THE SEXUAL FREEDOM COALITION

Haydee Scarsbrook
Sex Offences Review
Sentencing & Offences Unit
The Home Office
50 Queen Anne's Gate
London SW1H 9AT

21st February 2001

Dear Mr Scarsbrook,
This is the Sexual Freedom Coalition’s response to your Consultation Paper SETTING THE BOUNDARIES; REFORMING THE LAW ON SEX OFFENCES.

We are disappointed that, despite offers of our very serious concern and wide forms of expertise, the SFC was never invited to join your External Reference Group or contribute to any of your meetings. However, we are pleased to note that the term “consenting adults” which is the title of our campaign newspaper and a phrase coined by us, is used extensively throughout your Paper, indicating a sure and definite influence which you evidently felt unable to acknowledge.

Many of the areas you have chosen to concentrate on are outside our remit, as we concern ourselves only with the sexual freedom of consenting adults. However, we do have some comments to make, as follows:-

Breach of a relationship of care (4.8) page 75
You need to be very clear when talking about disability about whether this is physical or mental. By blurring the two, it is unclear what you really mean, and this leaves vulnerable people unprotected and innocent people losing their freedom of choice.

Some physically disabled people who are unable to masturbate want to be able to put in the job description of their Personal Assistants that there is an option to relieve them of their sexual frustration, and we do not believe this should be criminalised.

Outraging Public Decency (p144)
The Law Commission has already recommended that this be abolished because it is an outdated “catch-all” law, and the penalty is ridiculous.

Prostitution (p148 to 150)
Most sex workers prefer to work together in a “brothel” type situation for their own safety and convenience. Chief Inspector Christopher Bradford of the Clubs and Vice Unit was quoted in the Evening Standard on 16th February as saying that prostitution is impossible to stamp out. Given we are going to have prostitutes, surely it is better that they work safely and happily, without stigma and within the law? The SFC does not advocate trafficking of women or underage prostitutes, but on the other hand, it is senseless for people to be criminalised for owning and/or operating a well-run brothel, which may involve recruiting, managing, employing and advertising the services or prostitutes.

On the subject of prostitution, we refer you to the Sexual Freedom Coalition and International Union of Sexworkers Recommendations on Prostitution to the Green Party which is on our website www.sfc.org.uk.

We understand the the Spanner Trust is writing to you on the issues of your document with regards to sadomasochism, and we endorse their views. Sadomasochism is a legitimate sexual activity and should not be criminalised.

We also understand that the Campaign Against Censorship has recommended that you extend your reform to abolish the archaic Disorderly Houses Act of 1751 and the Common Law Offences of Corrupting Public Morals, Keeping a Disorderly House, Outraging Public Decency and Indecent Exhibition. We endorse these views.

I enclose a copy of the Sexual Freedom Bill which has been sent to the Home Office and Prime Minister on several occasions. We feel sure that you will appreciate another copy to share around.

You may be interested to know that Ricoché Films have been commissioned to make a prime-time TV programme for Channel 4 to ridicule the archaic draconian sex laws of this country. Perhaps you should consider climbing down from your ivory towers to meet the real needs of the people in this country.

Dr Tuppy Owens
of behalf of the Sexual Freedom Coalition