PSNI submission to the justice commitee
I've just watched the PSNI submission to the NI Justice Commitee, which took place on 20th February. It lasted over two hours and was in my opinion, the most important exchange to date.
The following are my own observations and opinions. Others who have watched it (and you can do so here)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/n...eland-26281607
may see things differently or pick up on other points.
As usual, lots of statistics were thrown around, one of my personal favourites being that apparently only 1 or 2% of sex workers in NI are NOT coerced. Depending of course on your definition of coerced -- if it means people do it because they need money, then we could apply a similar percentage to the entire working population. But I digress.
The PSNI reps spoke well and clearly know more about the subject of NI sex work than all the committee put together. The subtext of their submission and evidence was that, while they would accept clause six (the criminalisation of purchasing sex), they see major problems with it's implementation, it's potential for souring their working relationship with local sex workers and the use of police resources for what would be a low level offence. They see it as a probable deterrent to many current sex purchasers, but had little or not enthusiasm for the idea in itself. They were also rightly sceptical of the 'success' of the Swedish model and the realities of implementing it here.
Perhaps most important was the officers' consistent contention that most NI sex workers are not trafficked and that many enter and remain in the sex industry as a personal choice, something which anyone with even a minor interest in the subject sees as obvious. This annoyed Givan in particular, who refused to accept the idea of 'consensual prostitution' in much the same tone as his party colleague was 'repulsed by gays.' In other words, he's on a moral crusade, blind to the actual realities on the ground. Wells was caught out a couple of times -- once when attempting to link sex workers with local paramilitaries -- the PSNI pointed out the report he was quoting from was 4 years old, something which he must have known but wasn't expected to be pulled up on. He also asserted that 85% of men buying sex would stop doing so if it became illegal, yet accepted that in Sweden, this figure is only 50%, despite 15 years of criminalisation.
His most glaring blunder for me (and one which he wasn't challenged on) followed his little rant on why the PSNI shouldn't have taken the letter from Uglymugs and Laura Lee seriously. Apparently someone in the union Laura represented may be a pimp, but here's the cracker....he then stated that the sex workers themselves should be listened to (rather than the union rep). I think we should all welcome this 11th hour conversion from Mr Wells. No doubt he will now be consulting with sex workers across the land to gauge their views on a bill that concerns their livelihoods and personal choices. Don't hold your breath.
For the record, Laura spoke openly and honestly before the earlier committee -- she put forward the views of a large percentage of sex workers -- her reward was to suffer appalling ignorance and rudeness, simply because the realities she presented were dangerously at odds with the DUP's blinkered crusade.
By contrast, Sinn Fein, not a party generally known for being bashful, played a much smaller role in the proceedings and by and large asked questions of a more practical and less judgemental nature. The three smaller parties (UUP, Alliance, SDLP) made minor contributions but it's very clearly the DUP show and those parties voting for the bill will be merely followers.
Despite running over two hours, with much ground being covered twice or more, no-one asked or attempted to explain what 'sexual services' are. We're still in the dark on that one. Hopefully this will be explained before we all get nicked for having a massage or daring to indulge a lapdancer.
What I find most galling regarding the DUP in particular, is the attempted trashing of Lucy Smith and Laura Lee, as if their evidence, through supposed association, was somehow irrelevant. Applying this fairly, Ruhama should be equally brushed aside, due to their Magdalene laundry association, not to mention the TOTRL aura of the Roman Catholic church, not only a traditional target for immense hatred by the DUP, but a religious organisation with a less than inspriring track record on sexual matters and indeed trafficking itself. Plenty of cynicism and hypocrisy at work here folks.
The DUP reps treat the committee as a vehicle driving their own foregone conclusion -- far from 'gathering evidence', it is merely channeling the evidence that suits it's own agenda, while ignoring or attempting to discredit that which doesn't suit it's purpose.
The PSNI reps clearly didn't share the moralistic zeal of certain committee members and are altogether more realistic about sex workers in our society. Let's hope that common sense prevails.
Reply With Quote
