Friday, December 29, 2006

Prostitutes' rights?

At the Guardian's blog, Julie Bindel, a founding member of the feminist law reform campaign Justice for Women, writes an Op-Ed style post arguing against the legalization of prostitution, an issue she believes has been revived in the wake of England's recent murders in and around Ipswich, in the county of Suffolk.

Bindel writes, "Tolerance zones in the Netherlands, hailed as a great success, are closing down one by one, because they have proved a disaster, with criminality and abuse still prevalent." She thinks regulation hasn't made for safer conditions and has increased demand. Fair enough if that's accurate, but Bindel glides by some possible objections to her argument. She says:

Moves to unionise and regularise women in prostitution - to ensure "workers' rights" - are ludicrous, considering the following: most women do not want to be registered as "sex workers" as this can further stigmatise them by creating a permanent record of their prostitution; and what pimp would feel happy about paying taxes?

Catchy last clause, but I'm not sure she's right about the first point. Perhaps women would rather not be on record as hookers, but I would think that enough union-style protections such as wage guarantees and other rights would tip the balance. Their principal concerns, I would guess, are safety and protection from financial and other forms of abuse. If the law could offer those, the incentive would be powerful.

Whether union prostitutes would then be undercut by illegal competition is another matter, and it's difficult to speculate. But men might be drawn to sex workers who are tested for disease monthly, as pro-legalizers advocate.

Posted by Evan Hughes at 04:23 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss