Dumont gets cross. Again.

[_lily_]

Grrrrr

Comments

[azrelle]

I think what they were suggesting was that if they outlaw the actual paying for sex that the crime then belongs to the men, not the women. It of course does nothing to change the trafficing they are trying to stop and indeed would just drive it more underground.

[_lily_]

But as far as I can see, they want to make 'prostitution' 'illegal', thus criminalising both the service providers and the service users... I agree that just criminalising the service providers is wrong but... as you say, it does nothing to help the trafficking situation. That's more an immigration issue than a sex work issue (or equally so). All the statistics on that are VERY sketchy.

It just seems that when they state their main aims are re: trafficking, they are trying to push a blanket motion (i.e. asserting a dubious 'solution' to one section of a 'problem' is suitable for all... when it is not). I admit it is late and I'm tired (thus not articluating well) but... smells of party politics, rather than what's actually good for prostitutes.

x

[jinxremoving]

As I understand it, prostitution itself will remain legal. If Harriet Harman gets her way, clients will be 100% criminalised because paying for sexual services will be illegal; selling sexual services will continue to be technically legal, but since soliciting, loitering with intent to solicit, brothel-keeping etc remain illegal, it will continue to be very hard for sex workers to work within the law (and keep safe at the same time).

[_lily_]

Ah, I see... Harriet Harman 'protecting' women by making a hazardous profession even more risky. Lovely. I'm still getting very cross about her 'it's about trafficking' immigration stuff. Shall we criminalise cockle-picking, then? Grrr. Bloody Harriet bloody Harman.