Leading Article: Legal sex is safer for all concerned

Monday 25 July 1994 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

BRITAIN'S prostitution laws are not working. The theory behind them is that since no society has successfully abolished the sale of sex, the state should tolerate the activity itself. But it should, nevertheless, prevent prostitutes from making a nuisance of themselves when they ply their wares in public, and forbid others from becoming involved in their businesses.

So much for the theory. In practice, the country's telephone boxes are a battleground between pimps who want to stick advertising postcards in them, and police who want to pull those cards down. Magistrates' courts waste thousands of hours every month hearing prosecutions for soliciting. And there are unsavoury links between prostitutes, drug dealers, organised crime and the police.

This policy failure is prompting police officers and local councillors to ask whether there might be a half-way house between the status quo and a full legalisation of the sex industry. At yesterday's debate in Birmingham City Council's community affairs committee, for instance, there was talk of establishing an informal 'tolerance zone', in which prostitutes would be told that they could solicit freely without fear of police harassment.

The idea has its attractions. But while the law remains as it is, those who are unfortunate enough to live near the zone where prostitution is to be tolerated will have grounds for complaint. They will, rightly, be able to ask why a local council should be allowed to choose to leave some laws unenforced but not others; and there will be complaints that applying one law selectively is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge.

That is why the full decriminalisation of prostitution makes sense, for all the obvious moral qualms about the idea of the state itself living off immoral earnings. In a system of licensed brothels, prostitutes would have the same rights as other employees, and would thus be safe from physical attack or exploitation. As an editorial in the British Medical Journal recently pointed out, the spread of Aids and other diseases would be greatly reduced.

But the most important advantage of an open and organised system, as the residents of some continental European cities have discovered, is that it reduces the need for prostitutes to solicit on the streets. Those who want to pay for sex know where to find it, while those who do not want to cast eyes on prostitutes know which streets to avoid. This is by no means a good solution to the problem - but it is less bad than any of the others.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in