CARE in Northern Ireland

The problem with prostitution

Why do so many men still think the sex trade is fine?

The trial of Steve Wright confirms how dangerous prostitution is but legalising it would do nothing to aid the plight of women involved

(The Article below is by Catherine Bennett and was published in The Observer on Sunday January 20, 2008)

Following the example of Lord Longford, who established that, where sex is concerned, adjustments to British legislation should always be preceded by an inspection of foreign arrangements, Home Office minister Vernon Coaker toured various Stockholm addresses, investigating the impact of Sweden's decision to criminalise men who pay for sex. Whether it was a question of thrift, or a natural reluctance on Mr Coaker's part to re-enact highlights from Lord Longford's Scandinavian excursion, the Swedish researches were completed in a day, which must barely have left time for the minister and his team, including Vera Baird and Barbara Follett, to 'cooee' up a few brothel stairs and reach the conclusion that, although some Swedish people think the scheme has worked, other Swedish people think not.

The next stop on the comparative prostitution tour will, I understand, be the Netherlands, where some people think it's enlightened to have women eye-catchingly displayed as wares in shop windows, but other people don't. After that, the itinerary is unclear, though it seems unlikely the ministers will get as far as New Zealand: a pity since the islands are currently advertised by pro-legalisers as sex-trade heaven, even better than Amsterdam, where accredited sex operatives now take genuine pride in their work and clients, too, are an example to all, their connoisseurship finally liberated from those doubts which, to judge by the statistics, still deter a number of British men from trying the wide range of reasonably priced goods on offer.

So long as stocks last. Coaker is on the case, Harriet Harman wants to penalise 'the demand side' and Denis MacShane has tabled a suitable amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, with the result that websites usually preoccupied with punters' boasts and hints, are now home to agonised speculation about the effects of this triple attack. Would respectable brothels be affected by criminalisation? they wonder. Lap dancing? Strippers? Even their little bit of porn?

Many agree that they, personally, would not pay for sex with a person like Harriet 'Hormone', not if she begged them, a point they would make yet more devastatingly - and with their real names on! - were it not for the stifling conventions of their hobby. 'Due to its essentially clandestine nature, opposition from people who are prepared to stand up and be counted is going to be somewhat thin on the ground,' writes one sex-trade martyr, adding primly: 'Paying for sexual services is not an admission you would want to make public to your family, friends or work colleagues, is it?'

No? What a mercy then, that the punters' case has now been advanced by some prominent figures. In these pages, Henry Porter condemned the introduction of a law that would 'attack a choice made by two consenting adults', and in the Times, David Aaronovitch declared himself to be, after intense internal struggle, absolutely unable to see what was bad about prostitution. 'Search my conscience as hard as I can,' he wrote, 'I cannot think of anything in principle wrong with a man or a woman choosing to pay for sexual contact or to charge for it.'

And if, in reality, men and women bought and sold sex in roughly equal numbers, with neither group economically superior to the other, and no question of one half of the bargain acting under duress or abject necessity, there may, indeed, be nothing obviously wrong with the transaction. If prostitution, or 'sex work' as Aaronovitch calls it, could also be divorced from substance abuse and violence, from pimping and criminality, perhaps it could, eventually, cease looking like a widespread expression of contempt for women and become, as he suggests, a respectable alternative to cleaning for a living.

If this argument prevails, and Coaker's team plump for the legalised New Zealand model, there is no reason why we should not, before long, see sex work hailed in schools as an attractive option for less academic, diploma-style pupils, subsequently blamed for the awful shortage of reliable domestics and, in the not so distant future (the regulatory bodies having sorted out health and safety, a sensible fee structure and an ombudsman for the queues of dissatisfied customers) see it regularly mentioned in Christmas round robins from the parents of suitably qualified daughters: 'Glad to say we've finally regained the spare bedroom after Cordelia used it for sex work all through her gap year and - aside from the unsocial hours and a couple of broken bones - claims to have thoroughly enjoyed the experience!'For prostitution enthusiasts invariably have a friend of a friend who can vouch for the fact that your truly professional working girls do differ from cleaners in one important respect: far from being reluctant, they just can't get enough of it. The rest of us have only to picture Billie Piper as Belle de Jour, Fanny Hill in her corset, cheeky streetwalkers with a joke for everyone and ask, as the Ukip Euro MP Godfrey Bloom did, if men aren't the real victims of insatiable, yet calculating, female appetite: 'Outside of sex trafficking, it seems to me that it's the women exploiting the men.'

Absolutely: outside sex trafficking. If the public needed educating about sex trafficking (let's hope they are better at spotting it than punters), it seems clear that emphasis on the especial vileness of this sector has helped convince regular sex-buyers and their sympathisers that, if this imported evil could be purged from sex commerce, we would be left with a domestic trade so wholesome as to be virtually organic.

In a fascinating new study of men who buy sex, conducted for charity Toynbee Hall's Safe Exit initiative, one man described his habit as 'just like going to Tesco'. That would be the Tesco where two-thirds of female workers have been subjected to violence, around 90 per cent are addicts and a distressing number regularly get themselves murdered. Researchers concluded that 'legality contributes to normalisation, which in turn increases the likelihood of paying for sex'.

Conversely, as the Swedes are reportedly discovering, illegality contributes to non-normalisation, which in turn decreases - though it will never eliminate - the likelihood of paying for sex. Wouldn't that be a good thing? At least 150 years after Victorian philanthropists began to accept that most prostitutes are victims of circumstance, as opposed to agents of raging lust, and four decades since feminists started talking about objectification, to have to explain why the sex trade is inconsistent with human dignity feels rather like pointing out that slavery is a bit unfair on the slave.

Where to begin? In Ipswich Crown Court, perhaps, where Steve Wright is on trial for murdering five women who worked as prostitutes. Each woman met the definition of 'consenting adult', albeit a slightly built, drug-dependent consenting adult, with no means, drugged or not, of defending herself from an aggressor. And each woman appears to have concealed what she did from her family. Strange, considering the job's no more compromising, for women who like that kind of thing, than going out cleaning.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

Northern Ireland Assembly Debates Abortion Guidelines

The Northern Ireland Assembly debated the DHSSPSNI Guidelines on the Termination of pregnancy yesterday afternoon.

Click [here] for a link to Hansard of the debate.

Click link below for PDF of the Hansard transcript of the debate (28 pages)
Download hansard_of_guidelines_debate_22.10.07.pdf

CARE's Press Release issued after the debate:

 

                        Northern Ireland Assembly sends strong signal on Abortion

Christian social policy charity CARE today welcomed the outcome of a debate on abortion at the Northern Ireland Assembly. During a debate on draft Guidelines on the termination of pregnancy in Northern Ireland MLAs sent a strong signal that they are opposed to any liberalisation of abortion legislation in Northern Ireland.[1]

After the debate Stuart Noble, CARE in Northern Ireland’s parliamentary officer, commented: “We are encouraged by today’s debate for two reasons. Firstly, in his statement the Minister for Health has clarified the situation with the guidelines and acknowledged the serious concerns that were raised by a number of Pro-Life groups. Secondly, representatives from across the political spectrum signalled their opposition to any extension of the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland. This is particularly important since a number of Westminster MPs have recently indicated that they would like to see the extension of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland as part of a range of measures to liberalise abortion legislation generally.”

Describing the Guidelines as a work in progress, the Minister for Health, Michael McGimpsey MLA explained that he had set-up a working group that will redraft the guidelines and return with a second draft version in the ‘first half of 2008’. Crucially, the views of interested parties will be heard and the Assembly’s health committee will have an opportunity to scrutinise the guidelines before any final decision is taken.

Stuart Noble went on to observe, “Today’s debate sends an emphatic message to those in Westminster who have recently called for changes to abortion law in Northern Ireland. We welcome the high level of interest in abortion that today’s debate demonstrates and hope that MPs in Westminster will respect the opinions of locally elected MLAs on a sensitive and emotive issue. This debate shows that there is no appetite for an extension of 67 or any liberalisation of abortion law amongst members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

---

---ENDS---

[1] Following a Judicial Review initiated by the Family Planning Association (NI) in 2001, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Dept of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should investigate whether guidelines on termination of pregnancy were needed. The department believed that guidelines were necessary; however, the content of the draft guidelines were strongly disputed by a number of Pro-Life groups.

---

 

Archbishop Rowan Williams on Abortion

Britain's abortion debate lacks a moral dimension

We risk losing sight of the sanctity of life and the compassionate intentions of the 1967 reformers

Rowan Williams
Sunday October 21, 2007

Observer

Most of those who voted for the 1967 Abortion Act did so in the clear belief that they were making provision for extreme and tragic situations: conception as a result of rape, foetal or perinatal complications threatening a mother's life. Forty years on, many of these same people have expressed their dismay at what has happened. As some of the issues are reopened in connection with the proposed legislation on embryo research, it is important to think about where this unease comes from and whether it has any lessons for us now.

Many supporters of the 1967 Act started from a strong sense of taking for granted the wrongness of ending an unborn life. What people might now call their 'default position' was still that abortion was a profoundly undesirable thing and that a universal presumption of care for the foetus from the moment of conception was the norm.

But the rapidly spiralling statistics - nearly 200,000 abortions a year in England and Wales - tell their own story. We are not now dealing with a relatively small number of extreme cases (and clinical advances have in fact reduced the number of strictly medical dilemmas envisaged in 1967 act's supporters). When we hear, as in a recent survey reported in the Lancet, that one-third of pregnancies in Europe end in abortion, we may well ask what has happened.

Recent discussion on making it simpler for women to administer abortion-inducing drugs at home underlines the growing belief that abortion is essentially a matter of individual decision and not the kind of major moral choice that should involve a sharing of perspective and judgment. And that necessarily means that certain presumptions have changed. Not only has there been an obvious weakening of the feeling that abortion is a last resort; the development of embryo research has brought with it the hint of a more instrumental approach to the human organism in its earliest days.

Paradoxically, the language of 'foetal rights' has strengthened over the last few decades, leading to a real tension with this growing normalisation of abortion. The pregnant woman who smokes or drinks heavily is widely regarded as guilty of infringing the rights of her unborn child; yet at the same time, with no apparent sense of incongruity, there is discussion of the possibility of the liberty of the pregnant woman herself to perform the actions that will terminate a pregnancy.

We need some joining-up thinking here, even if it's only in the recognition that the model of competing rights or liberties (the mother's and the unborn child's) is not the most useful vehicle for a coherent moral grasp of the question.

None of this provides a knockdown argument for tightening the law or lowering the time threshold for abortions, though this latter issue needs attention if only because of the fact that the existing law assumes a rather less developed state of medical science than is now the case. The changes made in 1990 to the legal upper time-limit for abortion (from 28 to 24 weeks) reflect the need to keep this matter under regular review. But thinking about the processes by which we unconsciously shift what we take for granted does highlight questions about how we hold a steady moral focus in these matters of social and legal debate.

We begin with clear, perhaps absolute, principles and, as we honestly confront a hugely complex world, we recognise that clear principles don't let you off the hook. There is no escaping the tough decisions where no answer will feel completely right and no option is without cost. But when do we get to the point where accepting the inevitability of tough decisions that may hurt the conscience has become so routine that we stop noticing that there ever was a strain on the conscience, let alone why that strain should be there at all?

The process is one that can be traced in other, more familiar, areas. You start with the presumption that abortion is unavoidably the ending of a life, but perhaps there are situations where it is the least awful outcome, and so you reluctantly conclude that some provision should be made for these situations. Or you start from the presumption that marriage is a lifelong union, but it is appallingly cruel to refuse relief to people who are being systematically damaged by deeply unhappy marriages and you accept more rapid paths towards divorce. You take it for granted that marriage and family life are foundational things in a properly nurturing and stable society, but many mature and responsible people choose to live in partnerships other than marriage and because no one wants to see them suffer hardship or discrimination because of this, you accept the case for the benefits of civil partnership.

And it's difficult to deny that because of all these reasons, something has happened to our assumptions about marriage and family, just as something has happened to our assumptions about the life of the unborn child.

The history of the 1967 Act's implementation is an object lesson in how slippage can occur between thinking compassionately about exceptional cases and losing the sense of a normative position. I don't think we're yet at the point where such a sense has been entirely lost. Even if some of the language about foetal rights is uncertain and confused, it illustrates the half-articulate conviction that the unborn child does merit protection. And the furore around Channel 4's recent broadcast about abortion, with its vivid images of the unborn, shows that there remains an instinctive recognition of humanity in the foetus even at very early stages.

But the slippage is there. This is not an argument for unalterable prohibitions in law against abortion in every circumstance - or against divorce or civil partnerships; there is room for disagreement over appropriate legal provision in all these areas. But it is an argument for keeping our eyes open for the unintended consequences, the erosion of something once taken for granted that occurs when we do not keep in focus the fundamental convictions about humanity that inform not only our responses to crisis, but our routine relationships with one another.

Precisely because we don't bring these convictions to light all that often, they can shift or weaken without our noticing. It's not a good habit for societies to get into; this debate, and the history of what has happened in the wake of the 1967 Act, should remind us of some of the potential costs of such a habit in other areas.

· Rowan Williams is Archbishop of Canterbury

From The Observer 21st October 2007

 

Government Publish Response to Human Tissue and Embryos Bill

The Government have published a response to the report on Human Tissue and Embryos Bill. CARE's reaction can be found below:

STATE SPONSORED FATHERLESSNESS GETS GREEN LIGHT - A BLACK DAY FOR CHILD RIGHTS SAYS CARE

Social Policy Charity CARE has reacted with concern to the government’s response to the Joint Committee on the Draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, published today.

Daniel Boucher, director of parliamentary affairs stated, ‘It would seem from recent events that the government has no intention of listening to public concern in relation to its proposal to remove the obligation on IVF clinics to have regard for the child’s need for a father.

First, the government’s draft bill effectively ignored the responses to the 2005 Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of which, we can reveal, only 103 out of 505 endorsed the proposal to remove the obligation to have regard for the child’s need for a father. Then the Joint Committee asked questions about the wisdom of this course of action and now they too have now been completely disregarded.’

In justifying their position the government simply refer to a paragraph in their original 2005 public consultation which cites one controversial piece of research. This suggests that they have not engaged at all with any of the evidence that has been submitted to them subsequently by either the public or the Joint Committee.

The government’s stated intentions read very strangely given that one of the rationales for the new bill is to have regard for all relevant developments since 1990. Possibly one of the most significant developments within that time frame has been the publication of a great deal of research highlighting the distinctive and unique role played by fathers in the parenting process. Far from taking account of these developments, the government seems determined that its bill should act in complete ignorance of them. CARE has responded by putting together The Fathers Bibliography which provides an overview of much of the research that has been published since 1990 which demonstrates the distinctive and unique nature of the father’s role.

Boucher concluded, ‘There is still time between now and the publication of the final Human Tissue and Embryos Bill for the government to demonstrate its listening credentials and commitment to child rights. We would urge Gordon Brown and the Department of Health to engage with the full breadth of ‘fathers’ academic research and make a decision that gives priority to the needs of vulnerable children rather than the wishes of adults.’

 

 

Human Trafficking: Pentameter 2

Positive news on Human Trafficking Front.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland is to open an office in Belfast as part of UK wide anti-trafficking initiative Pentameter 2. The first operation Pentameter took place in 2006 freed 84 women and teenage girls from brothels and massage parlours.

Pentameter 2 is though to be a more extensive approach - given the increasing prevalence of Human Trafficking across the UK.

 

Problem Gambling

PROBLEM GAMBLING: A QUARTER OF A MILLION TOO MANY SAYS CARE

CARE has responded with concern to the news that Britain still has a quarter of a million problem gamblers.

Commenting on the British Gambling Prevalence Study published today, Nola Leach, chief executive said, ‘It is disappointing to see that problem gambling has shown no sign of reduction over the past eight years. Problem gambling has a devastating effect on the lives not only of the gamblers themselves but also their families. Although the 2005 Gambling Act (which came into force on September 1st) does introduce new forms of regulation, in many respects - for example advertising - it is likely to exacerbate rather than erode problem gambling.

Dan Boucher director of parliamentary affairs added, ‘One of the interesting points made by today’s report is that there is a clear public view that gambling is negative and should not be encouraged. The new legislative framework which allows - subject to certain conditions - gambling advertising on television is entirely at variance with this opinion. One of the simplest and most helpful things that government could do to reduce the harmful effects of gambling would be to introduce an immediate ban on gambling advertising.’

Looking to the future Boucher added, ‘Another important contribution made by this report is its provision of a problem gambling baseline against which we can measure the impact of the 2005 Act and hold the government to account.’

 

The Wilberforce Moment?

Encouraging news from Westminster this morning. Various press reports are claiming that government ministers are considering proposals to prosecute men who buy sex as part of renewed efforts to curb prostitution and the rise of human trafficking. CARE and a number of other organisations have been trying to highlight the importance of tackling demand and targeting those who pay for sex.

The Guardian's report quotes Fiona Mactaggart MP, who as a home office minister was in charge of tackling prostitution until last year, as saying: "The criminal justice bill that comes back on the first day [after the parliamentary recess] includes changes to the prostitution strategy. It would be possible to put into it some amendment which deals with this issue of men who pay for sex," she said.

MacTaggart dismissed arguments that prostitution was an inevitable part of society, adding: "We have always had murder - that doesn't make it right. The price of prostitution is enormously high for women...[And] the more vulnerable the woman is, the cheaper the price is for men."

Denis MacShane MP is quoted as observing "Until you have the Wilberforce moment when you say those who buy [sex] are just as guilty as those who are selling [women], it will continue to grow. It's not until there is a regular flow of men before the courts because they have paid for sex with illegally trafficked sex slaves that we will see a change in culture."

Visit the Human Trafficking section on CARE website for more information about our campaign.

 

 

Bioethics news

As mentioned previously CARE and other groups have major concerns about the forthcoming Human Tissue and Embryos Bill which if passed unamended will:

1) Permit the creation of animal human-hybrids to be used in embryonic research
2) Make it legal for children to be brought into the world and denied a father
3) Allow the Secretary of State for Health to take far-reaching decisions on these issues aside from Parliament

Roundup of recent news stories about animal-human hybrids:

Part-human embryos are a chilling step closer as watchdog gives go-ahead for hybrid 'chimeras' The Daily Mail

Human-animal embryos supported by the public The Times

Embryo study wins approval The Guardian

Human-animal hybrids could be allowed Premier Christian Radio

Visit www.care.org.uk for more information

Abortion Statistics

As promised today's post will provide a digest of a recent analysis of Abortion statistics from England and Wales covering 2006. As CARE's Abortion fact-sheet observes "When the 1967 Abortion Act was passed many felt it was a necessary, if sad, piece of legislation to deal with a minority of women in desperate situations. The Act has, however, led virtually to abortion on demand by allowing abortions to be performed on certain grounds."  It's natural to ask why these figures are relevant for Northern Ireland. Their significance lies in their ability to illustrate what has happened following the introduction of the 1967 Abortion Act in England and Wales.

There have been 5.5 million abortions performed in England and Wales on residents between 1968 and 2006.

In 2006 the number of abortions (on residents and non-residents) was 201,170 compared with 194,350 in 2005.

The majority of abortions in 2006 on residents in England and Wales took place before 13 weeks gestation of the pregnancy; two thirds (68%) were under 10 weeks gestation with a further 22% at 10-12 weeks. However, 2,900 were performed at 20 weeks or more. Of these, 136 women had abortions after 24 weeks gestation.

In 2006 only 1% of abortions were carried out under the category 'that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.' In total, between 1968 and 2006 only 1.3% (72,220) were performed for serious disability.

Abortions are also rarely carried out 'to save the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, or if 'the pregnancy involves risk to the life of the pregnant woman': in the period between 1968 and 2002, only 0.4% of abortions (23,726) were performed under these categories.

Follow this link to download copies of CARE's Abortion Statistics Factsheet.

Abortion Legislation in Northern Ireland

Those with a concern for Pro-Life issues will have noticed the recent 'spike' in media interest in abortion. October marks the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Abortion Act and in November the Human Tissues and Embryos Bill will be included in the Queen's Speech. As previous posts have pointed out there is concern that amendments seeking a further liberalisation of the law concerning abortion will be added to the HTE bill. Recent media reports suggested that the Pro-abortion lobby will seek to exploit the convergence of the anniversary of the 1967 Act and the HTE Bill to push for an extension of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland.

Speaking to The Observer, Dr. Evan Harris MP said, "it [is] disgraceful that Parliament is not providing equal access to abortion for women in Northern Ireland. It's time that situation changed." (Link to Press Release on Evan Harris' website.)

The legislation concerning abortion in Northern Ireland is currently still a reserved matter as it is part of the Criminal Justice legislation. Jeffrey Donaldson MP MLA recently asked a question in Westminster to clarify the situation:

16th July 2007

Mr Donaldson: To ask the Secretary of of State for Northern Ireland what powers Parliament retains to legislate on abortion in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: The legislation governing abortion in Northern Ireland falls within the field of criminal law and, as such, remains a reserved matter in Northern Ireland under the terms of paragraph 9(a) of Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This means that any legislation on it would fall to Parliament at Westminster to take forward, although, as with all reserved matters, under the terms of section 8(b) of the 1998 Act, the Northern Ireland Assembly may legislate on this matter with the consent of the Secretary of State.

CARE and other Pro-Life organisations are expecting a political and public debate on abortion in Northern Ireland in the autumn. Next post from the CARE NI blog will feature an analysis of the latest figures on abortion for England and Wales, examining the impact of the 1967 Act .