Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Why are the proposers proposing the deletion of this measure? Doing this would also leave in place section 7 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993, which reads:

A person who in a street or public place solicits or importunes another person or other persons for the purposes of prostitution shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding--(a) £250, in the case of a first conviction,

(b) £500, in the case of a second conviction, or

(c) £500 or to imprisonment...

I am in favour of the provisions on the harassment and criminalisation of sex workers being deleted. As such, why are the proposers proposing the deletion of those measures that decriminalise sex workers? Sex workers would continue to have no protection. In proposing the amendment the proposers are stating sex workers soliciting to sell sex should remain criminalised, up to and including being imprisoned for four weeks. It is bizarre. The Deputies profess to have an interest in sex workers' rights. Why would they rather see people continuing to be criminalised while men would remain free to buy sex? That is the element they are deleting but they are leaving the status quo. It seems that, in essence, they would prefer a woman who solicits for clients on the street to be sent to prison rather than criminalising the man. I cannot understand how people can claim that this would assist sex workers or make their lives safer.

Nobody could argue that consent and purchasing consent are the same things. To say there are no sex workers or people involved in prostitution or the sex industry who are not vulnerable is whitewashing and sanitising the industry. The Socialist Party and socialists in general do not make judgments about anyone who becomes involved in the sex industry. It is not about moralising or considering what is right but about perpetuating the culture that women's bodies or those of trans or vulnerable people are subservient to - let us face it - male desires. As the purchasers of sex are 99% male, there is a gender aspect.

I will cite Mr. Tom Meagher who is involved with the White Ribbon campaign and whose wife was murdered by a rapist. He made the point that anyone who challenged the male purchasing of sex or male violence was told that "men were men." He stated: "The sentence 'it's not ok to pay for sex' is controversial and often unpopular, one that invites accusations of moralising ... as if it is simply sex and not the systematic oppression of women and the rape and murder of women in prostitution in particular that we object to." That is the nub of the argument. Passing laws will not get rid of prostitution. Prostitution is the product of a society in which there is significant inequality and eight men have as much wealth as 3.5 billion people. As long as this continues to be the case, people will be pressured because of poverty, drug addiction and so on. There are people who have been able to make a decision to take part in sex work, but they are in a minority and should not be over-represented in the general discussion. The amendment is particularly mystifying if people want to protect sex workers.

Further down the list are amendments which could be deleted if this amendment is passed, in which we in the Anti-Austerity Alliance argue that the pimps, the organisers of prostitution and the traffickers should be pursued and heavily fined. Some of these points have been taken on board, whereas others have not. In recent cases people who have been arrested for engaging in prostitution have had the proceeds taken from them. This should be catered for in the Bill, but it is not. We will continue to see sex workers being persecuted.

I am mystified by the proposal that the entire section be deldted, including measures that would increase the safety of those involved in prostitution in the context of soliciting, loitering and so on.

I just do not understand where that is coming from if one wants to protect sex workers. It seems that in trying to prevent the purchase of sex, generally by men, and in deleting that measure, all of the protections are being deleted and I wonder why that is the case.

See this speech in context