I wont be able to attend this one.

5.00pm to 6.00pm Anarchist Bookfair Qn Marys College Mile End Sat 22 Oct
Anarchism, Feminism, Prostitution and Sex Work
Two years ago, this book fair hosted a panel on sex work that many felt failed to present an anarchist perspective. We believe that anarcha-feminist critiques of work, of legislation and of trade union structures have the potential to move forward the entrenched debate between those either advocating for the sex industry or fighting stigma and those calling for its abolition through state legislation. The meeting will try to open discussion on ways forward for grass roots organising, by prostitutes and sex workers, against their control by the state, the sex industry and the market.
Organised by: Anarchist Federation

We hope this means that serious consideration will finally be given to decriminalisation and to New Zealand where it has been successful. Many women have been stigmatised, discriminated against, suffered rape and other violence and even have been murdered because the laws have segregated and persecuted them.

From ECP

Apologies to those who had messages pending all that time!

The next post will contain something a little more positive…

PO Box 287 London NW6 5QU  Tel: 020 7482 2496 Fax: 020 7209 4761

ecp@allwomencount.net, www.prostitutescollective.net

21 November 2009

Dear Friends and supporters,

We are writing first of all to say how very much we appreciate all the work people did against the prostitution clauses in the Policing & Crime Bill (PCB), and to give you a brief update.

Unfortunately, the PCB went through Parliament on 12 November.  There was one key victory: the government was forced to amend Clause 14 so that it only criminalises clients who “pay for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force”, rather than the much wider “controlled for gain” which could have applied to many consensual arrangements.  The offence remains a strict liability offence, so that the client will have no legal defence if the sex worker is later shown to have been forced, even if he didn’t know this at the time and did his best to find out.

Vicious new measures will shortly become law.  They are: a new definition of “persistence” for loitering and soliciting which makes street workers more vulnerable to arrest; removing “persistence” from the kerb-crawling law so that guilt can be proved on the first offence; compulsory ‘rehabilitation’ orders, though the government has had to limit to 72 hours the time street workers can be detained before they are brought to court for breaching the order; more powers to close premises where they suspect that certain prostitution offences are being committed, including someone being ‘controlled for gain’; more powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act to seize people’s assets and property and profit from them.

A number of us attended the two last debates in the Lords.  Opposition to the Bill was led by Baroness Sue Miller, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesperson, with whom we have been working for some time.  She was the only one to raise that criminalisation would increase violence against sex workers.  Some independent, Labour and Tory peers supported her; but the Tory party as a whole did not oppose the new measures, not even the strict liability aspect of Clause 14.

Some peers continued to conflate prostitution with rape and trafficking, and to raise the fabricated figures on trafficking despite the fact that they had been thoroughly discredited.  But the figures did not feature in anything like the way they had during previous debates.  Nick Davies’ article in the Guardian “Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution”, Dr Nick Mai’s research and the work we all did to get the truth out, meant that only the most unprincipled could continue to use these lies to justify cracking down on sex workers.

Baroness Howarth who spoke vehemently in favour of criminalizing clients described sex workers in the most disparaging way as “damaged goods”!  How dare she call women “goods”, and on top of that “damaged”!

Speaking for the government, Baroness Scotland dressed up the measure as protection for vulnerable women.  But the hollowness of this claim was exposed by Baroness Miller who said, in referring to the other clauses:

“. . . the next clauses  . . . do not look as though they try to develop routes out as much as criminalising the women, forcing them into rehabilitation, developing problems for them when they do not comply with the orders, closing down brothels and so on. That part of the Bill gives a very negative feeling to what the Minister gave a very positive view of this evening.”

The debate on the amendment decriminalising under 18s was in some ways the best.  Baroness Howarth made a convincing case for decrimalisation generally – against her better judgement no doubt!  She spoke about criminalisation being an obstacle to accessing services, protection and any other help.  But what is true of children is also true of adults, and the amendment was defeated.

Predictably, no connection was made between prostitution and the abolition of Income Support and other benefit cuts in the Welfare Reform Bill which became law at the same time as the PCB.  Those who find prostitution horrifying do not seem horrified by the poverty or even destitution which drives many women into it.

As the PCB finally went through the Commons, John McDonnell MP who chaired many Safety First meetings, paid tribute to our campaigning.  He then had to defend us from another unhinged attack by Denis MacShane MP.  We rely on your ongoing support to address his false accusations.  You may have noticed that he is a regular commentator for the Guardian Comment if Free and that the coverage in the Guardian since Nick Davies’s article on trafficking (“Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution, 20 October 2009”) has focussed on the criminalisation of clients, hiding all the other measures which criminalise sex workers.  We have complained about this and urge you to do so also.  The more letters they get the better.  (The titles of the various comments are below along with the Guardian contact details.)

Despite the Bill being passed, we are far from discouraged.  Peers and MPs told us that the campaign against the Bill had been very effective.  Many of those who did not have a vested interest in supporting the government were persuaded to our view.  New Zealand’s decriminalisation is now on the map as an example to be followed.  Leading Tory Lord Skelmesdale asked the government why they hadn’t considered other countries and indicated that New Zealand was his preferred option.  The recent national opinion poll, which found that 2/3 of the UK population support decriminalisation on grounds of safety, is an expression of how much we have gained.

We are reconvening the Safety First Coalition with the awareness that an unprecedented number of people from all walks of life are now ready to campaign for decriminalisation.

And while we brace ourselves for an increase in raids and prosecutions, we know that we can count on our expanded network to speak out in defence of sex workers’ rights and safety.

We need to be vigilant and exchange information about the effects of the new law.  We need to discuss together what actions to take to protect women and their families.  We especially want to hear about what is happening where you are.  If you live in or near a red-light area, are you seeing more women on the street, or more police and more arrests?  What are you hearing from family, neighbours or friends, or from the local papers?  Please report to us any evidence of violence and victimisation so we can respond.  We are already hearing of incidents of assault and two tragic murders, one round the corner from our Women’s Centre.

Finally, the work against these new laws has consumed much time and money.  If you would like to make a donation to help cover those costs, please send cheque made out to “English Collective of Prostitutes” to the address above or contact us to donate by money transfer.

With thanks and for safety first,

Cari Mitchell

Address at the Guardian for complaints.

Siobhain Butterworth

Readers Editor

The Guardian

Kings Place, 90 York Way,

London N1 9GU

reader@guardian.co.uk

Recent Guardian comments:

“Sex trafficking is no illusion”, 20 October 2009, Rahila Gupta

“Sex trafficking: a futile war of statistics”, 21 October 2009. Denis MacShane MP

“Exit strategy”, 28 October 2009

“Prostitution a Crime of Purchasing”, 9 November 2009, Beatrix Campbell

POLICING AND CRIME BILL 2009

By the English Collective of Prostitutes
Co-ordinators of the SAFETY FIRST COALITION

House of Lords, Thursday  5 November 2009.

Prostitution clauses in the Policing and Crime Bill come back to the Lords today.

CLAUSE 14:  An offence of “Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc.” was passed on Tuesday, when an amendment by Baroness Miller which would have removed the strict liability aspect of the offence, was defeated.

No serious consideration was given to the way in which it a) establishes a two-tier offence so that having sex with a woman in the sex industry who is forced will attract a much lesser sentence (a fine) than the existing offence of rape or sexual assault.) See Women Against Rape’s statement: http://www.womenagainstrape.net)  b) deprives the client of all legal defence as the offence is committed regardless of whether he “is, or ought to be, aware that any of [the sex worker’s] activities are controlled for gain” and undermines a fundamental principle of the law that “intention” is needed to prove guilt.  Like with ASBOs where hearsay evidence was allowed to become commonplace, prostitution is being used to undermine fundamental rights, no doubt with dangerous consequences.

The public consistently demonstrates its concern that sex workers’ are protected from violence, most noticeably in the aftermath of the Ipswich murders but also in the last few days where a poll found that 2/3 of people agreed that sex workers should be allowed to work together for safety.  In contrast the government’s spokesperson Baroness Scotland described sex workers as ‘damaged goods’; showing what they think of us — first of all as ‘goods’ and then as ‘damaged’.

CLAUSE 16:  Soliciting is persistent “if it takes place twice over a period of three months”. (proposed amendment by Baroness Miller)

Soliciting which takes place more than once in three months cannot be described as persistent and could more appropriately be called “occasional”. To label it as persistent shows an intention to criminalise. It makes a mockery of the abolition of the term common prostitute (Clause 16 (2) (a)) as it will bring no reduction in the number of women arrested.

Criminal records prevent women from getting out of prostitution. Women end up institutionalised as they cannot get other jobs, even when they are qualified for them.
Criminalisation breaks up families. Mothers end up in jail separated from their children, with disastrous consequences first of all for the children.

Criminalisation makes sex workers more vulnerable to violence preventing women coming forward to report abuse.  Recent research from Vancouver found that: “The persistent relationship between enforcement of prostitution and drug use policies (e.g. confiscation of drug use paraphernalia without arrest, and enforced displacement to outlying areas) suggests that criminalization may enhance the likelihood of violence against street-based female sex workers.”[1]

CLAUSE 17: “Orders requiring attendance at meetings” – Compulsory “rehabilitation” under threat of imprisonment. (proposed amendment by Baroness Miller)

Compulsory rehabilitation was thrown out of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill a year ago.  Why is it being brought back?  Anyone arrested for loitering or soliciting would have to attend three meetings with a supervisor approved by the court. It is not an alternative to a fine as failure to comply may result in a summons back to court and an unspecified period in jail.  Women could end up on a treadmill of broken supervision meetings, court orders and imprisonment.  Imprisoning women goes against recommendations of the widely respected Corston report (March 2007).

CLAUSE 19: “Soliciting for the purpose of obtaining sexual services.” (proposed amendment by Baroness Miller, Lord Pannick)

The Bill removes the only safeguard against false arrest.  Why give police such wide powers? Kerb-crawling is an offence if it is “persistent”.  Removing the requirement to prove “persistence, annoyance or nuisance” would increase police powers to arrest anyone on ‘sus’.  Victims of institutionalised police racism and other prejudice are likely to be targeted.  With a conviction rate for reported rape at a shameful 6%, why isn’t rape being prioritised over prostitution?  Given recent public condemnation of police widely abusing their powers under anti-terrorism legislation to target peaceful protesters and others, why is this protection against any false arrest being removed?

CLAUSE 21: Extending closure orders to brothels.

Closure Orders are already being brought against premises where drug use or “disorder or nuisance” are alleged based on “tenuous evidence in which hearsay evidence is admissible.” (See briefing by Release).

In February, we won a rare victory against a Closure Order.  Police claimed that women in two flats in Soho encouraged anti-social behaviour.  When examined in court, the police case was based on ONE third hand anonymous hearsay claim.  We countered with evidence from local people who appeared in person in court and prevented women being evicted from the safety of their flats.  This case exposed the shameful flimsiness of evidence commonly used to close premises.  http://www.prostitutescollective.net/soho_raids_evening_standard_feb18.htm

The police expect most sex workers to be unable to come forward for fear of exposure and most magistrates to rubber stamp their action.  Instead of protecting the right to a fair trial, the Bill would lower the evidence threshold even further.

The new clauses would remove the need for anti-social behaviour to be proved.  Where the police believe that certain offences are being committed or “will be committed” including “causing, inciting and/or controlling prostitution for gain” they can close premises and the occupants must, within 48 hours, go to court to defend the closure.  Few people would even be able to get legal representation in this time.  “Controlling” is already being used to criminalise women working independently, collectively and consensually especially where there is a receptionist for protection.  Women will be thrown out of premises where it is 10 times safer to work than the street.

CLAUSE 27:  Lap-dancing to be reclassified as “sex encounter establishments”.

This would increase the cost of licensing and the stigma. Lap-dancers have described working collectively with other women with good safety systems, and earning more than they would in other jobs. Is this what the government finds objectionable?

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Police and prosecutors have a vested interest in raiding brothels and prosecuting sex workers.  This corrupting of the police has wide implications for all policing and prosecutions.

Since the Proceeds of Crime Act, raids have become profitable: the police keep 25% of any assets confiscated both at the time and from subsequent prosecutions (50% of any cash found on the premises); the Crown Prosecution Service keeps another 25%; and the Inland Revenue the rest.  We have reported to the police and CPS that it has become common for police to seize any money found on premises they raid, even if no one is charged.  The money is rarely returned as police take advantage of sex workers’ reluctance to go public.  Women who have worked for years to put money aside lose not only their livelihood but their home, car, life savings, jewellery, etc.  This theft by law enforcement is the worst form of pimping.

We believe it is a main reason why anti-prostitution raids and prosecutions are now high up on the police and government agenda.  Government figures provided in response to questions by Lord Faulkner show a marked increase in prosecutions for controlling prostitution and brothel-keeping – neither offence requires force or coercion to be proved and are used primarily against women working consensually and collectively from premises.

The new clauses allow property to be seized before a person is charged where “a criminal investigation has started . . . and there is reasonable cause to believe that the alleged offender has benefited from his criminal conduct”. They also expand the definition of an “appropriate officer” to implement these powers to include for example “an accredited financial investigator”.

SUMMARY

The Safety First Coalition agrees with the English Collective of Prostitutes that forcing prostitution further underground endangers lives. Safety First includes anti-poverty campaigners, church people & residents from Ipswich & elsewhere, the Royal College of Nursing, the National Association of Probation Officers, members of the medical & legal professions, prison reformers, sex worker & drugs rehabilitation projects.  If prostitution is forced further underground women will be exposed to greater dangers and be less able to come forward to get help.  See separate quotes from members of Safety First.

The Policing and Crime Bill is going through Parliament at the same time as the Welfare Reform Bill which will have a devastating impact on women and what’s left of the Welfare State. As the economic recession hits, more women, especially mothers, are likely to resort to prostitution to support their families.  Together these Bills are legislating for destitution and prostitution, and therefore the criminalisation of many more women and the neglect of many more children.

New Zealand successfully decriminalised all prostitution, both indoors and on the street, six years ago.  There has been no increase in prostitution and women find it safer.  Why isn’t New Zealand being followed?

* * * * * * * * *

The English Collective of Prostitutes and the Safety First Coalition can be contacted at:

230a Kentish Town Road, London, NW5 2AB, Tel: 020 7482 2496, 07811 964 171 ecp@allwomencount.net www.prostitutescollective.net

KEY FACTS ON WOMEN’S SAFETY AND LEGAL RIGHTS

Whatever you may think of prostitution, please look at the measures in this Bill from the point of view of women’s safety and of legal rights.  It has been claimed that ‘tackling the demand’ by criminalising men who buy sexual services will increase safety, and the spectre of trafficking has been used to stifle debate and hide the evidence that points to the contrary.

1.      Distinguished organisations like the Royal College of Nursing and Women Against Rape oppose criminalisation on grounds of health and safety. Their views are critical given that they are independent of government and their members deal with concrete situations involving health and safety.  The RCN voted to decriminalise by a staggering 93%.  Women Against Rape makes a clear distinction between “rape and consenting sex (whether in a relationship, casual or paid for)” and opposes the criminalisation of clients: http://www.womenagainstrape.net.

2.      Over 82 organisations and prominent individuals have signed the Safety First Coalition petition against criminalisation. List of names: http://www.prostitutescollective.net/PolicingandCrimeHowToOppose.htm

3.      An opinion poll carried out over the weekend found that 2/3 of the UK population support decriminalisation on grounds of safety.

4.      A thorough Guardian investigation has exposed the trafficking figures used by the government as grossly inflated and fabricated, much like the intelligence on WMD.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

5.      Reliable academic research newly published confirms that the great majority of women (and men) involved in prostitution in the UK have not been trafficked. http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/research-units/iset/projects/esrc-migrant-workers.cfm

6.      Sweden is a false analogy. The example of Sweden has been widely used to claim that criminalising clients has reduced prostitution there and increased safety.  This is a false analogy since Sweden has criminalised clients but not sex workers, while the Policing and Crime Bill would further criminalise sex workers as well as clients.  There is evidence that in Sweden prostitution has been forced underground via the internet and other means, and that women are in more danger.  http://www.allwomencount.net/EWC%20Sex%20Workers/SwedenhasnNoMadeItSafer.htm

7.      Evidence from the US where both sex workers and clients are criminalised, has not even been considered. It indicates high levels of violence against women. Findings from New York (a city more like London than Stockholm in terms of size) show widespread violence against women, including from law enforcement.  80% of street workers and 46% of indoor workers experienced violence or threats; 27% of street workers and 14% of indoor workers at the hands of police.  http://www.urbanjustice.org/pdf/publications/RevolvingDoorExecSum.pdf and http://www.urbanjustice.org/pdf/publications/BehindDoorsExecSum.pdf

8.      Evidence from New Zealand which decriminalised six years ago with good results for women’s safety and no increase in prostitution, has been totally ignored. http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy-and-consultation/legislation/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/report-of-the-prostitution-law-review-committee-on-the-operation-of-the-prostitution-reform-act-2003

9.      Those who are pressing for criminalisation totally ignore the reality of women’s lives and the impoverishment and lack of choices that many are up against, especially during the recession. They use flawed trafficking statistics to justify measures which target anyone involved in prostitution, whether or not there is force or coercion.  Given the lack of jobs and the low wages pushing so many people into poverty, and combined with the Welfare Reform Bill also going through parliament which abolishes Income Support, criminalisation will have a devastating effect, first of all on women and their families.  They would drive prostitution further underground and sex workers into even more danger.

10.  Criminal records trap women in prostitution, making it harder to get other jobs.

11.  As a result of widespread public opposition, the government was forced to amend the offence which criminalised clients but nothing has been said about the continuing raids, prosecutions and convictions against women who are working collectively and independently, and usually discreetly.  This shows the government is not really concerned about women’s safety.

FACTS ON TRAFFICKING YOU SHOULD KNOW

1.      The UK charge of trafficking for prostitution, unlike trafficking for any other industry, does not require force or coercion. This enables every woman with a foreign accent to be falsely labelled a victim of trafficking!

2.      Figures which claim that “80% of women working in the sex industry in the UK have been trafficked” have been thoroughly discredited, most recently by an extensive investigation in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated.

3.      In response to questions by John McDonnell MP, the Home Office claims that 4,000 women are trafficked into the UK a year. But this research is based on incredulous claims such as: “every single foreign woman in the ‘walk-up’ flats in Soho had been smuggled into the country and forced to work as a prostitute.”[2] This would come as a surprise to the over 60 women who work in walk-up flats in Soho who regularly attend our meetings, do interviews with the press, meet parliamentarians and who describe their situation as mothers supporting families or working to send money back home.

4.      Information that the phones at the UK Trafficking Centre are answered by immigration officers indicates that far from providing protection anti-trafficking initiatives are primary aimed at the targeting and deportation of immigrant women.

5.      Victims of trafficking are not being helped. Despite government claims about prioritising trafficking, most victims get no protection.  In the last few weeks the Guardian exposed that 77 suspected child victims of trafficking went missing from a local authority care home over a period of two years.  Only four children have been found and there have been no prosecutions.  A surveillance operation at the home was cancelled, and despite it being known that children were disappearing more young people kept on being sent there.  What does this say about the priority given to cases of trafficking where harm may be occurring that resources couldn’t be found to place two officers outside the home to stop the children disappearing?  What does it say about the immigration authorities which worked hand in hand with the police and kept sending children there?  These children would not be better protected with the measures in the Bill.

Evidence from different countries

Scotland

Since clients were criminalised in October 2007, the number of assaults on sex workers has soared.  Attacks reported to one project have almost doubled from 66 in 2006 to 126 last year, including eight reported rapes and 55 violent assaults.  The Scotsman 18 April 2008.

Sweden

There are few similarities between the UK and Sweden.  Stockholm has a total urban area of only 1,252,020.  Sweden criminalised men who buy sex in 1999.  Sex workers were decriminalised but there is no proposal to do that in the UK.  Claims that by reducing “demand” both trafficking and prostitution are reduced are countered by sex workers.[3] (http://www.sans.nu/sans_eng.htm) who report that the industry is just less visible, more mobile (many women have moved to border towns) and therefore less safe.  Whatever is claimed about the reduction in numbers there is no evidence of an improvement in safety or welfare for sex workers.

United States

A much closer comparison can be made between the UK and the US.  In the US both the selling and buying of sex is criminalised but there has been no reduction in prostitution or improvement in rights or safety for sex workers.  Recent research from New York makes harrowing reading: 80% of street workers and 46% of indoor workers experienced violence or threats in the course of their work.  More worryingly, 27% of street workers and 14% of indoor workers had experienced violence at the hands of police and 16% of indoor workers had been involved in sexual situations with the police.  http://www.urbanjustice.org/pdf/publications/RevolvingDoorExecSum.pdf and http://www.urbanjustice.org/pdf/publications/BehindDoorsExecSum.pdf.

Commenting on the impact of US anti-trafficking law, Ann Jordan, Director of the Initiative against Trafficking in Persons Global Rights, testified before the US House of Representatives in March 2007 “over the last six years, the broad scope of the U.S. anti-trafficking policy has been gradually narrowed to fit an anti-prostitution agenda that is based on the unproven belief that all prostitution (even legal prostitution in Nevada) is trafficking, and so criminalizing prostitution, as well as clients, is promoted as a purported means to stop prostitution and to stop trafficking for prostitution.  Jordan expressed concern that the US anti-prostitution campaign envisioned within the 2005 US Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act encroaches upon anti-trafficking enforcement activities and may well divert federal funding, investigators and prosecutors and badly-needed anti-trafficking resources to non-trafficking prostitution activities, potentially leaving traffickers free to operate with impunity and contributing to the stigma suffered by persons in the sex sector.[4]

India

The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Bill was recently defeated on the grounds that it “would have further stigmatized sex workers by criminalizing the purchase of sexual services.” Sex workers who vehemently opposed these measures, because it would “violate their human rights” commented: “While the political appeal of criminalizing clients of sex workers is clear, there is no evidence from any country that this is an effective strategy for preventing violence against sex workers.”[5]

Cambodia

Under pressure from the United States, Cambodia outlawed prostitution in February this year.  Under the new law, the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation Law, brothels have closed or gone underground, along with bars, karaoke clubs and street areas.  “Hundreds of women have been arrested, jailed or displaced, while dozens have been raped and beaten by police and prison guards.  The HIV prevention and care programs that were working have collapsed.  The law encourages trafficking and exploitation because it makes sex workers easier prey: the workers can no longer seek clients in public and must depend upon others to introduce them.” Account & video: http://www.blip.tv/file/953418/

Canada

Recent research from Vancouver found that: “The persistent relationship between enforcement of prostitution and drug use policies (e.g. confiscation of drug use paraphernalia without arrest, and enforced displacement to outlying areas) suggests that criminalization may enhance the likelihood of violence against street-based female sex workers.”[6]

New Zealand

In 2003, the New Zealand Prostitution Reform Act (PRA) decriminalised prostitution of persons over 18 on grounds of “sex workers’ human rights, protection from exploitation and promotion of occupational health and safety“.  The June 2008 PRA statutory five year review concluded that:

“The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously.”

Findings of New Zealand’s PRA report:

§         There has been no rise in numbers of women working, including of young people who feel able to contact agencies for help.

§         Sex workers are more likely to report incidents of violence to the police and other agencies. This was particularly true for the street workers.

§         There has been a change of attitude by members of the police. Some individual officers and some police districts have gone out of their way to work with the sex industry, with Christchurch being the obvious example. However, stigmatisation still plays a key role in the non-reporting of incidents. This is the inevitable result of years of the sex industry operating illegally, with the police seen as posing a threat rather than offering protection.

§         Judges have ruled that sex workers are entitled to expect the same protection under the law as anyone else.

§         Attacks are cleared up more quickly as women are more likely to come forward with information without fear of arrest, making all women safer.

§         Women find it easier to leave prostitution as convictions have been cleared from their records.

§         It is easier for sex workers to refuse to have sex with a client.

§         Brothel owners are more supportive and less coercive to employees.

The Council of Europe recommends that member states:

“ . . . refrain from criminalising and penalising prostitutes . . . respect the right of prostitutes who freely choose to work as prostitutes to have a say in any policies at national, regional and local level  . . . ensure . . . access to safe sexual practices and enough independence to impose these on their clients”.[7]

The recent UN Report of the Commission on AIDS in Asia noted that sex workers are part of the solution to preventing the spread of HIV, and advised countries to “avoid programs that accentuate AIDS-related stigma and can be counterproductive. Such programs may include ‘crack-downs’ on red-light areas and arrest of sex workers.”

[2] “Three years after the Kelly/Regan work was published, in 2003, a second team of researchers was commissioned by the Home Office to tackle the same area. They, too, were forced to make a set of highly speculative assumptions: that every single foreign woman in the “walk-up” flats in Soho had been smuggled into the country and forced to work as a prostitute; that the same was true of 75% of foreign women in other flats around the UK and of 10% of foreign women working for escort agencies. Crunching these percentages into estimates of the number of foreign women in the various forms of sex work, they came up with an estimate of 3,812 women working against their will in the UK sex trade.  The researchers ringed this figure with warnings. The data, they said, was “very poor” and quantifying the subject was “extremely difficult”. Their final estimate was “very approximate”, “subject to a very large margin of error” and “should be treated with great caution” and the figure of 3,812 ‘should be regarded as an upper bound’.” “Prostitution and trafficking – the anatomy of a moral panic”, Guardian, 20 October

[3] “Those who are worst afflicted are unfortunately the most vulnerable sexworkers, the street prostitutes, addicts and sexworkers from other countries.  On the streets the negotiations must happen a lot faster than before since the police can be around the corner. … it is therefore hard to do a correct risk assessment . . . if a customer meets a sexworker that he/she suspects is the victim of sexual trafficking, that person is today scared of going to the police. Before you could obtain evidence against traffickers and pimps based on customer’s testimony.” (http://www.sans.nu/sans_eng.htm)

[4] “Human Trafficking, Sex Work Safety and the 2010 Games”, June 10, 2009. Sex Industry Worker Safety Action Group, Canada.

[5] Indian Sex Workers Fight Penalization, by Meena Seshu on March 3, 2009, Asia, Sex Work

[6] “Prevalence and structural correlates of gender based violence among a prospective cohort of female sex workers” Kate Shannon, assistant professor, T Kerr, assistant professor, S A Strathdee, professor and chair, J Shoveller, professor, J S Montaner, professor and director, M W Tyndall, associate professor, BMJ 2009; 339:b2939, bmj.com

[7] Assembly debate on 4 October 2007 (35th Sitting) (see Doc. 11352, report of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, rapporteur: Mr Platvoet). Text adopted by the Assembly on 4 October 2007 (35th Sitting).

A opinion poll released today shows that three in five people would support a change in the law. It is currently legal for a person to work as a prostitute in the UK provided that they work from premises and that they work alone. It has been suggested on the grounds of safety and security of the individual the law should be changed to allow more than one person to work as a prostitute at the same address.

The question said

Regardless of your opinion of prostitution do you think on the grounds of safety and the security of the individual it would be a good idea or a bad idea to allow more than one person to work as a prostitute at the same address?

A total of 955 people responded to the question. A total of 60.0% said it was a good idea, 20.8% said it was a bad idea. Furthermore 10.5% said they did not believe in prostitution and  8.6% said that they did not know. The survey was carried out by GFK/NOP at the request of Professor Colin Francome of the Campaign for Social Change. Interviewing took place on the 1^st and 2^nd of November.

A committee of the House of Lords is due to vote on the issue today. Cari Mitchell  of the English Collective of Prostitutes comments ‘This confirms what we have been saying for some time that the public is moving towards a decriminalisation of prostitution which will help protect women.  The Bill before Parliament is leading to an increase in police raids towards sex workers both in the streets and in premises’.

Other findings from the survey were

·         People in Scotland were those most in favour of the change with two thirds in support. Those from Ireland were the least in support (52%)

·         The three higher class groups AB, C1 and C2 were all over 60% in support. For Des it was 55%.

·         There was little difference between the sexes but married people (63.5%) were more in support than average.

Contact  Professor Colin Francome on 07787513808 or 0208-205-6110

E mail  Francome44@ hotmail.co.uk

Dear Friends, your support is urgently needed today and tomorrow.

Prostitution clauses are being debated in the Lords tomorrow afternoon, Tuesday 3 November.  This is our last chance to get changes in the Lords.  A number of Peers oppose the clauses and will be speaking against them.  But they need others to join them.

We have heard that Peers are getting emails every day from those who want to criminalise men who pay for sex.  They need to hear from those of us who don’t agree with criminalisation.

If you haven’t written opposing this and the other prostitution clauses in the Bill please WRITE TODAY.  If you have already written, WRITE AGAIN.

You can find the emails of the Peers at: http://www.prostitutescollective.net/PolicingandCrimeHowToOppose.htm

Let Peers know the strength of your conviction and the breadth of opposition to the Bill.  You can use the model letter but they would take note of your letter much more if you write about your our personal experience and views: http://www.prostitutescollective.net/PolicingandCrimeModelLetter.htm.

Over 40 organisations have signed a statement against the Bill.  If you are part of an organisation or can sign in a professional capacity and haven’t added your signature yet, please do so right away at: http://www.prostitutescollective.net/Organisations_vs_PCB.htm

We hope you have seen the following information:

1. Lobby and Briefing for Peers, 6-7pm this evening in Committee Room 3A in the Lords http://www.prostitutescollective.net/PCB%20–%20Hear%20the%20Evidence.htm. Please come along if you possibly can.  Come into Parliament through the main St Stephens entrance, giving yourself at least half an hour to get through security.
2. Demonstration against the Bill on Tuesday afternoon 12-2 in Parliament Square. http://www.prostitutescollective.net/Demo_Vs_PCB.htm   We would appreciate your support as there will be a pro-criminalisation demonstration at the same time.  We will be going into the public gallery in the Lords after the demonstration to listen to the debate and you are welcome to join us.
3. Nick Davies’s excellent Guardian investigation, our response to it and other good comments and letters. Davies exposed how figures on trafficking, which have been used to justify the Policing and Crime Bill and the raids and deportations against sex workers, were fabricated.  Our letters have not been published   http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated.
4. Our response to Denis MacShane MP who is telling lies about our work and continues to peddle the same discredited trafficking claims.  http://www.prostitutescollective.net/Response_to_Denis_McShane.htm
5. Watch the Newsnight debate between Mr MacShane and Niki Adams (ECP).  It has attracted a lot of attention.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtaEdI3aiwg

Hoping to see you this evening and on Parliament Square between 12 noon-2pm tomorrow.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Safety First,

Cari Mitchell

——————————————————————

Clauses 14, 16, 17 & 21 of Policing and Crime Bill

Forget the propaganda and hear the evidence

on rape, trafficking and prostitution

6-7pm   Monday 2 November

Committee Room 3A

House of Lords

Enter through St Stephen’s entrance

The day before the final debate on the prostitution clauses in the PCB, please join us in a discussion of the evidence.   Whatever your views on the sex industry, women’s safety must be the priority.  Trafficking cannot be stopped by driving prostitution further underground.

Speakers include:

Dr Nick Mai – Author of ‘Migrant Workers in the UK Sex Industry’, the latest research on trafficking and prostitution, Institute for the Study of European Transformations (ISET), London Metropolitan University.

Royal College of Nursing – Why 93% of its nurses voted to decriminalise prostitution.

Women Against Rape – Will the PCB make women safer?  Is there a distinction between rape/trafficking and prostitution?

English Collective of Prostitutes – the US criminalises both clients and sex workers while New Zealand has decriminalised prostitution.  Which is safer?

Others contributing: lawyers, people from the church, anti-poverty campaigners, drug reformers . . .

Contact: English Collective of Prostitutes & Safety First Coalition

230A Kentish Town Road, London NW5 2AB ecp@allwomencount.net

Tel: 020 7482 2496

———————————————————————–

SEX WORKERS NEED SAFETY AND RIGHTS, NOT CRIMINALISATION

Demonstration Against the Policing and Crime Bill

12-2pm, Tuesday 3 November, Parliament Square

Bring placards and red umbrella’s and join the demonstration to demand:

-          an end to the criminalisation of sex work

-          safety and other rights for all workers in the sex industry, including the right to unionise

-          the right to stay and not be deported

-          the right not to have a criminal record so we can apply for other jobs

-          decent wages and benefits for all so that we can refuse violence and exploitation in any industry

If passed the Policing and Crime Bill will push prostitution further underground and sex workers into more danger. It would increase arrests against street workers, introduce compulsory ‘rehabilitation’ under threat of imprisonment, close premises where sex workers work together in relative safety, boost police powers to seize worker’s hard won earnings, and reduce rape against prostitute women to a lesser offence while criminalising clients who may not be guilty.

The government justifies their latest clamp down with claims that prostitution is rape and that most sex workers have been trafficked. Instead of enabling victims of violence to come forward, they victimise and criminalise women working in the sex industry. Most violent men, including bosses who profit from exploiting ‘illegal’ workers in the agricultural, domestic and sex industry, will continue to get away with it, while sex workers working together, especially migrant women, will be raided, imprisoned and deported.

At the same time the Welfare Reform Bill proposes to abolish Income Support and drive all claimants into work or to ‘work for their benefits’ i.e. £1.60 an hour. Many are already being asked to scab on postal workers by applying for their jobs. Those who won’t or can’t manage on slave wages and decide to work in the sex industry risk being criminalised and consequently denied entry into other work in the future.

We are mothers and grandmothers supporting loved ones, young people keeping a roof over our heads and getting some independence, migrants sending money home, asylum seekers made destitute by immigration laws that deny us both support and the right to work, students paying for our education, women or men who can’t get jobs in the recession or want a better standard of living.

Like any other workers, some of us like our jobs, many don’t. But we all know the difference between forced and consenting sex, whether in a relationship, casual or paid for. Most people support the decriminalisation of prostitution so women can work more safely. But, as with privatisation and everything else, the government ignores the workers and the public; they only listen to the ‘experts’ they fund to sing to their tune.

Whatever our situation we need rights & safety, not criminalisation.

Catch rapists and exploiters, not clients.

Organised by:

English Collective of Prostitutes, ecp@allwomencount.net, 020 7482 2496, Cari Mitchell: 07811 964 171, www.prostitutescollective.net; International Union of Sex Workers, www.iusw.org, 0795 802 0432; x:talk project: xtalk.classes@googlemail.com, Ava Caradonna: 0791 470 3372 www.xtalkproject.net.

http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/research-units/iset/projects/esrc-migrant-workers.cfm

Comments?

Any other suggestions for threads are welcome (bung a comment on the About page).