Show Hide image Feminism 11 December 2013 Laurie Penny on sex work: The Soho raids show us the real problem with sex work isn’t the sex – it’s low-waged work itself The moral crusade against the sex trade, whether it is pursued by the police or by high-profile feminists who have never done sex work, serves the same function that it has always served, writes Laurie Penny. Print HTML On 4 December, hundreds of police, some in riot gear, raided more than 25 premises in central London. Under the guise of looking for stolen goods and tackling trafficking and drug dealing, they raided the flats of prostitutes and turned them out on to the street. They invited members of the press to witness them taking women into custody and confiscating their money and possessions, all in the name of “saving” them from a life of prostitution. Britain is not the only European country taking a tougher line on sex work right now. France has just passed a bill making it illegal to pay for sex, despite protests from prostitutes who say that laws criminalising clients make their work more dangerous, driving it underground. Germany, which has had progressive prostitution laws since 2002, is considering reversing them after a national debate on the issue. At a time when millions of women and girls across the continent are being forced to make hard economic choices – including prostitution – why does the biggest public feminist conversation still revolve around whether or not it is moral to have sex for money and whether doing so should get you locked up and deported? The public shaming of sex workers has been a feature of the recent years of austerity in Europe. For the press, it’s a spectacle that plays well with readers drawn to a bit of titillated outrage. If you can’t get mugshots of the women, you can illustrate stories with stock photos of disembodied legs in miniskirts and heels, informing readers that this item will make them angry, horny, or both. The recent raids in Soho were not the first occasion on which journalists and photographers have been invited by the police to cover the story. “What more clear signal do we need that the police are more interested in exposing these women than ‘saving’ them?” asks Melissa Gira Grant, author of the forthcoming book Playing the Whore: the Work of Sex Work. “How is their safety compromised now by these images and their spread online, as well?” The story that is not being told in pictures of riot police raiding brothels is that the same police are authorised to keep a percentage of the cash they take from prostitutes. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, money and valuables confiscated from sex workers – including anything set aside for rent, medicine and food for their children – get divvied up between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the HMRC. Worse, sex workers who are also migrants often find themselves turned over to the UK Border Agency (UKBA) following these “compassionate” raids. The English Collective of Prostitutes states that, during the recent Soho raids, “Some immigrant women were taken into custody on the pretext that they may be victims of trafficking, despite their protestations that they were not being forced to work.” If tackling human trafficking is a priority, arresting the alleged victims, taking their money and handing them over to the UKBA seems like an odd way to go about it. Elsewhere, the public shaming of sex workers has a more explicitly political agenda. In Greece in the spring of 2012, the right-wing press ran stories blaming sex workers for the spread of HIV. The infection rate had indeed risen by 60 per cent in just one year – but not because of prostitution. Rather, the surge in infection was a direct result of swingeing cuts to the health budget, including the removal of needle exchange programmes. We have been here many times before. It was Emma Goldman who first noticed, in 1910, that: “Whenever the public mind is to be diverted from a great social wrong, a crusade is inaugurated against indecency.” The idea that the dangers and indignities of certain kinds of work can be separated from the economic circumstances of that work is a seductive one but, as Goldman reminds us, “What is really the cause of the trade in women? Not merely white women, but yellow and black women, as well. Exploitation, of course; the merciless Moloch of capitalism that fattens on underpaid labour, thus driving thousands of women and girls into prostitution.” Most of the public conversation about the rise in sex work in Europe, particularly among poor and migrant women, assumes that it’s a consequence of immoral laws, immoral women, or both. The notion that five years of austerity, rising unemployment and wage repression across the continent might have something to do with it rarely comes up. Separating prostitution from all other work and driving it underground does not just harm sex workers. It also allows people to imagine that just because they might be serving chips or wiping bottoms rather than having sex for a living, they are somehow preserving their dignity – they may be exhausted, alienated and miserable, but at least they’re not selling sex. Women who work as prostitutes do sometimes face abuse on the job – and so do women who choose to work as night cleaners, contracted carers and waitresses. The truly appalling choice facing millions of women and migrant workers across Europe right now is between low-waged, back-breaking work, when work is available, and destitution. Even if we accept the shoddily supported notion that most women who choose to work as prostitutes do so because they have been traumatised in childhood, it does not follow that they should be stripped of agency, denied privacy, robbed of their possessions and arrested. The public shaming of sex workers is a global phenomenon and too much of the media is complicit. The moral crusade against the sex trade, whether it is pursued by the police or by high-profile feminists who have never done sex work, serves the same function that it has always served. The problem with sex work isn’t sex, but work. › The console camera of the future could track your movements through walls Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things. This article first appeared in the 12 December 2013 issue of the New Statesman, Power Games More Related articles Wanting it both ways: how to reconcile feminism and domesticity One year on, has shared parental leave made any difference? Donald Trump is right – the pro-life movement is about punishing women
Show Hide image Observations 6 April 2016 Leader: Tax and the social contract It would be easy to respond to the Panama Papers leak with a shrug. But taxes underpin our position as citizens in a society - and allows us to believe in the fairness of Britain. Print HTML A common theme underpins support for Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece and even Donald Trump: the idea that there is a world within our world, inaccessible to the ordinary citizen, where super-rich elites play by different rules. The so-called Panama Papers, the largest leak of financial documents in history, show that idea to be the ugly and humiliating truth. The march of globalisation has enabled aggressive international tax avoidance. At best, national governments are too enfeebled to prevent these dodges by themselves; at worst, they have cynically abetted them. The leak of 11.5 million files from Mossack Fonseca, a law firm headquartered in Panama, is both enormous and small. The papers contain details of 214,000 offshore companies incorporated by the firm on behalf of more than 14,000 clients. But Mossack Fonseca is only the world’s fourth-biggest offshore law firm. This leak is the tip of a hulking iceberg. Tax avoidance represents a steady corrosion of the intranational solidarity on which states rely. The best way to understand tax is as a social contract: citizens of societies pay dues (respecting laws and paying taxes) in return for mutual benefits (the rule of law and a beneficent state). Or, as the US Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr put it in 1904: “Taxes are what we pay for civilised society.” It would be easy for Britain to respond to the leak with a shrug. Twelve national leaders are named in the documents – Iceland’s prime minister has resigned over his involvement – but the only figures from British politics who appear in the files are a smattering of peers and party donors, as well as David Cameron’s late father, Ian. It is no surprise that Russia and Saudi Arabia are havens for the corrupt and it is a relief to see that British politicians are (relatively) clean. Yet our country cannot ignore its institutional role in allowing tax avoidance schemes to prosper. More than half of the companies in the papers were registered in British-administered tax havens. The UK is tainted, too: at least £122bn of British property is owned by offshore companies, sheltering their owners from liabilities and identification while distorting the housing market. It is difficult not to conclude that the UK and its remaining colonial outposts have become havens for dirty money smuggled from corrupt states. It is not sufficient merely to bemoan the ease with which the hyper-rich eschew standard tax arrangements. Only firm, effective action will rid the UK of dirty money. David Cameron has talked a good game on the subject. In 2012, he said that offshore tax avoidance schemes were “not morally acceptable” and, the following year, he placed tax transparency at the top of the G8’s agenda. Mr Cameron plans to host a summit in May to discuss offshore issues. Yet that summit, for which there is no confirmed date or guest list, shows the disconnect between the Prime Minister’s rhetoric and reality. It will also be hard for him to claim moral authority on the subject when his family wealth – courtesy of Blairmore Holdings, a fund run by his father – was held offshore. This is not an arrangement available to most ordinary Britons. The awkward truth is that it is very hard to stamp out tax avoidance. Yet the government can and should do more to dismantle the perception that there is a twin-track system for the elites and the rest. Last month, the cuts to the corporation tax rate, already among the lowest in Europe, and to capital gains tax announced in the Budget sent the wrong message. Most businesses and their executives do not evade tax but the perception that corporations are taxed much less than people must not harden into received opinion. An argument often mounted against high tax rates is that low tax keeps money onshore. The Panama Papers expose that as a fallacy: no tax is always more “efficient” than low tax. The government could make a symbolic declaration of intent by ensuring that British passports are available only to those who pay full tax in the UK, as is the case in the US. It is an indignity to ordinary taxpayers when the services, infrastructure and civil society they fund from their income are used by parasitical super-elites who feel no allegiance and no responsibility to any country. The government cannot eliminate multinational tax avoidance on its own but it can make a concerted attempt to expel foreign corruption from our shores. Every day that it does not, more of us lose faith in the fairness of Britain, its political system and its institutions. More Related articles To any young men embarking on love: beware what you can do, by doing nothing at all The shortcomings of Midnight Special highlight exactly what Steven Spielberg does right The sad slide of the American middle class