Green party policy prostitution and porn

[NiceGerbil]

Just looking at green party policies for another topic.

Came across this statement. It goes further than anything I've seen and bit taken aback. I know this topic always gets lively discussion and so was in two minds about posting but it really is extreme IMO.

'Prostitution and the Sex Industry
RR550 The Green Party believes that the law should not seek to regulate consensual sexual activities between adults where those do not affect others. Where there are such effects, a balance must be reached. Adults should be free to do as they wish with their own bodies, and to practice whatever form of sexual activity they wish by themselves or with each other by mutual consent. This includes the freedom not only to engage in such sexual acts, but also to be photographed or filmed doing so, to make such images available to other adults with their consent, and to be able to view such images. That someone might receive payment for any of these activities should not affect this freedom.'

policy.greenparty.org.uk/rr.html

This page.

Blimey. Because consent is so easy to express and men people really easily accept being told "no". Not a problem at all for the Greens

I mean, superficially that statement makes sense, it's about personal freedoms and consent between adults. The problem for me is that human nature is not so clear cut and coercion/abuse can easily happen.

What I was about.

The framing, if that's they right word.

First and biggest part of the statement.

Consenting adults should be able to do what they want re sex. Including pics and share them.
Okayyyy well that's already the case with some exceptions that I'll get on to.

After all that about sex for pleasure/ recreation etc with chosen partner/s IE with someone you're seeing, ONS, etc etc

They just tack on oh and no difference if there's money. Assume porn included but they are a bit coy.

Ok going through the rest.

'Regardless of generally accepted standards of public morality in the past, no attempt to end various aspects of prostitution with prohibitive laws has worked. In addition, with the availability of sexually explicit material via the internet it is not realistic to expect that censorship laws will be able to stop access to such material in the future.'

Hmm bit tricky CBA. Awesome!

'Therefore, all aspects of sex work involving consenting adults should be decriminalised. '

It's always decriminalise. Never legalise. Cowardly cop out.

Put your money where your mouth is. Why not legalise? I assume it's not because H&S would mean it was pretty much impossible to carry on. But that can't be why surely?
Because that would mean that they are taking this stance even though they know the dangers. And that would be unconscionable, surely?

Ok so the point I was going to make earlier.

'Restrictions and censorship of sexually explicit material should be ended, except for those which are aimed at protecting children.'

'Adults should be free to do as they wish with their own bodies, and to practice whatever form of sexual activity they wish by themselves or with each other by mutual consent'

Right then.

People have all sorts of interests and preferences. Porn is a racist misogynist shitshow.

So they are ok with stuff like (whether paid for or not)- just some random things that some people are into-

Violence resulting in injury

Throttling - so would remove the recent law saying it's no defence. As of both consensual then why should there be blame in the event of death? They both wanted it after all.

Incest porn and barely legal categories for porn. I'm sure there's others but I haven't been on a site for years.

Similarly the categorisation by race. The titles hole destroyed etc. They're ok with that? Or is it more 'well what can you do'?

There was that bloke in Germany who went to prison for cutting off another man's penis, cooking it and eating it. They both consented. They both wanted this and it was a sexual thing. So, well ok then.

I don't get the last bit. They want ALL censorship and restrictions ended for sexually explicit material unless it's for child protection (assume means educational). What the hell do they think is included in stuff for kids?
Well ok we've seen a lot of really dodgy stuff in the last couple years but I somehow don't think that's what they have in mind.

Shall I keep going?!

Have they thought about the current law on extreme porn? They want that to go?!

' Laws against soliciting should be repealed, and issues of "public nuisance" should be dealt with under general legal provision against nuisance. In order to minimise any such nuisance, wherever possible particular areas should be designated where street prostitutes can work in safety without upsetting local residents and traders. '

They don't think reducing the 'upset' would be good?
The places they are thinking of are going to be pretty bloody remote. Yay for safety?

Despite there being laws against murder, people still seem to do this, so let's just decriminalise it .

Well it's worked for rape!

Until they can prove that everyone in the sex industry is there of their own volition then it is not possible to prove that it is by mutual consent. Men: get your thrills. Women: We don't really care if you truly want to be there or not or if you have life long trauma or are currently being abused (in any of many ways) you just need to be there for men.

Maybe the Green Party need to have a good think about what happened in Leeds, street prostitution is never going to be safe. I can't help but think many calling for this just see these women as sub-human.

The framing of consent through desire and consent due to money as being THE SAME is extremely worrying.

Oh god lord.
If anyone feels like frothing for a bit then their policies are riddled with ill thought through shite.

In this corker they place 'love' as a basic need.

You can't make anyone be loved! Some people are fundamentally pretty hard to love. Child molesters, mass murderers, that sort of thing.

I suppose there's an idea that mothers always love their children. That's not true at all though. What does their policy mean in practice?

Is it love from one person or will one at a time do? What if there's a gap in being loved?

Basic needs are generally understood as being the aim for all govts to meet. International convention on Human rights being the go to.

They do state that love is as basic s need as shelter etc.

So how would s green govt ensure everyone is loved, in practice?

Oh and. What if you hate the person who loves you?

Many questions.

Also wonder if this crosses with sex as a basic need as argued on a recent thread. (Intimacy).

'PB108 As human beings, we all have the potential to live co-operatively and harmoniously with each other, and with reverence and respect for the complex web of life of which we are a part. Yet it has become increasingly obvious that this potential cannot be realised while basic human needs remain largely unmet.

PB109 By basic needs we mean not only the physiological needs of food, water, air, shelter and sleep, but also psychological needs. These include the need for love, respect, autonomy, security, and meaningful activity within our communities.'

Oh yay s cosy chat with your rapist!

John warboys would take months to get through his victims.

Miles better than getting him off the streets though!

'CJ114 We support the introduction of the principle of ‘restorative justice,’ which while denouncing the crime, deals constructively with both the victim and the offender. The primary aim will be to restore and, if necessary, improve the position of the victim and the community; the offender will be required to make amends.

CJ115 Restorative justice recognises the need not only to ensure that the amount and nature of reparation be appropriate to the harm suffered, but also that it is within the capacity of the offender to make it. This means that any shortfall will have to be met by the community.'

They have tried to talk of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but have completely mushed it up.

I'm all for appropriate 'restorative justice' if it can go a way to put right the wrong - so trash the local park - you have to clean it up, cause ASB at the local shops - do a litter pick.

Crimes that would generally result in a prison sentence are not real;y appropriate for restorative justice, so in the case of sexual assault / rape it shouldn't happen.

In addition, with the availability of sexually explicit material via the internet it is not realistic to expect that censorship laws will be able to stop access to such material in the future.

So, shall we apply a similar approach to the environment?

With the ubiquity of plastics/pollution / greenhouse gases / flights/ poverty (* take your pick) it is not realistic to be able to change human behaviour in the future.

I mean, let's face it, the Green Party want to make huge changes, I don't normally see them as a shrug-well-what-can-be-done? type party.

They should surely take the international convention of human rights as a starting point

To have a policy that everyone's basic needs should be met. And then placing being loved in the same category as food. Is ridiculous. And to me now I think of it. Is kind of insulting, not sure of the word. Trivialising? The situation for the millions of people around the world who do not have enough food.

The green party are a lost cause sadly.

Seems that there know they're unelectable so have just written what they know will go down well in certain quarters.

Labour are the same way at the moment. Infighting, power struggles etc. Most seem more interested in their views being the one, getting rid of those who argue etc.

Not just on the gender stuff.

The Green Party also support decriminalising cannabis and possibly other controlled drugs (like what Portugal has done 20 years ago and had success with). They seem to be considering the idea that making things that have potential for harm illegal sometimes just isn't the best answer.

"Maybe the Green Party need to have a good think about what happened in Leeds, street prostitution is never going to be safe"

Street prostitution is very different from indoors. Prostitution has also been illegal since 2007 (the Leeds approach was tolerated).

"The Green Party recognises that trans men are men, trans women are women"

Also this. Maybe this will change your mind about not wanting to vote for them? (joke)

Ah well-

I am very much in favour of legalising drugs. Prof butt and the rest of the advisory group and what happened was shitty.

'Street prostitution is very different from indoors. Prostitution has also been illegal since 2007 (the Leeds approach was tolerated).'

Have you missed a word? Just checking.