|
Church
leaders unconvincing over prostitution law reform
by Graeme J. Davidson,
July, 2003
 |
| "Terrible
how they treat the young and vulnerable" |
“For
Christians, there is no more combustible area of ethics
than human sexuality,” says Andy Crouch in a recent article
in re:generation.
It’s hardly surprising then that a Private Member’s
Bill introduced by Tim
Barnett to decriminalise prostitution incited 32 of
the nation's top Church leaders to send an Open Letter to
the members of the New Zealand Parliament asking them not
to support the Bill. Despite this last-minute plea of the
30 men and 2 women clergy, and others who were opposed to
the Bill, a narrow one-vote majority passed the Prostitution
Reform Bill
into law.
The
new law means that:
- Prostitution is no longer a crime in New Zealand and is subject to the
same laws and controls that apply to other business enterprises,
although there are restrictions on advertising, the location
of brothels and the importing of prostitutes from overseas
- The human rights of sex workers against exploitation is protected, along
with their welfare, occupational health and safety, which
is also beneficial to the public health
- It’s illegal to use children (under 18) for purposes of prostitution, and
laws enabling children to be prosecuted for prostitution
are repealed
A
TV popularity poll after the Bill was passed showed that
75% were against the reforms. The Church leaders were on
the side of the majority. But are the Church Leaders right?
Their arguments against the reforms aren’t convincing.
The five points in the Open Letter to All Members of
the New Zealand Parliament from New Zealand Church Leaders
are based on the utilitarian ethic of minimizing harm for
prostitutes and the public. This gives an impression of
Church paternalism towards sex workers, especially as the
Prostitute's Collective was supportive of the Bill and claimed
it would help considerably to reduce the risk of harm to
sex workers. (See also Church
leaders accused of arrogance and ignorance.)The Church
leaders did not answer the Prostitute's Collective's substantive
case for the need for fair treatment and equity with other
industries — the application of Kant's Categorical
Imperative, which is a necessary check on the rights of
minorities in the face of a utilitarian approach of seeking
the benefits for the greatest number.
Here
are the points raised in the Church Leaders' letter (in
brown font) along with editorial comments on each of the
points raised (in dark blue font). The full text of the
letter is available below.
1:
We
fully support any measure to reduce exploitation of or risk
to prostitutes, but are not convinced the Bill offers much
in this regard. Many prostitutes are young and vulnerable
and hence easily open to exploitation by powerful and unscrupulous
brothel owners. Even with legal employment provisions available
there will be many ways in which such protections can be
circumvented.
This
is equally true of other employers in other industries under
current New Zealand employment laws. Supermarkets, model
agencies and other employers exploit young people and those
who are desperate for work. Why single out the sex industry?
Many employers in all sorts of organisations circumvent
the law. Typical examples are how the laws against ageism,
race, gender bias, sexual orientation or ‘constructive dismissal’
are circumvented by finding other grounds for why a person
is unsuitable. At times, the Church itself is accused of
such practices. To be consistent, the Church leaders would
need to raise concerns about exploitation in the workplace
as a whole and show a willingness to demonstrate this in
their own employment practices.
2:
While to a small degree exploitation of prostitutes may
be reduced under the new Bill, a much wider form of exploitation
is opened up. The normalising of prostitution sends a message
that the commercial selling of one’s body is an acceptable
function in society, and will draw many other young and
vulnerable people into the business.
Many
people 'sell' their bodies to be ‘exploited’ by industry
— labourers, models, sport's people, actors and dancers
— which is regarded as 'an acceptable function in society'.
Prostitutes selling their bodies for sexual acts is not
desirable for Christians and others who believe that sexual
relationships should be reserved as an expression of committed
love between couples. Nevertheless, not all agree with this
position and many people today dissociate sex from love
and treat sex as another appetite to be satisfied. Decriminalisation
of prostitution will not automatically draw greater numbers
of the ‘young and vulnerable’ into the sex business than
are already drawn to the industry. As with any business,
customer demand determines supply. Too many suppliers usually
lowers profitability, which makes the business unattractive
for suppliers. Because something is legal does not mean
that it is always socially acceptable. There are many things
that are legal that are not socially acceptable. Examples
would be smoking, gambling away most of the family income,
excessive drinking, letting your young children watch TV
until the wee small hours every night, adults watching 'R'
rated pornographic movies or visiting porn sites on the
Internet. It could also be argued that prostitution may
lose some of its allure now that it's legal, especially
as brothels and prostitutes can be more easily identified,
financially audited and taxed on their earnings.
3:
We fully support measures to improve the health of prostitutes,
such as through the provision of safe sex material, but
such material is already readily available. Decriminalising
brothels will not greatly assist this objective.
In
many countries with legal prostitution, the brothel's licence
is dependent on a regular positive health check of the premises
and the employees similar to health checks on food premises.
That would be an improvement on the previous clandestine
arrangements, and, if not, it ‘s not going to make the situation
worse.
4:
By legalising brothels the way is opened for commercial
operators freely to enter the field with no other motivation
than the making of money. The victims will be the prostitutes
and the social and moral fabric of society. Associated activities
of drugs and the trafficking of women are likely to increase.
Profit is the key motive for any business and brothels are
no exception. Any worker in any organisation could be a
potential victim of unscrupulous employers. So, the point
is not specific to this law. Even a few Church employees
in New Zealand have won cases in the employment courts for
wrongful practices by Church employers. (Clergy have found
it more difficult to bring cases as they are deemed to be
'employed by God'.) They too have been victims, as has the
‘social and moral fabric of society’ because it weakens
faith in the Church as an upholder of morality. Like other
legitimate businesses, the Government can audit the financial
dealings of prostitutes and brothels. This will make it
harder to launder drug money. Laws already exist to prevent
the trafficking or enslavement of people. Decriminalising
prostitution should make it easier to monitor and to prosecute
those who infringe these laws within the sex industry.
5:
Decriminalising brothels elevates prostitution
to a normal feature of society. As when controls on any
activity are relaxed there is bound to be an increase in
such activity. We recognise that prostitution is a reality
in society, but do not accept that it is a desirable reality.
Christians
are certainly not encouraged to use prostitutes or become
sex workers, and for Christians it is not a desirable reality.
Nevertheless, New Zealand is probably the most secular of
Western societies and has ambivalent attitudes towards prostitution.
It’s generally regarded as undesirable but necessary for
some who need these services, provided the service is discreet
and not run by major crime organisations. Prostitution is
already elevated in society through films, such as Pretty
Woman, (see Exposing
the "Pretty Woman" Myth: A Qualitative Examination of the
Lives of Female Streetwalking Prostitutes) and there
is a fascination with the life of prostitutes, as there
is with prison inmates. My own experience of working as
a chaplain among prostitutes was that many of their clients
did not want full sexual intercourse or exotic sex. They
needed a sympathetic ear and a cuddle. Also, as has already
been mentioned in answer to point 2, there are lots of things
that are a reality in society and not desirable. These range
from fatty fast foods (adding to obesity and heart disease),
motorbikes (high probability of having an accident), smoking,
staying single (shortens life and adds to higher probability
of ill health), TV (violent crime in New Zealand rose four-fold
after its introduction) and so on. Demand rather than legality
makes these activities popular. The Law often comes to sanction
and/or regulate what is already common practice and in this
respect the decriminalisation of prostitution recognises
the popularity of the industry. It also recognises the changing
attitudes of tolerance in New Zealand to a wider variety
of sexual activity as well as the need to regulate some
of its practices.
As
with any commercial enterprise, we don't have to use the
services provided by prostitutes and we can persuade others
not to. We can also work to provide alternative rewarding
career options for prostitutes and those who would otherwise
be attracted to work in the sex industry.
Open
Letter to all Members of the New Zealand Parliament
from New Zealand Church Leaders
P
O Box 37 148
Auckland
20 June 2003
Email:dean@holy-trinity.org.nz
Dear
Member of Parliament
Prostitution
Reform Bill
We
write to express our conviction that the Prostitution Reform
Bill does not serve the best interests of prostitutes or
New Zealand society. We would respectfully recommend that
it not be supported.
Having
studied background documents, and the Bill itself as amended
at second reading, we base our conviction on these considerations
:
1.
We fully support any measure to reduce exploitation
of or risk to prostitutes, but are not convinced the Bill
offers much in this regard. Many prostitutes are young and
vulnerable and hence easily open to exploitation by powerful
and unscrupulous brothel owners. Even with legal employment
provisions available there will be many ways in which such
protections can be circumvented.
2.
While to a small degree exploitation of prostitutes
may be reduced under the new Bill, a much wider form of
exploitation is opened up. The normalising of prostitution
sends a message that the commercial selling of one’s body
is an acceptable function in society, and will draw many
other young and vulnerable people into the business.
3.
We fully support measures to improve the health
of prostitutes, such as through the provision of safe sex
material, but such material is already readily available.
Decriminalising brothels will not greatly assist this objective.
4.
By legalising brothels the way is opened for
commercial operators freely to enter the field with no other
motivation than the making of money. The victims will be
the prostitutes and the social and moral fabric of society.
Associated activities of drugs and the trafficking of women
are likely to increase.
5.
Decriminalising brothels elevates prostitution
to a normal feature of society. As when controls on any
activity are relaxed there is bound to be an increase in
such activity. We recognise that prostitution is a reality
in society, but do not accept that it is a desirable reality.
Amendments
agreed to at the second reading of the Bill which place
constraints on the operation of brothels (eg advertising,
restrictions on location, importing of prostitutes from
overseas), do not remove our basic concerns.
Our
hope is that the Bill will not proceed, and that wider consideration
will be given to alternative approaches. There has, for example,
been much debate about the Swedish approach which is based
on a strong philosophical objection to the very activity of
prostitution as being exploitative of women and men. It has
led to a reduction in prostitution, and has been accompanied
by Government programmes to assist people out of prostitution
and associated drug addiction. Such an approach would seem
worthy of consideration in New Zealand.
Anglican
Bishops
The
Rt Rev John Paterson, Anglican Presiding Bishop/Primate
and Bishop of Auckland
The Rt Rev Whakahuihui Vercoe, Pihopa o Aotearoa
The Rt Rev Dr Penny Jamieson, Bishop of Dunedin
The Rt Rev Derek Eaton, Bishop of Nelson
The Rt Rev John Gray, Pihopa ki te Waipounamu
The Rt Rev Dr Tom Brown, Bishop of Wellington
The Rt Rev Muru Walters, Pihopa ki te Upoko o te Ika
The Rt Rev Brown Turei, Pihopa ki te Tai Rawhiti
The Rt Rev David Moxon, Bishop of Waikato
The Rt Rev Philip Richardson, Bishop in Taranaki
The Rt Rev Te Kitohi Pikaahu, Pihopa ki te Tai Tokerau
The Rt Rev Richard Randerson, Assistant Bishop of Auckland
Catholic
Church
His
Eminence Thomas, Cardinal Williams, Archbishop of Wellington
Most Reverend Patrick Dunn, Bishop of Auckland
Most Reverend Robin Leamy SM, Assistant Bishop in Auckland
Most Reverend Denis Browne, Bishop of Hamilton
Most Reverend Takuira Max Mariu SM, Assistant Bishop of
Hamilton
Most Reverend Peter Cullinane, Bishop of Palmerston North
Most Reverend Owen Dolan, Coadjutor Bishop of Palmerston
North
Most Reverend John Dew, Assistant Bishop of Wellington
Most Reverend John Cunneen, Bishop of Christchurch
Rev Monsignor Vincent Walker, Vicar General, Dunedin
Presbyterian
The
Rt Rev Michael Thawley, Moderator, Presbyterian Church of
Aotearoa New Zealand
Jane Pritchard, Moderator, Auckland Presbytery
The Rev Douglas Lendrum, St David’s Church, Auckland
Methodist
The Rev David Pratt, District Superintendent, Auckland
Salvation Army
Campbell Roberts, Divisional Commander, Canterbury North
West
Ross Gower, Divisional Commander, Auckland
Baptist
Brian Winslade, National Leader, Baptist Churches of New
Zealand
Anglican
Deans of Cathedrals
The Very Rev David Cappel Rice, Dean of Dunedin
The Very Rev Charles Tyrrell, Dean of Nelson
The Very Rev Dr Douglas Sparks, Dean of Wellington
|
