Have DUP criminalised lap dancing?

Today there was Further Consideration Stage on the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Bill but there were some very loosely worded amendments from Lord Morrow to his own Bill.

I beg to move amendment No 5:

In page 9, line 13, at end insert

(1A) In the heading to Part 5, after "PROSTITUTION" insert "AND PAYING FOR SEXUAL SERVICES OF A PERSON".". The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 6: In page 9, line 23, at end insert

"and A knows or believes that the payment is made or promised by a third party."

No 7: In page 9, line 26, leave out "level 3 on the standard scale" and insert "the statutory maximum".

 No 8: In page 9, line 29, leave out "not exceeding the statutory maximum". 

No 9: In page 9, line 33, after "services" insert "(other than sexual services)". 

No 10: In page 9, line 38, after "sexual" insert

; or(d) B touching B in a sexual manner for the sexual gratification of A, B being physically in A’s presence.".

The last of this is particularly vague. Something that Alliance MLA Stewart Dickson picked up on and asked:

If we are going to legislate as loosely as to say that person A commits an offence if they obtain sexual services from person B in exchange for payment and that this includes circumstances where person B does not touch person A but touches themselves for the sexual gratification of person A, would that not also make it an offence to, for example, watch lap dancers or strippers or purchase a strippergram or kissogram for a party? While many would regard such activities as morally questionable, I doubt that many think that they would be illegal. However, it appears that this amendment would make their purchase illegal. 

We could even go further: what about cases in which someone goes to see a play with sexually explicit scenes? Some people may go because they consider it art, but what about those who go to enjoy particular scenes for sexual gratification? If my reading of this amendment is correct, then when an actor or actress touches themselves in a sexual manner in the presence of an audience member who has paid to watch it for the purpose of sexual gratification, that audience member has technically committed an offence. For example, are we to have 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' banned from the stages of Northern Ireland once more? 

This highlights the type of problems which will inevitably arise when we try to use the term "sexual services" without a proper statutory definition. We simply cannot draw clear parameters of the offence. It might be useful to share an example from Canada, where the Supreme Court struck down its prostitution laws last December. A lawyer who was involved in the case said that: 

"I think it's both a key thing and an example of a bigger problem with the bill when the thing that's being regulated — it's described as sexual services, [but] the Bill doesn't contain a definition of what it is. That's a real vagueness problem." 

That Bill was not dissimilar to this one.

Instead of answering these concerns Lord Morrow simply said:

If there are some who, even after this debate, feel that they cannot support some of the amendments, that is a matter for them, but I urge them to rethink. I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that, when I was dealing with amendment No 10, I spoke to the Attorney General. If someone can direct me to a higher court or a higher authority on these matters, I am ready to listen. If so, that person can tell me, "You shouldn't have gone there with it; you should've gone somewhere else". If so, I would like to hear from you; maybe you will come to me privately afterwards. 

First, the Attorney General is very clear that amendment No 10 will address the need to cover demand for the scenario where a person is exploited to provide sexual services in the form of the sexual touching of themselves observed by the client. Secondly, he is very clear that amendment No 10 will not criminalise lap dancing and stripping, as some have tried to insinuate here today. 

Mr Dickson said that the amendment would cover that type of activity and even watching films. I suspect that, no matter what I say, Mr Dickson will be of the same opinion when he walks out through the door today, because there is none as blind as those who will not see and there is none as deaf as those who will not hear. There are some who, no matter what I say today, have their minds made up that this measure will not be effective or that it will go into other territory. As I said, I cannot go anywhere else for advice, other than the channels through which I went. Amendment No 10, and I urge the House to consider it, is crucial.

It is shocking that an Attorney General can allow such loose terminology without definition to enter into law. But then the Northern Irish Attorney General has already shown that his understanding of the law is lacking in areas. So for him not to realise that judges and lawyers prefer to have a clear definition of the law, firstly so they can determine if it has been broken, second to consider if there is a case to be answered to.

But then for there to be concerns about the wording on an accelerated passage bill, in other words one that isn't getting that much scrutiny. So yet to amend at this stage when there is only an hour of consideration for this group of amendments shows that the DUP are slipping in loosely worded definitions into law without proper scrutiny or sane advise.

The interpretation is potentially wide and far outside the remit of the Bill. It is not clear where the boundary ends. The touching merely in the presence of someone else for sexual gratification. This is wishy washing and the DUP managed to get the UUP and SDLP to back it as horrifyingly it passed 52 votes to 35.

We live in times that moralists are narrowing the definition of what is allowed and too many people in Northern Ireland would be shocked to find just how loosely they are going about it, opening up a great many seemingly innocuous activities open to the vagueness of new law and the interpretation of the court.

As Stewart Dickson said and I'll add slightly "I am not sure whether the consequences are simply not appreciated by the DUP[, UUP and SDLP] or whether it is trying to drag us back to a Victorian era in which we will all have to cover up our piano legs. 

If the UKBA want to watch gay sex that is what the internet is for

So refugees coming to this country seeking asylum because they face persecution back home for being gay are being made to hand over tapes of them having sex to prove it.

Now I have one short thing to say on this matter:

If the UKBA want to watch gay sex that is what the internet is for.




On a serious note though, there is also an assumption here that the asylum seeker and their partner are both seeking asylum at the same time. This is not necessarily so, only one of the partners may have been able to flee, the other may be incarcerated or have been killed in the land that the asylum seeker is fleeing. Or may not even have had a long term partner but were under threat from the authorities back home because they were gay.

If so the individual is having to find another gay wo/man to have sex with a film it to pass on to others. Are the UKBA therefore guilty of soliciting a single gay wo/man in order to procur a tape of his sexual exploits with another fe/male?

Also if the asylum seeker has recently lost a partner or had fled without them they may not be ready to have sex with someone else. We all go through such experiences when we lose someone we love. By forcing them to provide a sex tape, they may not be able to perform as they would with a long term partner. As a result such a tape may condemn them to deportation because the system has inaccurately determined their sexuality.

Quote of the Day: Marianne Rademacher

"If the responsibility for prevention is put entirely upon women and HIV-positive people, we are not recognising the combined responsibility of two people."

These words were spoken at the end of the trail of German pop star Nadja Benaissa, who was not given up to ten years in jail for having unprotected sex while HIV positive. She had sex with three men after she became affected at the age of 17 eleven years ago.

The words of Ms Rademacher of Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe remind us as well as the Germans that the responsibility for safer sex lies with both partners. It should not be the sole responsibility of one partner and the fact that a possible jail term hangs over you makes it less likely that you will be open about it rather than more so.

For example if I a HIV negative person fall for someone and fall in love/lust with them and want to have sex with them, it is my responsibility to find out there status. The easiest way to do so is to ask the individual concerned, it is an element of putting trust in each other. If they tell me they are HIV positive I have the option, it is my decision what I wish to do with that information. I can proceed to have safer sex with that individual taking the precautions that I am able to do, or be totally safe and not proceed any further, but at that point the option is mine.

The responsibility has been both of ours to be open and honest about where we are. Ms Benaissa had been poorly informed, someone had told her there was next to zero chance of her passing on the virus. In fact of the three men she had unprotected sex with once has since been diagnosed HIV+. The chance of passing on the virus is not zero therefore there is a responsibility if you are positive to tell. Of course like Ms Benaissa that leads to the other issues of being open enough to discuss it and face the rejection option I mentioned before. These very poignant words from a HIV positive guy tell the issue that they can face when love is all around them, the constant fear of loneliness, disclosing and rejection:

"it has ... to do with the not being able to get on with a relationship either without telling the guy about my status – or after telling him."

This feeling from those that are positive isn't helped by a great deal of ignorance still out there about how HIV can (or cannot) be contracted. Something I would have hoped had lifted since I first faced it directly with a Uni friend who have contracted HIV through the bad Factor 8 that was given to Haemophiliacs. Sadly instead of greater understanding there appears to be a new generation growing up ignorant or forgetting about the risks.

However, I think that criminalising people for knowingly passing it on leads to people not having the desire to find out, not go for STI checks. Not being aware of what other infections they may have and could pass on to others.

So yes the responsibility does lie with both partners to be responsible. But it also does rest with everyone who is sexually active with more than one partner to know their own condition. As I mentioned in my speech in favour of lifting the Blood Ban. There are gay men who are more aware of the sexual health status than the vast majority of the heterosexual world. Maybe it is one thing that the LGBT community is more open about than the straight world. We are more aware of the risks, but as a result are more aware of the responsibilities that go with that risk.

Of course there is still more openness that is needed in all sections of our world when it comes to sexual health. The surprising number of over 50s who are getting infected, the large numbers of under 25s having unprotected sex, not just leading to unwanted pregnancy but to the spread of infections.

So next time you are about to embark on sex with a new partner heed the word of Ms Rademacher above. So be responsible play it safe.

Let's Talk About Sex Benny*

I have to praise Cardinal Christoph Schönborn. Whether he actually meant that there is a link between priestly celibacy and child sex abuse scandal that's inflicting the Vatican, or merely that the link needs to be examined, he has reopened the debate

The Archbishop of Vienna, who is a protégé of Pope Benedict XVI and seen as a potential future candidate for the Papacy is hardly opening a can of worms. Although his hastily released clarification may well be a sign that the church is not prepared to publicly face that discussion.

His original article in his archdiocese's magazine called on the Church to make a "unflinching examination" of the causes of the scandal. He specifically pointed out that consideration should be made on "the issue of priests' training, as well as the question of what happened in the so-called sexual revolution of the generation of 1968".

He added: "It also includes the question of priest celibacy and the question of personality development. It requires a great deal of honesty, both on the part of the Church and of society as a whole."

In fact what he said is largely biblical. Considering that the rule on Priestly celibacy is not based on the married founding Bishop of Rome Peter but on Paul who wrote in 1 Corinthians:

"I wish that all men were like me. However each man has his own gift from God, one of this kind, and another of that kind. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they remain even as I am. But if they don't have self-control, let them marry. For it's better to marry than to burn with passion."

All of what Paul wrote is contained within the article and focus of Cardinal Schönborn. The issues in Ireland, USA and Germany are the most severe examples. The Pope has already gathered the senior Irish Bishops to Rome for what can be described as a ticking off. But surely some self examination is desirable. The church hasn't always been celibate and indeed other pastors in other denominations have been allowed to take wives/husbands**. I'm not saying it is a perfect solution, there are still tales on infidelity even with the marriage of Christian leaders. But maybe the need or want is less that retaining a state of celibacy even if there is a passion burning unquenched as is the only state of service in the Catholic Church. The whole context of Paul's passage was not that you must, but you must do what is right for you, he also didn't rule anyone out of the role passed purely on the nature of their marital status.

It may do the Catholic Church no harm to realise that all humans are fallible, without it there is no need for redemption. Once they realise that and start to acknowledge that then, and I fear only then, will they be able to deal with this issue in a constructive way.

Cardinal Schönborn is calling for just such an examination. Though you wonder if his call will be heeded and acted upon.

* For the title to work properly as a pun on the song lyrics I had to refer to the Pope by taking a popular truncation of his name.

** Well I'm including the female pastors with the husbands, but there are also a number of same gender relationships.

Citius, Altius, Fortius...Oh Yuuuuuus

Swifter, Higher, Stronger may well be the Olympic motto but who'd have thought that it would come from the boudoir's of an Olympic hopeful to fund his bid to get to the games.

In New Zealand, where licenced prostitution is legal, Taekwondo hopeful Logan Campbell is running a brothel as a way to fund his return to the games in London 2012.

Probably a little closer to some of the ancient Greek original's practice than Baron Pierre de Coubertin envisaged when he restored the Olympic movement in 1896.

No Gay Sex We're British

Well at least that's what 24% of them think according to the latest opinion poll in today's Observer, as they want it made illegal. Also 40% want to reverse the equalisation of the age of consent legislation brought in for same sex relationships. With over 56% thinking that same sex couples should not be able to adopt.

At the end of the article is one key statement that men are more likely than women to hold a negative view towards homosexuality. The more liberal men also tend to be ABC1 in terms of social status and the bigger homophobes the C2DE groups. Whether this is genuine fear (of the unknown or personal effect), peer pressure or mere ignorance is the question that really needs to be asked and addressed.

It is probably not surprising therefore that despite Paul Elliot the former Celtic, Chelsea and Aston Villa player saying that he knows a dozen gay men playing football at the top level none are openly out. The average fan on the sidelines is more likely to be classes as C2DE. No professional player has been openly out since the sad demise of Justin Fashanu.

Sexual Dragonianism and Overlegislating

Sara Bedford raised an interesting point yesterday regarding can consensual sex with an eighteen year old land you on the Sex offenders register. It ties in a little with my post on Friday regarding the SNP's policy proposal to equalise criminalisation for underage consenting teens.

We've often heard that our police are overstretched man powerwise. They have to deal with the terrorist threat, knife crime, plus all manner of other eventualities. They are getting tied down with more and more paper work. Now as Sara pointed out it is highly possible for someone in their early to mid 20s to fall in love with someone aged 18 who may still be at school, heck even I did. Yes there are issues if that person is a pupil at the school where the elder partner is working. But is it a criminal offence?

What if that person as a 20 year old education student fell in love with a 16 year old and then the only placement they could get upon graduating was at the school where that person was now 18 and studying for Highers or A' levels? Would suddenly that relationship that was not a criminal offence between two young people become criminalised when they sought their first employment. As with other workplace relationships if they pre-exist working in the same place can anyone really legislate against them.

While I agree that a school should set guidelines and employment guidelines about liaisons between staff and pupils, if both are above the age of consent then no criminal offence should be deemed to have taken place. The employer may chose to discipline the member of staff for breaking their terms of employment but legally they are not a paedophile or rapist who needs constant supervision, surely.

They are obviously laws in place to protect unwanted, underage and non-consensual sexual activity. But if none of those laws are broken and the relationship could have existed in another situation without an legal ramifications then adding to the sex offenders register is not the way to go. As I argued with the case for two 13-15 teenagers a little bit of common sense is required as to what is in the best interests health, wealth and future wise of those involved. Making something a crime isn't always the best way to resolve, solve or deal with a situation.

Safe Sex or Jailed for Sex

Kathleen Marshall Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People has slammed the SNP's Sexual Offence's Bill asking for it to be postponed while further evidence to the effect was gathered. The bill which would make it a crime for 13 to 15 year olds girls from having sex with those of the same age she says could well deter underage girls seeking medical advise of assistance if they were also facing criminal proceedings when requiring medical advice.

When the Nats proposed the equality measure in June it was counter to the Scottish Law Commission call to decriminalise young teenagers from having consensual sex. They claimed it was a conflict to the safe sex message they wanted to pursue.

However, what happens if a girl does become sexually active before the age of 16 and wants to seek birth control, pregnancy, or STI advise. If she has to go to a Doctor she would know under this legislation that she is liable to be taken before a children's hearing and have that on her record. She may seek street advise, a backstreet abortion or go full term without medical assistance.

Is this safe?

The SNP seem determined to be a parent to us all, they think that they can deter underage drinking by raising the off sales age higher. They think they will stop underage sex and make it safe with this new legislation. While they do highlight issues by being so heavy handed in the approach they are taking they are making forbidden fruit more inviting to people of an age where rebellion and finding your own way has always been the way.

Education for responsible drinking and sexual activity are more important than banning, because no doubt underage drinking and sex will still go on and the health issues will still need to be dealt with. However, if seeking medical assistance leads to a criminal record will such assistance be sought.