Northern Ireland Trafficking Bill Now Law after Royal Assent

[Davidontour]

It won't be in force until 1st June.

Lord Wilberforce of Dungannon will in the meantime tell us all how he's going to free the slaves -- you know the ones chained to radiators that none of us clients or the PSNI can manage to find, but the DUP just KNOW exist. Expect an emotive and reality-free poster and TV campaign. Money well spent when we can't fund the NHS or schools.

[liffey]

...the slaves -- you know the ones chained to radiators that none of us clients or the PSNI can manage to find...

I think that has to be said louder and more often. In other words: produce evidence to back up your claims or go away.

[Davidontour]

I think that has to be said louder and more often. In other words: produce evidence to back up your claims or go away.

To quote the chair of the NI justice commitee; ''Some of us don't need evidence.''

Only the dimmest MLAs and TDs really believe that coercive trafficking is a major issue in Ireland. This is about a feminist and religionist driven moral crusade. Everyone knows it but no-one has the balls to admit it.

[Empirical]

To quote the chair of the NI justice commitee; ''Some of us don't need evidence.''

Only the dimmest MLAs and TDs really believe that coercive trafficking is a major issue in Ireland. This is about a feminist and religionist driven moral crusade. Everyone knows it but no-one has the balls to admit it.

I thought that it was his lordship that said that, when there was talk of the DoJ looking for the facts in an investigation, the one that QUB organised.

[Davidontour]

I thought that it was his lordship that said that, when there was talk of the DoJ looking for the facts in an investigation, the one that QUB organised.

It was a quote by Paul Givan to Laura when she appeared before the justice commitee last year.

[Empirical]

It was a quote by Paul Givan to Laura when she appeared before the justice commitee last year.

OK, thanks. I just don't have the stomach to look (again) through the videos; her treatment at the hands of the Justice Committee was disgusting, no way to treat any one. But, I guess, the committee members would see it differently, though perhaps they don't recognise just how much of their hearings were more like a "show trial" (where there is a pre-determined outcome) than a real, evidential hearing.

[Davidontour]

In fairness to the likes of Givan and Wells, they never even attempted to be impartial. The Magdalenes could have been torn apart on the stand but as their agenda dovetailed with the DUP, they were treated with kid gloves. Laura went in to show the real, truthful side of sex work and was savaged for it.

TORL's propaganda and creative statistics veered from the hysterical to the comical, yet they were taken seriously. The QUB/DOJ report by contrast gave a realistic and factual overview of sex work here, but was rubbished for being off message.

The whole thing was a sham and a disgrace to a supposed democracy.

[Empirical]

In fairness to the likes of Givan and Wells, they never even attempted to be impartial. The Magdalenes could have been torn apart on the stand but as their agenda dovetailed with the DUP, they were treated with kid gloves. Laura went in to show the real, truthful side of sex work and was savaged for it.

TORL's propaganda and creative statistics veered from the hysterical to the comical, yet they were taken seriously. The QUB/DOJ report by contrast gave a realistic and factual overview of sex work here, but was rubbished for being off message.

The whole thing was a sham and a disgrace to a supposed democracy.

Surely, the work of the DoJ committee is to fully scrutinise the legislation, to make sure it's all 'fit for purpose'. There may well be some political points scoring; but here, the bias was so one-sided as to indicate that the Clause 6 legislation was to be based on moral precepts, that is beliefs, and not on evidence—or on evidence which only suited their agenda. Hardly a way to run a whelk stall.

[Empirical]

In fairness to the likes of Givan and Wells, they never even attempted to be impartial. The Magdalenes could have been torn apart on the stand but as their agenda dovetailed with the DUP, they were treated with kid gloves. Laura went in to show the real, truthful side of sex work and was savaged for it.

TORL's propaganda and creative statistics veered from the hysterical to the comical, yet they were taken seriously. The QUB/DOJ report by contrast gave a realistic and factual overview of sex work here, but was rubbished for being off message.

The whole thing was a sham and a disgrace to a supposed democracy.

Just while it's in my head, the differences in British values between N Ireland and Great Britain:

Abortion was "legalised" in GB in 1967, under certain circumstances. The Stormont government at the time did not take this up. Here, abortion is illegal in almost all circumstances. A recent DoJ consultation was concerned with only fatal foetal conditions; and pregnancy after illegal acts (rape and incest). If you are pregnant and wish an abortion, you can easily go to England for one (if you can afford it); but though you can get free treatment here and in England under the NHS for medical conditions, the NHS will not let you, if you come from NI, have an abortion there. You must go privately.

Homosexuality was also decriminalised in 1967 between consenting adults (in private). It took much longer for this to happen in NI.

Gay or equal marriage is available in GB, but not in NI.

These are restrictions on sexuality, making it a requirement to conform; restrictions on personal liberty; an enforcement of moral codes which not all people accept.

'Payment' for 'sexual services' will soon be illegal in NI; moves to introduce this in Scotland, and in England and Wales, both failed. While clearly intended to be against 'commercial' services, the drafting is very wide. 'Payment' means any payment; I can imagine many social scenarios where some sort of exchange occurs, and which would make one person a criminal. (Phone and web services seem to be outside the Act, for the people must be physically present. Making a video or a porno, legal in the US where prostitution is illegal for both parties, also seems to be criminal.)

The main problems I see with all of this are the unintended effects. Criminalising something that many people enjoy is an invitation to organised criminality—think of Prohibition or the 'War on Drugs'. So what can we expect after June?

[Davidontour]

At this stage, no-one can reasonably predict how things will be after June. The best guess is to look at the situation in Sweden 15 years on.

By govt estimates, there are still at least 1000 sex workers in Sweden and human trafficking is increasing. The only certainty is that street work has greatly reduced, but given that NI has (by PSNI estimates) less than 20 street workers in total, that's a peripheral issue.

Unfortunately you are correct Empirical -- criminalisation will inevitably be seen as an open invitation to organised crime. Proponents claimed that selling sex would be decriminalised. That clearly isn't going to happen. SWs still won't be able to work together for safety, even in twos and while escorting may (as now) not be an arrestable offence in itself, police efforts to detain clients will inevitably bring attention to the escort themselves, potentially resulting in problems with neighbours and possible eviction. A further problem for SWs will be the reduced number of 'respectable' clients and the reduced ability to screen buyers generally.

Nothing about this law will help sex workers, nor is it intended to. Frances Fitzgerald at least had the honesty/stupidity to say this was about ''sending a message'' and ''not wanting to normalise buying girls.'' That second quote requires no further comment.