suffering financially. I am not making big bucks – but I am earning a little more money to boot.
Big Brothel calls for the purchase of sex acts to be criminalised, in order to stem what it calls the "rise in demand for prostitution" which, it asserts, "fuels trafficking". The report does not seem to take into consideration that the type of people who benefit from trafficking, be it for prostitution or otherwise, are likely to pay scant regard to the law; as, indeed, are the men who wish to purchase sex from trafficked women. Criminalisation would only serve to drive the industry further underground, leaving the women who are victims of trafficking even more vulnerable.
Conversely, making criminals of all men who pay for sex would result in myself and thousands of other women who choose to work in this industry becoming unemployed, and thus instead of contributing to the state (through our taxes) we would be taking from the state in the form of income support, housing benefit and so on. This is how we make a living; it's an industry that prevents many, many women and their children from living on the breadline. If you are going to take our livelihoods from us, the consequences will be devastating.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... men.gender
.
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
Politiker brüten noch...
Zwangs-Freier-Kriminalisierung
Men face penalties over paying for sex with trafficked victims
Francis Elliott and Richard Ford
Men who buy sex from women who have been coerced into prostitution or trafficked for sexual exploitation would be prosecuted under proposals to be announced by the Home Secretary tomorrow.
It would be an offence in England and Wales to pay for sex if the woman was being controlled by a pimp, had been coerced into the sex trade or was trafficked into Britain for sexual exploitation. Last year Jacqui Smith said: “We recognise that there is considerable support for us to do more to tackle the demand for prostitution and to prevent the trafficking of people for sexual exploitation.”
Gordon Brown recently indicated his determination to legislate in this area, when his spokesman said that he believed it was wrong for men to pay for sex.
The Home Secretary will make clear that the measure will not affect sole traders or women selling sex of their own free will. The move represents a compromise solution to demands from some senior members of the Government to criminalise the purchase of all sex. Police were concerned about the practicalities of a law banning any payment for sex.
Exact details of the new offence and the penalties to be imposed are yet to be worked out. Ministers believe that the measure will act as a deterrent to international human trafficking.
During a visit to Amsterdam as part of a government review of prostitution laws, Vernon Coaker, a Home Office minister, was told that the city was being used as a transit post for girls waiting to come to Britain to work as prostitutes.
The Government has toughened its stance on prostitution in recent years, after initially considering “tolerance zones”. Plans to permit small brothels, with two prostitutes and a maid, to operate legally remain under review.
Several years ago, Sweden criminalised buying sex but decriminalised selling it. Supporters of the scheme say it has sharply reduced the number of brothels and clients and the level of sex trafficking. Men who flout the law face a fine of 40 days’ salary, or a six-month jail term. Street prostitution has greatly fallen, officials say. But some critics have suggested that women who remain in the sex industry have become more vulnerable.
In Britain, Harriet Harman, the Minister for Women and Equality, was among those in the Government pressing for tough measures to tackle the demand for paid sex and to give greater protection for women. She wanted to make it illegal to pay for all sex. Under existing laws in Britain, prostitution is not illegal but keeping a brothel is a criminal offence. Kerb crawling and soliciting for sex are also illegal.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced penalties against those who sexually exploit children, and trafficking adults or children for the purposes of committing sexual offences was also outlawed. Latest police estimates suggest that as many as 18,000 trafficked victims are forced to work as prostitutes. Police projections vary from between 6,000 and 18,000.
Operation Pentameter 2, a six-month police campaign, has shown the extent of the sex trade industry. Figures released in July showed that 167 victims were rescued across Britain and Ireland and 528 suspected traffickers were arrested. The victims included 13 children aged between 14 and 17 who were rescued from sexual exploitation and two children who were under forced labour.
Paedophiles and other sex offenders will be compelled to take lie-detector tests under plans announced by the Government to bolster monitoring of their behaviour by the Probation Service. A total of 450 sex offenders who have been released from prison on licence will be tested over a three-year pilot scheme to begin in the Midlands next year. They will be asked a series of questions while their heart rate, perspiration, brain activity and blood pressure are monitored.
The questions are intended to discover if they have broken the terms of the licence under which they have been released from prison.
Ministers have legislated to allow polygraph testing to be included in a sex offender’s release licence and for such tests to be compulsory. Parliament could be asked for the scheme to be applied across England and Wales.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 791871.ece
Analyse der Menschenhandel-Opferzahlen:
viewtopic.php?p=41299#41299
.
Men face penalties over paying for sex with trafficked victims
Francis Elliott and Richard Ford
Men who buy sex from women who have been coerced into prostitution or trafficked for sexual exploitation would be prosecuted under proposals to be announced by the Home Secretary tomorrow.
It would be an offence in England and Wales to pay for sex if the woman was being controlled by a pimp, had been coerced into the sex trade or was trafficked into Britain for sexual exploitation. Last year Jacqui Smith said: “We recognise that there is considerable support for us to do more to tackle the demand for prostitution and to prevent the trafficking of people for sexual exploitation.”
Gordon Brown recently indicated his determination to legislate in this area, when his spokesman said that he believed it was wrong for men to pay for sex.
The Home Secretary will make clear that the measure will not affect sole traders or women selling sex of their own free will. The move represents a compromise solution to demands from some senior members of the Government to criminalise the purchase of all sex. Police were concerned about the practicalities of a law banning any payment for sex.
Exact details of the new offence and the penalties to be imposed are yet to be worked out. Ministers believe that the measure will act as a deterrent to international human trafficking.
During a visit to Amsterdam as part of a government review of prostitution laws, Vernon Coaker, a Home Office minister, was told that the city was being used as a transit post for girls waiting to come to Britain to work as prostitutes.
The Government has toughened its stance on prostitution in recent years, after initially considering “tolerance zones”. Plans to permit small brothels, with two prostitutes and a maid, to operate legally remain under review.
Several years ago, Sweden criminalised buying sex but decriminalised selling it. Supporters of the scheme say it has sharply reduced the number of brothels and clients and the level of sex trafficking. Men who flout the law face a fine of 40 days’ salary, or a six-month jail term. Street prostitution has greatly fallen, officials say. But some critics have suggested that women who remain in the sex industry have become more vulnerable.
In Britain, Harriet Harman, the Minister for Women and Equality, was among those in the Government pressing for tough measures to tackle the demand for paid sex and to give greater protection for women. She wanted to make it illegal to pay for all sex. Under existing laws in Britain, prostitution is not illegal but keeping a brothel is a criminal offence. Kerb crawling and soliciting for sex are also illegal.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced penalties against those who sexually exploit children, and trafficking adults or children for the purposes of committing sexual offences was also outlawed. Latest police estimates suggest that as many as 18,000 trafficked victims are forced to work as prostitutes. Police projections vary from between 6,000 and 18,000.
Operation Pentameter 2, a six-month police campaign, has shown the extent of the sex trade industry. Figures released in July showed that 167 victims were rescued across Britain and Ireland and 528 suspected traffickers were arrested. The victims included 13 children aged between 14 and 17 who were rescued from sexual exploitation and two children who were under forced labour.
Paedophiles and other sex offenders will be compelled to take lie-detector tests under plans announced by the Government to bolster monitoring of their behaviour by the Probation Service. A total of 450 sex offenders who have been released from prison on licence will be tested over a three-year pilot scheme to begin in the Midlands next year. They will be asked a series of questions while their heart rate, perspiration, brain activity and blood pressure are monitored.
The questions are intended to discover if they have broken the terms of the licence under which they have been released from prison.
Ministers have legislated to allow polygraph testing to be included in a sex offender’s release licence and for such tests to be compulsory. Parliament could be asked for the scheme to be applied across England and Wales.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 791871.ece
Analyse der Menschenhandel-Opferzahlen:
viewtopic.php?p=41299#41299
.
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
Regierungserklärung Prostitution
21 September 2008; 0207 035 3535 or 07659 174 240 (out of hours)
Die Abolutionisten in England setzen sich durch
Presseerklärung des englischen Innenministeriums:
THINK TWICE ABOUT PAYING FOR SEX
The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith today announced her intention to work with
the police and other partners to outlaw paying for sex with someone
controlled for another person's gain. This is aimed at protecting vulnerable
individuals, for example those who have been trafficked or exploited in some
other way.
This follows a six month Government review into tackling the demand for
prostitution, which explored both the legislative and non-legislative
options available as well as learning from the experiences of other
countries such as Sweden and Holland.
The review identified a number of measures to improve the protection of
vulnerable women including criminalising those supporting the exploitation
by purchasing sex from them.
The Home Secretary also announced:
• A crackdown on kerb-crawlers - removing the need to prove that a person
has acted persistently. This will ensure that kerb-crawlers can be
prosecuted on a first offence;
• New powers to close premises associated with prostitution - allowing
police to close brothels for a period of three months. At the moment, police
can only close premises associated with prostitution if anti-social
behaviour or Class A drugs are involved
The Home Secretary also indicated her intention to give greater powers to
local people and Local Authorities to control the opening and regulation of
lap-dancing clubs, through changes in legislation.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said:
"The Government has a responsibility to protect those who have been groomed
or trafficked into prostitution, or for those who remain involved for fear
of violence from a partner or a pimp. So we will start work to outlaw paying
for sex with someone forced into prostitution at another's will or
controlled for another's gain.
Communities shouldn't have to put up with street prostitution. The package
of measures I have announced today will help the police and local people to
crack down on it.
Minister for Women and Equality Harriet Harman said:
"We must protect women from being victims of human trafficking – the modern
slave trade.
"The trade only exists because men buy sex, so to protect women we must stop
men buying sex from the victims of human trafficking.
Commenting on the potential new regulation of lap-dancing clubs, Communities
Secretary Hazel Blears said:
"Local people are often best placed to know the needs of their area and to
find home-grown solutions.
"These new measures, alongside the robust planning powers councils already
have, will see communities taking ownership/control of the environment in
which they live, ensuring safer, more welcoming neighbourhoods."
"Communities have an important role to play in tackling the local issues
that can affect their everyday lives and their neighbours' welfare."
Justice Minister Maria Eagle said:
"I welcome these measures which underline the importance the Government
places on ensuring the appropriate protection and safety for women involved
in street prostitution and the wider community."
Notes to Editors:
1. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a package of new offences
designed to tackle various forms of sexual exploitation. These included:
• Causing of inciting prostitution for gain
• Controlling prostitution for gain
• Trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation
There are however currently no specific offences to tackle those who pay or
offer to pay for sex with someone who has been trafficked or exploited,
unless there is sufficient evidence to prove that person knew the person
selling sex did not consent to sexual intercourse. In these situations, the
police and prosecutors would look at prosecution for rape.
The Government's intention is to look at criminalising those who pay or
offer to pay for sex with victims of these crimes in order to deter the sex
buyers who fuel illegal exploitative and coercive practices, as soon as
Parliamentary time allows.
2. In England and Wales, the act of purchasing sex is not a criminal
offence. There are, however, offences that effectively prohibit individuals
from paying for sex on the street or in a public place. The Sexual Offences
Act 1985 introduced two distinct offences which can be used to prosecute
those who buy sex:
• kerb crawling (where someone solicits from a motor vehicle, or
within the vicinity of a motor vehicle), for the purposes of prostitution,
persistently or in a manner that is likely to cause annoyance to people in
the neighbourhood; or
• persistent soliciting for the purposes of prostitution
(effectively kerb crawling but without a vehicle)
The Government now intends to remove the 'persistence' requirement from both
offences and in the case of kerb-crawling to remove the alternative
requirement of "in a manner that is likely to cause annoyance to people in
the neighbourhood". The purpose is to make it possible to prosecute the kerb
crawler in the first instance, increasing the deterrent to those who
consider paying for sex on the street or in a public place.
3. At present, the police have no powers to close premises associated with
the sexual exploitation of adults or children, unless there is sufficient
evidence to warrant the use of a premise closure order or a crack house
closure order. However, many premises where sexual exploitation takes place
will not be associated with anti-social behaviour or the use, supply or
production of Class A drugs. This means that in practice, premises that are
subject to police investigations for offences relating to sexual
exploitation can reopen and begin operating again quickly.
The Government now intends to introduce a new order that allows for such
premises to be closed and sealed for a set period, providing an opportunity
for agencies to act swiftly and decisively to prevent further exploitation
and abuse from taking place. The order will prohibit entry to the premises
by any individual for a period of three months.
4. The results of the recent lap dancing consultation made it clear that
Local Authorities in England and Wales felt that the Licensing Act 2003
offers little or no opportunity for local communities to object to lap
dancing clubs opening in their local area and has limited powers for Local
Authorities to control the growth of these establishments. Difficulties
arise where residents and local authorities try to use the current
legislation to tackle general concerns about these clubs being situated in a
particular area (for example, near schools, historic tourist areas or
churches) or because of concerns about equality, public decency, obscenity
and the sexual exploitation of women.
The Government now intends to give greater powers to Local Authorities and
local communities to control the opening and regulation of lap dancing clubs
and will do this in consultation with stakeholders through legislation as
soon as Parliamentary time allows.
.
Die Abolutionisten in England setzen sich durch
Presseerklärung des englischen Innenministeriums:
THINK TWICE ABOUT PAYING FOR SEX
The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith today announced her intention to work with
the police and other partners to outlaw paying for sex with someone
controlled for another person's gain. This is aimed at protecting vulnerable
individuals, for example those who have been trafficked or exploited in some
other way.
This follows a six month Government review into tackling the demand for
prostitution, which explored both the legislative and non-legislative
options available as well as learning from the experiences of other
countries such as Sweden and Holland.
The review identified a number of measures to improve the protection of
vulnerable women including criminalising those supporting the exploitation
by purchasing sex from them.
The Home Secretary also announced:
• A crackdown on kerb-crawlers - removing the need to prove that a person
has acted persistently. This will ensure that kerb-crawlers can be
prosecuted on a first offence;
• New powers to close premises associated with prostitution - allowing
police to close brothels for a period of three months. At the moment, police
can only close premises associated with prostitution if anti-social
behaviour or Class A drugs are involved
The Home Secretary also indicated her intention to give greater powers to
local people and Local Authorities to control the opening and regulation of
lap-dancing clubs, through changes in legislation.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said:
"The Government has a responsibility to protect those who have been groomed
or trafficked into prostitution, or for those who remain involved for fear
of violence from a partner or a pimp. So we will start work to outlaw paying
for sex with someone forced into prostitution at another's will or
controlled for another's gain.
Communities shouldn't have to put up with street prostitution. The package
of measures I have announced today will help the police and local people to
crack down on it.
Minister for Women and Equality Harriet Harman said:
"We must protect women from being victims of human trafficking – the modern
slave trade.
"The trade only exists because men buy sex, so to protect women we must stop
men buying sex from the victims of human trafficking.
Commenting on the potential new regulation of lap-dancing clubs, Communities
Secretary Hazel Blears said:
"Local people are often best placed to know the needs of their area and to
find home-grown solutions.
"These new measures, alongside the robust planning powers councils already
have, will see communities taking ownership/control of the environment in
which they live, ensuring safer, more welcoming neighbourhoods."
"Communities have an important role to play in tackling the local issues
that can affect their everyday lives and their neighbours' welfare."
Justice Minister Maria Eagle said:
"I welcome these measures which underline the importance the Government
places on ensuring the appropriate protection and safety for women involved
in street prostitution and the wider community."
Notes to Editors:
1. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a package of new offences
designed to tackle various forms of sexual exploitation. These included:
• Causing of inciting prostitution for gain
• Controlling prostitution for gain
• Trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation
There are however currently no specific offences to tackle those who pay or
offer to pay for sex with someone who has been trafficked or exploited,
unless there is sufficient evidence to prove that person knew the person
selling sex did not consent to sexual intercourse. In these situations, the
police and prosecutors would look at prosecution for rape.
The Government's intention is to look at criminalising those who pay or
offer to pay for sex with victims of these crimes in order to deter the sex
buyers who fuel illegal exploitative and coercive practices, as soon as
Parliamentary time allows.
2. In England and Wales, the act of purchasing sex is not a criminal
offence. There are, however, offences that effectively prohibit individuals
from paying for sex on the street or in a public place. The Sexual Offences
Act 1985 introduced two distinct offences which can be used to prosecute
those who buy sex:
• kerb crawling (where someone solicits from a motor vehicle, or
within the vicinity of a motor vehicle), for the purposes of prostitution,
persistently or in a manner that is likely to cause annoyance to people in
the neighbourhood; or
• persistent soliciting for the purposes of prostitution
(effectively kerb crawling but without a vehicle)
The Government now intends to remove the 'persistence' requirement from both
offences and in the case of kerb-crawling to remove the alternative
requirement of "in a manner that is likely to cause annoyance to people in
the neighbourhood". The purpose is to make it possible to prosecute the kerb
crawler in the first instance, increasing the deterrent to those who
consider paying for sex on the street or in a public place.
3. At present, the police have no powers to close premises associated with
the sexual exploitation of adults or children, unless there is sufficient
evidence to warrant the use of a premise closure order or a crack house
closure order. However, many premises where sexual exploitation takes place
will not be associated with anti-social behaviour or the use, supply or
production of Class A drugs. This means that in practice, premises that are
subject to police investigations for offences relating to sexual
exploitation can reopen and begin operating again quickly.
The Government now intends to introduce a new order that allows for such
premises to be closed and sealed for a set period, providing an opportunity
for agencies to act swiftly and decisively to prevent further exploitation
and abuse from taking place. The order will prohibit entry to the premises
by any individual for a period of three months.
4. The results of the recent lap dancing consultation made it clear that
Local Authorities in England and Wales felt that the Licensing Act 2003
offers little or no opportunity for local communities to object to lap
dancing clubs opening in their local area and has limited powers for Local
Authorities to control the growth of these establishments. Difficulties
arise where residents and local authorities try to use the current
legislation to tackle general concerns about these clubs being situated in a
particular area (for example, near schools, historic tourist areas or
churches) or because of concerns about equality, public decency, obscenity
and the sexual exploitation of women.
The Government now intends to give greater powers to Local Authorities and
local communities to control the opening and regulation of lap dancing clubs
and will do this in consultation with stakeholders through legislation as
soon as Parliamentary time allows.
.
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
PE
Webpage des Innenministeriums:
Prostitutionsregeln
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/n ... tion-rules
New prostitution rules will protect trafficked women
22 September 2008
The Home Secretary has announced plans to shift legal responsibility to
those who pay for sex when the prostitute involved has been forced into that
role.
In a speech in Manchester, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the changes will
make it illegal to pay for sex with someone 'controlled for another person's
gain'.
[Kommt also nicht so sehr auf Ausbeutung, Mißbrauch und Gewaltformen an, sondern vielmehr auf das wirtschaftliche Mitverdienstinteresse an, was bestraft wird. Intern gerne "contractual slavery" genannt. Damit werden professionelle arbeitsteilige Arbeitsformen kriminalisiert und die Sexworker bleiben auf sich allein gestellt gegenüber den Kunden, werden also gesetzlich isoliert und ökonomisch schwach gehalten um sie vor sog. Zuhältern/Menschenhändlern zu beschützen. Anm.]
New powers follow review
Police will also be given powers to close brothels for a period of three
months, even without evidence of antisocial behaviour or use of Class A
drugs.
The changes are designed to protect vulnerable people who have been
trafficked into the country. They follow a six-month review into tackling
the demand for prostitution.
The research explored both the legislative and non-legislative options
available, and looked into the experiences of other countries, including
Sweden and the Netherlands.
Making it easier to prosecute sex customers
The Home Secretary also announced a change in the law regarding
kerb-crawlers that would mean they could be prosecuted after a first
offence.
Under current law, prosecutors must prove that they have acted persistently.
'The government has a responsibility to protect those who have been groomed
for or trafficked into prostitution, or those who remain involved for fear
of violence from a partner or a pimp,' she explained.
'So we will start work to outlaw paying for sex with someone forced into
prostitution at another's will, or controlled for another's gain.'
Protecting women from the 'modern slave trade'
Minister for Women and Equality, Harriet Harman, said, 'We must protect
women from being victims of human trafficking - the modern slave trade.'
'The trade only exists because men buy sex, so to protect women we must stop
men buying sex from the victims of human trafficking.'
Daß Frauen hier auch effizient und erfolgreich Geld verdienen wollen scheint nicht verstanden worden zu sein.
.
Prostitutionsregeln
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/n ... tion-rules
New prostitution rules will protect trafficked women
22 September 2008
The Home Secretary has announced plans to shift legal responsibility to
those who pay for sex when the prostitute involved has been forced into that
role.
In a speech in Manchester, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the changes will
make it illegal to pay for sex with someone 'controlled for another person's
gain'.
[Kommt also nicht so sehr auf Ausbeutung, Mißbrauch und Gewaltformen an, sondern vielmehr auf das wirtschaftliche Mitverdienstinteresse an, was bestraft wird. Intern gerne "contractual slavery" genannt. Damit werden professionelle arbeitsteilige Arbeitsformen kriminalisiert und die Sexworker bleiben auf sich allein gestellt gegenüber den Kunden, werden also gesetzlich isoliert und ökonomisch schwach gehalten um sie vor sog. Zuhältern/Menschenhändlern zu beschützen. Anm.]
New powers follow review
Police will also be given powers to close brothels for a period of three
months, even without evidence of antisocial behaviour or use of Class A
drugs.
The changes are designed to protect vulnerable people who have been
trafficked into the country. They follow a six-month review into tackling
the demand for prostitution.
The research explored both the legislative and non-legislative options
available, and looked into the experiences of other countries, including
Sweden and the Netherlands.
Making it easier to prosecute sex customers
The Home Secretary also announced a change in the law regarding
kerb-crawlers that would mean they could be prosecuted after a first
offence.
Under current law, prosecutors must prove that they have acted persistently.
'The government has a responsibility to protect those who have been groomed
for or trafficked into prostitution, or those who remain involved for fear
of violence from a partner or a pimp,' she explained.
'So we will start work to outlaw paying for sex with someone forced into
prostitution at another's will, or controlled for another's gain.'
Protecting women from the 'modern slave trade'
Minister for Women and Equality, Harriet Harman, said, 'We must protect
women from being victims of human trafficking - the modern slave trade.'
'The trade only exists because men buy sex, so to protect women we must stop
men buying sex from the victims of human trafficking.'
Daß Frauen hier auch effizient und erfolgreich Geld verdienen wollen scheint nicht verstanden worden zu sein.
.
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
ECP
Antwort der Sexworker
English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP)
Dear friends,
Below is our response to the government’s proposals on prostitution. The proposals claim to offer protection and safety, and “support those involved in prostitution to develop routes out”, but do nothing of the sort. We intend to campaign vigorously against these proposals and would be glad for your support.
Yours for safety first,
Cari Mitchell
English Collective of Prostitutes
Crossroads Women’s Centre PO Box 287 London NW6 5QU
Telephone 020 7482 2496 Fax 020 7209 4761 Email ecp at allwomencount dot net
www.prostitutesCollective.net
8 October 2008
COMMENTS ON GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSALS
We oppose the government’s proposals which would create new offences relating to:
1) paying for sex,
2) brothel keeping, and
3) kerb crawling.
It is clear that the intention is to target anyone involved in prostitution whether or not there is force or coercion.
1. PAYING FOR SEX
Prostitution is not an offence at present and we see no reason why sex between consenting adults should be criminalised just because one party pays the other for her or his services. While the new proposed offence speaks of sex with a person controlled for gain, how will it be established that the person is controlled for gain? Controlled by whom? For whose gain? Will a co-worker, a maid, a partner or any one else who relates to a sex worker be considered guilty? Are clients expected to know what sex workers’ working arrangements are? Which arrangements will be deemed legal and which not?
One woman in our network now facing brothel-keeping charges is typical of many who have come for help over the last month:
Ms A is a former sex worker in her forties. To get an income for her retirement, she rented a room to a sex worker who pays her a small weekly amount. She has been charged with brothel-keeping. Because the offences of brothel keeping (1956 Sexual Offences Act[1]) or controlling prostitution for gain (2003 Sexual Offences Act[2]) require no evidence of force or coercion, it is likely that she, like many of other women being prosecuted under these laws, will be found guilty. But what is her crime? Renting to a prostitute woman? Should sex workers be so discriminated against that no one will rent to us?
Under the proposed offence, any client of the woman working for Ms A could be convicted. But what is his crime? The woman is working voluntarily and is likely to be making a better income than most women in commonly available low waged jobs.
The way that trafficking legislation is currently being used to target and deport immigrant women working independently warn us of the detrimental effects on women of this proposed legislation aimed at men who buy sex:
An immigrant woman in our network was convicted of trafficking and served three years in prison even though the judge accepted that "none of the women was coerced by you into acting as a prostitute . . . none was actually deceived as to the nature of the work they would be required to undertake . . . each had previously worked as a prostitute . . . You treated them in a kindly and hospitable way, inviting them to your home and social occasions.” As a result of the prosecution, her ex-partner tried to take her son from her, her life savings were confiscated under the Proceeds of Crime Act and she now faces deportation.
2. BROTHELS
Why should brothels be closed without any evidence of nuisance, force or coercion? It has long been established that it is up to 10 times safer for women to work indoors than on the streets. Why are premises being targeted? This proposal will endanger further the safety of mothers and other women struggling to support their families through sex work.
This legislation is modeled on the 'Premises where drugs used unlawfully' provision of the 2003 Anti Social Behaviour Act[3] which has caused indiscriminate evictions. Under this law the police can post a notice on the outside of a house and the occupants are compelled to leave within 48 hours. No independent evidence is needed and the police can act on the basis of hearsay.
3. KERB CRAWLING
At present kerb crawling is an offence if it is persistent. To remove persistence makes it impossible for women to work outdoors, and penalises men whether or not they are causing a nuisance.
Forcing Prostitution Further Underground Endangers Lives
The proposals claim to offer protection and safety, and “support those involved in prostitution to develop routes out”. They do nothing of the sort. Whilst headlines describe “An epidemic of poverty in Britain”[4] women, including single mothers, struggling to support their families will be worst affected, and their safety endangered. As the economic recession hits, many more women are likely to resort to prostitution to feed themselves and their families; if prostitution is forced further underground by these measures the risks they are forced to take will be greater.
In Scotland, since a new law came into force last October, the number of assaults on sex workers has soared. Attacks against sex workers reported to one project have almost doubled from 66 in 2006 to 126 last year, including eight reported rapes and 55 violent assaults.[5]
While the 1999 Swedish law which criminalised men who buy sex is being used as an example, there has been no investigation of its consequences for women’s safety. Yet police in Sweden recently commented that the law has driven women into the hands of pimps and made it harder for the police to prosecute violent men, including traffickers. The UK proposal is even worse than the Swedish law as women selling sex are not being decriminalised. It bears more resemblance to US prohibition laws which criminalise both sex workers and clients. There is no evidence of less prostitution or better safety or welfare in the US, on the contrary.
Instead of targeting clients indiscriminately, the violence women report should be acted on, regardless of their occupation. An increase in the shamefully low conviction for reported rape has to be a key priority.
No attention is being paid to New Zealand where prostitution was decriminalised five years ago. A recent government review found:
- no rise in numbers of women working;
- women able to report violence without fear of arrest;
- attacks cleared up more quickly;
- judges ruling that sex workers are entitled to expect protection;
- drug users viewed as patients not criminals;
- women finding it easier to leave prostitution as convictions are cleared from their records.
For the past year the government has been pushing a punitive agenda -- its earlier attempts to introduce compulsory “rehabilitation” for sex workers was defeated. Once again it disregards public opinion which increasingly favours decriminalisation as crucial to tackling sex workers vulnerability to violence.
4. LAPDANCING
The enclosed statement from a woman working as a lapdancer shows that much of the media coverage and information being put out about lapdancing is wildly inaccurate and sensationalised. She describes working collectively with other women with good safety systems and earning more than she could in other jobs. Is this what the government finds objectionable; that women are in charge of their own money and working conditions?
Statement from a woman working as a lapdancer:
I’ve worked all around the country. I do three minute dances which cost the guys £10. I pay towards the cost of the venue, security and the DJ; after that, whatever I earn is my own. We work as a collective and prioritise safety. We have a good support network of door and bar staff. Someone always knows where I am. I take a lot of responsibility for the new girls as I’ve been around a long time.
I can earn £250 for four hours. Worse case, I walk out with £50 and that’s still more than I would earn in a day job at £5 an hour. Nine out of 10 women turn to prostitution or lap dancing because there’s not enough money to survive. I work with students, mothers and all kinds of other women. Recently my mum couldn’t afford a pair of school shoes for my brother and sister. When I worked a day job I couldn’t help her, but now I can. If the government is offended by the work we do, then give us the financial means to get out of the industry.
There is no pressure to have sex with men, only opportunities. I could go to a nightclub and have 10 times more of an opportunity to sleep with a man than I do in my workplace. In any case, if I want to have sex with a man and if he wants to pay me, then so what. If I had kids and sleeping with a man for money meant my children could have food in their mouths, I would do it. And tell me one woman that wouldn’t.
I haven’t met any women who were forced to work in clubs. Some women from other countries come here for salvation and help because it is terrible for them back home.
They say we are degrading ourselves. Actually no. The issue is what kind of protection we get from the police and courts. My friend was raped in a supermarket carpark. Some one very close to me was abused as a child. The cases got thrown out of court.
If you bring in more regulations and criminalize the sex industry, you make it harder for women to work. Girls can’t insist on good working conditions or their rights. The industry will go underground and it will be much worse.
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS
The shockingly short deadline for comments – less than two weeks – makes clear that the government’s mind was made up, and that, as with previous consultations on prostitution, it attaches no importance to people’s views.
[1] “It is an offence for a person to keep, or to manage, or act or assist in the management of, a brothel to which people resort for practices involving prostitution (whether or not also for other practices).” Max penalty: six months or a fine in a magistrate's court, seven years in a crown court.
[2] S53 makes it “an offence for a person (A) intentionally to control another person's activities relating to prostitution, in any part of the world, where A does so for, or in the expectation of, gain for himself or a third party.”
[3] Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, Part I 'Premises where drugs used unlawfully' http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as ... cId=820374
[4] The Observer, Sunday August 24 2008
[5] “Attacks on prostitutes soar after vice 'driven underground' by law” The Scotsman, 16 April 2008
.
English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP)
Dear friends,
Below is our response to the government’s proposals on prostitution. The proposals claim to offer protection and safety, and “support those involved in prostitution to develop routes out”, but do nothing of the sort. We intend to campaign vigorously against these proposals and would be glad for your support.
Yours for safety first,
Cari Mitchell
English Collective of Prostitutes
Crossroads Women’s Centre PO Box 287 London NW6 5QU
Telephone 020 7482 2496 Fax 020 7209 4761 Email ecp at allwomencount dot net
www.prostitutesCollective.net
8 October 2008
COMMENTS ON GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSALS
We oppose the government’s proposals which would create new offences relating to:
1) paying for sex,
2) brothel keeping, and
3) kerb crawling.
It is clear that the intention is to target anyone involved in prostitution whether or not there is force or coercion.
1. PAYING FOR SEX
Prostitution is not an offence at present and we see no reason why sex between consenting adults should be criminalised just because one party pays the other for her or his services. While the new proposed offence speaks of sex with a person controlled for gain, how will it be established that the person is controlled for gain? Controlled by whom? For whose gain? Will a co-worker, a maid, a partner or any one else who relates to a sex worker be considered guilty? Are clients expected to know what sex workers’ working arrangements are? Which arrangements will be deemed legal and which not?
One woman in our network now facing brothel-keeping charges is typical of many who have come for help over the last month:
Ms A is a former sex worker in her forties. To get an income for her retirement, she rented a room to a sex worker who pays her a small weekly amount. She has been charged with brothel-keeping. Because the offences of brothel keeping (1956 Sexual Offences Act[1]) or controlling prostitution for gain (2003 Sexual Offences Act[2]) require no evidence of force or coercion, it is likely that she, like many of other women being prosecuted under these laws, will be found guilty. But what is her crime? Renting to a prostitute woman? Should sex workers be so discriminated against that no one will rent to us?
Under the proposed offence, any client of the woman working for Ms A could be convicted. But what is his crime? The woman is working voluntarily and is likely to be making a better income than most women in commonly available low waged jobs.
The way that trafficking legislation is currently being used to target and deport immigrant women working independently warn us of the detrimental effects on women of this proposed legislation aimed at men who buy sex:
An immigrant woman in our network was convicted of trafficking and served three years in prison even though the judge accepted that "none of the women was coerced by you into acting as a prostitute . . . none was actually deceived as to the nature of the work they would be required to undertake . . . each had previously worked as a prostitute . . . You treated them in a kindly and hospitable way, inviting them to your home and social occasions.” As a result of the prosecution, her ex-partner tried to take her son from her, her life savings were confiscated under the Proceeds of Crime Act and she now faces deportation.
2. BROTHELS
Why should brothels be closed without any evidence of nuisance, force or coercion? It has long been established that it is up to 10 times safer for women to work indoors than on the streets. Why are premises being targeted? This proposal will endanger further the safety of mothers and other women struggling to support their families through sex work.
This legislation is modeled on the 'Premises where drugs used unlawfully' provision of the 2003 Anti Social Behaviour Act[3] which has caused indiscriminate evictions. Under this law the police can post a notice on the outside of a house and the occupants are compelled to leave within 48 hours. No independent evidence is needed and the police can act on the basis of hearsay.
3. KERB CRAWLING
At present kerb crawling is an offence if it is persistent. To remove persistence makes it impossible for women to work outdoors, and penalises men whether or not they are causing a nuisance.
Forcing Prostitution Further Underground Endangers Lives
The proposals claim to offer protection and safety, and “support those involved in prostitution to develop routes out”. They do nothing of the sort. Whilst headlines describe “An epidemic of poverty in Britain”[4] women, including single mothers, struggling to support their families will be worst affected, and their safety endangered. As the economic recession hits, many more women are likely to resort to prostitution to feed themselves and their families; if prostitution is forced further underground by these measures the risks they are forced to take will be greater.
In Scotland, since a new law came into force last October, the number of assaults on sex workers has soared. Attacks against sex workers reported to one project have almost doubled from 66 in 2006 to 126 last year, including eight reported rapes and 55 violent assaults.[5]
While the 1999 Swedish law which criminalised men who buy sex is being used as an example, there has been no investigation of its consequences for women’s safety. Yet police in Sweden recently commented that the law has driven women into the hands of pimps and made it harder for the police to prosecute violent men, including traffickers. The UK proposal is even worse than the Swedish law as women selling sex are not being decriminalised. It bears more resemblance to US prohibition laws which criminalise both sex workers and clients. There is no evidence of less prostitution or better safety or welfare in the US, on the contrary.
Instead of targeting clients indiscriminately, the violence women report should be acted on, regardless of their occupation. An increase in the shamefully low conviction for reported rape has to be a key priority.
No attention is being paid to New Zealand where prostitution was decriminalised five years ago. A recent government review found:
- no rise in numbers of women working;
- women able to report violence without fear of arrest;
- attacks cleared up more quickly;
- judges ruling that sex workers are entitled to expect protection;
- drug users viewed as patients not criminals;
- women finding it easier to leave prostitution as convictions are cleared from their records.
For the past year the government has been pushing a punitive agenda -- its earlier attempts to introduce compulsory “rehabilitation” for sex workers was defeated. Once again it disregards public opinion which increasingly favours decriminalisation as crucial to tackling sex workers vulnerability to violence.
4. LAPDANCING
The enclosed statement from a woman working as a lapdancer shows that much of the media coverage and information being put out about lapdancing is wildly inaccurate and sensationalised. She describes working collectively with other women with good safety systems and earning more than she could in other jobs. Is this what the government finds objectionable; that women are in charge of their own money and working conditions?
Statement from a woman working as a lapdancer:
I’ve worked all around the country. I do three minute dances which cost the guys £10. I pay towards the cost of the venue, security and the DJ; after that, whatever I earn is my own. We work as a collective and prioritise safety. We have a good support network of door and bar staff. Someone always knows where I am. I take a lot of responsibility for the new girls as I’ve been around a long time.
I can earn £250 for four hours. Worse case, I walk out with £50 and that’s still more than I would earn in a day job at £5 an hour. Nine out of 10 women turn to prostitution or lap dancing because there’s not enough money to survive. I work with students, mothers and all kinds of other women. Recently my mum couldn’t afford a pair of school shoes for my brother and sister. When I worked a day job I couldn’t help her, but now I can. If the government is offended by the work we do, then give us the financial means to get out of the industry.
There is no pressure to have sex with men, only opportunities. I could go to a nightclub and have 10 times more of an opportunity to sleep with a man than I do in my workplace. In any case, if I want to have sex with a man and if he wants to pay me, then so what. If I had kids and sleeping with a man for money meant my children could have food in their mouths, I would do it. And tell me one woman that wouldn’t.
I haven’t met any women who were forced to work in clubs. Some women from other countries come here for salvation and help because it is terrible for them back home.
They say we are degrading ourselves. Actually no. The issue is what kind of protection we get from the police and courts. My friend was raped in a supermarket carpark. Some one very close to me was abused as a child. The cases got thrown out of court.
If you bring in more regulations and criminalize the sex industry, you make it harder for women to work. Girls can’t insist on good working conditions or their rights. The industry will go underground and it will be much worse.
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS
The shockingly short deadline for comments – less than two weeks – makes clear that the government’s mind was made up, and that, as with previous consultations on prostitution, it attaches no importance to people’s views.
[1] “It is an offence for a person to keep, or to manage, or act or assist in the management of, a brothel to which people resort for practices involving prostitution (whether or not also for other practices).” Max penalty: six months or a fine in a magistrate's court, seven years in a crown court.
[2] S53 makes it “an offence for a person (A) intentionally to control another person's activities relating to prostitution, in any part of the world, where A does so for, or in the expectation of, gain for himself or a third party.”
[3] Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, Part I 'Premises where drugs used unlawfully' http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as ... cId=820374
[4] The Observer, Sunday August 24 2008
[5] “Attacks on prostitutes soar after vice 'driven underground' by law” The Scotsman, 16 April 2008
.
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
Geschäft floriert
WE’RE LAPPING IT UP FOR BRITAIN
ABOVE: Brits going mad for saucy dance clubs
11th October 2008
By Nadine Linge
LAP dancing is booming even as Britain struggles not to go bust.
Hard-up Brits are buying food from cut-price supermarkets and staying in thanks to the credit crunch.
But, despite the financial doom and gloom, dance clubs are flourishing.
And many canny Brit babes are quitting jobs such as nursing, teaching and even law work to become lap dancers, where the average wage is £50,000.
There are currently 150 official lap dancing clubs and 300 places which put on some form of sexy entertainment.
About 70 or 80 girls will work in one club, with all on duty at peak times. Added to the number of strippers working in British pubs, it means up to 25,000 women are working as lap dancers.
Birmingham is the country’s lap dancing capital with about 12 clubs while London is second with 10.
Brum proved its credentials when Tory politicians at the recent party conference were offered cut-price entry to the city’s top clubs.
The future of the industry was thrown into doubt this year when Government minister Gerry Sutcliffe vowed to toughen up laws on allowing clubs to open.
But industry bosses and customers reckon it is the best way to cheer up a the gloomy nation.
The Kensington Suits opens its doors next month in west London and a string of top footballers already have their names down to check out the gals.
Ellouise Moore, 28, is the dancers’ manager and says: “I don’t think the credit crunch has affected our industry. As far as we can tell lap dancing is still going to thrive.
“As well as normal punters we’re also going to get the footballers, brokers and bankers. Lap-dancing has been going strong for a long time now and basically men still want to watch beautiful women dancing.”
A spokesman for the adult entertainment branch of the GMB union reckons more women are working as lap dancers than ever before thanks to the wages.
She says: “Men still want to treat themselves. It’s the same phenomenon as women who buy a Chanel lipstick because they can’t afford the handbag.
“They want a taste of the high life. It’s the same with men – they might be struggling but need something to cheer themselves up.”
Kate Nicholls, secretary of the Lap Dancing Association, says: “Across the whole of the hospitality industry business is down but lap dancing clubs are bucking the trend.
“We’re not suffering as much as some. Some nightclubs are resorting to desperate tactics such as 80p shots to get people in. But in our clubs spending is holding up.”
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/54 ... /#comments
.
ABOVE: Brits going mad for saucy dance clubs
11th October 2008
By Nadine Linge
LAP dancing is booming even as Britain struggles not to go bust.
Hard-up Brits are buying food from cut-price supermarkets and staying in thanks to the credit crunch.
But, despite the financial doom and gloom, dance clubs are flourishing.
And many canny Brit babes are quitting jobs such as nursing, teaching and even law work to become lap dancers, where the average wage is £50,000.
There are currently 150 official lap dancing clubs and 300 places which put on some form of sexy entertainment.
About 70 or 80 girls will work in one club, with all on duty at peak times. Added to the number of strippers working in British pubs, it means up to 25,000 women are working as lap dancers.
Birmingham is the country’s lap dancing capital with about 12 clubs while London is second with 10.
Brum proved its credentials when Tory politicians at the recent party conference were offered cut-price entry to the city’s top clubs.
The future of the industry was thrown into doubt this year when Government minister Gerry Sutcliffe vowed to toughen up laws on allowing clubs to open.
But industry bosses and customers reckon it is the best way to cheer up a the gloomy nation.
The Kensington Suits opens its doors next month in west London and a string of top footballers already have their names down to check out the gals.
Ellouise Moore, 28, is the dancers’ manager and says: “I don’t think the credit crunch has affected our industry. As far as we can tell lap dancing is still going to thrive.
“As well as normal punters we’re also going to get the footballers, brokers and bankers. Lap-dancing has been going strong for a long time now and basically men still want to watch beautiful women dancing.”
A spokesman for the adult entertainment branch of the GMB union reckons more women are working as lap dancers than ever before thanks to the wages.
She says: “Men still want to treat themselves. It’s the same phenomenon as women who buy a Chanel lipstick because they can’t afford the handbag.
“They want a taste of the high life. It’s the same with men – they might be struggling but need something to cheer themselves up.”
Kate Nicholls, secretary of the Lap Dancing Association, says: “Across the whole of the hospitality industry business is down but lap dancing clubs are bucking the trend.
“We’re not suffering as much as some. Some nightclubs are resorting to desperate tactics such as 80p shots to get people in. But in our clubs spending is holding up.”
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/54 ... /#comments
.
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
Wissenschaftlicher Diskurs Sexwork
Nicht nur für die 20 User, die sich bisher den fragwürdigen BIG BROTHEL REPORT herunter geladen haben,
gibt es jetzt eine kritische Evaluation von 27 WissenschaftlerInnen die PRO SW argumentieren.
Diesen ACADEMIC RESPONSE habe ich jetzt nachträglich hinzugefügt:
http://sexworker.at/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=42367#42367
http://sexworker.at/phpBB2/download.php?id=279
(23 Seiten, click = automatischer pdf download)
Fotogalerie
PRO SW ForscherInnen
http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/researchsex.htm
.
gibt es jetzt eine kritische Evaluation von 27 WissenschaftlerInnen die PRO SW argumentieren.
Diesen ACADEMIC RESPONSE habe ich jetzt nachträglich hinzugefügt:
http://sexworker.at/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=42367#42367
http://sexworker.at/phpBB2/download.php?id=279
(23 Seiten, click = automatischer pdf download)
Fotogalerie
PRO SW ForscherInnen
http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/researchsex.htm
.
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
The Times
From The Times
November 7, 2008
Paying for sex - what's so wrong with that?
59 per cent of people agree that prostitution is a reasonable choice of work
Joan Bakewell
The legendary theatre critic Ken Tynan once asked a friend of mine whether, having escorted her home, he could come in and have sex. She refused. “Oh, go on,” he persisted, “it will only take half an hour!” There is a certain bravura in treating sex simply as the transaction of a moment. Most of us manage more subtle ways than that. And sometimes money comes into the deal.
It is a truism of the arranged marriage - whether in Victorian times or today's ethnic communities - that negotiations focus on the wealth and prospects of the candidates. Virginity might come into it too. Times have changed, but we still get squeamish about how sex operates in the real world. Flagrant licentiousness exists side by side with a resurgent puritanism, pulling in opposite directions with the law struggling to sort out the contradictions. We can expect to see the sparks fly next week when Germaine Greer and Joan Smith confront each other in the IQ2 debate “It's Wrong to Pay for Sex”.
Right now there is a squall of proposals around laws relating to prostitution and to lap-dancing clubs. As a result of the Government's Licensing Act 2003 the latter can now be licensed under regulations no more stringent than those governing cafés. That's why there are suddenly so many more of them: around 300 today, compared with 150 in 2004...hardly enough to suggest that the nation's morals are on the skids. But it means a lot more stag-night rowdies and gawping men with their tongues hanging out at the sight of long-legged women in f**k-me shoes (Professor Greer's phrase) wrapping their sequined crotches round poles. Not tasteful, no, but no one gets hurt.
Apparently local residents often get upset and want such clubs to be licensed by local authorities as sex encounter establishments, lumping them with strip clubs and sex cinemas. That seems fair enough. But I wonder at the humourlessness of a phrase such as sex encounter establishments. Where does that leave pop concerts and clubs, to say nothing of the steps outside Tate Britain, I wonder? It proves we're squeamish about sex and want nothing so much as to see it tidied up, neatly ordered and out of sight. This is odd, because one of the great strides made in my lifetime has been the taking of “shame” out of all things sexual. At last we seem to recognise that sex is a spontaneous human drive with each individual free to make his or her own choices. It was a liberating moment in the early Sixties when the Pill gave women control over their own bodies. It wasn't quite so liberating in the heady days of feminism, when the sisterhood turned their attention to prostitution with the firm intent of bringing it to an end. They collided with the suddenly free and assertive ranks of prostitutes saying “thanks, but get off our patch and leave us to earn our living”. It wasn't going to be easy ending the objectification of women. It still isn't.
Today, according to the Government's own Mori poll,
59 per cent of people agree that prostitution is a perfectly reasonable choice of work; and
37 per cent would not be ashamed if a family member worked as a prostitute.
It is surely time to decriminalise it. Yet Jacqui Smith wants to criminalise kerb crawlers ever more severely and to give police and councils the power to close brothels, throwing women on the streets. There is rightly proper concern about the trafficking of young girls, and their exploitation and violent abuse by pimps and drug dealers. The spiral of such depravity is a scar on our cities. But pitching such interests in a war with the police can only aggravate matters.
There is, whether we like it or not, a compelling need for many men to have sex without strings, sex with a stranger that is over and done with once the cash has changed hands. Throughout history they have found ways of doing so, whether with sacred temple maidens or in the garrison brothels set up to serve fighting armies. We can chase it up and down the legal ladders, hound it down dark alleys and squalid bedsits, but its persistence tells us that we won't eradicate it. So let's face up to the fact and make paying for sex legal. That way we can site and inspect brothels where it suits the community, women can have their health and welfare monitored and their drug problems treated.
I once visited such an establishment in the Netherlands. It was on an industrial estate with a car park for the workers. They all paid their taxes: the nation's sex industry is part of its GDP. “Better than the streets,” they told me. “We all look out for each other.” These particular women - like those I met at a lap-dancing club - weren't the sad dregs of humanity. They had a robust attitude to their lives, a lively street intelligence and an eagerness to better themselves. One sent her daughter to a private school; another was saving up to open her own gym. To treat them as merely sex fodder is to ignore their often tough, individual stories.
I want to see a world where women have enough self-esteem to stand up for themselves against exploitation and abuse. They continue to do this - within marriage and without. Groups of women are resisting genital mutilation; women are increasingly encouraged to report rape. Slowly - not fast enough - police forces are being trained to listen and respond. Protection within the sex industry would be another step forward. But even as I write, I hear there is now a male lap-dancing club - women customers only. Is this some sort of equality?
joanbakewell at thetimes.co.uk
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 100257.ece
November 7, 2008
Paying for sex - what's so wrong with that?
59 per cent of people agree that prostitution is a reasonable choice of work
Joan Bakewell
The legendary theatre critic Ken Tynan once asked a friend of mine whether, having escorted her home, he could come in and have sex. She refused. “Oh, go on,” he persisted, “it will only take half an hour!” There is a certain bravura in treating sex simply as the transaction of a moment. Most of us manage more subtle ways than that. And sometimes money comes into the deal.
It is a truism of the arranged marriage - whether in Victorian times or today's ethnic communities - that negotiations focus on the wealth and prospects of the candidates. Virginity might come into it too. Times have changed, but we still get squeamish about how sex operates in the real world. Flagrant licentiousness exists side by side with a resurgent puritanism, pulling in opposite directions with the law struggling to sort out the contradictions. We can expect to see the sparks fly next week when Germaine Greer and Joan Smith confront each other in the IQ2 debate “It's Wrong to Pay for Sex”.
Right now there is a squall of proposals around laws relating to prostitution and to lap-dancing clubs. As a result of the Government's Licensing Act 2003 the latter can now be licensed under regulations no more stringent than those governing cafés. That's why there are suddenly so many more of them: around 300 today, compared with 150 in 2004...hardly enough to suggest that the nation's morals are on the skids. But it means a lot more stag-night rowdies and gawping men with their tongues hanging out at the sight of long-legged women in f**k-me shoes (Professor Greer's phrase) wrapping their sequined crotches round poles. Not tasteful, no, but no one gets hurt.
Apparently local residents often get upset and want such clubs to be licensed by local authorities as sex encounter establishments, lumping them with strip clubs and sex cinemas. That seems fair enough. But I wonder at the humourlessness of a phrase such as sex encounter establishments. Where does that leave pop concerts and clubs, to say nothing of the steps outside Tate Britain, I wonder? It proves we're squeamish about sex and want nothing so much as to see it tidied up, neatly ordered and out of sight. This is odd, because one of the great strides made in my lifetime has been the taking of “shame” out of all things sexual. At last we seem to recognise that sex is a spontaneous human drive with each individual free to make his or her own choices. It was a liberating moment in the early Sixties when the Pill gave women control over their own bodies. It wasn't quite so liberating in the heady days of feminism, when the sisterhood turned their attention to prostitution with the firm intent of bringing it to an end. They collided with the suddenly free and assertive ranks of prostitutes saying “thanks, but get off our patch and leave us to earn our living”. It wasn't going to be easy ending the objectification of women. It still isn't.
Today, according to the Government's own Mori poll,
59 per cent of people agree that prostitution is a perfectly reasonable choice of work; and
37 per cent would not be ashamed if a family member worked as a prostitute.
It is surely time to decriminalise it. Yet Jacqui Smith wants to criminalise kerb crawlers ever more severely and to give police and councils the power to close brothels, throwing women on the streets. There is rightly proper concern about the trafficking of young girls, and their exploitation and violent abuse by pimps and drug dealers. The spiral of such depravity is a scar on our cities. But pitching such interests in a war with the police can only aggravate matters.
There is, whether we like it or not, a compelling need for many men to have sex without strings, sex with a stranger that is over and done with once the cash has changed hands. Throughout history they have found ways of doing so, whether with sacred temple maidens or in the garrison brothels set up to serve fighting armies. We can chase it up and down the legal ladders, hound it down dark alleys and squalid bedsits, but its persistence tells us that we won't eradicate it. So let's face up to the fact and make paying for sex legal. That way we can site and inspect brothels where it suits the community, women can have their health and welfare monitored and their drug problems treated.
I once visited such an establishment in the Netherlands. It was on an industrial estate with a car park for the workers. They all paid their taxes: the nation's sex industry is part of its GDP. “Better than the streets,” they told me. “We all look out for each other.” These particular women - like those I met at a lap-dancing club - weren't the sad dregs of humanity. They had a robust attitude to their lives, a lively street intelligence and an eagerness to better themselves. One sent her daughter to a private school; another was saving up to open her own gym. To treat them as merely sex fodder is to ignore their often tough, individual stories.
I want to see a world where women have enough self-esteem to stand up for themselves against exploitation and abuse. They continue to do this - within marriage and without. Groups of women are resisting genital mutilation; women are increasingly encouraged to report rape. Slowly - not fast enough - police forces are being trained to listen and respond. Protection within the sex industry would be another step forward. But even as I write, I hear there is now a male lap-dancing club - women customers only. Is this some sort of equality?
joanbakewell at thetimes.co.uk
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 100257.ece
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
Sexarbeiter Meinung:
Zum derzeitigen Medien-Krieg gegen Stripp-Clubs
hier die Position einer gewerkschaftlich organisierten Stripperin:
The London colunmist: Sapphire
by Sapphire. Monday, 10
November 2008
YOU can’t open a paper at the moment without seeing news about the war on lapdancing. According to the anti-stripping brigade, the existence of strip clubs harms women and communities, increases prostitution and drug-dealing, and even fuels human trafficking and child abuse. There are many documented arguments that this is not the case – with even the police stating there is no evidence the clubs cause crime or disorder – but I want to give a stripper’s personal view.
I left a career in financial journalism six years ago to become a stripper, fulfilling a long ambition to do so. I was warned by well-meaning feminists that I would be a sexually-abused, drug-addicted prostitute within months. The reality is that none of that occurred. In fact, I’m far happier, healthier, wealthier and more in control of my life than I was before.
I like men more (having spent seven years at an all-girls school, I had been raised to believe all men were “only-after one thing”). How ironic that I’ve learnt that this is not the case while working as a stripper. I am more comfortable with my body and with my femininity and sexuality (something I’d formerly been told to suppress, as to display it was dangerous and would bring me harm).
And what about all this abuse I’ve supposedly indirectly perpetrated? I put big smiles on the faces of hundreds a week. What’s so wrong with that? And what I do extends outside the club. When I received a certificate from a charity for my work with deaf and blind clients; when I’ve raised hundreds of pounds through charity lapdancing; when I was invited to perform at a care home for the severely disabled (and inspired one man to speak more words that evening than he had in several years); when I’ve taught women striptease and they’ve told me I’ve made them feel good about their bodies... I’ve hardy felt like I’m perpetrating abuse.
I felt infinitely more exploited before I became a stripper, working long hours for low pay. Obviously exotic dance is not a career choice for everyone, or an entertainment choice for everyone, but “choice” is the key word here. Let us, as consenting adults, carry on doing a legal activity which we choose and enjoy.
Sapphire, 28, is an exotic dancer from Islington, London
http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satell ... 4364219941
.
hier die Position einer gewerkschaftlich organisierten Stripperin:
The London colunmist: Sapphire
by Sapphire. Monday, 10
November 2008
YOU can’t open a paper at the moment without seeing news about the war on lapdancing. According to the anti-stripping brigade, the existence of strip clubs harms women and communities, increases prostitution and drug-dealing, and even fuels human trafficking and child abuse. There are many documented arguments that this is not the case – with even the police stating there is no evidence the clubs cause crime or disorder – but I want to give a stripper’s personal view.
I left a career in financial journalism six years ago to become a stripper, fulfilling a long ambition to do so. I was warned by well-meaning feminists that I would be a sexually-abused, drug-addicted prostitute within months. The reality is that none of that occurred. In fact, I’m far happier, healthier, wealthier and more in control of my life than I was before.
I like men more (having spent seven years at an all-girls school, I had been raised to believe all men were “only-after one thing”). How ironic that I’ve learnt that this is not the case while working as a stripper. I am more comfortable with my body and with my femininity and sexuality (something I’d formerly been told to suppress, as to display it was dangerous and would bring me harm).
And what about all this abuse I’ve supposedly indirectly perpetrated? I put big smiles on the faces of hundreds a week. What’s so wrong with that? And what I do extends outside the club. When I received a certificate from a charity for my work with deaf and blind clients; when I’ve raised hundreds of pounds through charity lapdancing; when I was invited to perform at a care home for the severely disabled (and inspired one man to speak more words that evening than he had in several years); when I’ve taught women striptease and they’ve told me I’ve made them feel good about their bodies... I’ve hardy felt like I’m perpetrating abuse.
I felt infinitely more exploited before I became a stripper, working long hours for low pay. Obviously exotic dance is not a career choice for everyone, or an entertainment choice for everyone, but “choice” is the key word here. Let us, as consenting adults, carry on doing a legal activity which we choose and enjoy.
Sapphire, 28, is an exotic dancer from Islington, London
http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satell ... 4364219941
.
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
Umfrage
Debatte in der Royal Geographical Society, London
"It's wrong to pay for sex"
Die These lautet:
It's wrong to pay for sex / Es ist falsch für Sex zu bezahlen
Speakers for the motion:
Professor Raymond Tallis
Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester, philosopher and poet.
Joan Smith
Feminist novelist, critic and columnist.
Jeremy O'Grady
Editor-in-Chief of The Week magazine.
Speakers against the motion (d.h. pro sex work):
Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon
Reader in Psychology and Social Policy, Birkbeck College.
Professor Germaine Greer
Australian author, widely regarded as one of the most significant feminists of the 20th Century.
Rod Liddle
Associate Editor of The Spectator, columnist for The Sunday Times and former Editor of the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4.
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/even ... nt=EVT0171
Professor Germaine Greer
Hier die Berichte von der Debatte
Lloyd Evans reports from the latest IQ2 debate
Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon, a psychologist and expert in the sex industry, queried Joan Smith’s statistics and said the figures on sex-slaves are overstated. The crimes committed by traffickers and by violent punters are already illegal and are irrelevant to the question of prostitution. Her experience suggested that many prostitutes are intelligent, well-qualified women who enter the profession willingly. Many of their customers have honourable motives too. Ageing widows, war veterans and the disabled have a right to enjoy sex. Criminalising such harmless, consensual contacts would create ‘sexual McCarthyism’ while diverting police resources away from real criminals. During the floor debate Dr Brooks-Gordon’s views were endorsed by a highly articulate prostitute who provided this ironic characterisation of ‘the Swedish model’ as proposed by newspaper columnists like Joan Smith. ‘Suppose it were legal to write a column,’ she said, ‘but illegal to read one. Imagine how your income would be affected.’ That brought it home. When the votes were taken the motion had been soundly defeated.
Votes
Before the debate
For 134
Against 341
Don’t Know 221
After the debate
For 203
Against 449 = Sieg für Sexwork
Don’t Know 45
Quelle:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine ... -sex.thtml
Is it wrong to pay for sex?
Raymond Tallis, Rod Liddle and Germaine Greer tackled the ethics of prostitution at a debate at the Royal Geographical Society this week. Web editor Anna Bruce-Lockhart went along to see how it went
Thursday November 13th 2008
Lead article photo
Greer: we live in a sell-all society. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/Reuters
Is it wrong to pay for sex? This was the motion of a debate I went to hear this week at the Royal Geographical Society in west London. The title alone was intriguing enough, but added to the irresistible allure was the prospect of watching Germaine Greer battle it out in public with the boffinous Professor Raymond Tallis (one of Prospect magazine’s top 100 public intellectuals and the man Radio 4’s Kirsty Young identified as her favourite Desert Island Discs castaway) as well as Rod Liddle, columnist for the Sunday Times and Spectator.
Greer and Liddle were against the motion, which slightly confusingly meant they were for the idea that it's acceptable to pay for sex. Tallis and his two cohorts, more about whom later, were against.
As Greer stood up for her turn to speak, Toby Young, who was chairing the debate, slyly reminded the assembly that she had "walked out of the Celebrity Big Brother House citing psychological cruelty". But despite the disparaging chortles of the crowd, hers was an assured oratory, full of dramatic pauses and funny one-liners – well they were at the time – such as: "It would be wrong for the customer not to pay."
Greer’s argument was that paying for sex is only natural when you are part of a culture in which everything is for sale anyway. "Waitresses smile for tips, nannies treat children with tenderness for a paid wage. Financiers sell their souls – and that’s a lot worse." One point came across particularly clearly: that it would be cruel of society to expect unattractive people who can’t get sex the usual way to go without it their entire lives – "we can’t ask them to be celibate," she said, quite sensibly.
Next to speak was Professor Tallis. He was one of the heroes of the night – witty and likeable, and taming the indignant Greer with retorts such as "Good riposte! Poor point though", to the delight of the audience. Also, in response to the wry interruptions of Liddle: "I’m not sure you’re actually making a point so let’s put it in parentheses for now shall we?" before seamlessly picking up where he’d left off.
To him, paying for sex was degrading. His speech was pretty high-brow – and to be honest I didn’t understand a lot of it – lots of lengthy, elegant sentences with impregnable words. But my overall impression was a poignant one – that our deepest human need is to be loved and cherished by another person, and reducing the sexual act to an itemised bill of what goes where was deeply inhuman. "It’s wrong, but not from a moral standpoint," he concluded. "Sex is beautiful, and paying for it diminishes us all."
I assumed that because Rod Liddle was sitting next to Germaine Greer and had spent much of the evening frowning matily with her every time the opposition said something vaguely opposing, that he would be both progressive and a feminist. How wrong I was.
Despite the perplexed brow and self-effacing shoulder hunch that sometimes denotes someone who is quite bookish and quite nice, he struck me as a bit of a twit: while outlining the case that prostitution is inevitable, that it’s just the way we’re built, he opined that in one way or another men were always paying women for sex anyway – whether it was taking a girl out on a date, picking up the bill at dinner, or even marrying the wretched creature in order to make sure he had sex on tap.
Not one person challenged him on this point – although a woman in the audience came back to it later on, saying that she, for one, enjoyed having sex and had never felt manipulated into this joyous activity via jewels or a free dinner. I rather wanted someone to ask him what century he thought it was and whether he knew women were allowed educations these days, and jobs, that they had money of their own to spend in restaurants, thanks very much. But I didn’t, of course, as that would mean standing up in front of everyone with a microphone and stringing words together in some sort of order.
Joan Smith, writer and human rights activist, picked up a more militant theme when it came to her turn. Women who became prostitutes, she said, did so out of necessity and not because they enjoyed it. Many had pre-existing drug habits – and more than that, the men who took advantage of their services were misogynists [Frauenhasser]. In fact, most of the men who picked up prostitutes hated women and wanted to abuse them. There were a few gasps from the audience at this point – although the two pursed-lipped ladies sitting beside me met it with murmurs of approval.
Her argument was proved, she said, by the figures: mortality rates among "prostituted women" (Smith prefers this term) were six times higher than among the general population. "Prostitutes are 18 times more likely to be murdered," she stated, to stunned silence.
But then the debate opened to the floor – and an interesting thing happened. A woman stood up and introduced herself. "My name’s Katharine," she said, "and I’ve been working happily in the sex industry for the past 10 years." I can’t imagine the courage it took for her to do that. She was frank and clever and made the point that to label the sex industry as wrong, and to criminalise men who went to prostitutes, had a destructive effect on the prostitutes themselves – many of whom enjoyed what they did and should be allowed the right to keep doing it.
At the end of the evening, the side of the debate that espoused Katharine’s view won out. Greer, Liddle and their third team member, Belinda Brooks-Gordon, won the majority vote and the motion was passed in London that night. It is perfectly acceptable, should you want to – whether you are male or female, heaven-sent or physically repulsive – to hand over money for payment in kind.
Quelle:
http://www.guardianweekly.co.uk/?page=e ... 8&catID=21
Den Ausschlag der Debatte gab sicher auch die stolze sichtbare Sexarbeiterin.
Solche Sexarbeiter-Präsenz sorgt dafür, dass mit uns anstatt über uns gesprochen wird.
www.iusw.org
The International Union of Sex Workers:
For our human, civil and labour rights.
For our inclusion and decriminalisation.
For the full protection of the law.
For everyone in the sex industry.
ONLY RIGHTS WILL STOP THE WRONGS.
Analoge Veranstaltung U.S.A.:
http://sexworker.at/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=52318#52318
.
"It's wrong to pay for sex"
Die These lautet:
It's wrong to pay for sex / Es ist falsch für Sex zu bezahlen
Speakers for the motion:
Professor Raymond Tallis
Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester, philosopher and poet.
Joan Smith
Feminist novelist, critic and columnist.
Jeremy O'Grady
Editor-in-Chief of The Week magazine.
Speakers against the motion (d.h. pro sex work):
Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon
Reader in Psychology and Social Policy, Birkbeck College.
Professor Germaine Greer
Australian author, widely regarded as one of the most significant feminists of the 20th Century.
Rod Liddle
Associate Editor of The Spectator, columnist for The Sunday Times and former Editor of the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4.
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/even ... nt=EVT0171
Professor Germaine Greer
Hier die Berichte von der Debatte
Lloyd Evans reports from the latest IQ2 debate
Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon, a psychologist and expert in the sex industry, queried Joan Smith’s statistics and said the figures on sex-slaves are overstated. The crimes committed by traffickers and by violent punters are already illegal and are irrelevant to the question of prostitution. Her experience suggested that many prostitutes are intelligent, well-qualified women who enter the profession willingly. Many of their customers have honourable motives too. Ageing widows, war veterans and the disabled have a right to enjoy sex. Criminalising such harmless, consensual contacts would create ‘sexual McCarthyism’ while diverting police resources away from real criminals. During the floor debate Dr Brooks-Gordon’s views were endorsed by a highly articulate prostitute who provided this ironic characterisation of ‘the Swedish model’ as proposed by newspaper columnists like Joan Smith. ‘Suppose it were legal to write a column,’ she said, ‘but illegal to read one. Imagine how your income would be affected.’ That brought it home. When the votes were taken the motion had been soundly defeated.
Votes
Before the debate
For 134
Against 341
Don’t Know 221
After the debate
For 203
Against 449 = Sieg für Sexwork
Don’t Know 45
Quelle:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine ... -sex.thtml
Is it wrong to pay for sex?
Raymond Tallis, Rod Liddle and Germaine Greer tackled the ethics of prostitution at a debate at the Royal Geographical Society this week. Web editor Anna Bruce-Lockhart went along to see how it went
Thursday November 13th 2008
Lead article photo
Greer: we live in a sell-all society. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/Reuters
Is it wrong to pay for sex? This was the motion of a debate I went to hear this week at the Royal Geographical Society in west London. The title alone was intriguing enough, but added to the irresistible allure was the prospect of watching Germaine Greer battle it out in public with the boffinous Professor Raymond Tallis (one of Prospect magazine’s top 100 public intellectuals and the man Radio 4’s Kirsty Young identified as her favourite Desert Island Discs castaway) as well as Rod Liddle, columnist for the Sunday Times and Spectator.
Greer and Liddle were against the motion, which slightly confusingly meant they were for the idea that it's acceptable to pay for sex. Tallis and his two cohorts, more about whom later, were against.
As Greer stood up for her turn to speak, Toby Young, who was chairing the debate, slyly reminded the assembly that she had "walked out of the Celebrity Big Brother House citing psychological cruelty". But despite the disparaging chortles of the crowd, hers was an assured oratory, full of dramatic pauses and funny one-liners – well they were at the time – such as: "It would be wrong for the customer not to pay."
Greer’s argument was that paying for sex is only natural when you are part of a culture in which everything is for sale anyway. "Waitresses smile for tips, nannies treat children with tenderness for a paid wage. Financiers sell their souls – and that’s a lot worse." One point came across particularly clearly: that it would be cruel of society to expect unattractive people who can’t get sex the usual way to go without it their entire lives – "we can’t ask them to be celibate," she said, quite sensibly.
Next to speak was Professor Tallis. He was one of the heroes of the night – witty and likeable, and taming the indignant Greer with retorts such as "Good riposte! Poor point though", to the delight of the audience. Also, in response to the wry interruptions of Liddle: "I’m not sure you’re actually making a point so let’s put it in parentheses for now shall we?" before seamlessly picking up where he’d left off.
To him, paying for sex was degrading. His speech was pretty high-brow – and to be honest I didn’t understand a lot of it – lots of lengthy, elegant sentences with impregnable words. But my overall impression was a poignant one – that our deepest human need is to be loved and cherished by another person, and reducing the sexual act to an itemised bill of what goes where was deeply inhuman. "It’s wrong, but not from a moral standpoint," he concluded. "Sex is beautiful, and paying for it diminishes us all."
I assumed that because Rod Liddle was sitting next to Germaine Greer and had spent much of the evening frowning matily with her every time the opposition said something vaguely opposing, that he would be both progressive and a feminist. How wrong I was.
Despite the perplexed brow and self-effacing shoulder hunch that sometimes denotes someone who is quite bookish and quite nice, he struck me as a bit of a twit: while outlining the case that prostitution is inevitable, that it’s just the way we’re built, he opined that in one way or another men were always paying women for sex anyway – whether it was taking a girl out on a date, picking up the bill at dinner, or even marrying the wretched creature in order to make sure he had sex on tap.
Not one person challenged him on this point – although a woman in the audience came back to it later on, saying that she, for one, enjoyed having sex and had never felt manipulated into this joyous activity via jewels or a free dinner. I rather wanted someone to ask him what century he thought it was and whether he knew women were allowed educations these days, and jobs, that they had money of their own to spend in restaurants, thanks very much. But I didn’t, of course, as that would mean standing up in front of everyone with a microphone and stringing words together in some sort of order.
Joan Smith, writer and human rights activist, picked up a more militant theme when it came to her turn. Women who became prostitutes, she said, did so out of necessity and not because they enjoyed it. Many had pre-existing drug habits – and more than that, the men who took advantage of their services were misogynists [Frauenhasser]. In fact, most of the men who picked up prostitutes hated women and wanted to abuse them. There were a few gasps from the audience at this point – although the two pursed-lipped ladies sitting beside me met it with murmurs of approval.
Her argument was proved, she said, by the figures: mortality rates among "prostituted women" (Smith prefers this term) were six times higher than among the general population. "Prostitutes are 18 times more likely to be murdered," she stated, to stunned silence.
But then the debate opened to the floor – and an interesting thing happened. A woman stood up and introduced herself. "My name’s Katharine," she said, "and I’ve been working happily in the sex industry for the past 10 years." I can’t imagine the courage it took for her to do that. She was frank and clever and made the point that to label the sex industry as wrong, and to criminalise men who went to prostitutes, had a destructive effect on the prostitutes themselves – many of whom enjoyed what they did and should be allowed the right to keep doing it.
At the end of the evening, the side of the debate that espoused Katharine’s view won out. Greer, Liddle and their third team member, Belinda Brooks-Gordon, won the majority vote and the motion was passed in London that night. It is perfectly acceptable, should you want to – whether you are male or female, heaven-sent or physically repulsive – to hand over money for payment in kind.
Quelle:
http://www.guardianweekly.co.uk/?page=e ... 8&catID=21
Den Ausschlag der Debatte gab sicher auch die stolze sichtbare Sexarbeiterin.
Solche Sexarbeiter-Präsenz sorgt dafür, dass mit uns anstatt über uns gesprochen wird.
www.iusw.org
The International Union of Sex Workers:
For our human, civil and labour rights.
For our inclusion and decriminalisation.
For the full protection of the law.
For everyone in the sex industry.
ONLY RIGHTS WILL STOP THE WRONGS.
Analoge Veranstaltung U.S.A.:
http://sexworker.at/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=52318#52318
.
Zuletzt geändert von Marc of Frankfurt am 16.03.2009, 13:27, insgesamt 4-mal geändert.
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
Geschäftsschädigende Nach-Lizensierung?
Lap Dancing Association warns proposed legislation could tarnish burlesque and nude performer venues as “sex encounter establishments”
Published Tuesday 11 November 2008 at 16:20 by Lalayn Baluch
Burlesque shows and theatre performances involving nudity could become the victims of proposed legislation intended to relicense lap dancing clubs, say opponents.
Trade body the Lap Dancing Association, which claims to represent one in three UK clubs, is fighting moves to retitle its member venues “sex encounter establishments”.
The association, which last week presented a 3,000-strong petition against reclassification to Downing Street, says the new licence needs a stricter legal definition of which forms of nude entertainment it would apply to.
“If not, the licence could inadvertently capture everything from traditional burlesque - made popular by performers such as Dita Von Teese - to naked actors on stage in the theatre, like Daniel Radcliffe in Equus,” said the LDA.
Far from cracking down on bad practice, says the LDA, the proposed measure by Labour backbencher Roberta Blackman-Woods will leave “irresponsible operations untouched” while increasing costs for legal operators by £8,000 annually.
“The reality is that the imposition of SEELS [Sex Encounter Establishment Licence] on already licensed premises would involve huge practical problems for licensing authorities, as a robust and detailed description of nude and partially nude entertainment would have to be drawn up,” said the LDA in its report on the rule change.
The association said it supported moves to crack down on unregulated establishments, but insists this can be addressed through changes to the 2003 Licensing Act.
LDA secretary Kate Nicholls told The Stage that representatives are due to meet with Home Office officials to discuss alternative proposals and will also present evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport this month.
The reforms suggested by MP Blackman-Woods have won strong support from feminist groups and also the powerful Local Government Association, which represents a total of 446 councils in England and Wales.
But Equity is supporting lap dancers in their concern to ensure that the new licence continues to recognise them as performers.
Union spokesman Martin Brown said: “If [relicensing] establishments would reclassify the people who work in them, then we are opposed. We are opposed to exotic dancers being classified as sex workers.
“Our members have made it very clear to us that they are, first and foremost, dancers and they absolutely object to attempts to classify them as sex workers.”
Lap dancers were first admitted into the union in 2002. Previous attempts by other unions to recruit them failed in one case after performers feared they would be categorised as sex workers.
http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstor ... p-dancing-
Nur gemeinsam sind wir stark - vs. - Stripp-Tänzer wollen keine Sexworker sein
Bitte abstimmern (AGAINST):
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/even ... nt=EVT0171
.
Published Tuesday 11 November 2008 at 16:20 by Lalayn Baluch
Burlesque shows and theatre performances involving nudity could become the victims of proposed legislation intended to relicense lap dancing clubs, say opponents.
Trade body the Lap Dancing Association, which claims to represent one in three UK clubs, is fighting moves to retitle its member venues “sex encounter establishments”.
The association, which last week presented a 3,000-strong petition against reclassification to Downing Street, says the new licence needs a stricter legal definition of which forms of nude entertainment it would apply to.
“If not, the licence could inadvertently capture everything from traditional burlesque - made popular by performers such as Dita Von Teese - to naked actors on stage in the theatre, like Daniel Radcliffe in Equus,” said the LDA.
Far from cracking down on bad practice, says the LDA, the proposed measure by Labour backbencher Roberta Blackman-Woods will leave “irresponsible operations untouched” while increasing costs for legal operators by £8,000 annually.
“The reality is that the imposition of SEELS [Sex Encounter Establishment Licence] on already licensed premises would involve huge practical problems for licensing authorities, as a robust and detailed description of nude and partially nude entertainment would have to be drawn up,” said the LDA in its report on the rule change.
The association said it supported moves to crack down on unregulated establishments, but insists this can be addressed through changes to the 2003 Licensing Act.
LDA secretary Kate Nicholls told The Stage that representatives are due to meet with Home Office officials to discuss alternative proposals and will also present evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport this month.
The reforms suggested by MP Blackman-Woods have won strong support from feminist groups and also the powerful Local Government Association, which represents a total of 446 councils in England and Wales.
But Equity is supporting lap dancers in their concern to ensure that the new licence continues to recognise them as performers.
Union spokesman Martin Brown said: “If [relicensing] establishments would reclassify the people who work in them, then we are opposed. We are opposed to exotic dancers being classified as sex workers.
“Our members have made it very clear to us that they are, first and foremost, dancers and they absolutely object to attempts to classify them as sex workers.”
Lap dancers were first admitted into the union in 2002. Previous attempts by other unions to recruit them failed in one case after performers feared they would be categorised as sex workers.
http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstor ... p-dancing-
Nur gemeinsam sind wir stark - vs. - Stripp-Tänzer wollen keine Sexworker sein
Bitte abstimmern (AGAINST):
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/even ... nt=EVT0171
.
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
Letzter Aufruf vor der Gesetzesverschärfung
Veranstaltung im Parlament, London
Who benefits from criminalising sex workers & clients?
Stop new laws vs consenting sex!
PUBLIC MEETING
Hosted by John McDonnell MP
Tuesday 25 November 2008 6-8pm
Committee Room 16, House of Commons
Westminster, London SW1
Fully wheelchair accessible All welcome
Allow 15 minutes to get in
Speakers to be announced
The government is expected to announce more laws to criminalise sex workers and clients in the Queen's Speech on 3 December. Yet public opinion is increasingly hostile to repressive policies that force prostitution underground, and make it less safe for sex workers.
Help us stop religious and feminist fundamentalists who divide prostitute women from other women and other workers. Listen to the workers, not the preachers.
Sex workers want rights, not charity. We want safety, not prison. We want unity, not segregation.
English Collective of Prostitutes
www.prostitutesCollective.net
The ECP co-ordinates the Safety First Coalition
Anti-trafficking legislation is being used to justify these raids. Who will support families hit by recession when mothers and daughters who sell sex are imprisoned? How can women who want to get out of prostitution find another job if they have a criminal record?
Pimps, violent men and "rehabilitation" projects benefit. Pimps are attracted by any illegal economy. Violent men know that illegal workers can't report violence or exploitation. And more anti-prostitution projects will be funded to "save" the rest of us.
Why are resources wasted on policing consenting sex when most rapists are getting away with it? Why are anti-trafficking laws used to deport women?
.
Who benefits from criminalising sex workers & clients?
Stop new laws vs consenting sex!
PUBLIC MEETING
Hosted by John McDonnell MP
Tuesday 25 November 2008 6-8pm
Committee Room 16, House of Commons
Westminster, London SW1
Fully wheelchair accessible All welcome
Allow 15 minutes to get in
Speakers to be announced
The government is expected to announce more laws to criminalise sex workers and clients in the Queen's Speech on 3 December. Yet public opinion is increasingly hostile to repressive policies that force prostitution underground, and make it less safe for sex workers.
Help us stop religious and feminist fundamentalists who divide prostitute women from other women and other workers. Listen to the workers, not the preachers.
Sex workers want rights, not charity. We want safety, not prison. We want unity, not segregation.
English Collective of Prostitutes
www.prostitutesCollective.net
The ECP co-ordinates the Safety First Coalition
- In February, the Safety First Coalition with MPs and Peers defeated government attempts to "rehabilitate" sex workers and increase arrests.
- On 14 November, the IQ2 debate at the Royal Geographical Society defeated "It is Wrong to Pay for Sex "by 449 to 203.
- The Communications Workers Union has voted for decriminalisation.
- Long established women's organisations are canvassing their members.
- Lapdancers handed into Downing Street a 3,000-strong petition against tightening licensing laws.
- Internationally, New Zealand's five-year review showed decriminalisation is a success.
- In US, the historical election that voted Barrack Obama as president by a landslide, was also memorable in San Francisco for Proposition K to decriminalise prostitution in the city.
Prop K got 43% of the votes - astonishing given that its sex-worker-led campaign had no funding, and that the police, District Attorney and Mayor used their position to misinform and scare voters.
Anti-trafficking legislation is being used to justify these raids. Who will support families hit by recession when mothers and daughters who sell sex are imprisoned? How can women who want to get out of prostitution find another job if they have a criminal record?
Pimps, violent men and "rehabilitation" projects benefit. Pimps are attracted by any illegal economy. Violent men know that illegal workers can't report violence or exploitation. And more anti-prostitution projects will be funded to "save" the rest of us.
Why are resources wasted on policing consenting sex when most rapists are getting away with it? Why are anti-trafficking laws used to deport women?
.
-
Marc of Frankfurt
- SW Analyst
- Beiträge: 14095
- Registriert: 01.08.2006, 14:30
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
Brit News:
Paying for sex with prostitutes to be made a criminal offence
Paying for sex with prostitutes is expected to become a criminal offence under proposals to be announced this week following a Government review of the law.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... fence.html
Home Secretary attacks City high flyers for 'bizarre' practice of taking clients to lap-dancing clubs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... clubs.html
Paying for sex to be criminal offence
Home Secretary plans to crack down on vice trade on the streets, while lapdancing clubs will face a stringent licensing regime
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/ ... lapdancing
Paying for sex with prostitutes to be made a criminal offence
Paying for sex with prostitutes is expected to become a criminal offence under proposals to be announced this week following a Government review of the law.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... fence.html
Home Secretary attacks City high flyers for 'bizarre' practice of taking clients to lap-dancing clubs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... clubs.html
Paying for sex to be criminal offence
Home Secretary plans to crack down on vice trade on the streets, while lapdancing clubs will face a stringent licensing regime
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/ ... lapdancing
-
nina777
- Senior Admin
- Beiträge: 5025
- Registriert: 08.05.2008, 15:31
- Wohnort: Minden
- Ich bin: SexarbeiterIn
GB: Sex mit Prostituierten kann künftig Straftat sein
Sex mit Prostituierten kann in England und Wales unter Umständen künftig eine Straftat sein. Wer Dienste von Frauen des horizontalen Gewerbes in Anspruch nimmt, die für einen Zuhälter anschaffen gehen oder von Menschenhändlern als Sexsklavinnen ins Land geholt wurden, soll künftig zur Kasse gebeten werden, wie Innenministerin Jacqui Smith heute in London ankündigte.
Damit soll die Gesetzeslage in England und Wales den Regeln in Schottland angeglichen werden. Käuflicher Sex ist in England zwar erlaubt, Zuhälterei aber verboten.
Totalverbot erwogen
Nach Angaben der Ministerin hatte die Regierung auch in Erwägung gezogen, käuflichen Sex ganz zu verbieten. Allerdings sei man davon abgekommen, weil es dafür keine Unterstützung in der Öffentlichkeit gebe.
Die Regierung wolle aber dem Menschenschmuggel einen Riegel vorschieben. Die betroffenen Frauen würden "regelrecht als Sklaven gehalten", sagte Smith. "Verschleppte Frauen haben keine Wahl, Männer hingegen schon."
Anklage wegen Vergewaltigung droht
Fehlendes Wissen über die Situation der Frauen soll nach den Plänen der Regierung keine Entschuldigung mehr sein. Die erwischten Männer handeln sich einen Eintrag ins Strafregister ein und müssen bis zu 1.000 Pfund (knapp 1.200 Euro) Strafe zahlen. Wer wissentlich den Dienst ausgebeuteter Frauen in Anspruch nimmt, soll wegen Vergewaltigung angeklagt werden können.
70 Prozent der Prostituierten würden entweder von Zuhältern kontrolliert oder seien als Opfer von Menschenhändlern ins Land gekommen, sagte Innenministerin Smith. Dem widersprach Nikki Adams von der Vereinigung englischer Prostituierter. Der von der Regierung genannte Anteil sei zu hoch, die meisten Frauen böten ihre Dienste freiwillig an.
http://news.orf.at/?href=http%3A%2F%2Fn ... 08804.html
Sex mit Prostituierten kann in England und Wales unter Umständen künftig eine Straftat sein. Wer Dienste von Frauen des horizontalen Gewerbes in Anspruch nimmt, die für einen Zuhälter anschaffen gehen oder von Menschenhändlern als Sexsklavinnen ins Land geholt wurden, soll künftig zur Kasse gebeten werden, wie Innenministerin Jacqui Smith heute in London ankündigte.
Damit soll die Gesetzeslage in England und Wales den Regeln in Schottland angeglichen werden. Käuflicher Sex ist in England zwar erlaubt, Zuhälterei aber verboten.
Totalverbot erwogen
Nach Angaben der Ministerin hatte die Regierung auch in Erwägung gezogen, käuflichen Sex ganz zu verbieten. Allerdings sei man davon abgekommen, weil es dafür keine Unterstützung in der Öffentlichkeit gebe.
Die Regierung wolle aber dem Menschenschmuggel einen Riegel vorschieben. Die betroffenen Frauen würden "regelrecht als Sklaven gehalten", sagte Smith. "Verschleppte Frauen haben keine Wahl, Männer hingegen schon."
Anklage wegen Vergewaltigung droht
Fehlendes Wissen über die Situation der Frauen soll nach den Plänen der Regierung keine Entschuldigung mehr sein. Die erwischten Männer handeln sich einen Eintrag ins Strafregister ein und müssen bis zu 1.000 Pfund (knapp 1.200 Euro) Strafe zahlen. Wer wissentlich den Dienst ausgebeuteter Frauen in Anspruch nimmt, soll wegen Vergewaltigung angeklagt werden können.
70 Prozent der Prostituierten würden entweder von Zuhältern kontrolliert oder seien als Opfer von Menschenhändlern ins Land gekommen, sagte Innenministerin Smith. Dem widersprach Nikki Adams von der Vereinigung englischer Prostituierter. Der von der Regierung genannte Anteil sei zu hoch, die meisten Frauen böten ihre Dienste freiwillig an.
http://news.orf.at/?href=http%3A%2F%2Fn ... 08804.html
I wouldn't say I have super-powers so much as I live in a world where no one seems to be able to do normal things.
-
CK
- verifizierte UserIn
- Beiträge: 295
- Registriert: 07.05.2008, 20:17
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
Wenn hier einer kriminell handelt, dann mal wieder und dies zum unzähligsten Male (wundert das eigentlich noch irgendjemanden ? Mich jedenfalls schon lange nicht mehr...) der Staat, aber das ist ja nichts Neues. Menschenhandel ist nur die logische Konsequenz falscher Migrationspolitik. Nichts Weiteres.
Für eine Welt ohne Grenzen !!!
Und dass Sexarbeit gleich ganz verboten werden sollte (vermutlich waren dafür wieder irgendwelche Klerikal- oder Femifaschisten sich nicht zu schade), spricht ja auch wieder Bände. Das wäre dann so ne "Lex Mosley" gewesen, was ?!!
Elende Mafiabande ! Macht aus dem Staat endlich Gurkensalat !
Für eine Welt ohne Grenzen !!!
Und dass Sexarbeit gleich ganz verboten werden sollte (vermutlich waren dafür wieder irgendwelche Klerikal- oder Femifaschisten sich nicht zu schade), spricht ja auch wieder Bände. Das wäre dann so ne "Lex Mosley" gewesen, was ?!!
Elende Mafiabande ! Macht aus dem Staat endlich Gurkensalat !
-
Zwerg
- Senior Admin
- Beiträge: 18072
- Registriert: 15.06.2006, 19:26
- Wohnort: 1050 Wien
- Ich bin: engagierter Außenstehende(r)
Möchte ich nicht unwidersprochen stehen lassen! Ohne mich jetzt in weitere Diskussionen darüber vertiefen zu wollen, nur so viel: Ich habe Opfer von geldgierigen Personen (und auch Organisationen) kennen gelernt - auch Diese haben zum Teil hier mitgelesen und haben auf Grund unseres Tones und unseres Umgangs mit der Materie den Mut gefunden Kontakt zu uns aufzunehmen. Bedenke dies bitte bei allen Postings!CK hat geschrieben:Menschenhandel ist nur die logische Konsequenz falscher Migrationspolitik. Nichts Weiteres.
Wir sprechen hier über eines der verwerflichsten und abschleulichsten Verbrechen, die man Menschen antun kann. Für mich ist die von Dir eingeworfene These nicht nachvollziehbar - genauso wie es für mich nicht nachvollziehbar wäre, wenn ich sagen würde "die Existenz des Finanzsystemes ist am Bankraub schuld" - Der Einzelne (ob im Verbund mit anderen Einzelnen, oder alleine, ist nebensächlich) ist schuld an dem Verbrechen, dass er ausübt.
Christian
-
CK
- verifizierte UserIn
- Beiträge: 295
- Registriert: 07.05.2008, 20:17
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
Vlt. hast Du mich nicht richtig verstanden, daher nochmal:
Wenn ich nicht legal in ein anderes Land zum Arbeiten einreisen kann, bin ich zwangsläufig auf Schleuser angewiesen und denen dann auf Gedeih und Verderb ausgeliefert.
Es ist nunmal eine Tatsache: Dort wo Menschenhandel stattfindet, ist der Staat nicht weit weg.
Natürlich profitieren da geldgierige Typen davon und das will ich nicht entschuldigen oder gar gutheissen, aber ich behaupte mal, dass es dies so nicht geben würde, wenn man leichter woanders einreisen könnte (was aus diversen Gründen heut nicht möglich ist, dies würde aber den Rahmen dieses Postings sprengen).
Ich finde es auch scheisse, wenn Menschen im Kugelhagel von Drogenbanden draufgehen, aber das wäre selbstverständlich auch nicht nötig wenn Drogen legal wären. Es sterben ja auch keine Menschen im Kugelhagel von Bierhändlern ;-)))
Und selbst wenn mal eine Frau dazu gezwungen werden würde, könnte sie Hilfe bei der Polizei suchen, was ja illegalen Einwanderern heute schwerfällt, da sie ihre Abschiebung befürchten.
Aber ich gebe zu, dass ich mich vorhin ein wenig zu sehr aufgeregt habe, aber ich finde das ne Riesensauerei und da neige ich zu cholerischen Ausrastern.
Wenn ich nicht legal in ein anderes Land zum Arbeiten einreisen kann, bin ich zwangsläufig auf Schleuser angewiesen und denen dann auf Gedeih und Verderb ausgeliefert.
Es ist nunmal eine Tatsache: Dort wo Menschenhandel stattfindet, ist der Staat nicht weit weg.
Natürlich profitieren da geldgierige Typen davon und das will ich nicht entschuldigen oder gar gutheissen, aber ich behaupte mal, dass es dies so nicht geben würde, wenn man leichter woanders einreisen könnte (was aus diversen Gründen heut nicht möglich ist, dies würde aber den Rahmen dieses Postings sprengen).
Ich finde es auch scheisse, wenn Menschen im Kugelhagel von Drogenbanden draufgehen, aber das wäre selbstverständlich auch nicht nötig wenn Drogen legal wären. Es sterben ja auch keine Menschen im Kugelhagel von Bierhändlern ;-)))
Und selbst wenn mal eine Frau dazu gezwungen werden würde, könnte sie Hilfe bei der Polizei suchen, was ja illegalen Einwanderern heute schwerfällt, da sie ihre Abschiebung befürchten.
Aber ich gebe zu, dass ich mich vorhin ein wenig zu sehr aufgeregt habe, aber ich finde das ne Riesensauerei und da neige ich zu cholerischen Ausrastern.
-
Zwerg
- Senior Admin
- Beiträge: 18072
- Registriert: 15.06.2006, 19:26
- Wohnort: 1050 Wien
- Ich bin: engagierter Außenstehende(r)
-
CK
- verifizierte UserIn
- Beiträge: 295
- Registriert: 07.05.2008, 20:17
- Ich bin: Keine Angabe
Gern geschehen. Erst beim Lesen Deines Postings wurde mir überhaupt klar, dass man das vorhin missverstehen konnte. Ich denke oft zwei Schritte im Kopf implizit und vergesse dass Andere nur das lesen, was ich schreibe und diese Zwischenschritte nicht erkennen können ...
Also ich leugne eben nicht dass es Menschenhandel in dem Sinne gibt, wie die Briten sich das vorstellen, sondern behaupte dass diese Form von Menschenhandel provoziert wird durch vorherige, falsche Politik.
Ähnlich wie bei den Drogenbanden sind die Akteure natürlich die Täter und Schuldigen, dennoch behandle ich lieber Ursachen als Symptome und die Bösewichter sind für mich nur Symptome einer tieferliegenden Krankheit sozusagen ... wobei es erschreckend ist wie oft diese Krankheit "Politik" heisst. Das wurde mir aber auch erst klar, als ich anfing, die richtigen Seiten im Netz zu lesen.
Mein Traum wäre eine Welt ohne Grenzen und ohne Monopole halt, wo die Menschen alle in Freiheit leben und alle die gleichen (Natur-)Rechte haben und Erwachsenen rein gar nichts verboten ist, solange es nicht explizit Anderen schadet bzw. mit Rechten Anderer tangiert. Bin mir sicher, das wäre ne friedlichere Welt und eine grösstenteils ohne Menschenhandel ...
Damit sollte klar sein wie es gemeint war. Es war nicht gemein, dass es keine polizeilich zu verfolgenden, gewalttätigen Handlungen heute gäbe.
Also ich leugne eben nicht dass es Menschenhandel in dem Sinne gibt, wie die Briten sich das vorstellen, sondern behaupte dass diese Form von Menschenhandel provoziert wird durch vorherige, falsche Politik.
Ähnlich wie bei den Drogenbanden sind die Akteure natürlich die Täter und Schuldigen, dennoch behandle ich lieber Ursachen als Symptome und die Bösewichter sind für mich nur Symptome einer tieferliegenden Krankheit sozusagen ... wobei es erschreckend ist wie oft diese Krankheit "Politik" heisst. Das wurde mir aber auch erst klar, als ich anfing, die richtigen Seiten im Netz zu lesen.
Mein Traum wäre eine Welt ohne Grenzen und ohne Monopole halt, wo die Menschen alle in Freiheit leben und alle die gleichen (Natur-)Rechte haben und Erwachsenen rein gar nichts verboten ist, solange es nicht explizit Anderen schadet bzw. mit Rechten Anderer tangiert. Bin mir sicher, das wäre ne friedlichere Welt und eine grösstenteils ohne Menschenhandel ...
Damit sollte klar sein wie es gemeint war. Es war nicht gemein, dass es keine polizeilich zu verfolgenden, gewalttätigen Handlungen heute gäbe.