B1412 – Sex Trade Legalisation Bill 2018 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
B1412 – Sex Trade Legalisation Bill 2018, TSR Libertarian Party


Sex Trade Legalisation Bill 2018

A Bill to fully legalise the sex trade.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1: Licensable activities and qualifying club activities
(1) For the purposes of this Act the following are licensable activities:
(a) The sale of sexual acts, and;
(b) The supply of sexual acts by or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club.

(2) For the purposes of this Act premises are used for a licensable activity if that activity is carried on or from the premises.

2. Licensing authorities
(1) In this Act, ‘licensing authority’ means:
(a) The council of a district in England,
(b) The council of a county in England in which there are no district councils,
(c) The council of a county or county borough in Wales,
(d) The council of a London borough,
(e) The Common Council of the City of London,
(f) The Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple,
(g) The Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple, or;
(h) The Council of the Isles of Scilly.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a licensing authority’s area is the area for which the authority acts.

(3) Each licensing authority must keep a register containing:
(a) A record of each premises licence, club premises certificate and personal licence issued by it,
(b) A record of each temporary event notice received by it, and;
(c) Such other information as may be prescribed.

(4) Each licensing authority must establish a licensing committee consisting of at least ten, but not more than fifteen, members of the authority.
(a) This section does not apply in relation to the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple or the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple and,
(b) All matters relating to the discharge by a licensing authority of its licensing functions are, by virtue of this subsection, referred to its licensing committee and, accordingly, that committee must discharge those functions on behalf of the authority.

3. Licensed premises
(1) In this Act ‘premises licence’ means a licence granted under this section, in respect of any premises, which authorises the premises to be used for one or more licensable activities.

(2) The designated licensee of a brothel shall be the person in possession of the building, whether through ownership lease. The licence shall be non-transferable, either between licensee or building.

(3) Licence Holders must:
(a) Be regularly and usually in charge at the brothel,
(b) Take reasonable steps to ensure that any approved manager, employee, independent contractor or any other person connected with the licensee's business complies with the provisions of this Act and any other laws relevant to the conduct of the business while the licensee is engaged in that business,
(c) Ensure all employees who engage in sexual acts as a part of their job are tested for STIs at least once each calendar month, and;
(d) Ensure all customers of sexual workers present a doctor’s note dated from with the last month confirming that they are free from STIs.

(4) Testing and certifications in sections 3(c) and 3(d) may be administered by any physician or sexual health clinic, but shall not be funded by Her Majesty's Treasury as part of the National Health Service.

(5) A person must not knowingly or recklessly carry on business as a sex work service provider:
(a) Without holding a licence, or;
(b) In breach of any condition of a licence, or;
(c) When a licence is suspended.

4. Repeals
(1) In the Sexual Offences Act 1956:
(a) Replace S33 with the following:
‘It is an offence for a person to keep an unlicensed brothel, or to manage, or act or assist in the management of, an unlicensed brothel.
a) For the Purposes of this Act an unlicensed brothel is any that does not hold a licence under the Sex Trade Legalisation Bill 2018.’

(b) Replace S33A with the following:
‘(1) It is an offence for a person to keep, or to manage, or act or assist in the management of, a brothel to which people resort for practices involving prostitution (whether or not also for other practices) without first obtaining a licence under the Sex Trade Legalisation Bill 2018 for that property.
(2) In this section ‘prostitution’ has the meaning given by section 51(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.’

(c) Replace all instances of the phrase 'a brothel with 'an unlicensed brothel' in SS35.
(d) Replace all instances of the phrase 'a brothel with 'an unlicensed brothel' in SS36.
(e) S28(2) is repealed.

(2) In the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
(a) Append the following onto 51(a):
‘, where;
i) Person A is not a licenced person.’

(b) Replace 'prostitution' with 'unlicensed prostitution' in S53(1)(a).
(c) 53A is repealed.

5: Commencement, Short Title, Extent and Conditions
(1) This bill shall come into force on 6th April 2019.
(2) This bill may be cited as the Sex Trade Legalisation Bill 2018.
(3) This bill extends to England and Wales.


Notes
Spoiler:
Show
If prostitution is the world’s oldest profession then the laws prohibiting this trade between consenting adults may be the world’s oldest example of government over-protection in regulation as well as gender discrimination. While prostitution is not illegal in the UK, many of the activities surrounding it are, such as advertising and keeping brothels. As is so often the case our government’s determination to 'protect' us has in fact made these activities more dangerous and has let to absurdities in attempts to enforce this illiberal policy. By removing restrictions to this industry, it can become a safer industry, protecting customers and clients as well as restoring to citizens their natural right to do what they want with their own bodies.

0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
I like this, it’s wrong really that sex work is technically illegal; if people choose to follow that path then they should be allowed to do so by the state.
0
Scisaac
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by Connor27)
I like this, it’s wrong really that sex work is technically illegal; if people choose to follow that path then they should be allowed to do so by the state.
In some cases however this is not a choice, many women in this ‘industry’ have been/are being exploited or trafficked. Having spent some time in both Spain and Cambodia working with women affected by this I have to give a firm no
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by Scisaac)
In some cases however this is not a choice, many women in this ‘industry’ have been/are being exploited or trafficked. Having spent some time in both Spain and Cambodia working with women affected by this I have to give a firm no
But this isn’t legislating for Spain or Cambodia, it’s legislating for Great Britain, the first country in the world to abolish slavery and the birthplace of the rule of law. I trust our valued institutions to protect women who suffer exploitation and trafficking in this way and for the perpetrators to be punished under the Modern Slavery Act (as they should be.)
1
Scisaac
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by Connor27)
But this isn’t legislating for Spain or Cambodia, it’s legislating for Great Britain, the first country in the world to abolish slavery and the birthplace of the rule of law. I trust our valued institutions to protect women who suffer exploitation and trafficking in this way and for the perpetrators to be punished under the Modern Slavery Act (as they should be.)
The premise regardless is still that many women do not choose this life, regardless of where it happens
0
Mr Eurosceptic
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
A stupid bill based in ideology whilst ignoring the reality of what will be created. The first downside is the weak regulation where licences premises and prostitutes are concerned. The second downside is the exploitation that will take place. The third downside is how this bill leads to a legal nightmare where club owners are in court cases to challenge not being granted a licence. Finally, the bill leads to a situation where prostitutes are exploited financially. The bill has some ideas, although it falls short on quality.

There is nothing in the bill to ensure women are not forced to turn to prostitution. There is nothing in the bill to make sure women are not being smuggled for sex. There is nothing in the bill to ensure women receive a fair share of the money generated from clients. Nor is there anything to explain how the minimum wage would work, how the emotional welfare of women selling themselves will be protected, to detail if there will be inspections by the local authorities before granting licences to clubs, how the local authorities will decide if a premise should be given a licence, who can work as a sex worker, how the cleanliness of the licences premises will be assessed, how standards will be kept up in the premises after granting licences, the process for complaining about a licences premise if shady operations are revealed, what the standards a premise needs to meet are, how many sexual partners a prostitute can have before being examined for a sexually transmitted disease, why monthly testing is more effective than testing based on number of partners when condoms will be optional, if there is a maximum shift length for the prostitutes, how prostitutes will be protected against sexual assaults from clients, and what clients can reasonably expect from a licences club in terms of safeguards for themselves.

The bill is a terrible attempt at legalising prostitution because the bill does not properly regulate the industry, nor does the bill clearly explain how licences premises will operate. I doubt you would be happy for your daughter to become a prostitute at the age of 18 when in sixth form because your daughter viewed prostitution as easy money. Yet, you find it acceptable for there to be a bill allowing other young girls to become prostitutes. The girls becoming prostitutes will be vulnerable girls from backgrounds where parents may not be present, or where parents might not be supportive. These girls are the most easily exploited in society and this bill makes it easier to manipulate and exploit them by allowing unethical people to introduce incentives to draw young, vulnerable girls to prostitution. In the mind of vulnerable girls, there might not be an alternative to prostitution. Their self-esteem could be so low that they value themselves as being worthy for nothing more than meat on demand for men. The bill operates on the premise that every individual choosing to enter prostitution is of sound judgement when making a decision to enter prostitution, and is in full control of their actions. In dream land that is the case. In defense of this point, Connor27 has stated he believes existing organisations to protect women. However, as Rochdale reveals, the current system is inadequate and does not always work. Since this bill makes it easier to exploit vulnerable women for sex, the authorities will have an even harder job and their failings will become even more clear. It is a cop out answer to praise the existing measures whilst not introducing anything in this bill or an accompanying bill. The basis for this bill is weaker than the idealist basis most socialist policies are built upon.

In response to predicted challenges, some might cite the Health and Safety at Work Act as leading to safe licences premises. However, the Act was not written to cater for premises where sexual activities take place. The potential for premises to be contaminated by traces of bodily fluids create a threat that neither an existing Act of Parliament covers, nor this bill. This is inadequate, local authorities need guidelines to follow before issuing a licence because not having guidelines will see areas where there are lenient local authorities becoming sex towns. Court cases will start where brothels are appealing a decision by a local authority that is viewed as unjust because a different local authority used a different criteria.

Finally, the financial exploitation of women. Brothels could operate where prostitutes are employees on something below minimum wage. A typical Libertarian response would be to cite personal choice. However, such a citation falls down when the women could be forced into sex or are so desperate sex is seen as their only option. They should at least be paid a decent wage. If licences premises treat prostitutes as associates prostitutes need to pay a share to the club owner for operating out of the club, the prostitute might be left with money well below minimum wage. Coupled with the inability to control rates, as the club could control rates, and the inability of how many customers they sleep with, because clubs could also control who gets to sleep with which woman, the prostitution could be in a precarious financial situation. Assuming all prostitutes are paid staff members and receive something above minimum wage, there needs to be legislation making special provisions in employment law for the prostitute-specific reasons an employee's contract might be terminated, for example, if the prostitute is found to have HIV.
0
LibertarianMP
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
Aye this is safer and more liberal
0
Canoodle
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Scisaac)
In some cases however this is not a choice, many women in this ‘industry’ have been/are being exploited or trafficked. Having spent some time in both Spain and Cambodia working with women affected by this I have to give a firm no
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would assume both these countries have laws against not only exploitation and trafficking, but probably prostitution itself too. All you're telling us is that making something illegal doesn't simply stop it happening. Yours is an emotional response rather than a rational one. If prostitution is illegal, you are forcing everyone involved to operate in a secretive and shadowy way, regardless of whether they are acting by choice or not. This only increases the danger to those involved and increases difficulty of identifying where exploitation is actually taking place. By bringing the industry out into open by allowing operation through licenses, you can ensure those operating by choice can do so in an as safe as possible environment, whilst making it easier to identify and tackle situations where something more sinister might be going on.

With all that said, Mr Eurosceptic raises some valid points about what extra provisions need to be included in this bill to ensure the safety and well being of those involved is properly looked after. This bill only requires the premises themselves to be licensed - I feel like everyone involved should hold their own personal license as well. Even if they enter the industry by choice, the majority of women become involved due to poverty and desperation. By requiring the women to hold a license, it allows authorities to be aware of everyone involved and therefore provide support and education to allow them to pursue alternative forms of employment.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
Abstain or Aye.

I am not sure such bureaucracy is required (licensing) given that brothels could be registered with companies house in the same manner as any other firm however the bill is absolutely correct to remove the ability of the state to prevent somebody performing a lawful sexual service in exchange for lawful payment.

It is an improvement to the status-quo however.
1
Joel 96
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
I have already come to terms with the fact that I am not an absolutist free market guy, as rectrictions on things such as drugs all the way to atom bombs require regulation and restriction in the market, but where does the sex trade come into this? Ethically and morally, any such proposal to bring back the sex trade disgusts me and feels like an insult to what is left of the Christian background of this country. Sex, as a commodity, helps destroy the family unit and the Christian view on sex, which I believe are both essential for a society to be functioning and civilised. Not to mention the numbers of abortions which will rise through this legislation.

This is one more step towards the total annihilation of civility and common decency. I reject the notion that women should be allowed to sell their bodies to men, as their bodies don't belong to them but to God, and it is the government's duty to uphold God's laws.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
I'm a staunch nay here, but even if I were an aye I'd still be concerned about the lack of exploitation prevention in this bill.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
I'm a staunch nay here, but even if I were an aye I'd still be concerned about the lack of exploitation prevention in this bill.
What suggestions would you add that are not already existent in law. Human trafficking and rape are already illegal.
0
Bluestar511
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
Aye, this is a much needed service in our country, and people won't have to got to other European countries for these services.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#14
This bill is in cessation.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#15
Division! Clear the lobbies!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (364)
67.03%
No (179)
32.97%

Watched Threads

View All