Inquisition 21
 |
 |
|
|
| Log In
|
|
|
|
|
| Search Articles
|
|
|
|
|
| Comments
|
|
|
You don't have to,
but if you log in,
you can add comments.
|
| Page Referral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UK Government looking to ban consensual sex
|
|
|
UK Government looking to ban consensual sex
By Kevin Kirk
"When government - in pursuit of good intentions - tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the costs come in inefficiency, lack of innovation and loss of freedom." Milton Friedman
With the economy coming unglued, immigration completely out of control, crime on a vertiginous increase, a health service where you are more likely to pick up a fatal disease rather than be cured of one and public services all in serious decline then you’d think the utterly discredited UK government, led by the hopelessly incompetent Gordon Brown, would have enough to occupy them without creating yet more legislation that ‘sends a message’ of how they want us to behave in our bedrooms. Yet despite the fact that the electorate are desperate for them to at least try to make a reasonable fist at repairing some of the damage that New Labour created before total disaster overtakes the country, the government itself has another agenda. It appears to have completely abandoned any pretence at fixing the myriad problems, but is, instead, hell-bent, on pushing ahead with its peculiar brand of social engineering.
It, of course, feels comfortable in doing this because here it is supported by both of the other political parties. With both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats falling over themselves to push forward restrictive laws often in the teeth of what the electorate wants. Not one of their manifestos contained even a hint that the main thrust of their collective future legislation would be in further reducing the diminishing freedoms that were once enjoyed by citizens of this, now blighted, country.
One of the biggest reductions in personal freedom is in the shape of the latest Criminal Justice Bill, which is lumbering its way through parliament. This bumper bill is basically Blair’s goodbye present from a grateful Commons for agreeing to step down, and contains a huge amount of what the former Prime Minster considered to be unfinished business.
It is already mammoth and far too large to be properly debated, never mind considered in depth, but that hasn’t stopped MPs trying to tack their own little amendments onto it to serve their own peculiar little perversions. In some respects it is to be expected; the House of Commons has far too many MPs with very little to do and not many ways of making a name for themselves. And so by dint of adding a couple of clauses to a bill and hoping they’ll stick, usually by being overlooked when it is being debated for the third and final time, they feel they could add some lustre, or at least avoid complete ignominy, when their ‘careers’ finally fizzle out.
Take for example this gem from the previous unheard of Philip Hollobone, the Conservative MP for Kettering, who has proposed that the following exciting new clause be added to the Bill:
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if -
(a) he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another person (B), and
(b) before obtaining those services, he has made or promised payment for those services to B or third person, or knows that another person has made or promised such a payment.
(2) In this section ‘payment’ means any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
My first reading of that was that it made marriage illegal. You can just picture the results of the marriage ceremony:
“…..With all my worldly goods I thee endow.” Come along with me sonny, you’re nicked!
The idea, of course, was to make prostitution illegal, but it was so cack handed and ill thought out that even this control freak government was lukewarm towards it. Not that they have any compunction about making prostitution illegal. Indeed on December 20th Harriet Harman, the minister for women, announced that she was considering the introduction of legislation to criminalize payments for sex saying: “Do we think it's right in the 21st century that women should be in a sex trade, or do we think it's exploitation and should be banned?”
You can trust New Labour to introduce any or all of the labels ‘exploitation’, ‘abusive’ or ‘inappropriate’ to justify their decisions, particularly with regards to sexual restrictions based on their own warped morality, which they can then use to batter any opponents that bewail the further loss of individual freedoms. In this case commentators did point out that in the overwhelming majority of cases prostitutes were freely entering a contract to provide sexual services in return for cash.
And so, the critics argued, the government was talking about banning consensual sex.
Say what you will about this ghastly crew, they always bounce back and to this they retorted that most, if not all, of the prostitutes were in actual fact sex slaves. Indeed Home Office Minister Coaker told the committee considering the bill: “We would not have expected to be in the House of Commons in 2007 talking about modern day slavery” as if it was a foregone conclusion. And then, warming to the theme, he said it is their duty, as a government, to protect these poor unfortunate women.
As indeed it is. Which is why it was outlawed in no uncertain terms in the 2003 sexual offences act. So why the need for yet more legislation?
The first reason is that despite the huge salacious press attention given to the matter and the equally huge amount of police resources devoted to it only 16 people have ever been convicted of trafficking since 2004. Of course to most sensible people that proves that the problem, whilst it undoubtedly exists, is not nearly as serious as we are being led to believe. Original estimates from charities working with these unfortunates estimated the number of women lured into prostitution from abroad was in the 100s, which was then extrapolated out to 4,000 by ‘unknown sources’ which was again enhanced by the BBC which said: “some estimates put the number at 10,000” which in turn was trumped by the Daily Mail who now estimates, with absolutely no evidence, that the number is “over 25,000” and is calling on the government to take urgent measures to combat the problem. There probably aren’t 25,000 full time prostitutes in the UK so are they seriously expecting us to believe that every girl plying the trade is a sex slave?
Which brings us to the next point and that is if we stretch our credibility to the extent that we actually believe these ludicrous figures then it points to the fact that it is the governments own flawed immigration policy – or lack of one - that has caused, or at least exacerbated, the problem. Particularly as of the people who have indeed been prosecuted none were born in the UK but were usually from central Europe, particularly the Balkans. But rather than admit to the problem they take a circuitous route to resolving it, in their eyes, by cutting off the demand. Anyway in New Labour thinking it is always far better to criminalize their own citizens (preferably heterosexual men; there appears to be no plans to ban gay prostitution) than persecute foreigners, even those that are here illegally.
The criminalization of prostitution is, of course, a complete volte-face from New Labour’s original idea of controlling it thus providing protection for the women who ply the trade. The best protection from exploitation is by way of licensed brothels, situated in places such as industrial estates well away from residential areas, run by the women themselves with a couple of 20 stone heavies with tight suits and wrap around sunglasses on call if a customer cuts up rough and with regular health and police checks just to make sure no-one had been forced into it. But that idea ran into problems with the feminists who couldn’t bear the thought of women exploiting their own bodies even if it was the women’s choice. Anyway it sounds too much like it could be fun for everybody and the feminazis couldn’t countenance that.
So they came up with the feeble ‘licensed’ brothel idea where two girls and a maid could work, with no protection, no advertising and no health checks. Hardly brilliant but better than nothing, in that it at least would get the problem off of residential streets which was the biggest complaint of the public. But now they want to force it completely underground.
They cite, by way of a shining example, the case of Sweden, which has indeed outlawed prostitution. And Vernon Coaker is due to take a trip out there to see how well it is working. He’ll no doubt be shown how quiet Malmskillnadsgatan Street in Stockholm is now the prostitutes have all been banished. Sadly he won’t be able to talk to any prostitutes themselves to ask their opinions about the new law because, of course, they’ve all gone and are now being housewives or something.
Except of course they’re not. According to an article in Der Spiegel since the ban came into force the number of rapes and serious sexual assaults have jumped dramatically, as have sexually transmitted diseases, particularly amongst the prostitutes themselves. And its not hard to see why, as one working girl said: “When things are slow, the way they are tonight, I'm also willing to go with guys who want to get a little rough with me and don't want to use a condom. I need the money.” Another said: “The nice customers are afraid of being caught. All that's left are the more troubled ones, those with whom you have to drive far out of the city so that they'll feel safe from the police. It puts you at their mercy.”
But of course little things like a dramatic potential increase in the number of rapes or an increase in the spread of STDs is hardly likely to deviate this government from its moral crusade. So we can expect a better drafted, but more draconian, version of Hollobone’s clause being inserted into the CJIB sometime soon.
There are even calls to make using the services of a prostitute rape. Take, for instance, the hysterical speech by ex Europe Minister and MP for Rotherham Dennis MacShane who said: “There are an estimated 25,000 girls, many of them under the age of 18, trafficked into Britain to meet the demand for men to have sex in exchange for money. Up to now, it has been the women who are treated as criminals. Women become double victims. They are beaten up and raped as preparation for working in massage parlours and other modern brothels, or they become victims of pimps in order to earn money to pay for drugs or escape financial debt. Then when the police take some action, it is usually the women who get arrested and the men whose money helps prostitution flourish are never challenged, let alone named and shamed. I think we have to turn the debate on its head. It is men who should be prosecuted for paying for sex. Paying for sex with a girl under 18 is technically rape. But there has not been one successful prosecution of a man for such rape. The pimps and traffickers are laughing all the way to their offshore bank accounts. It is by tackling the demand and making paid-for sex a crime that we can begin to reduce supply.”
So all of the sudden the mythical figure of 25,000 sex slaves becomes 25,000 mostly under-aged sex slaves. This is classic moral panic stuff and without a single shred of evidence to back his ludicrous assertions. It was a beautiful example of mendacity in action and should be required text on any political science course. Every last offence he mentioned – forced prostitution, living off immoral earnings, grievous bodily harm, kidnap, rape, human trafficking and money laundering – is already a serious crime so why the need for yet more legislation?
And why were the girls themselves being arrested? Prostitution is currently legal so on what grounds do the police have for arresting them? Needless to say after the law has been passed then they can be arrested and charged. This is, of course, classic New Labour ‘it’s for your own good’ nanny statism.
And I still can’t see the connection between pimps and drugs/financial debts. Yes a lot of women turn to prostitution to pay for their drug habit or their bills but banging up their customers for rape is hardly going to help them. How about more drug rehabilitation centres – or even, perish the thought, free fixes on the NHS - and debt management and soft loan centres? Surely that is a more positive way to go.
But that isn’t the New Labour – or indeed any current political party’s - way. They honestly believe they can fix all of society’s ills by way of legislation and they are so out of touch with the electorate, and in some cases reality, they won’t - indeed can’t – listen to reason.
Take another clause in the CJIB regarding the so-called extreme pornography. Backlash has fought a brilliant campaign to either get the clause removed or at the very least toned down into something sensible but this government, and the opposition party such as it is, just won’t listen. Instead they commissioned, for an estimated £250,000, a rapid assessment study to be undertaken by 3 hardcore feminists that had already publicly stated that they were completely in favour of the new law. In fact, in the opinion of one of them, ‘Professor’ Liz Kelly, it didn’t go far enough and all porn should be banned.
Aside from the fact that it was nice work if you can get it (1/4 million for a week’s cutting and pasting from Liz Kelly’s favourites folder) it comprised of a rehash of a smorgasbord of previously rejected theories without a scintilla of positive proof and completely ignored any contrary evidence of which there is in abundance. Added to that, it was commissioned by the NHS (why?) and everyone involved, from the original commissioner, through to the editor, was a committed feminist. Yet we are being asked to swallow that it was proof positive (even though it didn’t go as far as to make that claim itself) that access to a still from a James Bond movie causes rape.
It should have been laughed out of the Commons, but instead our totally out of touch legislators are using it as a fig leaf to cover their sorry bare asses.
And it speaks volumes about the way the UK is being governed.
Another gem in the bill is that tracing (as in using tracing paper to draw their outlines) of kids in Mothercare catalogues is going to become illegal. Which is going to upset my 3-year-old daughter who loves tracing. Will she now be placed on the Sex Offender’s Register? What bright spark thought that one up?
One final touch of insanity in the bill (there are many others but I’ll concentrate on the ones regarding sexual mores) is that the Security services (MI5, MI6 and GCHQ) are now going to be legally entitled to produce and disseminate child pornography. There has been no explanation given as to why, but one has to suspect that it’s this government’s way of making them self funding.
There can be no excuse, or good reason, to allow anyone to produce or disseminate child porn, whoever they are. And our legislators should know, if they have any sense, that the public are overwhelmingly opposed to it. Yet still they do it.
And then they wonder why the public hate them.
Editor’s note. It appears that up to now that the UK police have been seeking the assistance of the FBI to disseminate child pornography in UK stings, that is, for entrapment purposes as it is legal for US LEAs to do so. The other area where child pornography is used by the authorities is in so-called sex offender programmes.
 |
|
|
