Just in case anyone hasn’t heard the good news, last night the House of Lords voted in favour of clause 14 (formerly 13) of the Policing and Crime Bill.
Here’s the announcement from the Demand Change Campaign:
Victory as Peers vote for women, not pimps and punters!
The Demand Change! Campaign is delighted to announce a major victory for women exploited by the sex industry, as last night the House of Lords voted in favour of Clause 14 (formerly 13) of the Policing & Crime Bill, putting the rights of exploited women over those of pimps and punters.
In focusing on the demand for sexual services, Clause 14 shifts criminal liability away from people exploited through prostitution and places responsibility firmly on the shoulders of those who contribute to commercial sexual exploitation by choosing to purchase girls, boys, women and men for sexual use.
This is a huge achievement for the 67 women’s and human rights organisations which supported this bill, and which campaigned tirelessly to obtain justice for the women, children and men who have for so long been exploited by the sex industry. Many of these organisations along with Demand Change! activists attended our successful mass support rally in Parliament Square just before the vote, calling on Peers to ‘Vote for Women, not Pimps and Punters!’.
A massive well done and thank you to all of you who wrote letters to MPs and Peers, who signed the joint statement of support, who protested outside the Houses of Parliament, who gave testimony and were part of or helped make the film of video testimony that was screened in the House of Commons on the eve of the debate (mentioned in the debate) and who have been working for years to raise awareness about the reality of prostitution and the need to tackle demand for commercial sexual exploitation.
This is a huge victory in the fight against commercial sexual exploitation.
Indeed it is.
You can read the Lords debate here. And here’s Baroness Scotland’s contribution to it:
We should not cloak ourselves in the impression that what we are talking about are the civil liberties of the purchaser. What we are talking about is the abuse, degradation, humiliation and pain caused to women who engage in this activity, not because they desire it but because they are compelled, coerced and manacled in a way that no human being should be….
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?
🙂
(Edit 5th November) You can also watch the debate here (fast forward to 1:07.15):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8339000/8339070.stm
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Wonderful news – finally a small step towards curbing pseudo male sex right to women and girls.
It has been a very long and uphill struggle waged against the prostitutors, pimps and of course the lobbyists funded by the hugely profitable sex industry.
As Baroness Scotland said ‘who will we support and who will we defend?’ I know who I support and who I defend and it never has been the Johns, pimps and pro-prostitution apologists.
Likewise, a big thank you to the women’s organisations and feminist individuals who all in different ways contributed to the passing of Clause 14.
Next step will be to criminalise all men who attempt to buy women/girls for the purpose of raping and/or sexually torturing them. Now that would be another victory for all women, but especially for the women and girls who have suffered at the hands of Johns, pimps and brothel owners.
I’m afraid you may find that you have counted your chickens before they have hatched, because the Lords have not yet actually voted in favour of Clause 14. All that happened last evening – at about 22:55 – was that Amendment 20 was withdrawn.
After: “A person (A) commits an offence if -“, Amendment 20 would have left out:
“(c) C (the person engaging in exploitative conduct) engaged in that conduct for or in expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B (the prostitute)“; and inserted:
“A is aware, or ought to be aware, that C has engaged in exploitative conduct of that kind”.
If it had been accepted, Amendment 20 would certainly have removed the strict liability element from Clause 14. However, there remain two further amendments, 21 and 22, which also apply to Clause 14 and which have yet to be debated.
After “The following are irrelevant”, Amendment 21 states:
Leave out: “(b) Whether A is aware, or ought to be aware, that C has engaged in exploitative conduct”.
Amendment 22 states:
“Leave out Clause 14”.
The Report Stage resumes on 5th November, so whether Amendment 21 or 22 has been adopted will no doubt become apparent very soon.
Hope that clarifies.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/074/amend/ml074-ir.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/074/09074.12-18.html#j038dgb
David, you’re wrong. In her summing up Baroness Miller who submitted the amendments stated:
Also, if you check out Punternet you’ll see the IUSW are now focusing their energies on tomorrow’s debate re section 21 brothel closure orders, plus you’ll find the initial thoughts from the ECP about, in their words “the Bill going through the Lords last night”
I’ll reserve judgement on this until it becomes clear whether Amendments 21 and 22 are to be moved.
However, I would be very surprised if a prosecution resulting from the strict liability element in Clause 14 would be compatible with the Human Rights Act, because the customer would be convicted for exploitation carried out by a third party whom he does not know even exists, let alone has committed any relevant offence. What other customer would be convicted of that?
Very bad law indeed. I would expect such a case to end up in the Court of Appeal or the new Supreme Court.
BTW – What’s Punternet?
Punternet is a service hosted in Dayton, Ohio by a pornography business ( Black Oak Computers) with commercial offices in California,
the Rt. Hon. Harriet Harman MP at her party conference remarked upon referring the enterprise to the Gov of california,
it is an offshored brothel review service relating to Britain & Ireland with sex tourism aspects. It is also linked ( officially or otherwise) to ACPO campaigns, via Crimestoppers.
“What other customer would be convicted of that?”
Each member of a common enterprise is individually liable.
Sepian – Of course I have really heard of Punternet, and of Harriet Harman’s oh-so-predictable “ban it” attitude towards it. I was only kidding, as is my wont. 😉
Not automatically, no. It has to be proved in each individual case.
In any case, how can the client be involved in a common enterprise with someone whom he does not know exists? I’ve heard of Halloween but that’s ridiculous.
I would very much like to see how that one fares in a British court given the level of proof required.
Gulfstream5 and anyone else who’s interested – you can watch the debate live here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/default.stm
Incidentally, they’ve started the debate at amendment 26, so as I said in the OP, clause 14 has gone through without amendment.
The headline chosen by Demand Change contains the usual fundamental inaccuracy typical of this campaign.
Peers DID NOT vote in favour of clause 14. There was no vote.
In fact, I think it may be the case that there has never been a vote on clause 14 – the only votes I’m aware of, in Commons or Lords, on the provisions relating to sex work in the Policing and Crime Bill, challenged the government’s contemptible commitment to the criminalisation of under-18s who solicit on-street. Regrettably, both these votes were lost.
Catherine, there was a kind of verbal vote where they had to say either ‘content’ or ‘not content.’ My understanding is that had there been any indication of a lack of consensus, then there would have been a vote (as there was earlier this afternoon on amendment 26).
Catherine, you are right. There has never been a formal division on what is now Clause 14, in which votes are properly counted. It only got through due to amendments aimed at altering or deleting it being withdrawn.
However, I understand from the debate that followed today on lap dancing clubs that it is still possible for amendments to be tabled for consideration at the Third Reading, scheduled for 11th November.
Why do you think the term ‘criminal liability’was used in connection with clause 14? Because this means any John accused of attempting to buy a prostituted woman or girl who has been coerced or forced into prostitution, will not be able to claim ‘but I didn’t know she had been forced.’
Criminal liability works very well with laws such as drinking and driving and despite much hysteria when this law was passed guess what? Within a very short time our society accepted it.
Now as regards men buying women for the purpose of sexually masturbating into their bodies, raping them and/or inflicting sexual torture on them – challenging this pseudo male sex right goes right to the heart of male power and domination over women. This is why the sex industry has used some of their immense profits in an attempt to persuade peers ‘prostitution is just sex work and would be better for women than working in low paid non-sexually exploitative industries.’
Now the focus is on the sex industry and their cohorts challenging proposed restrictions on that other section of the sex industry – lap dancing clubs or as I prefer to call them places where males can sexually exploit and degrade women.
Jennifer Drew
That’s because in that case it’s the person who has actually committed the criminal offence who is being prosecuted.
It’s a false analogy, because in the case of Clause 14 it’s not the client who is criminally liable for the prostitute being subjected to “exploitative conduct” (if that is actually the case) but the pimp or trafficker.
There is no legal precedent for strict liability to be extended to a secondary defendant who was not complicit in the offence committed by the primary defendant.
If a car is being driven by someone who is over the limit, is the passenger ever prosecuted for the driver’s offence?
Lap-dancing was equally associated with sex trafficking in Europe after the ( last) Balkan wars.
Pentameter II, as far as I know didn’t raid a single Lap danicing club, and if that is true, it is very remarkable.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/91103-0017.htm
“Some Lords objected to the request for leave to withdraw the amendment, so it was not granted.
The Chairman decided on a show of voices that Amendment 20 was disagreed.”
Cath, a non-scientifically measured estimation of decibel volume does not constitute _a vote_. If it did, we would decide general elections by shouting.
As usual, what Demand Change, and you yourself present, is _like_ a fact – but not actually, factually correct.
However, there seems to have been some belated recognition by the government of the harm implicit in clause 21, as they have brought in additional statute measures to restrict application. I’m unaware of premises that continue to experience police “taxing” (regular attendance for free sex in exchange for not getting prosecuted) that were routine in the early 90s at one brothel I worked in, but clause 21 makes all sex workers who work indoors (whether in isolation or company, given that there is no burden of proof required for a closure order) enormously vulnerable to the police.
Thankfully, there are example of fantastic good practice from the police – all it takes is the political will. In Liverpool, the police view crimes against sex workers – like crimes against LGBT, like racist assaults – as hate crime. With a specialist support worker, Liverpool police are achieving a 40% detection rate for rapes committed against street sex workers reported to the police. 90% of cases for violence against sex workers that went to court during 2005 to end March 2009 resulted in convictions. Serious sexual assault cases for the past six months have achieved a 100% detection rate.
National average conviction rate for rape against all women is 6%.
But this achievement – putting rapists behind bars – requires actually listening to sex workers when we talk about violence, not describing everything that happens to us as assault in order to conform with an ideological viewpoint. Particularly, it means not arresting sex workers when we contact the police to report crimes against us. The latest example of this is a group of sex workers who contacted the police to report a gang entering their flat and spraying the place with petrol – no statements on that incident have been taken, but the police are pursuing a prosecution against those who called them for protection. Clause 21 only makes such abuses – by criminals and the police – more likely.
Catherine
I’m in complete agreement with you on this.
“I’m in complete agreement with you on this.”
Yet there has been complete silence in the so-called “feminist” campaigns on the Policing and Crime Bill with regard to the increased criminalisation of sex workers, and repeated attempts to undermine those organisations which campaign against this criminalisation.
I think feminist organisations have been absolutely clear that they don’t support the criminalisation of prostitutes right the way through the passage of this bill. That’s why Clause 14 was so important, because it places the responsibility right where it should be, with the pimps and the punters, not the women themselves.
Where in these campaigns has opposition to our increased criminalisation been made clear? I have seen no evidence of it, in statements from Object or Demand Change or in Eaves’ evidence to the Select Committee. I have seen no attempt to lobby against increased criminalisation of sex workers and refusal to acknowledge the Massey judgement’s criminalisation of consenting sex.
Please show me where I can find the material to which you are referring.
‘As 11.00pm approached, the Chamber slowly filled up with Labour Peers and it became obvious that, despite a speech from the Conservative front-bench taking the libertarian line, the LibDem amendment would be defeated. When the LibDem spokesperson responded to the debate, she indicated that she would withdraw the amendment rather than have it defeated. (This would have given her the opportunity to reintroduce it next week at Third Reading.) She therefore sought ‘leave to withdraw’ – which is normally automatically given. However, when this was put to the House, a number of us growled ‘No’ which meant that the substantive amendment had to be put. A voice vote was taken with a handful saying ‘Content’ against a roar of ‘Not Content’. From the Woolsack it was suggested that the ‘I think the Not Contents have it’ and when – unusually – this did not produce a counter-shout of ‘Content’, it was declared that ‘The Not Contents have it’ and the amendment was defeated without a Division. ‘
http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/the-libdems-i-didnt-know-she-was-trafficked-defence-gets-voted-down-without-a-vote/
There is something which has been missed entirely, and it was raised with me, by a conservative member of the lords, because I have nore personal experience than the entire heap of everything else combined ( that being Hugh Orde’s new hobby).
Your top cop at the ACPO, you got from us.
It is not the job of the ECP to accurately explain the failings of the UKHTC. If they did that, we might have had a few witnesses.
It is the job of prohibition to explain why the UKHTC etc. are a waste of time, a post office box, a liability rather than a help.
It would be a mistake to assume the Tory/UUP, the next govt. are going to continue a policy of arresting hundreds of prostituted women as part of some gimmick.
They are opposed to New Labour gimmicks, the public to be protected from them etc.
“Tories try to weaken
prostitution law plan”
The next govt. isn’t going to be labor, and we could surely have problems ahead.
It is very difficult to engage support for a (practical) scam – the UKHTC, facilitated by political opponents.
The ideas are not fake, the policing was fake.
If you settle for a gimmick from your political friends, then my side may eventually decide to pay you in brown money.
There is no guarantee
Gregory
at last a dose of realism on the issue, like the subject of dirty needles or shelters, if we turn a blind eye to it, it doesn’t go away. As an aside, I wonder how many Lords have visited prostitutes, maybe it was of this that they realised the poor conditions in which they work (the prostitutes that is).
What’s going on Cath?
Why the complete silence at the Guardian after their over the top coverage last week?!!
A real step in the right direction. Lets hope the soon to be law is properly enforced with active prosecutions. The final say is next week but should be a mere fomality. Great result for ourselves and all those campaigning for clause 14.
Cath Elliott // November 5, 2009 at 10:48 pm
“I think feminist organisations have been absolutely clear that they don’t support the criminalisation of prostitutes right the way through the passage of this bill. That’s why Clause 14 was so important, because it places the responsibility right where it should be, with the pimps and the punters, not the women themselves.”
Catherine Stephens // November 5, 2009 at 10:56 pm
“Where in these campaigns has opposition to our increased criminalisation been made clear? I have seen no evidence of it, in statements from Object or Demand Change or in Eaves’ evidence to the Select Committee. I have seen no attempt to lobby against increased criminalisation of sex workers and refusal to acknowledge the Massey judgement’s criminalisation of consenting sex.
Please show me where I can find the material to which you are referring.”
Any response? Or simply silence?
Catherine, I didn’t bother responding because your question is quite patently ridiculous.
Ermm, try the front page of the Demand Change website for starters, especially the bit that says:
In fact look at anything put out by any of the organisations you cite and you’ll find all of them calling for the UK to adopt the Nordic model of prostitution, you know, the one that decriminalises sex workers.
But then you already knew that.
The legal reasons for removing the strict liability element from Clause 14 were explained in the 3rd November debate by Lord Pannick (Crossbencher) and Lord Thomas of Gresford (Lib Dem), both experienced barristers.
It is true that sex with a girl under 13 remains a strict liability offence (not so if she is between 13 and 16, or between 13 and 18 where there is duty of trust involved), but here it is the primary defendant, ie the person actually committing the offence who is guilty on a strict liability basis. There is no automatic extension of guilt on a strict liability basis to any secondary defendant in this case or in any other case in British law.
That is why the strict liability element in Clause 14 is wrong in principle. No doubt our legislators will acquaint themselves with these facts before deciding what to do with Clause 14 at the Third Reading on 11th November. A new table of Amendments will be drawn up for this debate.
Even this bigoted government quaked at the thought of trying to outlaw all payment for sex in this country, so they fell back on to the inequitable botch of Clause 14 instead. They should scrap it.
Yes, I’m aware of the ostensible support for decriminalisation put out as part of these campaigns, which don’t seem to recognise that exchanging sexual services for money is legal, and that we are in fact criminalised by the legislation on brothel keeping and controlling for gain, which prevents us working together. I’ve certainly seen nothing in the lobbying materials distributed to supporters of anti sex workers’ rights crusade that asks people to campaign against the imposition of rehabilitation as punishment, the definition of persistence as twice in three months, and the most dangerous change in the law, brothel closure orders.
Where is it?
Lord Pannick on strict liability:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLWeXhc4J8k