SAAFE forum
General Category => Politics and academic/media queries => Topic started by: Cass on 08 December 2020, 12:10:53 pm
-
Just because we haven't had enough shit to deal with this year, Diana Johnson MP intends to introduce a ten minute rule bill tomorrow in the latest attempt to introduce the Nordic model in England and Wales.
On the scot-pep website there's a tool to email your MP to ask them to oppose this so please do it if you can, it only takes 2 minutes. https://scotpep.eaction.org.uk/NoNordicModel/search
-
Done.
Will tweet it out also.
-
Done.
-
Same old same old...
Dame Diana Johnson will, tomorrow, propose:
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to criminalise paying for sex; to decriminalise selling sex; to create offences relating to enabling or profiting from another person’s sexual exploitation; to make associated provision about sexual exploitation online; to make provision for support services for victims of sexual exploitation; and for connected purposes."
SOURCE: https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/document/43648/ html TO USE THIS LINK, PLEASE JOIN THE HTML WITH THE / THAT PRECEDES IT.
-
Just tweeted and wrote to her.
-
I have since sent my local MP a further personal request to oppose the motion for the Sex-Buyer Law today:
***
Dear Mr Lammy (or representative),
This is a follow-up to my message to you of yesterday regarding Dame Diana Johnson's motion, due to be proposed at some time after noon today, to make the purchase of sex a criminal offence. I write again with knowledge of the content of the motion which I did not have yesterday:
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to criminalise paying for sex; to decriminalise selling sex; to create offences relating to enabling or profiting from another person’s sexual exploitation; to make associated provision about sexual exploitation online; to make provision for support services for victims of sexual exploitation; and for connected purposes."
I urge you to oppose her motion for the following reasons:
1) Suggestion 1 and suggestion 2 contradict each other. Obvious (and overwhelming) stupidity, such as I feel is shown by this fact, should never be a basis for any law.
2) Suggestion 2 is already enshrined in law, the intrinsic act of exchanging sex for payment being fully legal.
3) Suggestion 3, similarly, is already enshrined in law.
4) If Mrs Johnson's aim, with her motion, is to reduce sexual exploitation, as implied in point 3 of this list, this matter is already addressed by law. It is against the law to have sex, whether wittingly or unwittingly, with someone who has been coerced or exploited, for example. The laws against sexual exploitation / sex trafficking, slavery, rape, false imprisonment, and physical assault, amongst others, further address the problem of sexual exploitation.
5) There is evidence showing that most prostitution is autonomously-engaged and consenting in nature, not forced. SOURE: National Ugly Mugs.
6) Law-abiding adults, which I believe includes the vast majority of adults in England and Wales, deserve sexual freedom. We do not deserve a "nanny state" in which we are treated like children. Understanding this, and legislating in accordance with it, takes nothing more than common sense, in my view.
7) The Sex-Buyer Law serves to create a class of criminals who are, in principle, easy to catch but who in reality (and in general) do no harm whatsoever.
8 The fact that the Sex-Buyer Law is in place in some countries does not necessarily make it a rational, meaningful, and fair law. Hurting prostitutes, which the Sex-Buyer has been proven to do both in Sweden and in other countries that have this law, was amongst its key objectives, for instance. SOURCE: 1) National Ugly Mugs. 2) Dr Jay Levy 2014: "Criminalising the Purchase of Sex: Lessons from Sweden". Irrational, meaningless, unfair and blatantly vindictive laws are wrong, to my mind, so, in my opinion, the purchase of sex should not be criminalised.
9) The proven increase in the level of violence against prostitutes is arguably the main way in which the Sex-Buyer Law has hurt prostitutes. It is not, however, the only way. SOURCE: 1) National Ugly Mugs 2) Levy 2014.
10) This very evening, I, a 44-year-old woman, shall be paying someone to come to my home and have sex with me. What has this got to do with anyone except me and him?
-
Be warned, her office is reporting twitter accounts of sex workers who tweet her r.e. this bill and the Nordic model. If you don't want to lose your twitter account for being an escort just write to her instead! ::)
-
I've had a quick read up about it, but I'm not really sure what this means. Is anyone able to explain in layman's terms?
-
Be warned, her office is reporting twitter accounts of sex workers who tweet her r.e. this bill and the Nordic model...
...but only because she wants to rescue voiceless victims of sexual slavery (like ourselves), not because prostitution simply disgusts her, or anything...
-
I've had a quick read up about it, but I'm not really sure what this means. Is anyone able to explain in layman's terms?
A bill is a proposal for a new law or a change in the law, and the ten minute rule allows backbencher MPs to make a 10 minute speech proposing a new bill in the hope that it will become a bill and eventually become law. That's how I understand it although I'm not an expert.
The Nordic model is a name for making it illegal to buy sex in all circumstances. Its been tried in a few countries and is known to drive sex workers underground and into situations where they are unable to negotiate boundaries, it's also been shown to increase violence and harassment towards us. (Sorry if I'm telling you stuff you already know I just wasn't sure what bit you wanted explaining)
-
A bill is a proposal for a new law or a change in the law, and the ten minute rule allows backbencher MPs to make a 10 minute speech proposing a new bill in the hope that it will become a bill and eventually become law. That's how I understand it although I'm not an expert.
The Nordic model is a name for making it illegal to buy sex in all circumstances. Its been tried in a few countries and is known to drive sex workers underground and into situations where they are unable to negotiate boundaries, it's also been shown to increase violence and harassment towards us. (Sorry if I'm telling you stuff you already know I just wasn't sure what bit you wanted explaining)
Also Nordic model laws tend to be accompanied by other legislation making things such as obtaining accommodation very difficult, it's not just the actual criminalisation of purchasers which is the problem although that is bad enough.
-
Bet they’ll use the most dramatic examples like that MP has on her Twitter. Zero interest in the majority who was never coerced into anything.
-
Okay so the first reading has passed, which is apparently not unusual before MP's have had a chance to look at the bill. But it's pretty vital that we get MP's to understand and oppose it now before the second reading.
-
A bill is a proposal for a new law or a change in the law, and the ten minute rule allows backbencher MPs to make a 10 minute speech proposing a new bill in the hope that it will become a bill and eventually become law. That's how I understand it although I'm not an expert.
That's about it. There are two slots each week that the Commons sits. The MP makes that speech, someone else can speak against (only), there might be a vote. If it passes, it goes into a queue for a 'second reading' it will probably never emerge from, because another sort of backbench MP bill gets priority and some of those never get to a second reading.
They're a bit of gesture politics, really.
-
What's your guess as to the cause of the Dame's crass and demented thinking, then? :FF
If I had to guess I'd say she cares more about getting rid of us than making us safe, but then she'd probably tell me that she knows better than me about my life, my job and what I need to be safe.
Also Nordic model laws tend to be accompanied by other legislation making things such as obtaining accommodation very difficult, it's not just the actual criminalisation of purchasers which is the problem although that is bad enough.
Totally. It's the bit about 'enabling' another persons sexual exploitation (by which they mean all prostitution ::) ) in this one that pissed me off the most, reminds me of operation homeless in Norway where even allowing a sex worker to work from home was an offence and designed to get sex workers evicted.
I've had a reply from my MP which didn't actually address anything but told me about SEISS and the swarm fund (as if I didn't know about this already for Christ's sake) so I'll be trying again to get him to actually listen and give a shit.
-
...They're a bit of gesture politics, really.
...but as this law is in place as close as Northern Ireland, and as the Scottish government is currently pushing to bring it to Scotland, we can't afford to just sit back, IMO.
-
Okay so the first reading has passed, which is apparently not unusual before MP's have had a chance to look at the bill.
The turnout for the debates can be fairly low, depending on where they are in the day. When the details are on parliament.uk (and I can't spot them there yet) it's worth seeing what your MP did: vote for, vote against, or not vote and target your response appropriately.
But it's pretty vital that we get MP's to understand and oppose it now before the second reading.
There isn't going to be one. If it has passed - and it's not showing as having done so - it will join a queue, and as well as being behind previous ten minute bills, it's behind every single 'private members bill'. There's a ballot for twenty of those at the start of every Parliamentary session to be in that bit of the queue, and only those ones ahead of something one of the bigots doesn't like has any chance of getting through to a vote on its second reading.
So ten minute rule bills have almost zero chance. This one will be (counts) 50th in that second queue, or 70th overall.
-
...but as this law is in place as close as Northern Ireland, and as the Scottish government is currently pushing to bring it to Scotland, we can't afford to just sit back, IMO.
I'm absolutely not saying the fight against the dangerous bit of gesture politics that's criminalising clients isn't important, but that this particular bill isn't going anywhere.
Using it as an opportunity to do some lobbying, great.
-
The MP who spoke against was Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham, also Labour) and she nailed many of the reasons for going 'this is harmful crap'.
It is scheduled for the second reading (= stage, each bill is 'read' at least three times in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, with the second and third readings being the real debates, before becoming a law) on the 29th January, but so are a bunch of others. This will be nowhere near the start of the queue and if there's no time for it, it just doesn't happen.
-
The two speeches are here: hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-12-09/debates/87394231-D941-4EC4-A744-52643AB26E5C/SexualExploitation
-
Thank you xw5. That's all good to know!
-
The two speeches are here: hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-12-09/debates/87394231-D941-4EC4-A744-52643AB26E5C/SexualExploitation
Thank you
-
Would this bill also be about removing advertising of escort / adult sites such as AW & Viva st like they did in the USA
Or is it mainly the Nordic model
I know that in Norway & Sweden despite having the Nordic model all the main advertising sites that have been running for years are still online
And in Ireland you still have Escort Ireland for Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland
-
Would this bill also be about removing advertising of escort / adult sites such as AW & Viva st like they did in the USA
Or is it mainly the Nordic model
It's designed to be both, this is what Diana Johnson has said about it;
"My Sexual Exploitation Bill would deter demand by criminalising paying for sex. It would prevent pimping websites from fuelling trafficking by prohibiting enabling or profiting from another person’s prostitution. Crucially, my bill would also decriminalise victims of sexual exploitation by removing sanctions for soliciting, and instead give victims the support services they need to rebuild their lives."
So criminalising buying, preventing websites from 'enabling' another persons prostitution, removing sanctions from soliciting (good, but not sure if that means actually decriminalising it & no mention of removing or amending brothel laws so we could work together) & presumably teaching us how to use a sewing machine so we can learn our place and do 'good' work since they consider us all to be victims :D.
Anyway, xw5 knows what he's talking about so hopefully it'll come to nothing but it doesn't hurt to fight back against the disinformation.
-
...& presumably teaching us how to use a sewing machine so we can learn our place and do 'good' work since they consider us all to be victims :D.
Haha!
-
Thank you Cass
I’ve been reading up on 10min bills and 99 percent of them go nowhere as Ian mentioned
And most MPs use as a way of of gaining publicity for there causes
Glad that one MP spoke against it as well -
-
Is there a place to check what each particular MP has voted?
-
Is there a place to check what each particular MP has voted?
Voting records are usually on theyworkforyou.com, and people can also find their MP on there with the postcode search :).
-
Is there a place to check what each particular MP has voted?
There is, as Amy said, but there wasn't a vote at this stage.
If you look at the page on the debate linked to earlier, "Question put and agreed to" is Parliamentary speak for 'not enough people objected to bother having a vote'. That doesn't mean a vast majority were in favour, so much as there being people not wanting to go on record as opposing this - one of the reasons that Lyn Brown deserves applause for being the person who spoke against it - and knowing that it's extremely unlikely to be going anywhere anyway.
-
There is, as Amy said, but there wasn't a vote at this stage.
If you look at the page on the debate linked to earlier, "Question put and agreed to" is Parliamentary speak for 'not enough people objected to bother having a vote'. That doesn't mean a vast majority were in favour, so much as there being people not wanting to go on record as opposing this - one of the reasons that Lyn Brown deserves applause for being the person who spoke against it - and knowing that it's extremely unlikely to be going anywhere anyway.
Ahh got it, thank you! I was trying to look for what did I do wrong since I wasn't able to find what my MP had voted. I guess it makes sense, no one wants to oppose a "sexual exploitation" bill without giving it a read at least.
-
Below is the reply from my local MP, which I received today, to my request for him to oppose Dame Johnson's bill.
As you can see, the main message is that, as xw5 anticipated, the bill is unlikely to progress any further.
*
Thank you for contacting me about the law around sex work.
I appreciate this is an issue on which there are a range of strongly held views.
As you know, the Sexual Exploitation Bill, which was introduced to Parliament as a Private Members’ Bill, would criminalise paying for sex, decriminalise selling sex, criminalise enabling or profiting from the sexual exploitation of others, and provide support services for victims of sexual exploitation.
This Bill was scheduled to have its Second Reading debate in the House of Commons on Friday 5 February 2021. However, sitting Fridays have been suspended until further notice because of the current situation with coronavirus. In any case, the Sexual Exploitation Bill was very low down on the Order Paper for that day and was therefore unlikely to make further progress. While Private Members’ Bills are not often successful, they are a good way for individual MPs to raise important issues.
I am aware that similar legislation, known as the ‘Nordic Model’ or Sex Buyer Law, has been introduced in several countries, and has been advocated by different organisations. I am also aware that others wish to see the full decriminalisation of sex work, based on legislation in New Zealand.
In 2016, the UK Government noted that Northern Ireland has adopted the ‘Nordic Model’ and said it would assess the implementation and impact of such a change across the UK. In 2020, it said it had not seen unequivocal evidence that decriminalisation is the best way to reduce harm and exploitation.
I firmly believe that all sex workers should have full access to excellent, reliable and life-changing information and support. They should be treated respectfully, fairly and positively. Those who wish to exit sex work must be given genuine alternatives.
We must also mobilise all available measures to disrupt and respond robustly to sexual exploitation. It is very concerning that a 2018 inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade found that sexual exploitation of women by organised crime groups is widespread across the UK.
Thank you once again for contacting me and for sharing your views. I assure you I will follow any developments in this area closely.