Good news for women who have been prostituted 7


Clause 14 of the Policing and Crime bill passed through Report Stage unamended in the House of Lords last Tuesday 3rd November.

Clause 14 aims to protect vulnerable and exploited people by shifting the focus of the law onto those who create the demand for prostitution. The clause makes it an offence to pay for sex with someone who is subjected to force, deception or threats.

During the debate Baroness Scotland, the Government Minister in the Lords said “We are faced with a choice tonight: do we speak for the victims, do we stand up for those who have no voice for themselves, do we stand in the breach for them—or do we provide a cloak of anonymity and protection for those who do not wish to face what they do when they purchase sex from a woman or a man, quite often of tender years, who has been coerced or forced into that position?

I need to be clear that the Government’s view is that those who purchase sex from people in that position commit a wrong. They enable a situation that is avoidable to continue. We have a choice tonight to decide on which stand we will set our mark. Who will we support, and who will we defend?”

The succesful passage of this clause is a huge victory for women who have been exploited by the sex industry,  especially given the amount of opposition to the clause and the totally unbalanced media coverage of the issues involved.    But there is still a long way to go.  Eaves Housing and OBJECT have orchestrated a campaign called Demand Change to challenge the legitimacy of the demand for prostitution.


7 thoughts on “Good news for women who have been prostituted

  • Abi

    I’ve read the debate that’s linked to the Demand Change site, but it is not entirely clear to me how introduces a legal change, and how obvious it is that the change, if I’ve understood it correctly, will actually benefit trafficked women.

    It is already illegal to coerce, threaten, or deceive someone into having sex, under the Rape and Sexual Offenses (Scotland) Act of 2009 in Scotland, and the equivalent Act in England and Wales (I want to say 2003?). In the debate, it is claimed that Clause 14 will be legally different from rape because of the way the mens rea is defined.

    I gather the distinction is that purchasers are not required to know whether the prostitute was trafficked or exploited (unlike rape, where the rapist must know, or be reckless as to whether they knew, that the complainant did not consent). The questions is only whether the prostitute was or not coerced. If s/he was, then the purchaser has committed a crime. Is that right?

    If so, we might well be concerned whether this clause will not have the effect that a ban on purchasing sex has had in Sweden — of increasing violence against prostitutes.

  • Jennifer Drew

    I’m curious as to how the commentator arrived at the conclusion that Sweden’s legislation concerning criminalising Johns who attempt to buy women/girls for the purpose of masturbating on/into their bodies has caused an increase in Johns’ violence against prostituted women.

    Factual evidence shows the numbers of Johns living in Sweden attempting to purchase women involved in prostitution has decreased dramatically and furthermore Swedish society as a whole supports criminalising males who attempt to buy women/girls for the purpose of rape/male sexual exploitation. See Coalition Against Trafficking In Women for factual research on Sweden and also Prostitution Research website which also has research proving criminalising Johns, together with providing long-term funding and support for women involved in prostitution but who wish to exit has simultaneously helped the women and reduced male demand.

    Clause 13 is not the end it is the beginning of the end of pseudo male sex right to women and girls and because this pseudo male sex right is being challenged, claims are being made this will cause Johns to be more violent. Fact is Johns have to date had impunity with regards to committing sexual sadistic violence against women and girls involved in prostitution.

    Women are not for Sale.

  • Abi

    “Women are not for Sale.”

    No one here is suggesting they should be. The question is not whether women should be, but what is most *effective* in preventing violence and abuse perpetrated against women.

    Re the increase of violence against prostitutes in Sweden since the criminalisation of purchasing, the anthropologist Don Kulick has done some interesting work on this. Have a look at

    Kulick, D. 2003. “Sex in the New Europe: The Criminalization of Clients and Swedish Fear of Penetration.”Anthropological Theory 3; 199-218.

    Kulick, D. 2005. “Four hundred thousand Swedish perverts”. GLQ 11 (2): 205-35.

    Both of these papers discuss an increase in violence towards prostitutes since the change in law in Sweden, an increase in police harassment, problems for non-Swedish prostitutes who face deportation if they are caught, etc. This is largely due to the fact that purchasers of sex have considerable power in prostitution encounters — they don’t want to be caught and prosecuted. So negotiations are more secret and rushed and as a result the prostitute is at greater risk of violence and even more abuse.

    *Of course* it’s a good thing to challenge the legitimacy of demand for prostitution. The question is whether increased violence towards prostitutes is acceptable means to an end (and I’d argue it isn’t), or whether it’s counterproductive.

  • Finn Mackay

    This comment seems to assume that there would be some way prostitution could be safe? Women in prostitution are raped, assaulted and murdered around the world in legal brothels, illegal brothels and on the street. The tragic murder of five young women in Ipswich also shows that prostitution can never be safe. The murderer Steve Wright was apparently known as a regular to women involved in prostitution near the football ground in the town, the area the media described as the red light district. Media interviews with women in prostitution found that they expressed surprise that Steve Wright had been arrested and many said they knew him. My point is that it is impossible to know who is a murderer and a rapist, they don’t have it written on their foreheads – and whether a prostituted woman stares at a punter for five minutes or twenty minutes there is surely no foolproof way to tell. Of course everyone supports harm minimisation, but less people seem to support harm ending. Sweden is trying to both. In countries that have legalised brothels like Australia, they have reported increases in both legal and illegal brothels, if this ‘industry’ expands and new ‘vacancies’ are created – who will fill them? Logically, more and more women will enter prostitution, and if we believe that prostitution is a form of violence against women, in and of itself, and can never be safe – then we should not want to see an expansion of this industry but rather a decrease. And criminalising demand leads to a decrease, which can only mean less women exploited and harmed.

  • Abi

    “And criminalising demand leads to a decrease, which can only mean less women exploited and harmed.”

    Not exactly. In Sweden, it has meant that there are fewer clients, but more violence towards sex workers.

    “This comment seems to assume that there would be some way prostitution could be safe?”

    I haven’t claimed or assumed that at all. I am claiming that some kinds of legislation can impact in various not-always-straightforward ways on the safety of sex workers. But I wouldn’t claim that sex workers don’t experience violence now — that would clearly be an absurd and false claim. I am claiming that some kinds of legislation lead to an increase the amount of violence that is experienced; and consequently we should consider alternative ways of challenging the legitimacy of demand for prostitution.

    “Of course everyone supports harm minimisation, but less people seem to support harm ending.”

    I’m not sure why Clause 14 is being equated with harm ending? I would hope people do support harm ending; I just don’t think this is the way to go about ending harm. I don’t think it’s going to be effective — it might increase violence, rather than reduce or end it.

  • Jennifer Drew

    Well as Josephine Butler said and I paraphrase whilst we don’t believe criminalising murder will eliminate murder still our society believes murder is a crime and should not be decriminalised or made legal.

    Likewise with regards to prostitution whilst criminalising men who buy women for the purpose of male sexual gratification will not eliminate totally male demand for women’s bodies it most certainly sends a very strong and effective message that ‘women’s bodies are not for sale’ and ‘men are not entitled to buy women’s bodies.’

    The central issue is about challenging men’s pseudo claims of unlimited sexual access to women and girls and because this is central to male power and male control over women it does cause much debate.

    Do not forget at one time many men and women too, living in the UK believed slavery was acceptable because non-whites were not human but eventually after a very long and embittered struggle the abolitionists won. Not forgetting of course, women were involved in the abolition of slavery. So, too, one day men will be criminalised with regards to attempting to purchase any woman or girl for the purpose of using her as a dehumanised sexualised disposable product.

    Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland have already criminalised the Johns who attempt/buy women for the purpose of committing sexual violence against their person.

    Legalising prostitution hasn’t worked in Amsterdam and neithher has it worked in the Australian states which have legalised prostitution. See Coalition Against Trafficking In Women’s website for details.

  • Louisiana Womens Health

    I’ve read the debate that’s linked to the Demand Change site, but it is not entirely clear to me how introduces a legal change, and how obvious it is that the change, if I’ve understood it correctly, will actually benefit trafficked women.

    It is already illegal to coerce, threaten, or deceive someone into having sex, under the Rape and Sexual Offenses (Scotland) Act of 2009 in Scotland, and the equivalent Act in England and Wales (I want to say 2003?). In the debate, it is claimed that Clause 14 will be legally different from rape because of the way the mens rea is defined.

    I gather the distinction is that purchasers are not required to know whether the prostitute was trafficked or exploited (unlike rape, where the rapist must know, or be reckless as to whether they knew, that the complainant did not consent). The questions is only whether the prostitute was or not coerced. If s/he was, then the purchaser has committed a crime. Is that right?

    If so, we might well be concerned whether this clause will not have the effect that a ban on purchasing sex has had in Sweden — of increasing violence against prostitutes.

Comments are closed.