Punishment for the perpetrators of the sex trade, not its victims

It is only too right that men who buy sex should face potential prosecution and punishment.

The current legislation surrounding prostitution penalises prostitutes themselves, a large proportion of whom have been illegally trafficked into this country for use as sex workers, or driven to prostitution through poverty and drug abuse. Hardly the "free choice" that some people cite as a reason for legalising prostitution, or evidence that poverty-striken, crack addict or otherwise desperate women are often better off earning money in the sex trade than anywhere else. Nor is this a demonstration that prostitutes "know what they are doing" when they enter the sex trade; research has found that four fifths of London prostitutes are from abroad - mainly from eastern Europe and south east Asia - and a large number have come to this country on the understanding that they would be provided with jobs in restaurants or cafes, security and "a better way of life".

Current laws do, fortunately, crack down harshly on those men (and occasionally women) involved in the supplying of sex workers from foreign countries to the streets of Britain, but the men who actually pay for their services, provide the money and thus create the demand in the first place, get off scot free.

Eight years ago Sweden took the step of criminalising men who buy sex, and decriminalising the act of selling it, which has led to a huge decrease in the number of brothels, as well as significantly lowering the level of trafficking into the country.

Discussions at this stage in Britain include the naming and shaming of men caught kerb crawling, and changes in legislation to see the criminalisation of men paying for sex, though no concrete proposals have yet been made. The sooner the better. It's about time that in this country, where women's rights, the pay gap and gender equality are so high on the government agenda, something is done to punish the men who undermine the whole concept of women's rights, not to mention the self-respect of the individual women concerned. This rather than penalising the women themselves, who need help, not punishment.

Sources:
The Guardian
The New Statesman

One small click for man...

The Internet is a near-essential tool for anyone with an agenda to publicise. It facilites the signing of petitions, allows easy access to information and enables campaigners and advertisers to post their ideas, instantly, into the inboxes of thousands of users with nothing but a single click.

Now it seems that nothing but a single click is all that you need to do to pledge your support for a stronger government policy on climate change. You can even upload a video with your say. If you want to, you can write your own message, type in your address and your views will be sent directly to your local MP. Go to The Big Ask to find out more and join up.

In 2005, The Big Ask enabled 130,000 people to contact MPs using a fixed letter template, forcing the government to introduce a climate change bill. You can help do the same again and join the 172,000 people who have already signed, here.

I hope online "marches" don't become a substitute for real-life demonstrations, though. Contrary to what the sofa activists among us think, there's nothing quite like traipsing through the soggy streets of London with a placard/on stilts/wearing a hideous George W. Bush mask, accompanied by ten thousand other protestors like you, all marching and chanting in unison. It's noisy, crowded, tiring, chaotic, but the atmosphere is electric.

Green Smokescreen

Is it me, or is there a rather glaring contradiction in these two particular government moves?:

1. Criticising airlines for not trying hard enough on carbon offsetting, and
2. Giving its permission for a fifth terminal to open at Heathrow airport.

It seems that the British government will go to great lengths to demonstrate to its citizens that it is concerned about and doing something to combat climate change. In January it imposed higher APD (Air Passenger Duty) charges on all flights from and into the UK. It is currently attacking airlines for not offering their passengers enough opportunity to offset carbon emissions. Politics have never been so green. Even the Tories plan to introduce higher APD charges if they are elected.

Its policies, though, are more green PR than real action. Green has become the fashion, a fashionable lifestyle, a fashionable set of morals. This is why it is so important for the Labour government, a government in danger of being ousted from power at the next general election, to paint itself in the greenest possible light.

APD might seem like a good thing, but what does it actually do? Does it deter people from flying? I doubt it. At the following rates:

Economy class flights in Europe, internal UK flights - £10
Business and first class flights in Europe - £20
Economy class long-haul flights - £40
Business and first class long-haul flights - £80

I hardly think that an extra £10 per head is going to stop people going on holiday, or that even £80 extra per person is going to convince somebody able to pay for a long haul, first class flight to Japan, to spend a fortnight on the trans-Siberian railway or to nip across on a boat instead. So where do these government taxes go? At present, the Ministry of Transport is planning an extension to a 51-mile section of the M6, costing an estimated mindboggling £2.9billion. So you tell me.

What about offsetting carbon emissions? A tree planted in a forest for each weekend break. Trees die prematurely and are burned in forest fires, not only destroying the so-called "carbon offsets" but also pouring more smoke into the atmosphere. And anyway, is the opportunity to "offset our carbon emissions" really anything more than the opportunity to legitimise our destructive actions?

The attitude of most of the major political parties towards climate change is somewhat worrying. Given the gravity of the threat, surely raising awareness and cutting carbon emissions in as many ways as humanly possible should be the priority, not sacrificing the truth of the matter in favour of political power.