See also the main SAAFE.info site for more Support And Advice For Escorts

Author Topic: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission  (Read 5389 times)

NationalUglyMugs

  • Project Worker
  • New Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1
Hi everyone,

the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission have started an enquiry into prostitution. As part of this they have asked that workers send in information on the impact of the law on their human rights. National Ugly Mugs will of course be sending in a submission, but it would be great if individual workers could send in submissions too. You can answer as many or as few of the questions as you'd like. I've pasted the full call for evidence below.

Thanks,

Sarah

Inquiry into the Reform of Prostitution Law

 According to their response to the Home Affairs Select Committee’s Report on Prostitution (2016), the Government is “committed to tackling the harm and exploitation that can be associated with prostitution.” All the major campaigning voices agree that the current legal
settlement falls short of this objective. There is, therefore, an argument to be made for further reflection and policymaking.
Broadly speaking, there are two dominant perspectives regarding legislation: full decriminalisation, which seeks to repeal all prostitution specific laws, and a legislative model which repeals offences which apply to those in prostitution, while criminalising the purchase of sex. These alternative models derive from different understandings of what prostitution is, varied philosophical perspectives - especially regarding the nature of personal autonomy - and conflicting views about how practically to mitigate sexual exploitation.
That said, there are some areas of correspondence. It is widely acknowledged that prostitution is and has been a vehicle for sexual exploitation, including human trafficking. This is recognised by international legal instruments such as, Article 6 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1949) and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979). Most activists also agree that people in prostitution should not themselves suffer criminal sanctions.

Recent parliamentary reports on this issue have been the APPG for Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade’s Shifting the Burden (2014) and the Home Affairs Select Committee’s Inquiry into Prostitution (2016).  The former looked closely at the operation of the current legal settlement and concluded that current UK law was “failing to protect those most vulnerable and to adequately prosecute perpetrators”  and the latter looked at whether the burden of criminality should shift to those who pay for sex rather than those who sell it. That Inquiry
came to the conclusion existing legislation should be changed in order to decriminalise soliciting and ensure that that brothel-keeping provisions allow those in prostitution to share premises. The Government’s response to this Inquiry highlighted their hesitation to make any formal changes to legislation without further investigation:

We are aware of the different legislative approaches to prostitution taken across the world, and we have yet to see unequivocal evidence that any one approach is better at tackling harm and exploitation, which remains our priority.
As the Committee highlights, there are difficulties with the evidence base in this area. In particular, we share the Committee’s concerns that the various alternative approaches put forward by experts and academics fall short of offering complete models which take into account the diverse experiences of those involved in prostitution and sex work. Also, as reflected upon by the Committee, none of these are directly transferable to the context of England and Wales for a number of practical reasons. However, we recognise that there may be elements of these approaches which could be valuable in reducing harm.


   The Government Response to the Home Affairs Select Committee’s Inquiry into Prostitution

 This Conservative Party Human Right’s Commission’s Inquiry recognises that sexual exploitation is a human rights violation. The overarching goal of this Inquiry is to consider how best to reduce sexual exploitation, linked to prostitution, and its attendant abuses together with improving protection for vulnerable individuals, including trafficked people. In so doing, this Inquiry will scrutinise differing views on when prostitution is believed to become exploitative. It will also further collate and interrogate extant evidence for the efficacy of different legislative models with particular focus on global attempts to criminalise the purchase of sexual services.


 Terms of Reference:
The Inquiry’s full terms of reference are:
 (i) To consider how policies responding to prostitution impact the protection of human rights
  (ii)  To examine evidence on the impact of two models of legislation in different countries on:

 (a) Personal autonomy and choice of those affected;
 (b) The safety of people in prostitution;
(c) The exploitation of foreign migrants and trafficked persons;
(d) The support and opportunities available for those who wish to exit prostitution

    The two models to be considered here are - “full decriminalisation” in which all prostitution-specific laws are removed and the so-called      “Nordic” model in which those in prostitution are decriminalised but where it is a criminal offence to purchase, organise, manage or profit from prostitution.


  (ii) To examine the adequacy of current legislation in the UK and the likely impact of the two proposed legislative models.

(iii) To explore the schools of thought underpinning differing perspectives on prostitution and to assess their claims in the light of available evidence.

(iv) To make recommendations for the UK Government.


Timeline:

28 March 2018:
 Oral evidence session with four people who have lived prostitution.

 Early April 2018:
 Call for evidence opens
This will be open to the general public and responses will be gathered by the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. Submissions will
 be sent to the Commission email (cphrc.inquiry@gmail.com) or by post.

 18 April 2018:

Debate on the motion: should men have the right to buy sex?

 25 April 2018:

  Oral evidence session on the nature of work and human trafficking.



Call for Evidence:

The Inquiry requests responses to this call for evidence as soon as possible. The deadline for submissions is 6 p.m. on 17th May 2018.

Evidence can be submitted via email at cphrc.inquiry@gmail.com Alternatively, you can write to:

 Fiona Bruce MP
Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission House of Commons
Westminster
London

Please note there is an upper limit of 4000 words per submission. Evidence will be made public once the report has been published. Please do, therefore, indicate if you wish your evidence to be kept anonymous.

Respondent’s Details:
Name:
 Contact Details:

Are you responding on behalf of an Organisation or as an individual? Name of Organisation (if applicable):
Position in Organisation (if applicable):


Please describe your interest in the questions raised by this inquiry:

If you do not wish your identity to be published alongside your submission, please specify your reason. If the entirely of your submission is confidential and you do not want any part of it to be published, please state your reason for this.


Call for Evidence questions:
1. Have you lived in a jurisdiction which has passed laws following either the full decriminalisation or Nordic models relating to prostitution? If so, please describe your experience.

2. How do you think these two models - which have received the most attention in recent years - impact;
(a) The safety of those in prostitution;
(b) Exploitation of foreign migrants and trafficked persons;
 (c) Exiting services.

3. What legislative change would you like to see? How would it affect the daily reality of those in prostitution?

4. At what point does prostitution become exploitation?

5. Additional comments.

« Last Edit: 08 May 2018, 02:27:04 am by NationalUglyMugs »

seraphine

  • Guest
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #1 on: 09 May 2018, 12:25:09 pm »
Thank you NUM ! I'll email them before May 17th.

NationalUglyMugs

  • Project Worker
  • New Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #2 on: 09 May 2018, 11:18:31 pm »
Thank you NUM ! I'll email them before May 17th.

Thank you!

Sarah

Braziliana

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #3 on: 10 May 2018, 07:11:34 pm »
Sarah, will the contribution of NUM to this inquiry be published on the website (like your responses to previous inquiries)?  I would like to read it, you understand. 

Reading NUM responses to previous inquiries has helped inform my own response to this latest one (shown below).  I am presenting it here to get feedback on it from forum members before I submit it (if any forum-members are willing to do so).  I would also like to know if there is to be a collective SAAFE response to the call for evidence.  If so, I am happy to contribute to it (if whoever is in charge would like one such contribution).

Sarah, do you believe that our views will actually make a difference?  I do not hold out much hope of this personally, particularly after learning, through NUM, of the TUC's rejection of sex workers' rights.  (I am responding to the call for evidence even so, mind).

***

1.  Have you lived in a jurisdiction which has passed laws following either the full decriminalisation or Nordic models relating to prostitution? If so, please describe your experience. 

N/A.

2.  How do you think these two models - which have received the most attention in recent years - impact

a) the safety of those in prostitution

The Nordic model:
 
To my knowledge, one of the aims of the Nordic model was to make it difficult (or more difficult) to work as a prostitute.  To me, this is wholly incompatible with the notion of improving safety in prostitution.

Some prostitutes are happy to a) have their prostitution managed and, in engaging with that, to b) allow others to profit from their prostitution.  The safety and protection offered in some massage parlours and saunas is precisely what attracts a number of prostitutes to those places of work.  The example offered by City Sauna of Sheffield, a brothel whose day-to-day activities were documented in the 2015 Channel 4 documentary "A Very British Brothel", is just one example of this.  It is the managing of and profiting from any prostitution other than one's own through coercion that should be a criminal offence, in my opinion.  This is to address the element of the Nordic model which makes it a criminal offence to "manage or profit from prostitution". 

As to any idea that making it a crime to purchase the services of prostitutes somehow improves the safety of those in prostitution, I am personally unable to take this suggestion in any way seriously. 

Full decriminalisation of prostitution:

Owing to my ignorance of the full set of laws relating to prostitution, I cannot give a fully informed view of the possible impact of the wholesale decriminalisation of prostitution on the safety of those working as prostitutes.  Sharing work-premises generally improves safety in prostitution (as I observed earlier in reference to massage parlours and saunas), the decriminalising of which having been endorsed even by the Home Affairs Select Committee's Inquiry into Prostitution of 2016.  Similarly, in my view, consensual procuring should, for the reasons presented earlier again, be decriminalised (but not non-consensual procuring / sexual slavery, of course).

b) exploitation of foreign migrants and trafficked persons?

The Nordic model:
 
I do not believe that this would bring about any significant reduction in sexual exploitation for anyone, foreign or otherwise; sex-traffickers have no fear whatsoever of the law, I feel.   

Full decriminalisation of prostitution:

As I stated directly above, I believe sexual slavery, which can involve individuals native to the country (as you know) as well as foreigners, will always exist whatever the law of the land may say.  This notion is backed by the government's own response to the Home Affairs Select Committee's Inquiry into Prostitution of 2016 (part of which is quoted below under "Additional Comments").

c) exiting services?

As to what these may comprise, I can only conjecture that assistance with matters like accommodation, benefits, employment and counselling (for addiction and / or trauma, say) will be amongst them.  If so, it should be borne in mind that, just as in the situation of full decriminalisation, the Nordic model does not render prostitution itself a criminal offence.  In principle at least, then, a prostitute working under either model should have no fear of prosecution, for instance, in result of exposing him or herself as a prostitute in order to access the named services.  Where this matter is concerned, then, to my mind, the two models are equal; a prostitute under either model should be able to seek exiting services with complete confidence.

3.  What legislative change would you like to see?  How would it affect the daily reality of those in prostitution?

1.  Ensuring that any laws relating to sexual exploitation / non-consensual prostitution do not impinge, in any way, on consensual prostitution.  (This view is reflected in the rest of my response, presented below, to this question).  The matter of sexual exploitation / sexual slavery should, in my opinion, be dealt with as a completely separate phenomenon to autonomously-engaged, consensual prostitution.  (As you can probably tell, I am concerned that any measures to eradicate sexual slavery - a most worthy cause, in my view - may interfere with consensual prostitution).

2.  Making it legal for prostitutes to share work-premises.  To me, this will significantly improve safety in prostitution.

3.  Making consensual procuring legal.  This is how massage parlours and saunas, which many prostitutes prefer as work-places for reasons of safety, operate.

4.  Making public soliciting legal (in line with the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee's Inquiry into Prostitution, 2016).  For some prostitutes, this is the only way to find customers (and I cannot see what purpose it serves to arrest an individual and pursue him or her through law - using up valuable police time and resources in the process - for doing so).

These are the only laws (or elements of law) relating to prostitution of which I have any knowledge so I cannot suggest any further legislative changes.

4.  At what point does prostitution become exploitation?

Being subject to systematic rape (in the course of one's prostitution) along with other forms of physical abuse (such as being drugged, beaten up and / or held prisoner) while receiving little-to-none of the money from one's prostitution is more than a matter of exploitation, I say.  I understand that these are the experiences of a great many trafficked (or otherwise non-consenting) prostitutes.
Even less extreme forms of exploitation of prostitutes, which arise, like all other forms of exploitation in prostitution, through non-consenting involvement by a third party in one's prostitution, can have serious effects on a prostitute's life.

5.  Additional comments.

Are the Nordic model and full decriminalisation of prostitution the only 2 possible solutions to the issue of sexual exploitation?  If so, according to the government's response to the Home Affairs Select Committee's Inquiry into Prostitution of 2016, either strategy would be a waste of time: "We are aware of the different legislative approaches to prostitution taken across the world, and we have yet to see unequivocal evidence that any one approach is better at tackling harm and exploitation, which remains our priority".  (My assessment assumes that, as in the case of the Nordic model, there is at least one country where the situation of full decriminalisation is in place).  Personally, I believe that there are possible strategies for tackling sexual exploitation other than the two named.

To me, full decriminalisation of consensual, autonomously-engaged prostitution should be in place irrespective of its impact, if any, on the issue of sexual exploitation.  As I have implied at several earlier points, the introduction of either the Nordic model or any model that makes a sexual transaction between consenting adults a crime (for any one or more of the transacting parties) is thoroughly unfair, in my opinion.  In counter to the possible argument that full decriminalisation will only serve to bolster sexual exploitation, we do not ban driving because some people cause accidents through irresponsible driving.  We do not ban alcoholic drinks because some people become alcoholics.  It is unfair, in my view, to deprive everyone of a given activity, which may stem from either desire or need (and which, if indulged responsibly, causes no harm), simply because some people abuse the activity concerned. 

Introducing more stringent background checks for potential rental tenants (since sex-traffickers often rent premises for their exploitative practices, as I understand it), incentivising neighbourhood watch schemes (in order to increase their number), expanding nationwide CCTV coverage, introducing tougher penalties (including, possibly, life imprisonment) for crimes involving sexual exploitation, and increasing police numbers may all help combat sexual slavery.  (As I observed earlier, however, I believe that perpetrators of sexual exploitation, like many if not most other criminals, generally have no fear of the law).

On the point of criminalising the purchase of sexual services (which some women as well as men do [just as there are some men as well as women who work as prostitutes]), I consider this proposal glaringly illogical (not to mention highly insulting and shockingly crass).  Even if one such law could be effectively and fairly enforced - which I very much doubt - in my view, this would be an outrageous misuse of (already over-stretched) police resources (and time) at the taxpayer's expense. Moreover, the people who have paid me for sex since I became a prostitute (July 2015) have enabled me to clear £40,00 of debt, gather savings, and open up my future once more.  Given this, I cannot be anything other than utterly scandalised by the suggestion that any adult individual who buys sexual services from a willing adult seller should ever be considered a criminal for doing so (hence why I deem one such proposal markedly insulting).

amy

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,401
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #4 on: 10 May 2018, 07:20:08 pm »
I don't have time to read the rest as my battery is on its arse but its conclude not conjecture :).

SimplySinful

  • Guest
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #5 on: 11 May 2018, 10:29:12 am »
I think it’s definately worth responding.  If we do not respond, can’t be bothered etc, then we have no right to complain if for example the Nordic Model eventually becomes law here.

Because that is one of the things being discussed by this enquiry.

Please everyone get off your arses and respond.  There’s no point in responding on this thread, the point is to make our voices heard. 

See the long post at the start of the thread by NUM for all info including who contact, what the questions are, and what is being discussed.

Braziliana

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #6 on: 12 May 2018, 03:08:53 pm »
I have now submitted my response.  I made a few changes to the version presented above.
So there is not going to be a collective SAAFE response, then?  (Nobody is in any way obliged to respond, I am aware).
I want full decriminalisation of prostitution.  I can't see this happening, I have to say, but I am adding my voice to the cause regardless.

amy

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,401
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #7 on: 12 May 2018, 05:25:24 pm »
Well a 'collective' SAAFE response isn't possible, because SAAFE isn't a person and nobody here speaks for everybody else. I can write mine, you can write yours and everybody else can write theirs' :).

NationalUglyMugs

  • Project Worker
  • New Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #8 on: 15 May 2018, 10:31:44 am »
Sorry just been catching up as I've been away.
All submissions will be publicly available (unless the contributor has specified that they shouldn't be).
Everyone should write in should they feel able. The other side (i.e. the Nordic Model) supporters are very well organised and will be sending in as many submissions as possible.

Sarah

SimplySinful

  • Guest
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #9 on: 15 May 2018, 10:50:01 am »
Sorry just been catching up as I've been away.
All submissions will be publicly available (unless the contributor has specified that they shouldn't be).
Everyone should write in should they feel able. The other side (i.e. the Nordic Model) supporters are very well organised and will be sending in as many submissions as possible.

Sarah

I am in the middle of writing my submission.  I always knew a lot about the Nordic Model but have found out a lot of useful stuff about decrim.

As NUM says, if you don’t want the Nordic Model here you should be writing in. If you think it can’t/won’t happen here you are wrong, there have been two attempts in Scotland, and its already happened in NI.


seraphine

  • Guest
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #10 on: 16 May 2018, 08:50:05 pm »
Folks, I'm sweating over this submission.

(Braziliana, thank you for posting yours! Lots of valid points, however I personally am not enthusiastic about increased CCTV coverage etc, I don't believe that giving more power to 'The Big Brother' is good in any way).

My brain is a bit frozen. Just wondering - shouldn't sex trafficking and sexual slavery be dealt with Modern Slavery Act?
I mean - slavery and human trafficking are just that.
Non-consensual sex is rape.
Why include prostitution (consensual sex) in any of above categories?  ???
I'm feeling like a village idiot but I really don't get it  :-[
« Last Edit: 16 May 2018, 08:59:59 pm by 80s synthetic »

amy

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,401
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #11 on: 16 May 2018, 09:00:41 pm »
Sex trafficking and sex slavery are indeed already dealt with by existing UK laws concerning kidnap, false imprisonment, rape, sexual assault, child abuse and fraud as well as the Palermo Protocol and others - take your pick.

Since you can't make something that is already illegal more illegal (it either is or it isn't), literally the only other people the Nordic Model directly affects are consenting adults having (paid) consensual sex.

seraphine

  • Guest
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #12 on: 16 May 2018, 09:12:49 pm »
Sex trafficking and sex slavery are indeed already dealt with by existing UK laws concerning kidnap, false imprisonment, rape, sexual assault, child abuse and fraud as well as the Palermo Protocol and others - take your pick.

Since you can't make something that is already illegal more illegal (it either is or it isn't), literally the only other people the Nordic Model directly affects are consenting adults having (paid) consensual sex.

The mindfuck!...  :FF  :o Thanks for explaining! I'm making myself another jug of coffee and will try to write something.

seraphine

  • Guest
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #13 on: 16 May 2018, 09:28:54 pm »
Do I need to put my full name and surname in the submission?
(I'll ask for it not to be published of course but still...)

Braziliana

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
Re: Call for Evidence-Conservative Party Human Rights Commission
« Reply #14 on: 16 May 2018, 09:30:25 pm »
...I personally am not enthusiastic about increased CCTV coverage etc, I don't believe that giving more power to 'The Big Brother' is good in any way...

Yes, I removed both that and the suggestion to incentivise  Neighbourhood Watch schemes from my final version.

No need to sweat over your submission, 80's.  I think you have a great argument regarding the fact that sex-trafficking is already covered by the law as it stands, for instance.