• Making Scotland’s Sex Trade Safer

    The recent death of Cynthia Payne provides a helpful reminder of the two-faced attitude to prostitution that we often hold. Ms Payne managed to cultivate a populist and almost comic Carry on Whoring image. She invited the great and the good to her home in Streatham and offered sandwiches and “services” merely in exchange for luncheon vouchers. In her day, she never seemed to be out of the public eye. However on the other hand, public opinion also holds prostitution to be a rather sordid transaction that needs to be heavily legislated against and which doesn’t bear thinking about.

    I happen to believe that there is no law which is going to completely remove prostitution from society. Given that view, it seems reasonable to expect the law to protect those who are vulnerable. If some modest reforms of the law can help make the lives of those who are vulnerable a bit safer then our politicians should not be squeamish about making change happen.

    One of our own MSPs, Jean Urquhart is doing precisely that at the moment by promoting a consultation on several possible changes to the law around prostitution. I have little doubt that she will get some abuse for her efforts. There are few votes in offering favours to sex-workers. The trouble is, Jean Urquhart is at least partly right.

    At the moment, it is perfectly legal for someone to sell sex from a flat or house provided they act alone. Once anyone else gets involved, so does the law. Should two women operate from one dwelling then they can both be prosecuted as brothel keepers. Is this really right and just? Wouldn’t those two women be safer working in partnership or as a collective with a couple of others, any of whom would know that someone was on hand, if a client turned nasty?

    After all no-one is going to call the police to deal with a client if they think that they themselves are likely to be arrested too.

    Jean Urquhart’s proposals would lead to further decriminalisation of prostitution. It is easy to see why there might be a law to prevent “living off the avails of prostitution”. The idea is to stop people making money from the sex lives of the vulnerable. However it is less easy to see why the child of a sex-worker should themselves be guilty of a crime for accepting money from their parent to enable them to go to college.

    Jean Urquhart’s proposals will not become law in this parliamentary session and she standing down as an MSP next year. Her legacy should be a parliamentary review of the law surrounding prostitution which seeks to target coercion rather than transaction. I don’t expect to see political manifestos next year make many promises to help those in the sex trade. However, that should not prevent progressive people from all shades of political opinion from raising these issues with those standing for parliament next year.

    Those who see prostitution as a scourge in society need to come up with their own ways of diminishing the amount of prostitution that takes place. I believe that the best way of doing this is to tackle poor employment options for women, ensure access to adequate affordable housing, remove the wickedness of benefit sanctions, tackle student poverty and heavily legislate against those who offer at an absurdly high rate of interest, credit to those who cannot afford it. And everyone would benefit from much better sex education in schools that doesn’t just treat the sex lives of young people as a problem.

    Locking up women (or men) who are engaged in buying or selling sex should come a long way down the list.

    Alongside reviewing the law, there needs to be a review of sentencing guidelines and police policy. Recent heavy-handed raids against saunas in Edinburgh by Police Scotland seem to be an argument in favour of local rather than national policing policy rather than a responsible policy on how to deal with sex-work in Scotland.

    I happen to be unconvinced that prostitution is a legitimate career choice. I’d prefer a society in which there was less of a sex trade rather than more of it. However, there are people who are involved in that trade currently and those who will be involved in it in the future. Where the law can be changed to make them safer and less vulnerable then politicians should be fearless in bringing change about.

4 responses to “Sermon – 27 February 2005”

  1.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Re: Sermon – 27 February 2005

    It is people like you who we should be electing as Bishops!
    People of faith, who have a kind, decent and honest heart.
    People of courage, who are prepared to speak out and stand firm against prejudices of all kinds.
    St Saviour's congregation are fortunate to have you, and have grown in faith because of you.
    The Scottish Episcopal Church is extremely fortunate to have you.
    The Anglican communion must also recognise how fortunate they are to have good Christian people like you!

    Jesus turns no o­ne away – we have no right to either

    I hope that you will continue to help us grow, in the faith that we all proclaim to have.

  2.  Avatar
    Kelvin

    Re: Sermon – 27 February 2005
    Exactly!

  3.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Re: Sermon – 27 February 2005
    Our friend Skintbuthappy has put my thoughts perfectly so I have nothing as beautifully put to add other than in reply to this comment

    Jesus turns nobody away, why should we?

    That, in my opinion is the whole point. This is what we read all through the New Testament, this is what all the parables underline. No-one is excluded and we mere mortals have no right to do otherwise or indeed to make judgement.

  4. Ann Philp Avatar
    Ann Philp

    Recently I took a funeral at the local crem. It was of a cross gender woman much loved by all who knew her. The crem was full, many of them from the community of gay and cross gender folk locally. They had asked me to do it ( I had employed one of the mourners) The congregation–really hard up most of them,many had really limited education. I found myself wanting to weep…not for the dead. ..that was their job but because the church had lost them all. We don’t do God one of them had said. Why did they want me? I had been kind…
    They said, you know about God..you can talk to him. Yes I endured pop songs at odd places in the rite no hymns or psalms…but of course I prayed and of course I talked. There was only one message, God loves all of you…it is the only message…but where have we been? He eats with tax collectors and sinners, he mixed with all people showing equal love to all. What have we let happen?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • What a night!

    My goodness, what a fabulous evening we had here for last night’s Michaelmas revels. We had received 30 or so positive replies from people saying that they were coming and guessed that 50 folk would come. I gave instructions that 80 service sheets should be printed and 80 hosts put in the ciborium just in…

  • Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle…

    Today is Michaelmas – the day we read the story from Revelation of the Archangel Michael beating up the beast. And war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back, but they were defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in…

  • Michaelmas – Thursday

      We’ve a very special night coming up on Thursday at St Mary’s. We’re keeping Michaelmas with what promises to be a fabulous choral service. The choir will be singing one of my favourite Mozart masses – the Spatzenmasse. That means Sparrow Mass and if you listen carefully, you can hear the chirp of sparrows…

  • Sermon preached on 26 September 2011

    Somehow I managed to mess up the video camera settings on Sunday, and for that reason, I’ve no video or audio copy of the sermon that I preached. However, I do have the written text I was using. You’ll just have to imagine the delivery, if you were not there…. In the name of God,…