Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Friday, 21 December 2007

Harman is no friend of women's rights

Harman wants to make it an offence to pay women for sex. Let's imagine for a moment that this risible naivity makes it through to a legal draft. Is payment both in cash and in kind to be illegal? Clearly, dinner for two at the Ivy and a show as a prelude to seduction wouldn't count. What about the gift of a piece of jewellry as advanced foreplay? Clearly not.

No, in order to be able to prosecute a man for paying a woman for sex it's clear that she must be recognised as a prostitute. In the bad old days certain women were registered as 'Common Prostitutes' - common not in the sense of vulgar, you understand, but in the sense of public. The police kept lists. Such women could then be easily prosecuted in the police courts for loitering or soliciting. Such registers were dropped because they stigmatised, for example, single mums who'd turn a trick from time to time to pay the gas bill.

The only way Harman's proposal could have legal effect would be to make it an offence to pay a Common Prostitute. Thus the police registers of Common Prostitutes would be reintroduced and be filled with the many women of all classes - students, housewives, mums - who may have recourse to a period of casual prostitution to cope with a financial crisis.

Harman proposes, in other words, for the State to take control of a woman's property in her own body. Whilst I expect nothing less from New Labour, it's hardly a woman-friendly policy, is it?


Savonarola said...

We know Harman to be thick, very thick. Yet even this deluded moron cannot be sincere in opening up this pointless and futile 'debate'.
This is a cynical diversion. In a month or two say 'Harman' and think 'campaigner against prostitution' rather than ' dodgy donations'.

Ed said...

The truly depressing thing is that lots of hand-wringing moraliser are saying "ooh yes, we didn't even realise that it was legal still - well done Harriet".

How does she propose to prevent leaving an escort a "tip" after a nice night? How will the offence be proved?

Guthrum said...

The inevitability of Nu Labour's rent a feminist wanting to stop and prosecute Men who pay for sex with women, not women or gays note, so its still a field day for gigilos and Rent boys.

The net result if this idiot deputy leader of the Labour Party gets her way is driving prostitution in all its forms underground with more violence and health risks to its practitioners and more criminality. Passing unenforcible Laws makes a mockery of the Law.

Sex cannot not be legistlated against you stupid stupid woman

hatfield girl said...

She's dressing herself in the grave clothes of 19th century social reform. Those who call themselves socialist now think justification for their behaviour is to be found in referencing past, long -remedied social evils

Anonymous said...

It's disgustingly sexist and heteronormative of you to refer to her as Harman. She is Harperson or possibly Harwomyn.

Newmania said...

I would have though it would be a better idea to legalise brothels, didn’t the WI suggest this ? I must say I am not quite as sanguine about the growing exploitation of women and the soulless attitude to sex that seems , to me , to be behind a concern not uniquely Harmanisations .

I cannot think of what to do about it ,but I am unimpressed with the amount of pornography available and its growing acceptance as just another product .