|
Safety First Coalition forces government to drop law
to compulsorily “rehabilitate”
Overwhelming opposition, co-ordinated by the Safety First Coalition, has forced the government to drop clauses on prostitution in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Clause 123 proposed a change in the definition of soliciting which would have made it easier for the police to arrest sex workers, while Clauses 124 and 125 would have forced those arrested into compulsory “rehabilitation” under threat of imprisonment.
Initiated by the English Collective of Prostitutes, the Safety First Coalition worked tirelessly to defeat this legislation. Opposition within parliament was co-ordinated by MP John McDonnell, Baroness Stern and Lord Faulkner.
A high point of the campaign was a packed meeting in the House of Commons which heard from Catherine Healy of the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective. She highlighted the positive effects the decriminalisation of prostitution introduced in New Zealand five years ago has had on women’s safety, prompting many to demand that decriminalisation be considered here. There was general indignation at the way the government had pushed the Bill through the Commons without any discussion of the prostitution clauses despite wide public concern.
As the Bill came to the Lords, peers were inundated with submissions from a wide range of people: bereaved families, members of the Church, the Royal College of Nursing, anti-poverty and anti-rape campaigners, drug and prison reformers, sex workers, academics and many others wrote in support of three amendments by Lord Faulkner to delete the clauses on soliciting and compulsory rehabilitation. Many also supported an amendment to change the definition of a brothel to allow women to work together.
Ipswich residents condemned compulsory “rehabilitation” having seen how it was “not working” locally. Others raised that the “trusting relationship and mutual respect” needed to help women get out of prostitution “can’t be done with the shadow of imprisonment hanging over them”. Outrage was expressed at how the power to imprison women for 72 hours would “clog up police cells/prison places and add to the already critical problem of prison overcrowding”. Complaints were made about the lack of resources to address the poverty, homelessness, debt, domestic violence and drug use which drive many women into prostitution and of “effective training and drug treatment programmes” for those who need them.
Countering government misinformation, the Coalition exposed how the “rehabilitation” orders were not an “alternative to a fine” since fines were not being abolished and women would still be criminalised, including for breaking the orders. There were objections to the government using the long overdue measure to abolish the term “common prostitute” to hide the proposed widening of persistent soliciting.
Demanding that safety be prioritised, many outlined that any law which further criminalises sex workers or clients would endanger women by “forcing prostitution underground” and “taking police and other criminal justice resources off those people who exploit or commit violent crimes against sex workers”.
Many were glad for the detailed rebuttal in the Safety First Coalition briefing of the way in which trafficking is being used to justify a clampdown on prostitution generally. A practicing Roman Catholic spoke of his experience visiting detention centres for asylum seekers, including “women from overseas who had been working as prostitutes and were being 'removed' against their will and returned to the circumstances of poverty and desperation which had led them to move to Britain.”
This wide ranging opposition to the prostitution clauses was clearly evident at a private meeting with Ministers at which Peers made clear that they were not prepared to give in and that a lengthy debate was unavoidable. Shortly after, using the time restraints to cover for their humiliating climb down, the government announced that the Clauses were being withdrawn in order to ensure that the Bill received Royal Assent before a voluntary agreement expired banning prison officers’ right to strike.
An amendment by Baroness Cox to criminalise men who buy sex (based on a similar amendment proposed by MP Denis McShane) also fell.
Opposition to recent government proposals that drug users who refuse compulsory “rehabilitation” may lose their benefits and the long-term unemployed may be evicted from their homes is also growing. Many of those made destitute by these proposals are likely to be propelled into the sex industry to make ends meet.
While the Safety First Coalition is delighted with this victory and thanks everyone who worked hard to defend sex workers rights. We are aware that the government wants to reintroduce similar legislation in the autumn when it concludes its review of the prostitution laws. But we know that most people disagree with criminalisation and urge everyone to keep up the pressure and sign our petition on LINK.
Coalition members commented
“We welcome the removal of these amendments . . . Criminalisation would have driven underground those in need of properly funded and staffed healthcare support. . . . We now urge the Government to look at improving the healthcare and well-being of these workers and begin to provide pathways out for these men and women.” Royal College of Nursing
”I welcome the government’s announcement and hope that it signals a future approach towards prostitution underlined by welfare measures rather than criminalisation, putting the needs and safety of sex workers above the desire for moral condemnation.” John McDonnell MP
”This makes a dent in the government’s punitive policies on people living in poverty in the UK.” Revd Paul Nicolson, Zacchaeus 2000 Trust.
“ This victory is important because the suggestion that women should be jailed for up to 72 hours is not only unworkable but cruel. The whole emphasis now should be on keeping women out of jail in line with the Corston Report recommendations.” Pauline Campbell mother of Sarah who died in HMP Styal
The determined and wide-ranging opposition to these degrading and dangerous proposals ensures that we are well placed to prevent the government reintroducing them. Claims by government feminists and Christian fundamentalists that all prostitution is violence have not deterred the growing movement for the decriminalisation of prostitution which is demanding that consenting sex be distinguished from rape and other violence and that safety be prioritised. English Collective of Prostitutes
FFI 020 7482 2496 ecp@allwomencount.net www.prostitutescollective.net
|