Saturday, September 20, 2008

Every penny don't fit the slot...*

Now, your humble Devil has never used a prostitute (although he knows several people who have)—I wouldn't know where to start and, besides, I'm far too mean.

However, as he is a believer in free trade, he does believe that if a man wishes to buy sex and a woman wishes to sell it, then these too people should be allowed to fulfill the contract that they have agreed to without the state sticking its fucking oar in.

Unfortunately, our lords and masters do not appear to agree, evil little fucks that they are.
Men who buy sex from women who have been coerced into prostitution or trafficked for sexual exploitation would be prosecuted under proposals to be announced by the Home Secretary tomorrow.

Right. And how are the clients supposed to know, exactly?

Look, you can only prosecute someone for breaking the law if they know that they are breaking the law. I don't mean that ignorance of the law is a defence—it isn't. But if you allow that buying sex is legal, unless you've bought it from a certain person, then you should surely have to prove that the punter knew that that contract was illegal.

It would be totally unfair to prosecute a man from buying sex from a prostitute if he didn't know that she was trafficked, surely? So, the court is going to have to prove that the punter knew that the girl was trafficked, and I can see an awful lot of problems with that.

One of the biggest problems, of course, is that it will be almost impossible to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the punter was aware and therefore conviction rates will be derisory. And then, a whole bunch of special interest groups will start complaining about the low conviction rate—as with rape—and the laws will start becoming more draconian.

The first measure to be enacted at this stage, of course, is that the prsumption of innocence will go out of the fucking window; in other words, the punter will be presumed to be guilty unless he can prove that he didn't know that he was committing an offence.

The second measure will be yet more laws against the buying or selling of sex. And that will put people like Lara on the breadline.
It would be an offence in England and Wales to pay for sex if the woman was being controlled by a pimp, had been coerced into the sex trade or was trafficked into Britain for sexual exploitation.

As Timmy points out, that rather depends on your definition of "trafficked", doesn't it?
That there are some who are literal slaves I have no doubt. That there are some who are "trafficked" under the UN definition who are so trafficked by their own free will I also have no doubt.

The problem is that the number of the former is tiny, miniscule, while the number of the latter is large (by comparison at least).


Now, it is wrong that women are kidnapped and brought to this country and forced into prostitution; however, the correct response in this situation would be to fucking well enforce the laws that we already have! How many times have I had to write those words over the last (nearly) four years?

We have laws: fucking well enforce them, you totalitarian cunts. If you cannot enforce the laws that we already have, then how the living fuck do think that you can enforce the thousands more that you have enacted?

Seriously, what the FUCK?
Last year Jacqui Smith said: “We recognise that there is considerable support for us to do more to tackle the demand for prostitution and to prevent the trafficking of people for sexual exploitation.”

Why don't you detect such crimes and then prosecute the perpetrators for kidnapping, slavery, violence, etc.? It's because you do not actually give a fuck, you hideous Gorgon.

And you can't tackle the "demand for prostitution" unless you fucking brainwash everyone into not desiring sex. You can criminalise acting on said "demand" but you cannot get rid of the demand, you thick cunts—although I believe that The Party of 1984 were working on abolishing the orgasm. Perhaps you should take a leaf out of that book—well, yet another leaf out of that book—and get working on that?

Oh, and while I am about it, one measure that might help these poor bitches who have been enslaved is to promise not to deport them if they come forward. Why don't you do that, Jacqui, you silly bitch?

God's balls, but I hate Jacqui cocking Smith.
Gordon Brown recently indicated his determination to legislate in this area, when his spokesman said that he believed it was wrong for men to pay for sex.

Well, I am very happy that Gordon has some morals, but that is all that they are—his personal fucking morals. And as I have argued many times before, neither the Gobblin' King nor anybody else has the right to impose his Puritanical, miserable and—I shall say this again—entirely personal morality onto everyone else.

This is why I have no time for politicians—even those who "mean well" and "genuinely want to make the country a better place" only want to do so according to their own personal morality. And what that means in practice is punishing those who do not share said politician's personal morals—or, at least, their professed morals (for we know from bitter experience that what a politicians says that he believes in is all to often rather a long way from what they actually do).

And given that, in general, every law that a politician passes makes the people of this country less free, that means that we are all forced into images of said politician on pain of state violence against us.

The Home Secretary will make clear that the measure will not affect sole traders or women selling sex of their own free will.

Oh, well that's fucking generous of them, isn't it? The state's going to let you keep your chosen livelihood: now, I hope that all of you prostitutes are going to write a nice, long thank-you letter to the government, effusively and humbly telling them how grateful you are that you will be allowed to continue living your life as you choose.
The move represents a compromise solution to demands from some senior members of the Government to criminalise the purchase of all sex.

An oblique reference to Harriet fucking Harperson, I suppose...
Police were concerned about the practicalities of a law banning any payment for sex.

Well, quite: it could be rather tricky. After all, the state taxes some bonuses and certain expenses as a "benefit in kind"—an attempt to conceal a salary boost—and certain actions might be so construed.

After all, if your humble Devil were to take a young lady out for dinner**, pay for the bill in full, then accompany her back to her flat and spend all night having wild and highly enjoyable sex with her (a situation that has occasionally happened, believe it or not), might that not be construed as "paying for sex"? I think that it could.
Exact details of the new offence and the penalties to be imposed are yet to be worked out.

What? You mean that the government has announced a new law but hasn't actually bothered to go into the details? Well, who'da thunk it?
Ministers believe that the measure will act as a deterrent to international human trafficking.

In which case, they are fucking idiots.
During a visit to Amsterdam as part of a government review of prostitution laws, Vernon Coaker, a Home Office minister, was told that the city was being used as a transit post for girls waiting to come to Britain to work as prostitutes.

Willingly or unwillingly? Perhaps Mr Coker actually undertook some scientific polling and research and would like to publish said report?
The Government has toughened its stance on prostitution in recent years, after initially considering “tolerance zones”.

The tolerance zone in Edinburgh worked rather well. Needless to say, once they abolished it, assaults on protitutes rose significantly. Nice one: way to go protecting women, you daft bastards.
Plans to permit small brothels, with two prostitutes and a maid, to operate legally remain under review.

Well, that would be a step in the right direction but, given the fact that the government "has toughened its stance on prostitution in recent years", what are the chances of that happening, eh?
In Britain, Harriet Harman, the Minister for Women and Equality, was among those in the Government pressing for tough measures to tackle the demand for paid sex and to give greater protection for women. She wanted to make it illegal to pay for all sex. Under existing laws in Britain, prostitution is not illegal but keeping a brothel is a criminal offence. Kerb crawling and soliciting for sex are also illegal.

Harriet Harperson is one of the most ignorant and poisonous evil fucks in the entire House of Commons and that is really saying something. That she is in any position of power says an awful lot, not only about the moral corruption of NuLabour but also the stupidity of the population and the flawed nature of our democracy. May she die in pain.

Why doesn't the state fuck off and stop trying to impose its morality on those who do not share said Victorian fucking values? Fuck off. Fuck off and die, you evil bastards.

* From this.

** It needn't be dinner. A couple of Bacardi Breezers might do the job.


John A said...

In re "Gordon Brown recently indicated his determination to legislate in this area, when his spokesman said that he believed it was wrong for men to pay for sex," well, I too think it should be free. Indeed, I think that women also should not be forced to pay for sex.

OTOH, at least "You get what you pay for." Sometimes with extras, such as being "rolled" for whatever can be carried off.

Alan Douglas said...

"Harriet Harperchild, the Minister for Women and Equality, was among those in the Government pressing for tough measures to tackle the demand for paid sex".

HH need have NO fears - no matter how LEGAL it would be to pay for sex with her, there would be no takers.

Alan Douglas

Anonymous said...

It's not so long ago that some mad law reform body* was considering proposing that written consent, including a list of which practices and techniques were or were not to be used, should be obtained every time people were about to Do Sex. I don't know whether this was supposed to be handwritten on each occasion or whether printed proformas were to be made available.

*The Law Commission. They decided not to pursue the idea, but it's only a matter of time.

Winston said...

The government's policy on the provision of illegal services is a massive contradiction.

If you provide drugs to people you are a pusher, the availability creates the demand and so the provider takes the larger portion of the blame and the buyer is seen more as a victim.

If you provide sex you are a victim and the buyer is viewed as the person creating the market.

As you say though making payment for sex illegal would be a massive mistake, we'd have to lock up every woman in the country.