The central theme of the meeting was if the UK were to update the legal status of prostitution, should we move in the direction of the Swedish model, where it is the purchase of services that is criminalised, or the New Zealand one, where prostitution is entirely decriminalised? There is currently a legislative push taking place in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland to adopt the 'Nordic Model'.
The ECP are firmly against the Swedish approach which they argue does nothing to protect sex workers as it simply pushes prostitution more underground (and also to neighbouring countries) and makes it harder for sex workers to get protection from rape and other violence. Indeed, shifting the focus of the illegality from the supplier to the consumer would appear to be simply making it lawful to sell something that, bizarrely, is illegal to buy.
They also claim that those pushing for the Swedish approach are an 'unholy alliance' of feminists and Christian fundamentalists who object to prostitution just as they object to gay marriage. Furthermore, the ECP cites evidence showing that discrimination and stigma against sex workers has increased, that sex workers have been put more at risk of attack and are less able to call on the protection of the police and the authorities.
From a rational point of view, the fact that some people find an activity distasteful does not constitute sufficient grounds for criminalising it. This battle has been fought and won, in the case for example of homosexuality and blasphemy – in the west at least. Recent attempts to tighten up the legal position of pr-stitution appear to reflect vestiges of religiously-driven Victorian puritan disapproval and have little to do with social harm or benefit.
The case of Claire Finch a couple of years ago clearly illustrated the paradox in the present arrangements whereby to operate legally (i.e. alone on the premises) is inherently dangerous, but to operate safely is illegal. It is strongly suspected that it was this absurdity that led the jury to acquit, even though technically the presence of more than one ‘staff’ on the premises clearly rendered the operation illegal.
The ECP hold up the experience of New Zealand's 2003 decriminalisation as a good basis for the right way forward. They claim that New Zealand's approach in removing pr-stitution from the criminal law, allowed people to work together collectively, and distinguishes between consenting sex and violence and exploitation. They also claim that the reforms have been shown to improve sex workers’ working conditions, while making it easier for those who want to get out, to do so.
Carrie and Laura also spoke of how many s-x workers felt that decisions were being taken about their futures without any consultation with those most affected - the s-x workers themselves. There seems to be a view point pushed by many organisations that s-x workers are unable to make any decisions for themselves and these 'fallen women' must be 'saved' not just from their clients but also from themselves. However, the response from the s-x workers is increasingly "Save us from saviours" and a new Global group, The Red Umbrella Fund, has been set up to give workers more control over projects, funding and decisions that directly concern them.
It would certainly seems that, whatever your point of view, few people see the current legal standing of pr-stitution as workable or even logical. This educational and stimulating evening brought that debate into stark relief by hearing from an organisation in the front line of legislative and societal change.
As always you can add your comments on this issue or Bedford Skeptics in general by going to the bottom of this blog post and clicking on the 'Comment' link. This will open up a window in which you can add your thoughts.
Next month: On Thursday 16th May we blast off on a journey of solar system exploration with Adam Stevens of The Open University who'll be looking at the potential for humanity to spread beyond our own planet. Full details HERE.
