|
•
NEWS
•
ABOUT THE SFC
•
WHAT IS SEXUAL FREEDOM?
•
CAMPAIGNS
•
POLITICS
•
CONFERENCES
•
LEGAL ADVICE
•
SEX INFORMATION
•
HISTORY
•
GALLERY
•
TUPPY'S COLUMN
•
ARCHIVES
•
WHO WE ARE
•
CONTACT
• LINKS
•
SFC
MYSPACE PAGE
site
designed and maintained by Lurid
Films
Hosted by Lovenet
Sponsored by World
Sex News
|
|
SEXUAL
FREEDOM COALITION PRESS RELEASE
ON THE HOME OFFICE REPORT "A COORDINATED PROSTITUTION STRATEGY"
|
"We
are not harmed by our work"
Jahnet Delight (London Sex Worker) tells the SFC
The Sexual Freedom Coalition congratulates the Home Office on
its Report but suggests they have not gone far enough to decriminalise
the off-street trade, and much of their thinking is still based
on a moral and religious stance against prostitution.
We prompt the press to question WHY the Home Office put this release
out at this moment in time - in wake of Kelly and schools debacle
and stressing a focus on child wellbeing that their original consultation
did not focus on in detail.
The Report is based on the premise that all sex workers are harmed
by their work. This is simply not true. It is also based on arrest
figures and public complaints, which gives a skewed picture –
most sex workers work quietly and are “off the radar”.
In fact, the Home Office Report is highly biased and based on
research and exercises that had no form of ethical approval and
would never have been approved had they been a legitimate health/social
research project.
Using this false premise that all sex workers are harmed by their
work, the Home Office suggests that clients who drive around red
light districts are themselves harming sex workers, and should
receive warnings, after which they should lose their driving licenses
and attend a John School (at the tax payers' expense).The John
School has been evaluated and proven to be inefficient at deterring
men from seeing prostitutes. If the Home Office really wanted
to clean up the streets, they should simply help clients find
professionally run local brothels instead.
If this were any other type of area or business, the Home Office
would be concerned with client safety and protecting the rights
of the clients, rather than threatening and criminalising them.
With the same excuse, the Home Office suggests that massage parlours
and saunas be scrutinised, rather than simply eradicating the
criminal element through decriminalisation.
The Home Office have used the age-old trick which is to advocate
the criminalisation of adult sexual activity in the name of protection
of children. The Sexual Freedom Coalition agrees with the protection
of children but feels this is a separate issue to the the sexual
rights of consenting adults. The freedom for adults to buy and
sell sex is a fundamental human right.
The consequences of the Home Office proposals becoming law would
be:-
POSITIVE
• Two sex workers and a receptionist would now legally be
able to work together in the same building so long as they run
the business themselves
• Sex workers would be diverted away from the Criminal Justice
System and offered holistic support, fast-track drug treatment
services for them and their partners, police protection and housing
• A coordinated action plan against trafficking
• Sex education for children in schools and safer sex education
for the public in general
• Better support services with ASBOs and a reduction in the
use of ASBOs on sex workers
• Removal of the label “common prostitute”
• Better policing of on-line groomers
• Multi-agency rescue of under 18s in sex work
• Greater scrutiny of businesses licensed to operate as massage
parlours/saunas
• Regeneration programmes in deprived areas, taking account
of any street sex trade
• Reform on the definition of a brothel (although this was
ambiguous)
NEGATIVE
• Limiting the number of sex workers who can work together
in a flat to two. No similar restrictions exist for other business
partnerships
• More work for Tony's cronies (in the John Schools etc)
• Clients will suffer mental health problems, being made
to feel guilty about their desires and having no sexual outlets
• ASBOs being used on clients
• More men in prison, and more men out of work having lost
their driving licences
• School children corrupted by patronising, inaccurate dogma
rather than factual information on drugs and sex
• The introduction of yet another law to criminalise street
sex work when we already have plenty of old laws
• More criminals would be attracted to the sex industry,
and sex work driven even more underground
• Anyone who pays for sex with someone under 18 will be criminalised
with serious charges of sexual abuse of a minor. Sex workers under
that age will naturally present themselves as older. This will
make clients very nervous and paranoid and there will be convictions
of men who were unaware of the low age of their sex worker, which
makes the law unfair. The SFC suggests that a guide be produced
for men to help them deal confidently with young-looking sex workers
and keep within the law.
• Continued hypocrisy over massage parlours and saunas that
operate as “brothels under an acceptable name” turning
a blind eye to the sex which goes on and providing them with licenses
• Professional brothel owners who treat staff well and are
not exploitative are still criminalised
• Stigma of sex work will be increased, especially if school
children are taught that sex work is harmful
• With no repeal of the old laws which criminalise “people
who live off immoral earnings” and “the lower sort of
people who enjoy riotous pleasure", sex workers will still
be surrounded by illegality and stigma, and the public will be
confused by contradictory laws
• There is no protection for women who spontaneously engage
in street work to pay off a bill or feed their children, nor for
men who are too shy, nervous or paranoid or otherwise unable to
visit flats or hire an escort and seek sex in the street. Some
disabled people, for example, are banned from using escorts in
their residential homes and find flats inaccessible, so have no
choice than to use street sex workers.
• The Home Office Report offers no respect for sex workers
who provide social services, help people with disabilities, and
have the expertise and gift to inspire and educate people with
Aspergers Syndrome and others with social disabilities
• Multi-agency support for sex workers and clients is commendable
but requires coordination by a central agency, i.e. Safer Sex
Centres in each town and city area, which is the core of the SFC
proposal.
The HO clearly had an agenda they wanted to achieve and seemingly
this has happened.
Dr Tuppy Owens
07770 884 985
Sexual Freedom Coalition
19th January 2006
|
|
|
