´óÏó´«Ã½

Wow, someone sensible at the PUP? I'd never have guessed.

Legalising it is the only way to have some control over it.

Once more Dawn is out of step with the public in northern Ireland - imagine that.

Smasher:

She is in step with an increasing number. Presumably you oppose legalisation because it exploits women. Once again, as with abortion, you know what is in their best interests. You want to tell them what to do with their bodies.

Some Irishmen have a bloody nerve!

Brian;

On a general point.

Do you accept that sometimes others DO know what's best for you, better than yourself? Sometimes your father is right, sometimes the doctor is right, sometimes the priest is right and sometimes even the government is right, and you're wrong.

Just sometimes.

Particularly, when people are in a vulnerable position, they are unable to make the right choices for themselves.

#Disclaimer; this is not specifically about this issue of protistution, the legalisation of which I'd need a lot more details about.

I think it may be a possibility to legalise prostitituion in a way which was to the benefit of those women who freely choose to do so.

But it would need to be done very very carefully, otherwise it would leave the way open to the LEGAL sexual exploitation of women, which would be an extremely dangerous precedent.

A serious response to Prostitution will require accepting that links exist between Prostitution and organised crime, and drug abuse. So personal autonomy and public opinion are not decisive factors.
Given that many young women and men are "targeted" and introduced to drugs by dealers and pimps I doubt that criminalising the Prostitute is fair. About 95% of street prostitutes are addcited to Class A Drugs (I would be interested in NI statistics). For the most part, they became addicts in their teens.This puts issues of autonomy and responsibility into perspective.
It also means that Prostitution cannot be considered in isolation from drugs. Criminalising the drug user may be counter-productive. I'd be nothing less than draconian on suppliers and pimps. But drug addicts need treatment. If punishment is warranted we need options beyond imprisonment.
Criminalising paying, or offering to pay, for sexual services on or off the street has seen a measure of success in Sweden. Merely criminalising the activities that surround prostitution (soliciting, kerb-crawling etc.) is too soft an approach.
This approach would require a strong welfare state that could retrain addicts and prostitutes. A consumer society is not best placed to help it's weakest members.

GVeale

Sex was designed by God to be enjoyed by a man and woman within the lifelong committment of marriage. Go outside that - as prostitution does -and there is always a price to pay.

Condoning something which is wrong by legalizing it would only lead more women into further shame and misery. It is hard to find a prostitute who honestly feels good about herself.

Thankfully, the Christian Gospel offers a way out of every kind of sinful lifestyle. (2 Corinthians 5v17)

PP
Adultery is sinful, but I do not want to criminalise it. There is a difference bewteen condoning and legalising. For example, I don't condone humanism, but I do not want to make it illegal.
In any case, I am not talking about legalising Prostitution. In fact I'm not proposing any changes to the law *at all* in relation to the prostitute herself. I am suggesting that criminalising prostitution will not reduce prostitution, and that it would be manifestly unfair to criminalise prostitution. I would criminalise offering money for sex, and profiting from anothers sexual activity. In other words focus on those who exploit prostitutes.
G Veale

Out of curiosity, why was Purvis suggesting that we make prostitution legal? It already is. Does she want to make solicitation and kerb crawling legal? Owning a brothel? Then how do we keep organised crime and pimps out?

GVeale

GV-

The first two sentences of your comment #8 are among the most sensible things I've ever seen you say.

The longer I have been involved in the care of people the more convinced I have become of one thing: there is nothing so inimical to good practice as theory.

I have become, too, deeply cynical about the ability and the motivations of those who interfere without direct experience of the areas they seek to address. I think that, however well intentioned they may have started, all politicians become corrupted by their profession and the desire to do good is soon totally subsumed in the desire to be seen to be doing good. Simple, communicable solutions of the type which will gain media and public attention are usually inadequate and inappropriate responses to social and personal problems of the greatest complexity. Jacqui Smith's proposals represent just such an a approach.

The sale or purchase of sex is usually - but not always - deeply unsatisfactory for both parties involved. In some cases people take payment for sex purely as a form of sexual thrill seeking - these people are likely to find the experience exhilarating and fulfilling. In some cases the self-esteem of one or the other party is actually bolstered by the transaction and some good may be said to come of the encounter. In some cases the level of detachment is quite high and no harm is done to either party. In some cases the ego and self-worth of one or the other of the parties is bruised and crushed to a degree from which recovery is rarely if ever possible and depression and suicide are very likely outcomes. If we look at the question purely on this level of motivation how is it possible to legislate to cover all these scenarios plus the many more I have not mentioned?

The criminalisation of the purchase of sex will work no better than the criminalisation of the possession of drugs.

If society wants genuinely to help those affected by either what is needed is not a penal policy but a social care system which addresses the issues of female/teenage poverty, social alienation, personal disempowerment, and mental health provision.

These are not simple issues and it would not be cheap to implement solutions therefore no mainstream politician will pay anything more than lip-service to the ideal - congratulations to Ms Purvis for being an exception and an excellent and persuasive spokesperson for her community.

Bernard:

Oh dear. On the "Cold House for Atheists" thread you told me that if there are religious schools it's because the people want them. Now, apparently, that's not necessarily right and others sometimes know what is good for people. Do make your mind up.

I noticed that you ran away from that thread when it started to go too near the knuckle of Catholic Church control over the education of half the child population of this divided society. Presumably, while clearly these children don't know what is best for them, only the Catholic Church does.

I largely agree in a general sense with your last 2 paragraphs in post 5.

Brian...I continued the other debate, if you'd care to look.

As for your "argument";

"if there are religious schools it's because the people want them. Now, apparently, that's not necessarily right and others sometimes know what is good for people. Do make your mind up."

I cannot see any contradiction there. People do want religious schools. Sometimes, some people...children, or the particularly vulnerable...are not able to make clear choices about what is best for them.

Perhaps you don't recognise that, but I honestly don't believe you're a more complete libertarian than hitherto known, extending absolute liberty even to children, or the mentally ill!

But thanks for agreeing in a general sense.

Portwyne
As usual, I agree with half of what you say. Without welfare reform we will not be able to make any changes to rates of prostitution and drug abuse. However there is a clear case for legislation. I acknowledge that the law is a blunt instrument, and I want to keep the State out of our private lives as far as possible. Nevertheless, Jaqui Smith's proposals are to weak to make a difference.
According to Home Office statistics 70% of crimes against prostitutes go unreported. The conviction rate for murders of prostitutes is 25% - compared to 75% for the rest of society (60 prostitutes were murdered between 1994 and 2004).
Prostitutes are significantly more likely than the norm to have come from abusive backgrounds, or to have run away from home at an early age . Roughly 95% are engaged in prostitution because they are addicted to a Class A drug. 65% have been assaulted. We are talking about an abused underclass.
There are between 80 000-100 000 prostitutes in the UK, and if even 1 in 20 have made a "lifestyle choice", there will be thousands of prostitutes that enjoy and believe that they benefit from their livelihood. That is undisputed.
What cannot be disputed is that they are benefitting from a lifestyle that destroys tens of thousands of lives. It is also undeniable that the law should protect the vulnerable. It is also indisputable that it is in the public interest to reduce prostitution - given the links to organised crime and drug abuse. Legalising brothels in three Australian states led to an increase in prostitution (legal and illegal), no improvements to prostitutes' safety and did not sever the link with oragnised crime.
A fourteen year old who is being introduced to drugs as she is being "groomed" for prostitution is not making an autonomous choice. Neither is a 13 year old boy who has fled an abusive household and needs funds to survive. It is manifestly unjust that those who can choose alternatives to prostitution should take priority over those who cannot.

G Veale