Which country more libertarian? Britian legalizes "small brothels"


PDA






Malone LaVeigh
January 17, 2006, 12:49 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4619098.stm


New law to permit small brothels

About 80,000 women in Britain work as prostitutes

The law could be changed to allow two prostitutes and a receptionist or maid to work together legally in brothels, the government has confirmed.

Currently only lone prostitutes can offer sex from flats or other premises without breaking the law.

Launching the new prostitution strategy for England and Wales, minister Fiona Mactaggart said that working in groups would be safer for women.

The Home Office plans also include tougher rules for men who buy sex.

Criminal gangs

The strategy also means more kerb-crawlers could lose their driving licences, while prostitutes would get help over drugs and housing.

Head-to-head: The strategy

Ministers ditched earlier plans for licensed red-light zones, believing they could send out the wrong message.

Ms Mactaggart said such zones only shifted the problem to other areas.

"I cannot accept that we should turn a blind eye to a problem that causes misery for people living in or near red-light areas," she said.

"There is no evidence that decriminalisation or licensing prostitution would achieve our objectives of reducing exploitation, improving the safety of those involved and making local communities safer."

But she said prostitution would not be eradicated "overnight" and evidence from sex workers suggested allowing them to work in pairs off the street increased their personal safety.

"Where women are working for themselves and are less likely to be managed or pimped on a large scale, in the interim it is probably more sensible not to use the very serious penalties we have against people who run brothels," she said.

"Very small scale operations can operate in a way that is not disruptive to neighbours."

Kerb-crawlers arrested for the first time could be forced to take part in a "re-education" programme at their own expense, instead of being fined, under the plans.

But Ms Mactaggart said there would be no extra cash for police.

Prostitution laws: Reaction

The strategy includes action against those who exploit prostitutes, such as people traffickers.

But Ms Mactaggart said men who use prostitutes who have been trafficked will not be charged with rape, as some campaigners have demanded, because they often reported their concerns.

"They don't think what is happening to those women is right - even if they don't think prostitution is wrong," she said.

'Nervous'

The Conservative Party criticised the measures, saying more needed to be done to tackle the underlying social problems which caused prostitution.

But the strategy was "warmly welcomed" by child protection charity Barnardo's.

Chief executive Martin Narey said it would "help those who are trapped to find a way out of prostitution and [it] concentrates on bringing to justice those pimps who condemn children and young people to such misery".

But Cari Mitchell of the English Collective of Prostitutes told the BBC crackdowns made streets more dangerous for the women.

"Very obviously, if there's a crackdown, clients are much more nervous. And women don't have time to check them out properly before they get in the car," she said.

Instead, the group is calling for the end of criminalisation of prostitution.

Drugs

Under the new strategy, police will be encouraged to work more closely with charities running safe houses to help women get out of the sex trade.

The strategy includes measures to encourage women to get help with drink or drug problems.

These include creating a new penalty for the offence of loitering or soliciting for prostitution so courts can direct women into drug or alcohol programmes rather than fining them.

And ministers promise to ensure access to drug treatment services, health services and supported accommodation to women who want to get out of prostitution.

Measures to improve prostitutes' safety include expanding the Ugly Mugs scheme, already running in several areas, which lets prostitutes know about violent punters.

The government will tighten up guidance for social workers, focusing on the children most at risk from being lured into prostitution, such as those leaving care.

Teachers, police officers and nurses will be trained to help the spot the risks.

About 80,000 women in Britain work as prostitutes, and half of those are under 25, the Home Office estimates.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which country more libertarian? Britian legalizes "small brothels"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Firethorn
January 17, 2006, 01:33 PM
It actually seems like a good idea.

As more or less stated in the article, having it be legal actually gives the government more ability to mitigate the harmful effects of the activity. I also liked that they acknowledged that creating 'red light districts' is a bad idea, only moving and concentrating the problem. IE it's one thing when one house in the neighborhood or one apartment in a complex has some prostitutes in them, it's another when half of them do.

This can actually be a smart action for socialists to take. Once you acknowledge that you can't stop the activity, you legalize it to enable you to regulate it.

As for prostitution, I support legalization, and at least some regulation in the health aspect to prevent them from becoming a vector for STD's.

pauli
January 17, 2006, 02:20 PM
Which country more libertarian? Britian legalizes "small brothels"oh that's just great. prostitution as a devious government ploy to shut up the little people!

erikm
January 17, 2006, 02:40 PM
As for prostitution, I support legalization, and at least some regulation in the health aspect to prevent them from becoming a vector for STD's.
I support it for this reason and many others. One of those is that it makes it easier for police to go after people trafficers. Many trafficed women end up as forced prostitutes. Legalizing prostitution allows things like having the police call girls to hotel rooms for a recorded (and paid for) chat and makes it somewhat more likely that trafficed girls will turn to outsiders and the police for help.

I am in favor of legalized prostitution and brothelkeeping. Pimping, forcing people into prostitution and people trafficing are entirely different matters, ones I take a dim view of.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

Mk VII
January 17, 2006, 03:05 PM
prostituting oneself per se has always been legal here, just 'soliciting for the purposes of prostitution' [steetwalker], 'keeping a disorderly house' [brothel madam] and 'exercising control, direction or influence over the movements of divers prostitutes' [pimping] that are illegal.
Girls who operate out of a private apartment (and are not too blatent) are usually left alone.

Art Eatman
January 17, 2006, 03:10 PM
Malone, I would hope that your judgement as to the degree of libertarianism isn't predicated on the legalization of brothels.

There are probably one or two other aspects.

:D, Art

Zundfolge
January 17, 2006, 03:43 PM
Which country more libertarian? Britian legalizes "small brothels"

One of the few "freedoms" that the left embraces whole heartedly is the freedom to have sex with what/whomever you want.

Its a good way to "break the hold" that religion (and morality in general) has on the populace so its easier to make the state into the peoples' God.

Henry Bowman
January 17, 2006, 03:50 PM
There is no US federal law against it. It's state by state, with NV being the only one I know of that hasn't outlawed it.

The Drew
January 17, 2006, 04:08 PM
There is no US federal law against it. It's state by state, with NV being the only one I know of that hasn't outlawed it.

And in NV it's a county by county basis....

Manedwolf
January 17, 2006, 04:27 PM
They're sure not libertarian on other fronts! Besides the gun ban, they're also poised to ban replica guns, and there have been calls to ban swords "except for licensed individuals with reasonable use for it", and...pointy kitchen knives.

No, I'm not kidding. http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=579102005

------------
Doctors seek kitchen knife ban
EDWARD BLACK

Key points
• Doctors claim long kitchen knives serve no purpose except as weapons
• 55 out of 108 homicide victims in Scotland were stabbed last year
• Police superintendents say a ban would be difficult to enforce

Key quote
"Many assaults are impulsive, often triggered by alcohol or misuse of other drugs, and the long pointed kitchen knife is an easily available, potentially lethal weapon, particularly in the domestic setting" - Dr Emma Hern, writing in British Medical Journal
-------------

Justin
January 17, 2006, 04:31 PM
The entire premise built into the title of this thread is doubleplus asinine.

dolanp
January 17, 2006, 04:31 PM
It's a good step, but when you consider the fact that the UK has cameras on street corners, working on putting in microphones and a license-plate tracking system, it's hard to call them libertarian really. Not to mention the gun banning and pointy knives banning.

Manedwolf
January 17, 2006, 04:32 PM
Its a good way to "break the hold" that religion (and morality in general) has on the populace so its easier to make the state into the peoples' God.

Sorry, but that wins the circular logic award. Big-church morality, which is usually a brand of hypocrisy from the philandering middle-ages popes to the caught-with-male-prostitute rolex-wearing bible-thumpers of today... is an easy means of keeping the population in line with threats of "eternal punishment" unless they obey whatever the ruling class' whims of the moment are. It's also generally soaked in money.

A philosophy of "live and let live, adults ought to be respected to be able to make adult decisions" is far more conducive to things like, oh, gun freedoms as well, whereas the idea of "we decide what's best for you" is conducive to control. Of bedrooms, and of guns.

Think about that.

Sleeping Dog
January 17, 2006, 04:44 PM
Malone, I would hope that your judgement as to the degree of libertarianism isn't predicated on the legalization of brothels.

There are probably one or two other aspects.

:D, Art
True, but I'd guess this would be one minor aspect. It may be smart for the govt to legalize it, and to mandate health inspections etc, but the mandated inspections might aggravate some libertarians.

I don't think Britain's govt would ever be mistaken for "libertarian". But, neither would ours.

Regards.

SLCDave
January 17, 2006, 05:10 PM
The entire premise built into the title of this thread is doubleplus asinine.

I agree. In order to truly be libertarian, the government wouldn't have the authority to decide one way or the other whether prostitution was legal.

CAnnoneer
January 17, 2006, 05:31 PM
Soft drugs and prostitution have to be legalized for a number of reasons. Refusing to do so is just one of the ways people choose to live in costly denial.

Zundfolge
January 17, 2006, 06:27 PM
Sorry, but that wins the circular logic award.
I think you misunderstood my post (which in retrospect I can see it was poorly worded).

I stated that the only freedom that the left embraces is sexual freedom because they believe it is a good way to "break the hold" that religion and morality have on the populace so they can replace it with their morality (ie the state as God).

In other words, the left doesn't "allow" sexual freedom because they believe in freedom (which is what the original poster apparently believes) but because its a freedom they can allow us to indulge that doesn't interfere with their power.

cuchulainn
January 17, 2006, 06:39 PM
<raises hand>

Um, isn't this a plan to limit prostitution to a GOVERNMENT-APPROVED form, thereby creating a regulatory scheme to "protect" people?

If that's "libertarian," then I'm a turnip.

Cosmoline
January 17, 2006, 07:08 PM
The law could be changed to allow two prostitutes and a receptionist or maid to work together legally in brothels, the government has confirmed.

What if one of the prostitutes is dressed as a maid?

phoglund
January 17, 2006, 07:14 PM
I'm a bit confused. Does the original article imply that men using a prostitute are breaking the law but the prostitutes themselves are not? Could anybody who knows clarify this?

odysseus
January 17, 2006, 07:30 PM
I have a question. Can it be that while legalizing this has it's benefit, couldn't they then later see more regulation, supervision, red tape, and increased taxes from this and a larger agency enforcing them? I guess what I am trying to say is that it may not be "Libertarian" in the long run and only another step into a larger socialistic system.

Mk VII
January 17, 2006, 07:33 PM
I'm a bit confused. Does the original article imply that men using a prostitute are breaking the law but the prostitutes themselves are not? Could anybody who knows clarify this?

Only if he solicites the girl from a motor vehicle to accept his offer of business.

Malone LaVeigh
January 17, 2006, 07:38 PM
The entire premise built into the title of this thread is doubleplus asinine.
Maybe you could tell us what you think my premise was?

Justin
January 17, 2006, 07:43 PM
That Airstrip One's quasi-legalization of prostitution somehow puts it in the running as being somehow libertarian.

I assume, by your title, that you're trying to draw a comparison between the United States and Great Britain, and their relative levels of liberty, with the implied notion that Britain's doing so makes it ever-so-slightly more libertarian than the US.

odysseus
January 17, 2006, 07:44 PM
Maybe you could tell us what you think my premise was?

Malone, what is your premise?

carlrodd
January 17, 2006, 07:50 PM
I'm a bit confused. Does the original article imply that men using a prostitute are breaking the law but the prostitutes themselves are not? Could anybody who knows clarify this?

i was just over there and read about this problem. if i am not mistaken, prostitution is still completely illegal, both for the prostitute and the man. however, there is such a huge problem with violence against the ladies that the govt. is addressing it by saying, "ok, it's still not legal, but if you do it here or here, or have a house with only two of you in it, we'll turn a blind eye." so, in the article, any distinction in regard to where it is done simply has to do with how likely people are to get arrested for it. in other words, do it "this" way, and stay out of these areas and we'll leave you alone.

Malone LaVeigh
January 17, 2006, 07:59 PM
That Airstrip One's quasi-legalization of prostitution somehow puts it in the running as being somehow libertarian.

I assume, by your title, that you're trying to draw a comparison between the United States and Great Britain, and their relative levels of liberty, with the implied notion that Britain's doing so makes it ever-so-slightly more libertarian than the US.
Notice I used the lower-case. I don't give a rat's <cutesy no-no removed by Art> what you or anyone else think the politically correct definition is. I would draw the comparison that in some areas, Britian appears to be more libertarian. As in the term "civil liberties."

It goes without saying that the US, in particular, has areas in which it compares favorably to Britian. If I didn't think people on this board would "get" that, I wouldn't have used it for ironic jusxaposition.

Jeez, you have to explain everything to some people.

Zundfolge
January 17, 2006, 08:04 PM
...Britian appears to be more libertarian...

:scrutiny:

Methinks you've been hitting the "Interstate Commerce" (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-1454) a little too hard.

Justin
January 17, 2006, 08:05 PM
I suppose you could say that it was ironic juxtaposition if it weren't so obvious that Britain is worse off in nearly every regard- tax laws, civil rights, right to privacy, gun rights, I can keep going, but I'd be typing all day.

Sorry to say that comparing US puritanism to one smidge of an example of the authorities turning their head with regard to something they are incapable of ever having a hope of stopping hardly makes for irony.


Or juxtaposition.


Or libertarianism, for that matter.

cuchulainn
January 17, 2006, 08:09 PM
Malone LaVeigh: I would draw the comparison that in some areas, Britian appears to be more libertarian. As in the term "civil liberties."

<raises hand again>

Um, I'm still having trouble with the idea that carving out a minimalist, government-approved form of anything is "libertarian."

Isn't this rather like passing a law that people may own one .22 rifle and three rounds -- ooh, cutting-edge libertarian thought.

Zundfolge
January 17, 2006, 08:11 PM
In addition the legalization of prostitution (or anything else "US puritanism" has made illegal) in order to create a new government bureaucracy and tax code for is NOT libertarian.


Now if they not just legalize prostitution, but eliminate all laws surrounding prostitution (health codes, taxes, "registration" as a "sex worker" with the state, etc) THEN you'd have an argument that this legalization of prostitution was a "libertarian" thing.

Just because it pisses off the prudes doesn't make it "libertarian".

Justin
January 17, 2006, 08:14 PM
Heck, according to the article, it's not even legalization so much as a vague kinda-sorta decriminalization.

Gun Geezer
January 17, 2006, 09:16 PM
Legalizing (as in allowing it in our society as "acceptable" under the law) is a bad things. It is never a good idea.

Bad is bad. Wrong is wrong.

That goes for euthanasia, abortion, suicide, assisted suicide, infanticide, whoring, consensual sex for 12-year olds, and drug abuse. To think otherwise would be to think that Denmark with all it's freedom's is the utopia we desire for ourselves. God help us if that is what some seem to want for our children and their children.

swampsniper
January 17, 2006, 09:22 PM
Got to keep the bottom dwellers distracted, if they get horny, who knows what they might do!
Bread and circuses, don'tcha know:D

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 09:32 PM
Its a shame when the minority of any goverment speaks for the whole.Legal sluts.....no.Although you may claim it happens anyway,checks for diseases ex ex It ultimatly leads to where we are now...which in any book is a reread,just to try and understand

Crosshair
January 17, 2006, 09:45 PM
*George Carlin Mode*

Selling is legal, F*ucking is legal. Why isn't selling f*cking legal???

Malone LaVeigh
January 17, 2006, 10:41 PM
OK, I'll try one more time in as elementary terms as possible.

Zundfolge:

Try reading the three words before the passage you quoted. I'll wait. It's called a modifying phrase. You can't understand what I was trying to say unless you include it in.

Justin:

I suppose you could say that it was ironic juxtaposition if it weren't so obvious that Britain is worse off in nearly every regard- tax laws, civil rights, right to privacy, gun rights, I can keep going, but I'd be typing all day.

Etc.
I really have to hit you over the head with it, don't I?

Look, on this board, there aren't too many that wouldn't consider the UK "worse off" in terms of civil liberties. Therefore it would be IRONIC if in some ways British citizens actually enjoyed more civil liberties than right here in the good ol' Newnited States. By JUXTAPOSING the two realities (in this case by imlication) I hoped to make a point about an area in which ours might not be all that LIBERTARIAN.

In the general sense, of course.

cuchulainn:
<raises hand again>

Um, I'm still having trouble with the idea that carving out a minimalist, government-approved form of anything is "libertarian."
I think that's because you and others here seem to be reacting to your US-political-system-based definition of the word "libertarian." I'm talking about beliefs or policies that would tend to support personal liberty.

It's just a fluke of language that there's a political party in this country that believes in small government, which calls itself "Libertarian."

From Merraim-Webster online:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

2 entries found for libertarian.

Main Entry: lib·er·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: "li-b&r-'ter-E-&n
Function: noun
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

Calumus
January 17, 2006, 11:14 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4619098.stm

minister Fiona Mactaggart said that working in groups would be safer for women.


And more fun for their customers :evil: All the better to raise a nice chunk of change on a new sin tax. Cheers,
Shawn

CAnnoneer
January 17, 2006, 11:33 PM
Only if he solicites the girl from a motor vehicle to accept his offer of business.

What is the rationale for that? Is it legal to hire the prostitute when you are outside your vehicle? How does any of this make any practical sense?

CAnnoneer
January 17, 2006, 11:40 PM
+1 crosshair

Legalizing is a bad things. It is never a good idea.
Bad is bad. Wrong is wrong.

Care to explain? Let's limit the discussion to adult prostitution.

Anybody who works for a living is ultimately selling something - certainly their time and effort, often their skill: an artist sells his artistic creativity, a scientist his knowledge and mental prowess, a seamstress her dexterity, a sportsman a variety of physical skills, etc. A prostitute sells her time, effort, and physique.

Why is it any different than the above? Why is it that sex somehow has a special significance in the minds of many, a great untouchable taboo?

meef
January 17, 2006, 11:41 PM
*George Carlin Mode*

Selling is legal, F*ucking is legal. Why isn't selling f*cking legal???
Ummm.... that was a really incompetent job of making that censor-acceptable, I'd say.

:D :D :D

Zundfolge
January 18, 2006, 12:50 AM
Zundfolge:

Try reading the three words before the passage you quoted. I'll wait. It's called a modifying phrase. You can't understand what I was trying to say unless you include it in.


Okay, I'll play along, lets take your entire sentence.

I would draw the comparison that in some areas, Britian appears to be more libertarian.

So I'm curious, what are these "some areas" that Britian appears to be more libertarian than the US?

swampsniper
January 18, 2006, 12:53 AM
Libertine and libertarian are not the same thing!:D

444
January 18, 2006, 01:00 AM
Now that is funny right there. I don't care who you are, that's funny.



444, living in the heart of legal prostitution, legal gambing, and NFA weaponry. And yes, no state income tax.
Oh...........it's all so wrong.:D

444 is also a guy that realizes that government does perform some valuable and nessessary functions. He realizes that this idea of no government involvement is a mistake in cases like this.

Justin
January 18, 2006, 01:35 AM
I really have to hit you over the head with it, don't I?


No, friend, it was a nonsensical, non-starting non-sequitar the first time 'round, but thanks anyway. :)

taliv
January 18, 2006, 01:52 AM
desperately mangled logic and arrogance go together like muppets and fisting.

BenW
January 18, 2006, 02:15 AM
What if one of the prostitutes is dressed as a maid?
If anybody wants me, I'll be in my bunk.....

cuchulainn
January 18, 2006, 08:06 AM
Malone LaVeigh: I think that's because you and others here seem to be reacting to your US-political-system-based definition of the word "libertarian." I'm talking about beliefs or policies that would tend to support personal liberty.

<snip>

1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action...which is why I don't see this move as particularly little-L libertarian.

We're not talking about "free will" and most certainly not "unrestricted liberty." Rather, we're talking about a government scheme designed to minimize an act so as to keep it in check.

The only "free will" involved here is a tiny portion staked out and approved by the government.

That's not libertarian, big L or little L.

Radagast
January 18, 2006, 08:17 AM
I'd see it as anti libertarian. The English Government is trying to regulate and tax 60,000 freemarket small business women.

cuchulainn
January 18, 2006, 08:37 AM
CAnnoneer: Why is it that sex somehow has a special significance in the minds of many, a great untouchable taboo?It's built into our genes. On an animal level we want to make sure our genes get passed on and make sure we know to whom. We can't know for sure without rules about the who's, when's and where's of sex.

All societies -- indeed, most animals -- have some rules about sex. There are differences and specific exceptions to the rules, but the general idea of societal control is universal, as is usually the pack/colony/pod/flock/etc. control.

That's not a justification, by the way, just an explanation. :)

roo_ster
January 18, 2006, 09:05 AM
Libertine and libertarian are not the same thing!:D

Just because it pisses off the prudes doesn't make it "libertarian".

We have our winners.

MD_Willington
January 18, 2006, 07:16 PM
prostituting oneself per se has always been legal here, just 'soliciting for the purposes of prostitution' [steetwalker], 'keeping a disorderly house' [brothel madam] and 'exercising control, direction or influence over the movements of divers prostitutes' [pimping] that are illegal.
Girls who operate out of a private apartment (and are not too blatent) are usually left alone.

Last I heard, the same held true for Canada or some parts of Canada, Solicitation = illegal, Prostitution of oneself = legal...

If you enjoyed reading about "Which country more libertarian? Britian legalizes "small brothels"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!