Since the departure of Blair the most noticeable change in the nature of policy statements and proposals have been on the classic battlegrounds of social liberalism versus social conservatism.
First we had the U-turn on Super Casinos. Then we had the proposals to re-reclassify Cannabis. We now have a suggestion to reverse the liberalisation of the licensing laws including pub opening times. This was followed by suggestions that the Police should be scouring the pubs trying to find drunks. There is the proposal to criminalise bar staff with hefty fines for serving drunken people. We have a criminal justice bill that includes very poorly thought out proposals to ban ‘violent porn’ that include provisions that would effectively criminalise perceived immoral thoughts. You can be in possession of a film that has been passed by the Classification Board but if you view it ‘principally for sexual gratification’ you are committing an offence. And now there is a suggestion by Harriet Harman to make it illegal to pay for sex.
In Brown and Harman we have a nightmare combination – the traditional religious puritan tendencies of Brown and Harriet Harman’s political correctness gone mad. And what makes matters worse is that both have very strong state interventionist tendencies.
It is never easy to campaign on some of these issues – it is too easy for our opponents to label us as the party ‘that supports drugs, pornography and prostitution’. But campaign on these issues we must. In the case of the prostitution laws it is already illegal to solicit, kerb crawl, traffic humans, run a brothel, employ illegal immigrants and have sex with minors. This new law is not required.
What this new proposal would do is criminalise anyone for paying for sex. Logically this should extend to payment in kind and gifts. Presumably this means that if a woman tried to persuade her boyfriend to buy her a nice present and with a wink of the eye promises to ‘give him his present later’ the man could be thrown in jail if he accepts. I know married couples whose sex lives operate on such a basis.
Like any humane and sensible person I abhor coercion and exploitation but all employment involves you doing something for someone else that you are only doing because they give you some money – how many workers would do their job for free? Would you?
If an adult freely chooses to make money by offering sexual services should the state stop them, or the person seeking the sex?. Given the choice of earning £250 a week for working in a shop or office for 40 hours or earning £250 by having sex 2 or 3 times a week some women will very happily choose the latter and will not for one moment regard themselves as being exploited.
One final point – the view that all prostitution is ‘immoral’ says that it is OK to use any part of your body or mind to earn money except your sexual organs. This is not a consistent morality – it is simple prudery. It fits into the category of ‘It’s wrong because it seems disgusting to me’ that no rationalist or liberal can ever accept.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
24 Comments
It is too easy for our opponents to label us as the party “that supports drugs, pornography and prostitution.” But campaign on these issues we must.
Oh do we have to? I’m afraid I fully support what Harriet is trying to do. She’s nice.
Spot on, Peter.
It’s the People’s Christmas and it’s going to be every day! They’re going to make a list, and they’ll check it twice (although occasionally the list might get lost on some CDs). They’re going to find out, once and for all, who’s ‘naughty’, who’s ‘nice’ and lock up all the ‘naughty’ people. Then the country will be happy, definitely.
When you see the British people as a bunch of children, you’re going to need to keep your social policy simple and clear.
SO, yes, I’m with Lawrence here. This is a great policy and long may it continue.
If you call me LaWrence, then I will call you Harlotte.
Harlotte I can live with. Can I call you Laurie? 😛
No! No you may not!
“Then the country will be happy, definitely.”
Ah! The Government’s policy is to turn The Happiness Patrol into reality. That explains so much…
I am interested in the idea that being a social liberal means being in favour of super-casinos, which are one of the worst aspects of unbridled corporate capitalism allied to the corporate state (whcih gets vast taxes from them).
Tony Greaves
8 Tony. I agree there may be other objections to super casinos but I include this here as I suspect the u turn is on account of an objection to gambling in general and a desire to protect us from ourselves rather than on account of your reasons.A social liberal need not support them but social conservatives will oppose.
I concur with the main thrust of the article, if not necessarily with some of the details. The proposals on pornography are ridiculous and for the most part unenforcable, and the idea of “helping” solve the problem of trafficking by pushing something already illegal further underground is just daft.
Having sex with a trafficked woman forced into prostitution is already illegal, we don’t need more legislation to prosecute for rape, and criminalising “the oldest profession” hasn’t worked elsewhere and won’t work here.
We should follow the Greek and German models, legalise the lot, ensure basic standards are met and deal strongly with traffickers and those that pay for such services by treating them as what they are. Rapists.
Normal prostitution isn’t rape, it’s a choice, and a choice that’s been around for as long as records exist. For the most part, I don’t lie that, but banning it most certainly isn’t the answer.
In Brown and Harman we have a nightmare combination – the traditional religious puritan tendencies of Brown and Harriet Harman’s political correctness gone mad.
I dislike the phrase “PC gone mad” because it’s frequently misused and mis applied, but for the lack of an alternative phrasing, I agree with this. The killjoys, the puritans and the socially illiberals are working together, and while I’m not at all sure about things like the casino legislation, overall, you’re right, and we have to step up and start fighting it, especially on the issues of minority concern such as the pornography proposals.
We should follow the Greek and German models.
Why? Are they better looking?
I dislike the phrase “PC gone mad.”
I concur. “PC gone mad” is the signature tune of the ultra tedious right-wing libertarian brigade. Let’s just argue the issues.
I’m not at all sure about things like the casino legislation.
I’m totally opposed to super casinos.
We have to step up and start fighting it, especially on the issues of minority concern such as the pornography proposals.
Oh Jeez . . .
“Having sex with a trafficked woman forced into prostitution is already illegal, we don’t need more legislation to prosecute for rape”
Yeah, rather than making any further stupid and pointless laws (seems to be a favourite habit of the current administration), lets legalise prostitution for those who /want/ to do it, and prosecute trafickers and their customers using existing rape legislation.
On the Today programme, a campaigner against prostitution made the point that over 60% of prostitutes would quit if they could.
A fair point, but I wonder what percentage of factory workers or cleaners would say the same? Just because lots of people find a job unpleasant and would prefer not to do it, if it wasn’t for the money, doesn’t mean it should be made illegal.
Yes, but there is a big difference between prostitution and cleaning in terms of the amount of personal contact you are required to make with dangerous materials, at the moment. Another reason why prostitution should be legalised, and then there can be proper health and safety at work provisions for it.
As a matter of interest, what would anyone be prepared to offer for my body?
Dead or alive? I wouldn’t give you much of a rental fee, but I’d be prepared to offer a couple of quid for your corpse. There’s good eatin’ on a Boyce… 😉
No, I need the money this side of the grave. I was thinking for the usual purposes. I’m forty years old. I have a bit of a paunch, but nothing unusual for my age. I think I scrub up reasonably well. Any takers?
I’m not into blondes, and even if I was I have enough offers to keep me going for the time being without having to spend any of my hard-earned, mate, sorry.
This thread’s giving me all kinds of ideas for new features on my blog for 2008.
You rather lost it with the attempt to deal with the ethics of prostitution at the end, but this Christian – who regards prostitution as a Bad Thing – agrees that it’s not a useful area for the State to be getting involved in.
20. Bob – yes I thought point may be controversial but the debate should be raised above “Its always happened and you cant stop it, so regulate it” versus “Just because it has always happened doesn’t make it right”. The starting point for a liberal should be that anyone who wants to ban it because it is a ‘bad thing’ needs to do 2 things – firstly argue why this view should be imposed on others (and you seem to accept this) but also argue why it is intrinsically a bad thing (and for me “because God says so” just doesn’t do it). The ‘badness’ about it seems to usually consist of a list of problems sometimes associated with it. Its rather like saying ban all cars as you will then deal with speeding, congestion, pollution etc.
Coming to this discussion a bit late in the day, but noticed that one of the Scottish Sundays this week carried a story about the idea of a ban on “drinking on public transport” being extended to not having a bar on long-distance trains. I don’t think this has been mooted yet (it wouldn’t
apply in Scotland) – but if the media float such an idea, it’s sure to appeal to Gordon and Harriet.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone. Labour, like the Tories, have always been authoritarian moralisers who think people aren’t grown up enough for a free life.
I personally don’t take drugs or engage in prostitution, but I think these activities should be legal and regulated rather than going on in the underworld. That doesn’t mean approval, it means tolerance. As for abuses, they can more easily be stamped out if things occur in the open, surely?
It would never have entered my head to do what BoJo has done in banning alcohol, and I’m glad to see libertarian Tories against it. But we are the party which is wedded to individual liberty, just as we have always supported free markets and free trade.
Labour have proven beyond doubt that they have no regard for civil liberties, and the Tories mostly support them outright or oppose them only out of opportunism, not because of a fully-fledged principle of libertarianism (I use the word in its true sense, not that which has been hijacked by the far right). Only we will stand up to the usual bigoted scum at the usual “newspapers” and the poison they are trying to spread into our culture.
Licensing is always the way forward. With Drugs, Prostitution… you name.
If you can regulate it, then you can ensure that certain working conditions are met and, in the case of drugs, ensure purity in the substance or in the case of prostitution ensure that the women (or men!) are all consenting, given health checks, a union etc… the general things most workers have. It’s much safer for all involved if it’s regulated.
And let’s not forget the crime caused by drugs and prostitution- Murder or assault for example. If there’s a cheaper, safer source of drugs or sex then people will choose it and any violent pimps or drug dealers will be put out of business. A flock of birds with one stone. In my opinion, it’s much safer when it’s monitored.
Because let’s face it, people are going to do it anyway. Trying to ban it is like trying to stop the tide.