December 15, 2006

Curious

No, I'm not back.

I'm simply here to make a point so I can get on with the Christmas baking, unencumbered by a nagging twitch at the back of my brain. Twitches of this sort I've noticed, my neglected Cake Eater readers, tend to spoil the fudge.

I present for your edification, Moralism kills hope of less vicious vice:

{reprinted in its entirety because it'll slip behind the subscription wall soon enough}

Morality is choosing to live one's life by a code of behaviour. Moralism is inflicting a puritanical code upon others. Moralism kills. It leads to making prostitution and the use of drugs illegal. That brings ghastly results. Now, when the murders of five prostitutes in Suffolk are gripping the attention of the UK, all must see just how ghastly these results can occasionally be.

Finding prostitution abhorrent is quite understandable. It is equally understandable that people find the sale of dangerous drugs abhorrent. But policy should focus on consequences, not such emotions. Prohibition merely drives these practices further underground, thereby making bad worse.

In the UK, prostitution is not illegal. The position is far worse in the US, where it is illegal in all states, except Nevada. But even in the UK, soliciting and advertising by prostitutes, as well as "kerb-crawling" and, most important, living off the earnings of prostitutes are all illegal.

A brief glimmer of sanity broke out, with the publication of a thoroughly sensible review, Paying the Price, by the often unjustly condemned Home Office in July 2004. It did not take long for the UK's tabloid press, that whited sepulchre of hypocritical moralism, to douse the light once more.

Nothing will now be done to make the business safer for those engaged in it. That can only happen if it is possible to establish businesses, with secure premises, with proper security and medical checks. In other words, it can only happen with the legalisation of brothels. Instead, action against kerb-crawling is being intensified and the idea of establishing legal red-light areas has been abandoned.

This will merely drive the business yet further underground, where it will remain intertwined with another business driven into the darkness: drugs. Paying the Price estimated there were 80,000 people working in the sex industry in Britain, with 95 per cent of the women involved dependent on drugs. A close link exists between illegal drugs and prostitution, with pimps often suppliers of both.

Unable to work within properly regulated businesses, prostitutes are far more vulnerable to violent customers. Nobody can now try to ensure the safety of prostitutes even, as we can see, from the deranged attacks of a serial killer. Public indifference to the fate of these women explains, but cannot excuse, this immoral policy.

We will never eliminate either prostitution or the demand for drugs. But we can minimise the damage done by these twin evils: prostitutes must have the opportunity to work in safe and secure environments; addicts must be allowed safe and secure access, through the health service, to the drugs they crave. This is not to condone vice. It is to recognise the limits imposed by human frailty. Those who persist in peddling moralism instead have blood on their hands.

Am I the only one who finds it curious how, according to the FT editorial board, everyone is to blame for murdered prostitutes except, apparently, for the killer himself?

Supposedly the only one who is allowed to inflict his own particular brand of moralism with impunity is the murderer of these poor prostitutes.

Posted by Kathy at December 15, 2006 10:52 AM | TrackBack
Comments

It's worth noting that the logic is completely screwed up; the murder of prostitutes in a place where hooking is legal demonstrates how bad it is in places where it's not? Huh?

Thanks also for the stats on what % of prostitutes are on drugs. I am still waiting for the "legalization" crowd to put two and two together and realize that the reason many women work in this trade is because they're on drugs and need the money for that--and that making sanitary brothels won't do anything to help.

Wait, wait, wait.

Posted by: Robert Perry at December 19, 2006 01:47 PM

So, according to this article, bringing a degrading, unhealthy and dangerous profession out of the shadows will make it less dangerous, unhealthy and degrading? Huh? Isn't that just giving up and admitting that these women should be relegated to selling their asses on the street because it pays a little better than waitressing?

PS - Kathy, the score of this December's hunting season is "Russ 1, Bambi's Mom 0". Youse guys interested in a couple of venison steaks? Let me know when you're making the trip to the Omaha area, and I can get you the hookup.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at December 20, 2006 11:21 AM