bacchus

Bea Campbell - Prostitution: a crime of purchasing

15 posts in this topic

From today's Grauniad:

There's been a quiet revolution in the House of Lords. Peers have been debating the policing and crime bill. Their deliberations mean that the government will take a historic step: instead of controlling prostitution by punishing women, it will penalise the purchasers - the men.

Law and public policy will be unambiguous: buying sex (usually from vulnerable or coerced women) will be treated as a wrong. Legislation will support women to stop selling sex, and encourage men to stop buying it by penalising them: the purchasers risk being fined by the magistrates courts.

The key term will be purchasing sex from a person who is coerced. And the key message will be: if in doubt, don't. Purchasers' liability means giving them the burden of knowledge - not knowing whether a woman is being coerced will be no excuse.

Link: Prostitution: a crime of purchasing

I'll leave others to dissect it, if they can be bothered that is. :eek:

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in return I give you an article from the Christian voice :eek:

Attempt to weaken sex trade proposal dismissed by Lords

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tried to comment but comments are now closed!

suppose they knew that the supporters of womens rights would be joining in the debate once it was mentioned on punternet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean something can still be done at the third reading to stop or amend this bill; I thought the third reading on the 11th November was a foregone conclusion after the committee and report stage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tried to comment but comments are now closed!

suppose they knew that the supporters of womens rights would be joining in the debate once it was mentioned on punternet

It will open again in the morning I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From Link: Prostitution: a crime of purchasing

I'll leave others to dissect it, if they can be bothered that is. :eek:

B

The article is the usual guff, but read the comments. As each week goes by, the Guardian readers' response is solidifying into a kind of cold contempt. Very few exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just going to post a reply to the Grauniad piece almost exactly 12 hours after it appeared and noticed that further comments were now closed. Is that normal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just going to post a reply to the Grauniad piece almost exactly 12 hours after it appeared and noticed that further comments were now closed. Is that normal?

PIA is correct. With pieces by the more controversial commentators; or those whom the readership hold in a very high degree of contempt, the Cif moderators will often close down comments for the night, so as to protect them from too much of a pasting.

Interestingly, it was Nick Davies who exposed the manipulation of the trafficking figures by lobby groups & MPs, in The Guardian's print edition but, since then, the Cif editors have allowed a smear campaign to be waged, above the line, against him & anyone else who argues against the line that has been promulgated there for a couple of years now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PIA is correct. With pieces by the more controversial commentators; or those whom the readership hold in a very high degree of contempt, the Cif moderators will often close down comments for the night, so as to protect them from too much of a pasting.

yes, cif is open again,have commented

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more from the G.

Exit strategy

A former prostitute is challenging the idea that only some sex workers are forced into the industry

Last year Carter was invited to advise MPs on how to tackle prostitution.

she believes that the acceptance of any paid-for sex should be illegal. "Through childhood sexual abuse, many prostituted women have become conditioned into thinking that this is their choice," she says. "That's what happened to me and to many others. It normalises this kind of behaviour and causes many to enter into the trade, which is why I think it should all be illegal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/oct/28/prostitution-rehabilitation-social-exclusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The article is the usual guff, but read the comments. As each week goes by, the Guardian readers' response is solidifying into a kind of cold contempt. Very few exceptions.

I noticed that too and found it most encouraging. :mad:

I had my say for what it was worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
more from the G.

Exit strategy

A former prostitute is challenging the idea that only some sex workers are forced into the industry

Last year Carter was invited to advise MPs on how to tackle prostitution.

she believes that the acceptance of any paid-for sex should be illegal. "Through childhood sexual abuse, many prostituted women have become conditioned into thinking that this is their choice," she says. "That's what happened to me and to many others. It normalises this kind of behaviour and causes many to enter into the trade, which is why I think it should all be illegal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/oct/28/prostitution-rehabilitation-social-exclusion

A sad story. But what have we really got? One individual seeking government grants to tell thegovernment what it wants to hear, perhaps? Once quantitative easing ends the government in going to find that it is a lot shorter of money than it supposed, and the supply of grants in likely to diminsh... I note that the Guardian isn't allowing comments on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From today's Grauniad:

There's been a quiet revolution in the House of Lords. Peers have been debating the policing and crime bill. Their deliberations mean that the government will take a historic step: instead of controlling prostitution by punishing women, it will penalise the purchasers - the men.

Law and public policy will be unambiguous: buying sex (usually from vulnerable or coerced women) will be treated as a wrong. Legislation will support women to stop selling sex, and encourage men to stop buying it by penalising them: the purchasers risk being fined by the magistrates courts.

The key term will be purchasing sex from a person who is coerced. And the key message will be: if in doubt, don't. Purchasers' liability means giving them the burden of knowledge - not knowing whether a woman is being coerced will be no excuse.

Link: Prostitution: a crime of purchasing

I'll leave others to dissect it, if they can be bothered that is. ;)

B

So the fundamental logic is that working girls are in denial when they say they are acting out of free will. However as they are deluded they should not be open to prosecution as they are victims.

The same logic surely must extend to swingers clubs so PC Plod can spend Friday and Saturday nights outside the swingers clubs and arrest the men as they come out. That will do wonders for the arrest stats.

The next step in this logic is that women who has 'consensual sex' outside marriage is equally deluded and subject to programming from men that they 'really want sex'.

What happened to the Christian concept of free will and being responsible for your own actions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the fundamental logic is that working girls are in denial when they say they are acting out of free will. However as they are deluded they should not be open to prosecution as they are victims.

The same logic surely must extend to swingers clubs so PC Plod can spend Friday and Saturday nights outside the swingers clubs and arrest the men as they come out. That will do wonders for the arrest stats.

The next step in this logic is that women who has 'consensual sex' outside marriage is equally deluded and subject to programming from men that they 'really want sex'.

What happened to the Christian concept of free will and being responsible for your own actions?

One of the interesting contradictions in the radfem world is their insistence on the woman's right to choose when it comes to abortion but not when it comes to choosing this line of work.

Double standard. It's your right to choose as long as you choose as a I approve of such as abortion, but you shouldn't be allowed to choose something I don't approve of, such as prostitution, because clearly your mind is muddled and not thinking straight.

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