Moralising Sex Work

With the recent murders on sex workers in the UK (see previous blog post), BBC has published this article which discusses possible solutions to make sex work safer for the men and women in that line of work.

Currently in the UK, it is not illegal to sell sex, but brothels and selling sex on the street is illegal. There may be one person in one building selling sex, but no more. While there are justifications for this legislation, such as worries about facilitating human trafficking if brothels and street prostitution were to be decriminalised, and that street prostitution can be very unsafe, this legislation ends up offering little protection for sex workers.

The consequence of legislation that does not allow sex workers to meet customers on the street or in a brothel is that they either need to rent a room, hire a space or bring the customers to their own homes. The first two options could be expensive in the long run unless the sex worker would charge the client for rent or room hire, but the way that the market dictates business, the price increase could lead to a loss in business. The third option is just simply unsafe. Sex workers are at a high risk for sexual violence and other forms of violence as it is. If the sex workers would then be forced to reveal where they live to their clients, they could face serious danger, not to mention fear of being visited by the authorities and other people that would wish to make their opinions known about sex workers.

My personal fear is that our moral views impair our thinking when it comes to sex work and lead to unsafe legislation for the men and women voluntarily involved in that line of work. (As said before, trafficking is always, and should always be, viewed as a crime as there is an element of coercion/threat and/or debt bondage. More on that here.) Instead of providing them with safe places to run their businesses, the legislation punishes them because they are in a line of work that people do not agree with morally, and that people perhaps would not choose for themselves. So what we do, instead of working with these people, is to work against them.

Regardless of what view one has of prostitution - whether it should exist or not, or whether the need for it should exist or not - it exists. The reality is that people sell sex. The reality is that there is a market for selling sex, and people will sell sex. To legislate in a way that punishes these people and make their line of work highly unsafe and a high risk for violence in different forms is not going to change this - sex will continue to be sold. It is one of the very oldest trades and it will probably continue to exist for a long time yet, whether governments choose to let the trade operate in the open and regulate it, or keep it in the dark.

The focus therefore needs to lie on making this line of work safe for the people within it, rather than punish them or robbing them of their rights, or keep legislation in place that has proved itself not to make the situation safer for sex workers. Just because many people disagree with this trade does not mean that these people do not deserve the same rights to safety and freedom from violence and other abuse. It is a good thing that the police are putting a lot of focus on uncovering trafficking networks and trafficked people, but that does not mean that it is justified to neglect the people who are in the sex trade voluntarily. They are at high risk for abuse and sexual assault and should be offered protection accordingly. There is still a wide-spread belief that sex workers cannot be raped because they sell sex, but any sexual advance that has not been negotiated or agreed upon is still an offence regardless of whom it is done to. Unfortunately this leads to a stigma that is reflected in society and not even the police is safe from it.

It is a good thing that this is currently being discussed in the media, but let's make sure that it stays this way. Let's make sure that we do not let this topic disappear because we do not want to see the uncomfortable truths or that we want to pretend that these issues do not exist. Let's make sure that these people can also live safely without the fear of being used, abused and murdered, because all people deserve that right.

General Election 2010 Reflections

I love democracy. It’s absolutely beautiful. And I love politics, it’s so versatile and alive and ever-changing. I think I want political babies named Democracy and Liberty, good names and good concepts.

It’s the election hype that has gotten me this fired up. The UK had a general election yesterday, and living in the country I can’t very well avoid it. Being a politics student, I don’t want to avoid it. It’s like the UK has had this shimmer lying over it, covering it. It smells of anticipation and of change. Although the democracy shimmer has slightly subdued as the election is over, the image of it is fresh in my memory. It is beautiful. If I could, I would take a swim in this democracy shimmer surrounding me with the power and voices of the people.

The election had a rather interesting outcome. None of the parties won the majority and it is now a so called “hung parliament.” Being Swedish I find this whole stress over a coalition government pretty entertaining. We have always had coalition governments and that’s how I prefer it. In fact, I think that the current set up of two opposing blocs or alliances in Swedish politics is downright dangerous for democracy and doesn’t offer the voter enough choices. It is not representative enough. I think hung is good and that coalitions lead to a higher rate of democracy.

The interesting bit is going to be to see how this whole coalition is going to play out. At the moment all the power lies in the hands of the Liberal Democrat party leader, Nick Clegg. Is he going to take the Conservatives up on their offer to form a coalition government? Would he be letting his voters down by doing so since the Lib Dems seem much closer to Labour in policies? Most importantly, how is he going to address this half-ass attempt Conservative leader David Cameron made of setting up a committee looking into the current unfairness of the voting system? Not to mention that Cameron stated that he wants to keep a first past the post system, which is basically what keeps on losing seats for the Lib Dems. How is Clegg going to reconcile his strong beliefs in fair representation with the clearly not-so-fair representation system that the Tories want?

On the other hand, if Clegg were to turn down the Conservative offer of forming a coalition government, he would be bypassing the party that won the largest share of the popular votes and seats in parliament to form a government with a party that the electorate has clearly rejected. Can that be justified? A Lib-Lab coalition would still not reach the majority needed to safely pass legislation through parliament.

Yes, it is interesting to say the least.


I know I am not allowed to vote in this country. As a Swedish citizen, I really have no say on how the electoral system should be shaped, but as a human being I am allowed to an opinion. And furthermore, as a strong believer in democracy I cannot stand idly by and not have an opinion as this general election has proven that the UK has a severely unfair system. The Lib Dems won around 23% of the popular vote but ended up with 57, giving them less than 10% of seats in parliament. That hardly seems fair.

I hope the electoral system will be reformed in Britain, to a proper proportional representation system. Something like Mixed Member Proportional Representation where people could easily affect both which candidates they send to parliament as well as parties. Or perhaps something like we have in Sweden with a list of party candidates already printed on an open list and where people can vote for particular persons if they so wish, but if they do not, the choice of the candidates will go to the party. Although, as someone pointed out over at the BookCrossing forums today, that can lead to candidates in parliament who have technically not been elected but appointed by the party leadership, a rather elitist tactic, and one which makes sure that the power seat in each party can put their drones into parliament.

One last thing, for those scaremongers who claim that the BNP would gain 10 or more seats through a proportional representation system, that is simply not true. A proportional system often comes with a threshold that any party is required to pass before being allowed into parliament. In Sweden it is 4%, but some countries have higher. This is to avoid an unlimited number of parties in parliament that only represent a minuscule proportion of the country and it also works as a safeguard against extremist parties. With the BNP’s meagre 1,9% of the popular vote, this would be well below the threshold.