YES:Cari Mitchell says criminalising prostitutes makes them more vulnerable to attack, and targeting clients drives women underground. NO:Kathleen Fahy says legalisation would normalise exploitation but clients should be seen as the real criminals
YES:The overwhelmingly compassionate response to the tragic murders of five young women in Ipswich in England took many journalists by surprise.
Instead of prejudice, they found understanding for the women and indignation at the laws which criminalised them, increasing their vulnerability to attack. The Safety First Coalition, co-ordinated by the English Collective of Prostitutes, has brought together members of the church, nurses, doctors, probation officers, trade unionists, prison and drug reformers, anti-rape and anti-poverty campaigners, residents from red light areas, MPs and lords who believe that decriminalisation is the only way forward.
Proposals in the British government's Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill have added urgency to this issue. They introduce an offence of "persistent soliciting" and the compulsory "rehabilitation" of sex workers under threat of imprisonment.
On January 16th, 2008 we called a meeting in the House of Commons hosted by John McDonnell MP and Baroness Stern, to hear from sex workers organisations in Sweden and New Zealand. Sweden has made it illegal for men to buy sex, whereas New Zealand has decriminalised prostitution. Two hundred people packed the room, eager to find out what effect these laws have had on women's health and safety.
Pye Jakobson from Sex Workers and Allies in Sweden explained how the criminalisation of clients has driven women underground.
The police complain it has obstructed efforts to investigate violence, as no one will come forward, and exploitation by middle men has increased. "Now we have internet pimps who arrange where we can put our ads, and apartment pimps because we are not allowed to rent apartments for work." Only two out of over 100 NGOs initially agreed with the criminalisation of clients. So the government placed it within a package that strengthened laws on rape, sexual harassment and abuse, and it was passed. Sex workers were never asked for their views by the feminist politicians who promoted it.
Catherine Healy, national co-ordinator of the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective has a totally different experience. The law there is based on "safeguarding the human rights of sex workers, protecting them from exploitation and promoting occupational health and safety". As sex workers no longer fear arrest, they are more able to report violence and insist on their rights.
"Obviously, we didn't decriminalise murder, rape, coercion and exploitation. These crimes are still policed and prosecuted."
Passed five years ago, the New Zealand law has just been reviewed, and the results are encouraging: more street-based sex workers are working together indoors, and brothel operators have had to improve conditions in order to be competitive.
Trafficking has not increased - with the expectation that wrongs should be put right, women find it easier to come forward and report exploitation.
People from all walks of life agree with decriminalisation. Andrea Spyropoulos of the Royal College of Nursing, part of Safety First, supports it so that health services can be more accessible to sex workers.
"I rejoiced when we took off the statute books the criminalisation of consenting sex between men, I hope we are grown up enough in 2008 to have a proper debate about consenting sex whether it's for money or not."
Her views are echoed by Theresa McKay in Ipswich. At the time of the murders she held a "reclaim the night" march - the 300 people who attended supported decriminalisation, and her Trades Union Council has unanimously called for it.
An unholy alliance of fundamentalist feminists and church groups is promoting the criminalisation of clients and anti-trafficking measures which make no distinction between assisted immigration and forced employment. Trafficking has become an excuse to raid and deport immigrant sex workers. And while victims get no help, other women are imprisoned for trafficking just because they were running a working flat with immigrant women. As an ex-sex worker put it: "Trafficking is about slavery not prostitution. They use slaves for a lot of different things - domestic work, cockle picking - yet no-one is proposing we ban the sale of cockles." Decriminalisation would enable women to leave prostitution if they want to, as convictions prevent us from getting other jobs. And police time and resources spent arresting us and our clients, could be redirected to dealing with rape, racist attacks and other violent crimes.
The number of women in prison would fall. Figures in the UK have nearly doubled since 1997 with catastrophic results. Women are society's primary carers, our imprisonment destroys families and punishes thousands of children who are separated from their mothers' love, guidance and concern.
In Britain, the 2006 Home Office prostitution review recognised that poverty, debt, low wages, rape and domestic violence, homelessness and drug use drive people into prostitution. Yet, no resources are being offered. Women are expected to submit to the indignity of "rehabilitation" without any regard for their needs or wishes. There is now even talk of evicting unemployed families in social housing. How else are they to survive except through begging or prostitution?
• Cari Mitchell is writing on behalf of the English Collective of Prostitutes
NO:Legalising prostitution does not protect those
involved but rather acts to expand the sex industry and normalise
the exploitation of women. This has been proven in other
jurisdictions such as the Netherlands.
A woman seldom finds herself involved in prostitution as a result of unlimited choices, but rather as a consequence of very constrained circumstances. Prostitution is a survival strategy. By legalising the practice there is a failure to acknowledge that prostitution preys on particularly vulnerable individuals.
Women in prostitution suffer violence or the threat of violence on a regular basis. Legalisation does not protect the women from violence, rape and murder, which are endemic in the sex industry and are understood to be "occupational hazards".
Women prostituted in legal brothels in Victoria, Australia are given guidelines that dictate how to negotiate with a violent customer. In what other non-military profession is it necessary to handle hostage situations in a "normal" working day? No state has yet effectively regulated the sex industry.
The Netherlands believed that legalising prostitution would end child prostitution, but instead it has seen a huge increase in numbers of child prostitutes. The same phenomenon has occurred in Victoria, Australia.
Legalised prostitution has contributed to an increase in organised crime within the industry and this has led to an increase in violence against the women.
Where prostitution is legal, there is a greater demand for human trafficking of victims - as there is a well-established market - where the criminals exist as untouchables.
Facilitated by legalisation, traffickers operate with near impunity as prosecutions are difficult due to the fact that women working in licensed brothels are deemed "legitimate workers", leaving the police powerless to question suspected victims.
Legalisation does not empower a woman, either financially or emotionally, to remove the role of the pimp. The profit is made by the industry, the owners of legal brothels who will often demand 50-60 per cent commission from the women.
The competition for customers and pressure to earn money in the expanded sex industry puts huge pressure on women to deliver services that are degrading and upsetting and damaging. It is a myth to suggest, except in rare circumstances, that women may have greater control over their bodies and working terms.
Pro-legalisation groups (such as brothel owners and sex workers unions) say that when prostitution is legalised it is recognised as legitimate work. These groups argue that legalisation gives the women dignity and removes the damaging stigma attached to the work that they do.
The International Labour Organisation, which controversially calls for prostitution to be recognised as legitimate work, nonetheless recognises that "prostitution is one of the most alienated forms of labour".
Indeed, in Germany, in a country with an estimated 400,000 women in prostitution, there are less than 100 women who are willing to sign up to the union of prostitutes where they would have to register themselves as a prostitute.
Legalisation is an attempt to dignify the sex industry not the women involved - and we should never lose sight of this fact.
Clearly, to speak of prostitution as a "profession" is to misuse the word, so as to imply benefits, rights and entitlements which simply do not exist for women in prostitution, whether legalised or not.
Instead of legalising this form of abuse we should be looking at the factors, which lead women to feel they have no other choice but prostitution.
The prostituted woman's health is not necessarily protected by, nor of primary importance to, a regulated sex industry. While legalisation allows for HIV/Aids and STI screening, there is no compulsion for customers to undergo health checks, leaving the women vulnerable to infections.
In reality the men's health is protected as they are ensured that the woman they buy is "clean". This measure clearly serves to benefit the customers and not the women.
If a state legalises prostitution, thereby profiting in the form of taxes from the use of women's bodies for sexual purposes it, in effect, takes the role of the pimp. In countries where prostitution is legal, buying women for sex is portrayed as normal, allowing men to feel more justified in their sexually exploitative behaviour.
Ruhama is calling on the Irish Government not to penalise women involved in prostitution but to criminalise the buyers who exploit them.
We recommend a close examination of the Swedish model as a contribution towards constructing an Irish society based on equality, free from prostitution and its inherent harm. Logically, a policy must be based on an approach that seeks to end prostitution, rather than manage or legitimise it.
Sweden enacted legislation in 1999 which decriminalises prostitution for the seller but keeps it a criminal offence for the buyer (of sexual services). They are already seeing positive effects with a decrease in trafficking and associated organised crime. Furthermore this legislation, which is supported by 80 per cent of the Swedish population, is making a clear statement that the purchasing of people for sexual services is not acceptable.
• Kathleen Fahy is director of Ruhama, which works with and for women involved in prostitution and against trafficking. Online:join the debate at www.ireland.com/head2head
Last week 's debate: Should mandatory life imprisonment for murder be abolished? Here is an edited selection of your comments:
Death is irreversible. If another human being is either foolish enough or so malicious as to cause death to anyone, then they should be duly punished. The sentence for murder must carry equal consequence.
To treat each case individually and punish accordingly is to say that some peoples' deaths are of more importance than others. The taking of a life is despicable regardless of the circumstances.
S Cronin, Ireland
Maybe giving judges the discretion to impose sentences might actually mean these monsters who commit these crimes will get heavier sentencing. It's our best chance of putting these people away for longer periods. Life should be life. The families of the victims have to bear the heartache for the rest of their lives, while these social misfits are released after what seems a couple of years. Aidan, Ireland
The proposal to broaden the definition of murder simply blurs and confuses the issue. Instead, the definition should be narrowed to distinguish it from crimes of passion and killing in self-defence. The reaction to gangland murders is not disproportionate as suggested. These are deeply worrying, as is the level of violence used.
David Walsh, Ireland
You object to the way we handle capital murder cases here in the USA, using the death penalty and you would consider abolishing the mandatory life sentence for a capital crime. I can't follow any good reasoning for it. If it is a capital crime someone should pay. Especially out of respect for the deceased.
Steve Turner, United States
Two wrongs do not make a right, folks. The "eye for an eye" argument just doesn't cut it. Our prison system is having enough problems as it is. Releasing those no longer a threat to society would help make room for those who are a menace. I hardly see why someone who makes one mistake - one huge mistake but still just one - should be punished in the same way as a serial killer.
Cian, Ireland
We're talking murder - not accidental death, manslaughter or whatever you want to call it. A pre-planned execution of another individual; the irreversible taking of life. There needs to be some common sentence that's guaranteed.
Eric, Ireland
The family of the deceased suffer a life sentence so it should be for the one who commits murder. Perjury carries a six-month sentence yet how many of our leaders commit the same offence time and time again? Were they to suffer the penalty the first time, they would think hard about committing the same offence a second time.
B MacGoill, United States