Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Common sense in Scotland

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    660
    Reviews
    3

    Default Common sense in Scotland

    From The Guardian:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ish-parliament

    The UK’s first ever comprehensive proposals to protect sex workers’ safety and rights, based on the successful New Zealand model, were lodged in the Scottish parliament last week. Jean Urquhart, the independent MSP who brought these proposals forward, worked closely with sex worker-led organisations for months – and the results are what award-winning safety charity National Ugly Mugs calls “sensible, evidence-based” reforms that “could save lives”.



    There are four key laws that criminalise sex workers in Scotland, targeted for repeal. First, soliciting – which directly criminalises sex workers on the street; typically women. This law makes street-based sex workers vulnerable to violence by pushing them into the shadows, and a conviction makes getting a different job much harder. Interestingly, previous failed attempts to bring the disastrous Swedish model to Scotland did not include the repeal of the soliciting law, despite disingenuous feminist rhetoric that implied otherwise (“my bill is not criminalising the women … being prostituted, but rather the clients”). This, then, is the first time there has been a serious attempt to repeal the soliciting law, despite the damage it causes.

    Next, the 2007 kerb-crawling law, which criminalises the clients of street-based sex workers. UK Home Office research found that the “downside” of police operations targeting clients on the street was that “it appeared [to the support agency] to have increased the vulnerability” of sex workers, with clients jumpy, so “women [have] … less time negotiating business with clients, increasing the likelihood of being unable to spot a ‘dodgy punter’”. Increasing sex workers’ vulnerability to violence cannot be an acceptable “downside” to legislation, hence the Scottish push to repeal this law.

    The third law that these proposals seek to repeal is the brothel-keeping law. Two women working together for safety can each be prosecuted for brothel-keeping the other: an obvious example of criminalisation making sex workers unsafe, as we’re forced to work alone or face arrest. Furthermore, when we work for a manager, criminalising our workplaces means we have no labour rights protection. Urquhart’s proposals would enable small groups of sex workers to work together in informal co-operatives, while licensing larger, commercial brothels so that, for the first time, our managers can be background-checked and governed by workplace health and safety.

    The final law that Urquhart is seeking to repeal is around “living on the avails”, which criminalises anyone who shares bills with a sex worker – our grown-up kids, if we’re supporting them through (say) university, or our partners or flatmates. Sex workers have relationships like everybody else: criminalising these relationships is isolating, and means we don’t to go to the police if we’re victims of crime, for fear that this law will be used against our families.


    The New Zealand model – which these proposals draw on – was enacted in 2003, and since then has been endorsed by organisations such as Amnesty International, the World Health Organisation and the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women as the legal framework that best upholds the safety and rights of people who sell sex. An evaluation in New Zealand found that “over 90% of sex workers contacted … stated that they felt they now had employment rights, health and safety rights, and legal rights”. That includes street-based sex workers, who tend to be the most marginalised – of whom “90% said they felt they had employment rights, and 96% said they felt they had legal rights”. New Zealand sex workers can hold their managers to account through labour law: a woman successfully prosecuted her manager at a brothel for sexual harassment.

    This issue can be divisive within feminism, but these proposals have been widely welcomed – suggesting we are finally moving beyond the kind of simplistic analysis that assumes criminalising what people are doing to survive will somehow deliver those people more choices. As Urquhart writes: “Whatever a person’s reasons for selling sex … they clearly do not benefit if they are working in a context where the law puts them in danger of violence.” Even though there will not be time for these proposals to be passed before next May’s Scottish elections, we are hoping to resume this legislative push in the next Scottish parliament.

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Empirical For This Useful Post:

    GOSHH (23-09-15), ladiesman217 (17-09-15), MidlifeCrisis (17-09-15), milkman (17-09-15), N001 (20-09-15), nonpareil (17-09-15)

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    629
    Reviews
    25

    Default

    It does seem to show how completely backward most Irish politicians on both sides of the border are in terms of this issue. TBF ,there's plenty of politicians in UK and Scotland who see prostitution as a very black and white issue and are willing to use made up stats to prove their point.

    It is interesting however to see that the usual suspects who refer to women in prostitution purely as victims welcome the forthcoming bill which will continue to rebrand 'victims' as 'criminals' - saw Aodhan O Riordhan tweeting his support for the Bill earlier - of course making no reference to the criminalisation of those very women whom he et al happily labelled as needed to be saved.

    Cue cross-party cheerleading of this legislation when everyone knows but denies the major problems with it.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to milkman For This Useful Post:

    N001 (20-09-15)

  5. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    18,153
    Reviews
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Empirical View Post
    From The Guardian:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ish-parliament

    The UK’s first ever comprehensive proposals to protect sex workers’ safety and rights, based on the successful New Zealand model, were lodged in the Scottish parliament last week. Jean Urquhart, the independent MSP who brought these proposals forward, worked closely with sex worker-led organisations for months – and the results are what award-winning safety charity National Ugly Mugs calls “sensible, evidence-based” reforms that “could save lives”.



    There are four key laws that criminalise sex workers in Scotland, targeted for repeal. First, soliciting – which directly criminalises sex workers on the street; typically women. This law makes street-based sex workers vulnerable to violence by pushing them into the shadows, and a conviction makes getting a different job much harder. Interestingly, previous failed attempts to bring the disastrous Swedish model to Scotland did not include the repeal of the soliciting law, despite disingenuous feminist rhetoric that implied otherwise (“my bill is not criminalising the women … being prostituted, but rather the clients”). This, then, is the first time there has been a serious attempt to repeal the soliciting law, despite the damage it causes.

    Next, the 2007 kerb-crawling law, which criminalises the clients of street-based sex workers. UK Home Office research found that the “downside” of police operations targeting clients on the street was that “it appeared [to the support agency] to have increased the vulnerability” of sex workers, with clients jumpy, so “women [have] … less time negotiating business with clients, increasing the likelihood of being unable to spot a ‘dodgy punter’”. Increasing sex workers’ vulnerability to violence cannot be an acceptable “downside” to legislation, hence the Scottish push to repeal this law.

    The third law that these proposals seek to repeal is the brothel-keeping law. Two women working together for safety can each be prosecuted for brothel-keeping the other: an obvious example of criminalisation making sex workers unsafe, as we’re forced to work alone or face arrest. Furthermore, when we work for a manager, criminalising our workplaces means we have no labour rights protection. Urquhart’s proposals would enable small groups of sex workers to work together in informal co-operatives, while licensing larger, commercial brothels so that, for the first time, our managers can be background-checked and governed by workplace health and safety.

    The final law that Urquhart is seeking to repeal is around “living on the avails”, which criminalises anyone who shares bills with a sex worker – our grown-up kids, if we’re supporting them through (say) university, or our partners or flatmates. Sex workers have relationships like everybody else: criminalising these relationships is isolating, and means we don’t to go to the police if we’re victims of crime, for fear that this law will be used against our families.


    The New Zealand model – which these proposals draw on – was enacted in 2003, and since then has been endorsed by organisations such as Amnesty International, the World Health Organisation and the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women as the legal framework that best upholds the safety and rights of people who sell sex. An evaluation in New Zealand found that “over 90% of sex workers contacted … stated that they felt they now had employment rights, health and safety rights, and legal rights”. That includes street-based sex workers, who tend to be the most marginalised – of whom “90% said they felt they had employment rights, and 96% said they felt they had legal rights”. New Zealand sex workers can hold their managers to account through labour law: a woman successfully prosecuted her manager at a brothel for sexual harassment.

    This issue can be divisive within feminism, but these proposals have been widely welcomed – suggesting we are finally moving beyond the kind of simplistic analysis that assumes criminalising what people are doing to survive will somehow deliver those people more choices. As Urquhart writes: “Whatever a person’s reasons for selling sex … they clearly do not benefit if they are working in a context where the law puts them in danger of violence.” Even though there will not be time for these proposals to be passed before next May’s Scottish elections, we are hoping to resume this legislative push in the next Scottish parliament.
    Ah sure good old Frances knows better like..... Ignorant bigoted cunt!
    Last edited by ladiesman217; 17-09-15 at 23:30.
    I'm not insane, I'm adorably bonkers!!!

    © Frumsp & LDM Industries

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ladiesman217 For This Useful Post:

    BradArmPitt (19-09-15), the traveller (19-09-15)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •