Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
elrond

The Greens are at it now

14 posts in this topic

it makes you wonder why the about turn,it was only a few weeks ago that they confirmed they supported decriminalisation,perhaps they've been promised something by the labour govt,who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps in fact my speculation of some months ago was right, and there is a (unpublicised) EU policy to make all countries like Sweden - rather than like Germany?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it makes you wonder why the about turn,it was only a few weeks ago that they confirmed they supported decriminalisation,perhaps they've been promised something by the labour govt,who knows?

The really strange bit about "decriminalisation" is that to date I have had no person/party/organisation etc. (and I have contacted a lot) that can tell me in plain English just exactly what criminal offense(s) relating to prostitution he/she/they wish to decriminalise and how they would deal with the consequences of doing so. I have had a lot of rhetoric, a lot of "It's bloody obvious", a lot of "Ditch the lot", a lot of "We haven't quite formulated our policy on this yet", a lot of "Anything that makes it safer for the prostitute" etc. but not a single "Repeal Section X of Act Y" or "The Law on brothels" or "Soliciting" etc. and it makes me wonder if in fact those who seek to decriminalise have any idea about what is currently criminal, all of which I find to be a little bit scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is depressing that the Green party, who seemed to have (and so far, still do have, AFAIK) a sensible policy towards prostitution, now seem to be sliding towards a more authoritarian position. There was some bright young thing somewhere in one of the Scandinavian Green parties recently - can't recall her name or her country - who seemed to be set on carving out a name for herself on a platform of anti-prostitution. :D

Well, that's it then - Monster Raving Loony gets my vote from now on. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The really strange bit about "decriminalisation" is that to date I have had no person/party/organisation etc. (and I have contacted a lot) that can tell me in plain English just exactly what criminal offense(s) relating to prostitution he/she/they wish to decriminalise and how they would deal with the consequences of doing so.

It is amazing how ignorant some politicians are regarding prostitution and the law.

One night on Talk Sport radio George Galloway stated that prostitution was illegal, he only backed down when a police officer phoned in to correct him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is amazing how ignorant some politicians are regarding prostitution and the law.

One night on Talk Sport radio George Galloway stated that prostitution was illegal, he only backed down when a police officer phoned in to correct him.

I am of the opinion that a person/party/organisation etc. that, in common parlance "mouths off", about something that they have little or no actual knowledge of, carries a lot of potential to do more harm than good, specifically I believe that there are very few people/parties/organisations that know what prostitution, and by definition being a prostitute, actually means, also I believe that very few people/parties/organisations know that there is a legal definition of prostitution and by definition a prostitute, and lastly I believe that there are very few people/parties/organisations that know that there is not a single law/act/instrument/ etc. that relates in any way shape or form to the legal or otherwise status of prostitution, and by definition, a prostitute.

In order to decriminalise an act that act must in and of itself be a criminal offence, so any mention of "decriminalise prostitution" states quite unambiguously that prostitution, and by definition being a prostitute, is a criminal offence, it must be and has to be a criminal offence otherwise logically it would make a complete nonsense of "decriminalise prostitution". I am aware that the one of the usual retorts to the above is "Well it's better to do something than to do nothing" and in general terms I would tend to go along with that, however in the specific case of the "decriminalise prostitution" brigade then I would disagree because IMHO they are perpetuating the myth and perception to the uninformed masses that prostitution, and by definition being a prostitute, is a criminal offence, so no matter how good their intentions are they actually doing more harm than good.

Another retort is "Don't be so fucking stupid, you know exactly what I/we mean", well yes perhaps I do know exactly what you mean, or I do have a fair idea at least, however my rejoinder is "Then fucking well say what you mean, for example if you want to repeal the legislation concerning brothels, and all that that implies, then say so, but leave prostitution, and by definition the prostitute, out of it, as it is quite capable of looking after itself".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the Eco-fascists are now turning their attention to other matters which they feel require legislative attention doesn't surprise me in the least.

At least they've played their hand now before it's too late and they're elected to power, so we know exactly where we stand and exactly who NOT to vote for.

Question is, which other party can be trusted not to follow this increasingly popular line of thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if we could devise a "Fairtrade" brand of punting, would that put them back on track?

Just imagine the twisted knickers if the Thai massage joint had a big Fairtrade logo on the door or Fairtrade sextours.

Would JRC wear the T-shirt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am of the opinion that a person/party/organisation etc. that, in common parlance "mouths off", about something that they have little or no actual knowledge of, carries a lot of potential to do more harm than good, specifically I believe that there are very few people/parties/organisations that know what prostitution, and by definition being a prostitute, actually means, also I believe that very few people/parties/organisations know that there is a legal definition of prostitution and by definition a prostitute, and lastly I believe that there are very few people/parties/organisations that know that there is not a single law/act/instrument/ etc. that relates in any way shape or form to the legal or otherwise status of prostitution, and by definition, a prostitute.

In order to decriminalise an act that act must in and of itself be a criminal offence, so any mention of "decriminalise prostitution" states quite unambiguously that prostitution, and by definition being a prostitute, is a criminal offence, it must be and has to be a criminal offence otherwise logically it would make a complete nonsense of "decriminalise prostitution". I am aware that the one of the usual retorts to the above is "Well it's better to do something than to do nothing" and in general terms I would tend to go along with that, however in the specific case of the "decriminalise prostitution" brigade then I would disagree because IMHO they are perpetuating the myth and perception to the uninformed masses that prostitution, and by definition being a prostitute, is a criminal offence, so no matter how good their intentions are they actually doing more harm than good.

Another retort is "Don't be so fucking stupid, you know exactly what I/we mean", well yes perhaps I do know exactly what you mean, or I do have a fair idea at least, however my rejoinder is "Then fucking well say what you mean, for example if you want to repeal the legislation concerning brothels, and all that that implies, then say so, but leave prostitution, and by definition the prostitute, out of it, as it is quite capable of looking after itself".

(Puts on irritating Michael Winner voice) - Calm down dear, it's only a Forum

I think I'd better reply to this because I might be the person you're alluding to

http://www.punternet.com/forum/showthread.php?p=346032#poststop

It was meant to be humorous but came out sarcastic - sorry.

The legality of prostitution is a bugbear of yours. Nothing wrong with that. We all have them. Mine is the disinformation surrounding trafficking. Profman doesn't like radfems being called femin*z*s.

But you and I both know that prostitution in the UK, as referred to in this forum and elsewhere, is accepted as a catch-all term for this sizeable and multi-faceted industry with different market segments, loci, stakeholders and mediums of exchange of information and money. And the law reflects that. Some things in this industry are legal and some are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_Kingdom

So when we non-lawyers talk about decriminalisation what we are talking about is the elimination of some of the currently criminalising statutes governing this area. No we can't quote the statute numbers because we don't know them and cannot be bothered to dig them out. This forum would turn into a very tedious one indeed if only m'learned friends were allowed to post, and only then if they quote chapter and verse.

Back on topic.

The Greens need to have positions on subjects other than the environment. They have shifted their stance on this possibly because of the disinformation in trafficking being peddled constantly at the moment. But I also suspect that they have more than their fair share of right-on man-hating radfems too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that most of the comments on the liberalconspiracy link ridicule the idea. There is also this interesting comment:

"Just to clarify, Green Party policy is decided democratically by our members at conference, not by our leadership team. Caroline has simply started a discussion on whether our policy should be amended, that's all - the policy itself hasn't changed. If a motion is put to a future conference to amend it I'm sure it will attract very rigorous debate."

So perhaps all is not lost.................. ?

Policy being decided at conference by a democratic vote eh? Those were the days............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all, if you check the posting dates you will see that my post is dated 13th September, your post is dated 14th September. I was replying to a post by JRC referring to a statement by George Galloway.

Oh good. I thought I'd pissed you off with my previous facetious offering.

Quite agree that, while forum posters can afford to be careless in their language even if they shouldn't, politicians need to be far more precise because of their public position.

Galloway is a notorious loose cannon, but I still enjoyed the way he destroyed that american senator at the congressional hearing he was dragged in front of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0