‘Selling Sex’ – Instead of Criminalising it, Why not License it?

Instead of criminalising the ‘selling of sex’ why not LICENSE and tax it, in a similar way to that taxi drivers? That way it could be made compulsory for sex workers to go in person to get their license, taking photo id to prove who they are. Those issuing the license could be trained to probe for evidence that those sex workers seeking a license are being coerced or trafficked and to spot signs of such.

Should any sex worker reveal that they have been coerced or trafficked into it, they can then be offered the support necessary to escape their infliction. At the same time, those sex workers who’ve come to get or renew their license could also get health checks and if need be, get treated for STIs.

Wouldn’t this be a means that enables those who legitimately want to ‘sell sex’, as a service, to do so, while paying tax, so contributing to society? Would it not make ‘selling sex’ safer, help prevent people being coerced or trafficked into ‘selling sex’, and should the latter prove to be the case, help these people escape such abuse?

This doesn’t mean we have to agree with ‘prostitution’ or the ‘selling of sex’ but it is going to continue to take place, anyway! Criminalising it, in any way, will only drive it further below ground, put those who ‘sell sex’ lives at risk and open the floodgates to trafficking and coercion.

I would like to hear what others think – whether that be someone who opposes the ‘selling of sex’ and thinks it should be criminalised, ‘sell sex’ as a service, have been trafficked or coerced into it, buy sex, responsible for legislating for or against it or anyone else with something to say on the matter.

Advertisements

Baby of Italian Lady with Bipolar Disorder Adopted after a ruling by British Family Courts – Is this Right?

About a month ago, the story of an Italian woman, suffering from bipolar disorder, whose baby was put up for adoption to British strangers, by the family courts on recommendation by social workers, hit the news. Yes, it might be true that this woman was unwell and unable to care adequately for her baby, at that time. Surely it was too soon to make a decision to have the child permanently adopted. Shouldn’t they have waited till after she resumed her medication, regained insight and capacity before making any decision as to what was in the best interest of the child and this mother?

This mother believes that this baby has saved her life – brought her to accept she has bipolar and needed to keep taking her medication. Doesn’t this suggest that this woman has turned a corner and taking her daughter away from her permanently may be taken away the motivation to care for her own health and to life? Does she not deserve the opportunity to explore, with the right support, the reality of mothering to her daughter.

Why is it, or at least until recent cuts in public spending, that a person with physical disabilities is supported to live an independent life to through personalised budgets from their Local Authority, with which they can employ personal assistants (PAs) to enable them to participate in activities they so choose, yet here is a woman with a mental health disability denied even the chance to explore such an individualised personal budget to employ PAs to support her in caring for her daughter. This solution would not only mean that this woman would get opportunity to mother her daughter, a daughter to bond and form a loving relationship with her mother but it is possible that it would give this woman the motivation to stay well and likelihood to need less mental health inpatient and community therapy than the reality of being denied opportunity to parent her daughter with the right support.

I believe if such support were available to other such parents, with mental health disabilities and learning difficulties, rather than having the children in question looked after by the state, would help ensure the long-term welfare of these children, as children in care tend not to have an easy life as adults. I also believe there would be long-term financial savings to ‘The State’. This solution would also create more jobs, in the form of personal support assistants, getting more people into work, and off benefits, and this along with the spending of wages within the community, would aid economic growth.