Scot-PEP logo

· Scottish Prostitutes Education Project ·
promoting health and dignity in prostitution

about >>
Learn more about SCOT-PEP and our services

how you can help >>
  • Donate! SCOT-PEP is a small community-based charity in Leith which relies on donations from the public to maintain essential support and services for sex workers. Cheques and postal orders can be sent to the address on the right, or you can donate by credit card. Every little bit helps!

  • Volunteer! We depend on volunteers for our outreach services.

    • 33 reasons why the clients of sex workers should not be criminalised


    Harriet Harman, Minister of State, Minister for Justice at the Department for Constitutional Affairs and Member of Parliament for Camberwell and Peckham, is pushing for a Swedish-style law against the buying of sex, saying it will stem the demand for sex workers trafficked into Britain. This has now become incorporated in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2008, which is currently at the House of Lords.

    The Sexual Freedom Coalition and Ariana Chevalier have consulted sex workers, clients, lawyers and academics, gathering together many views, all of which disagree with this monstrous proposal. Here is our list of their reasons.

    1. Banning the buying of sex on the grounds that prostitution is violence towards women, is invalid - this is fundamentalist feminist propaganda and untrue.

    2. Banning the buying of sex drives activities underground and makes it more dangerous for sex workers and their clients. Real crimes in this area are less likely to be reported to the police, and health initiatives become unworkable.

    3. The decriminalisation of prostitution is a much more popular and sensible solution which is supported by the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Council, the Women's Institute and all sex work support groups.

    4. Evidence from other countries (including Sweden) suggests that a policy of suppression, whether focused on clients or sex workers, can have very negative consequences for those who trade sex.

    5. The notion is simplistic - because not all clients are men and not all sex workers are women. Couples, disabled women, older women and wealthy women hire sex workers of both genders and many married men hire male sex workers.

    6. It is an infantile view that all sex workers are poor helpless victims and all clients are the proverbial dirty/violent old man in a raincoat. Isn't it about time thinking on this issue grew up?

    7. Sex work seems to be gaining more acceptance; e.g. there was a recent BBC TV programme about some disabled people going to Spain to visit a brothel with the reasons being given that able-bodied people didn't see them as viable partners etc. The point is there doesn't seem to have been any backlash against it.

    8. It is not true that once demand for something gets beyond a certain point you can’t control it, but this encourages a snooping society etc.

    9. One London dominatrix always votes for the conservative family values crowd because they're amongst her best clients.

    10. Even evangelical Texas and other states in the US where religion is much stronger have not taken this approach.

    11. This is the labour equivalent of the Tories' back to basics' campaign.

    12. The government's concern about sex trafficking appears to have conveniently helped immigration officers meet their targets for deportations.

    13. Harriet Harman's claim that a Swedish-style law against buying sex is necessary to stem demand for sex workers trafficked into Britain was supported by former Europe minister Denis MacShane, who insisted there are 25,000 sex slaves in the UK, which has been proved to be untrue.

    14. If men caught buying sex are put on the Sex Offenders Register, there will be millions more men out of work, signing on, needing state housing, etc, which will cost the Government zillions of pounds. The addition of so many new categories for the Sex Offenders Register will only put untenable pressure on an already overloaded workforce who are responsible for monitoring those on the Sex Offenders Register, therefore serious sexual aggressors and abusers will not be sufficiently monitored to effectively protect those who are at risk from them. The addition of 'spurious' categories will also dilute it to the point of being a 'noddy' register that no one will take seriously.

    15. As it's been mooted that women should be able to find out if their partner is on the Sexual Offenders Register, it may be that good loving relationships will be destroyed because her partner has been unfortunate enough to be arrested whilst visiting a sex worker, no matter how many years prior to the start of the relationship.

    16. Furthermore, the lack of opportunity to engage in an uncomplicated sexual release may promote a rise in 'affairs' which because of their complex emotional structure can lead to similar relationship problems.

    17. If we really want to protect sex workers from abuse then we need to promote a less judgemental and more open attitude to what is after all just another service industry. At the moment most sex workers feel that they have nowhere to turn to if they are being abused or have been assaulted by either a client, employer or 'boyfriend'. They feel that they will be belittled, shamed and possibly prosecuted themselves if they make a complaint to the police. Ms Harman's proposals will only serve to exacerbate the current situation. So rather than becoming the saviour of the women she is claiming to want to protect by these proposals, she will in fact create an environment where exploitation and abuse of sex workers may actually increase.

    18. With regard to sex workers and the human trafficking issue, we must be clear that human trafficking is just that, whatever work is required of them at the end destination. It makes no difference if people are forced into shrimping in Morecambe Bay, working in rag industry sweatshops or as sex workers, the issue in need of tackling is human trafficking, not the persecution of sex workers or their clients. It is the source of the trafficking problem which should be addressed instead of wasting resources on prosecuting currently law abiding citizens.

    19. Banning the purchase of sex is a gross infringement on civil liberties. It is also unnecessary as the major problems related to prostitution (trafficking, drug addiction) are focused on street prostitution and brothels, and can be dealt with by laws relating specifically to those parts of the sex-industry.

    20. It is completely outrageous that in 21st century Britain, someone might end up in court, or even in prison, for having sex with another consenting adult, especially if this took place in their own home.

    21. The kinds of problems that the government have been talking about, like trafficking and drug abuse, can be dealt with by the relevant laws and dealing with these specific problems, having researched them thoroughly. There's no justification at all for a complete ban on buying sexual services.

    22. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with someone paying for sexual services. It is perfectly possible, and normal, for someone to pay a person for sexual services and to treat that person with respect. In any case, it's up to the individual sex worker to decide whether or not being paid for sex is exploitative, and whether it's in his/her interest to be involved in sex-work. It isn't the job of the government to decide that for sex workers.

    23. Individual sex workers are capable of deciding for themselves what the dangers are of becoming involved in sex work, and whether becoming involved in sex work is the right thing for them. It isn't the job of the government to make that decision for sex workers. To imply that most sex workers are being coerced into doing sex work is simply false. On the other hand, if what people mean by saying that women aren't choosing to be prostitutes is, for instance, that women are being forced into sex work by poverty, then of course the reason why most people do most jobs is to avoid poverty.

    24. Some women are leaving successful careers elsewhere to enter sex work as a positive career move.

    25. The Bill takes no account of the different men who visit sex workers, nor their varied reasons for doing so, and fails to differentiate between different types of sex worker and their reasons for working. It shows that the government do not understand the nature of the sex industry and the wide spectrum that exists of both sex workers and clients. It's a ‘one-size fits all’ law that by its nature shows a lack of research on the part of the government. It assumes all men who visit escorts are intent on harm/abuse and that the commercial relationship could never be mutually satisfying or rewarding – contrary to a study by Teela Sanders, Senior Lecturer in Sociology of Crime and Deviance, Leeds University. Her study, entitled "Male Sexual Scripts: Intimacy, Sexuality and Pleasure in the Purchase of Commercial Sex” (Sociology 2008 42(1) found that general understandings of sex work and prostitution are based on false dichotomies that distinguish commercial and non-commercial sexual relationships as dissonant. What her study showed was that there was mutual respect and understanding between regular clients and sex workers, dispelling the myth that all interactions between sex workers and clients are exploitative. This study goes much further and shows that apart from finances, sex workers also expressed that they gained in other more human ways from the commercial sex relationship in a way that mirrored the non-commercial relationship.

    26. The proposed law treats all women involved as brainless victims which is an insult to those who enjoy their work and gain a considerable amount of job satisfaction from doing their work. Women should be allowed the human right to choose to use their body how they wish. This proposed law infantilises women and treats them as idiots who cannot make rational choices for themselves.

    27. If the law is passed in such a way that it takes no difference into account of the needs for certain groups such as disabled people (who are prohibited from having, for example, a care assistant ‘give them a hand’ sexually) then it could be argued that the government are acting in an abusive (negligent) way towards the sexual health needs and therefore health needs of disabled people.

    28. The World Health Organisation defines sexual health as: "The integration of physical, emotional, intellectual and social aspects of sexual being, in ways that are positively enriching and that enhance personality, communication and love". Having access to a sex worker can be the only way some people can achieve this integration. To deny a person this, or worse - to make them out to be a criminal - is an abuse of their human rights.

    29. The sex industry will continue if the proposed law is passed but in a more dangerous way. It will be client-led in practice instead of sex worker-led, and will operate more along American lines. It will be impossible for the woman to initiate sex so the client will lead. This can only be more dangerous for women. It will also make it harder for a woman to say what she will and won't do in practice. Currently men can easily find out what a woman will and won't do so match service provider to service wishes. The proposed law will make it harder for a woman to make her boundaries clear because she will have to avoid making any direct references to what she is and isn't happy to do. This is less safe for women.

    30. The types of men who sex traffic women are not the sort of men who will take any notice of the proposed law. They are already acting illegally so the new law will make no difference to them. In reality it will only affect the men who are not intent on harm or exploitation.

    31. It is an infringement of civil liberties to prosecute a consenting man and woman or two men or two women who engage in sex in the privacy of their own room. It wasn't long ago that homosexuality was illegal. The government have no right to impose a moral agenda on sexual issues in a multicultural multi-religious society.

    32. Domestic violence occurs in marriage but there is no law to ban marriage.

    33. Compare this to the prohibition of alcohol in the US - the so called "Noble Experiment". That failed and the law had to be repealed.

    Dr Tuppy Owens
    Chair, Sexual Freedom Coalition
    and Founder of the TLC Trust

    Ariana Chevalier
    Sex Worker


    Additional reading:

    Sexworkers Critique of Swedish Prostitution Policy
    Sexworkers and Allies Network in Sweden
    and more Critiques of Swedish Prostitution Law

    PANIC!

    weblog >>
    News and updates from SCOT-PEP

    links >>
    Voluntary sector, sex work, drug harm reduction and more

    useful reading >>
    Learn more about sex industry issues

    contact >>
    SCOT-PEP
    70 Newhaven Road
    Edinburgh EH6 5QG

    Tel: 0131 622 7550
    Fax: 0131 622 7551
    E-mail: voice at scot-pep.org.uk

    SCOT-PEP is a company limited by guarantee (Company No. 140511)
    and is recognised as a charity by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (Scottish Charity No. SC 020657).