Harriet Harman, like some other MPs and NGOs, believe that all prostitution is violence against women and that the state should have the power to overrule a woman’s consent to sex by criminalising all purchase of sexual services.
The government is currently bringing in new legislation (the Policing and Crime Bill) that will make people in the sex industry less safe.
The original Bill criminalised clients of everyone in the industry who was “controlled for gain” (i.e., anyone whose work is arranged by other people, either in brothel or by an escort agency) on terms of “strict liability” (ignorance was no defence); gave the police powers to close brothels on grounds of suspicion; defined “persistent” for street soliciting; created an enforced rehabilitation process for street sex workers and removed the requirement of persistence for a kerb crawling conviction.
There has been a small improvement (and a smaller step back). The government said they were introducing this legislation to target forced prostitution and trafficking but “controlling for gain” explicitly includes people who are working of their own free will, and there was widespread criticism of this proposal. As a result, the government briefly amended the Bill to criminalise clients of those who were subjected to “force, deception or threats”.
This would have been the first British legislation on the sex industry (including our trafficking legislation) that actually referred to coercion, violence, abuse or exploitation. Despite this, some organisations received considerable media coverage for their opinions that targeting “force” in the Bill weakened the legislation. (Many of the groups concerned consider all prostitution to be violence against women and campaign for wholesale criminalisation of clients.)
In the House of Lords Committee stage, the government changed the Bill again to refer to “exploitative conduct” rather than “force, deception or threats”.
If legislation is created using vague terminology (e.g., “threats not relating to violence, any form of coercion or deception”) then the way the law is applied will be decided by case law. The law we’ll all end up with depends on the view of the individual judge or judges, which will in turn be influenced by the individual case that comes to court.
Although the legislation relating to clients has received most publicity, brothel closure orders are the most dangerous aspect of the legislation, as the provisions give wide-ranging powers to be used at the discretion of the police. No proof is required, and it is irrelevant whether the officer applying the order has suspicions that an offence has been or will be committed. Despite government assurance these powers will be used only to target harmful practice, the law is the law - once broad brush legislation is enacted, there is no way to impose limits on its execution.
Sex workers will be aware that the police have power to close premises immediately on grounds of suspicion only and that police have a financial interest in prosecutions under the Proceeds of Crime Act: these proposals make sex workers enormously vulnerable to the police.
Sex workers will often chose not to take the increased risk of reporting crimes against them; criminals also know the law and will take advantage accordingly. We will be without the protection of the law, and the consequences will be harmful to almost everyone in the indoor sex industry.
For more information, and to join the campaign for full human rights and safety for people in the sex industry, sign up for the IUSW newsletter at
http://iusw.org/lists/?p=subscribe