This article appeared in the weekend Tomograph but for those who are not registered ( why not?) I offer it to a wider audience.
I do not like prostitution and on balance regret that it exists. Some men and women (mainly women) who are prostitutes are empowered by it, regard it as a career and make a good living. Most make less than a good living and many are exploited by really very unpleasant criminals. The work is dangerous and comes with rather obvious health risks.
The answer according to our political class is to criminalise not the prostitute but the client. This our leaders claim will curb the oldest profession since “punters” will not risk a criminal conviction. As ever our leaders have just got it all wrong.
Some of those MPs who support these measures do so because they argue that all prostitution is exploitative. Oddly many of those who oppose this line most strongly are themselves prostitutes who just want to earn a living. Others simply regard this as a moral issue. They disapprove of paying for sex and want to shape society in their own mould.
To the latter I might say that many of us might disapprove of, for instance, arranged marriages, the way animals are killed in a halal slaughterhouse or the practice of getting the badge of your football club tattooed on your bicep. Others disapprove of, for instance, gay sex or sex outside of marriage. But these are all personal choices made by consenting adults. As a libertarian this is a black and white issue for me. It is not for the State to dictate what we put into our bodies, do with our bodies or who we sleep with. That should be utterly personal choices.
To the former, I ask whether they will ever learn: prohibition just does not work. It failed with booze in the US, it fails with drugs across the World and it has always failed with prostitution. A hooker in Dallas might earn $5-10 on average for a basic sex act which costs the punter $50. Where does the rest go? To the criminals who run an illegal trade. That is the exploitation and it will not change however you tweak the law.
Some folks would rather pay for sex than enjoy a more regular non-cash based consensual relationship. Others just find it impossible to do that. And those “punters” already take some risks in using prostitutes. Just ask Hugh Grant what happened to him on Sunset Boulevard with Divine Brown? Oh, I forgot post Leveson we need Hugh’s permission to ask about that. Those punters will continue to use prostitutes however the law is changed but by upping the criminal sanctions of “the game” you will simply up the criminal element. Prostitutes will simply be more exploited by already rich and evil criminals.
How much better to legalise the oldest profession entirely and allow prostitutes to operate under license. That would allow compulsory health screenings so making the whole matter less of a health risk and it would cut out the criminal element so allowing prostitutes to retain more of their earnings (legitimate businessmen organising brothels cannot generate the same margins as criminals – such is life) and with legalised brothels prostitutes could switch premises to secure the best margins- market forces would come into play.
If the aim of politicians was to genuinely empower those on the game and make their lives safer and better as well as to cut crime and disease they would legalise and regulate the oldest profession at once. But I guess such a move would play badly with The Daily Mail and as such our leaders will ooze sanctimony as they go down another path which will only make matters worse for all concerned.