|
English Collective of Prostitutes
PO Box 287 London NW6 5QU Tel: 020 7482 2496 Fax: 020 7209
4761
ecp@allwomencount.net,
www.prostitutescollective.net
21
November 2009
Dear
Friends and supporters,
We are
writing first of all to say how very much we appreciate all
the work people did against the prostitution clauses in the
Policing & Crime Bill (PCB), and to give you a brief
update.
Unfortunately, the PCB went through Parliament on 12
November. There was one key victory: the government was
forced to amend Clause 14 so that it only criminalises
clients who “pay for sexual services of a prostitute
subjected to force”, rather than the much wider “controlled
for gain” which could have applied to many consensual
arrangements. The offence remains a strict liability
offence, so that the client will have no legal defence if
the sex worker is later shown to have been forced, even if
he didn’t know this at the time and did his best to find
out.
Vicious
new measures will shortly become law. They are: a new
definition of “persistence” for loitering and soliciting
which makes street workers more vulnerable to arrest;
removing “persistence” from the kerb-crawling law so that
guilt can be proved on the first offence; compulsory
‘rehabilitation’ orders, though the government has had to
limit to 72 hours the time street workers can be detained
before they are brought to court for breaching the order;
more powers to close premises where they suspect that
certain prostitution offences are being committed, including
someone being ‘controlled for gain’; more powers under the
Proceeds of Crime Act to seize people’s assets and property
and profit from them.
A number
of us attended the two last debates in the Lords.
Opposition to the Bill was led by Baroness Sue Miller,
Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesperson, with whom we
have been working for some time. She was the only one to
raise that criminalisation would increase violence against
sex workers. Some independent, Labour and Tory peers
supported her; but the Tory party as a whole did not oppose
the new measures, not even the strict liability aspect of
Clause 14.
Some peers
continued to conflate prostitution with rape and
trafficking, and to raise the fabricated figures on
trafficking despite the fact that they had been thoroughly
discredited. But the figures did not feature in anything
like the way they had during previous debates. Nick Davies’
article in the
Guardian “Inquiry
fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into
prostitution”,
Dr Nick Mai’s research and the work we all did to get
the truth out, meant that only the most unprincipled could
continue to use these lies to justify cracking down on sex
workers.
Baroness
Howarth who spoke vehemently in favour of criminalizing
clients described sex workers in the most disparaging way as
“damaged goods”! How dare she call women “goods”, and
on top of that “damaged”!
Speaking
for the government, Baroness Scotland dressed up the measure
as protection for vulnerable women. But the hollowness of
this claim was exposed by Baroness Miller who said, in
referring to the other clauses:
“. . . the next clauses . . . do not look as though they
try to develop routes out as much as criminalising the
women, forcing them into rehabilitation, developing problems
for them when they do not comply with the orders, closing
down brothels and so on. That part of the Bill gives a very
negative feeling to what the Minister gave a very positive
view of this evening.”
The
debate on the amendment decriminalising under 18s was in
some ways the best. Baroness Howarth made a convincing case
for decrimalisation generally – against her better judgement
no doubt! She spoke about criminalisation being an obstacle
to accessing services, protection and any other help. But
what is true of children is also true of adults, and the
amendment was defeated.
Predictably, no connection was made between prostitution
and the abolition of Income Support and other benefit cuts
in the Welfare Reform Bill which became law at the same time
as the PCB. Those who find prostitution horrifying do not
seem horrified by the poverty or even destitution which
drives many women into it.
As the
PCB finally went through the Commons, John McDonnell MP who
chaired many Safety First meetings, paid tribute to our
campaigning. He then had to defend us from
another unhinged attack by Denis MacShane MP. We rely
on your ongoing support to address his false accusations.
You may have noticed that he is a regular commentator for
the Guardian Comment if Free and that the coverage in the
Guardian since Nick Davies’s article on trafficking (“Inquiry
fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into
prostitution, 20 October 2009”)
has focussed on the criminalisation of clients, hiding all
the other measures which criminalise sex workers. We have
complained about this and urge you to do so also. The
more letters they get the better. (The titles of the
various comments are below along with the Guardian contact
details.)
Despite
the Bill being passed, we are far from discouraged. Peers
and MPs told us that the campaign against the Bill had been
very effective. Many of those who did not have a vested
interest in supporting the government were persuaded to our
view. New Zealand’s decriminalisation is now on the map as
an example to be followed. Leading Tory Lord Skelmesdale
asked the government why they hadn’t considered other
countries and indicated that New Zealand was his preferred
option. The recent
national opinion poll, which found that 2/3 of the UK
population support decriminalisation on grounds of safety,
is an expression of how much we have gained.
We are
reconvening the Safety First Coalition with the awareness
that an unprecedented number of people from all walks of
life are now ready to campaign for decriminalisation.
And while
we brace ourselves for an increase in raids and
prosecutions, we know that we can count on our expanded
network to speak out in defence of sex workers’ rights and
safety.
We need
to be vigilant and exchange information about the effects of
the new law. We need to discuss together what actions to
take to protect women and their families. We especially
want to hear about what is happening where you are. If you
live in or near a red-light area, are you seeing more women
on the street, or more police and more arrests? What are
you hearing from family, neighbours or friends, or from the
local papers? Please report to us any evidence of violence
and victimisation so we can respond. We are already hearing
of incidents of assault and two tragic murders, one round
the corner from our Women’s Centre.
Finally,
the work against these new laws has consumed much time and
money. If you would like to make a donation to help cover
those costs, please send cheque made out to “English
Collective of Prostitutes” to the address above or contact
us to donate by money transfer.
With
thanks and for safety first,
Cari
Mitchell
Address at the
Guardian for
complaints.
Siobhain
Butterworth
Readers
Editor
The
Guardian
Kings
Place,
90 York Way,
London
N1 9GU
reader@guardian.co.uk
Recent
Guardian
comments:
“Sex
trafficking is no illusion”, 20 October 2009,
Rahila Gupta
“Sex
trafficking: a futile war of statistics”, 21 October 2009.
Denis MacShane MP
“Exit
strategy”, 28 October 2009
“Prostitution a Crime of Purchasing”, 9 November 2009,
Beatrix Campbell
|