Regan Nordic Model Bill 'targets demand, protects women'
Writing in The Herald, Karen Miller, a trustee of the religious group, said the law must recognise that prostitution is 'the exploitation of the vulnerable, who usually have little to no choice about it.'
'It is trafficking victims hidden in brothels up and down the country who have never been surveyed about whether they are in favour of being raped multiple times a day, but from the testimony of the lucky ones who escaped, we know that they did not choose this life,' she wrote.
'We should listen to their voices and do what we can to reduce the risk of women, men and children being trapped in prostitution.'
Her comments come as MSPs prepare to debate Ash Regan's Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill when Parliament returns in the autumn.
The draft legislation — which has cross-party support — would introduce what is known as the Nordic Model, criminalising the purchase of sex but decriminalising its sale.
Those convicted of buying sex could be fined up to £10,000 and face jail sentences of up to six months.
Ms Regan believes this would reduce demand and make it safer and easier for sex workers or prostitutes to approach the police if they have been victims of crime.
The Bill would also give women a statutory right to support to exit the industry.
Ms Regan's bill would criminalise the purchase of sex but decriminalise its sale (Image: PA) Sex workers who oppose the legislation — which the Alba MSP has dubbed the 'Unbuyable Bill' — have warned it could be 'disastrous' for their safety.
Last month, members of the Scotland for Decrim campaign, which was established to oppose Ms Regan's proposals, told The Herald on Sunday they believed criminalising 'clients' would drive them underground, increasing dangers, and ultimately making it harder for sex workers to leave the industry.
Ms Miller disagreed. She said it was impossible to 'decriminalise prostitution without enabling further exploitation'.
She added: 'It is a sad reality that abused and exploited young people are far more representative of the average 'sex worker' than escorts taking credit card payments from their clients.
'Men who buy sex are more likely than other men to rape and commit other acts of sexual violence.
'They often see prostitutes as being fundamentally different from other women and treat them accordingly.
'Verbal abuse and spitting are par for the course. Escorts may be able to refuse a client on these grounds, but most women do not have that choice. Even those in the most privileged position find their carefully drawn boundaries violated.
'Selling sex is never safe; buying sex is never a neutral act.'
READ MORE
While she acknowledged the Nordic Model was not a perfect solution, she said it was 'the best option available to us if we want to be a society that values the safety and dignity of everyone'.
Lynsey Walton, of Scotland for Decrim, said Ms Miller's faith meant her perspective was skewed.
She said: 'Religious organisations like Restore Glasgow often see sex workers as 'fallen women' who need saving, which is why few sex workers will engage with them and why their experience in the sector is limited to only a small subsection of those carrying out sex work.
'While sex workers do experience violence and exploitation, it is a simple fact that not all sex workers are trafficked or coerced, as our 10,000-plus sex worker members across the UK will attest.
'All groups representing sex workers, alongside international NGOs such as Amnesty, the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS, agree that the Nordic Model makes life more difficult and dangerous for sex workers, by pushing the industry underground.'
Ms Regan said: 'Restore Glasgow and other frontline support services do not have the luxury of being comforted into inaction by pimp lobby PR framing of 'empowerment' and 'work like any other'.
'These services deal with the reality and consequences of the global trade in commercial sexual exploitation, inflicted on vulnerable young lives every single day.
'All frontline services that responded to my Unbuyable Bill consultation supported it, some giving detailed insights into the harrowing realities.
'I have a question for those conveniently ignoring the consultation's recommendations from our frontline support services, as they predictably try to discredit me and my Unbuyable Bill.
'If you want to feel worthy by 'giving a voice' to a select group of interested parties, why not platform the men who buy sex or those who profit from trading others?
'Let's hear their arguments for their 'right to buy' access to vulnerable women, girls and men's bodies.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The fight for trans safety is a fight for everyone's safety – MPs must have the chance to debate it
The supreme court judgment on the application of the 2010 Equality Act has rendered the UK's system of legal gender recognition entirely hollow. It has ruled that men like me who have gender recognition certificates are defined as women in equality law, which applies to organisations ranging from workplaces to public services and sporting bodies. Vice versa for trans women. For context, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was passed after the European court of human rights ruled that the 'intermediate zone', between two sexes, in which trans people were then forced to exist was – and, crucially, remains – unlawful. Under the Gender Recognition Act, I am male 'for all purposes', but the supreme court decided this is not the case under the Equality Act. In effect, it is not the case in public. Having run what human rights organisations criticised as an unusually short six-week public consultation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) will soon update its code of practice about how this legal interpretation of the Equality Act will be applied. This will then go to parliament to be approved by ministers, as things stand, with no opportunity for debate. Far from clarity, experts argue that the supreme court ruling has created legal uncertainty and contradiction and that the EHRC's response has been highly questionable. Rather than despair, as understandable as that would be, many trans people live in hope that their MPs are fair, ethical people, who have simply not had the opportunity to fully understand any of this. Which is why, late last month, roughly 900 people travelled from as far as Scotland and Cornwall to queue outside parliament in punishing heat to meet them in person. Many of those people were trans. Others were their loved ones, colleagues and allies. Westminster Hall and the lobby grew so busy that many never got inside. Those who hadn't managed to pre-book a meeting with their MP queued again in the hubbub to 'green card' their representative, an arcane system whereby a constituent requests their presence via a slip of green paper. Organisers were surprised by how many MPs spoke to, perhaps for the first time, someone who happened to be trans. Trans Solidarity Alliance's director, Jude Guaitamacchi, described the conversations in stark terms: 'It's 'Look me in the eye and tell me you're willing to destroy my life'.' This is known as a mass lobby, a direct and old-fashioned tactic for getting MPs' attention. What choice do trans people have at this point? Over the past 10 years, their rights have been chipped away in Britain, their lives made increasingly difficult by anti-trans lobbyists with more influential connections and far more money. Systemic transphobia has captured our public institutions with terrifying speed. For its part, the supreme court refused to hear any interventions from trans people before deciding on its recent, devastating ruling. Things were so different in 2016. When North Carolina passed a shocking 'bathroom bill' banning trans people from using the correct bathroom, the Labour MP Ruth Cadbury told the Commons that 'a bathroom bill would never be passed here in the UK'. In the same debate, the Conservative MP Caroline Dinenage welcomed a new NHS policy prescribing cross-sex hormones to young gender-variant people, acknowledging this was 'consistent with international guidelines', a description that, were it not for well-documented lobbying, would hold today. Maria Miller, a former Conservative MP, cited fairer treatment of trans prisoners as progress 'on which Britain leads the way'. Concluding, she said: 'Better protecting trans people does not mean diminishing the protections in place for women. It is not a zero-sum game and we should not allow those who attempt to paint it as such, and who try to undermine the position and legitimate rights of trans people, to succeed.' What on earth has happened? Today, any MP who dared say that protecting trans people and protecting women go hand in hand would incur the wrath of politicians and commentators from the right to the centre left. Perhaps current Labour ministers privately justify the state's capitulation to the anti-trans lobby as political expediency. Perhaps they did the same when branding many peaceful protesters against genocide as terrorists. This government is making decision after decision that betrays its own principles and those of its actual voters, who will not be fooled again. It's cold comfort that trans people are not alone in being thrown under the bus by a PM who promised an end to culture wars. Maybe the growing number of MPs who feel betrayed by their leaders are reason for hope. They must find the courage to defend their trans constituents, too. Whether they cite the UK's vertiginous slide down European LGBTQ+ rights rankings, the Council of Europe being asked to investigate the proposed implementation of the ruling or the contents of the more than 50,000 responses to the EHRC's public consultation on its code of practice, they will not lack for evidence to back them up. MPs who attended the mass lobby probably learned alarming things about what the EHRC's code of practice might look like, based on the interim guidance it released in April, which is being challenged in the high cout by the Good Law project. They might have heard from the news or comment pages that women who are trans may be banned from women's loos and shelters. What they probably did not hear is that the EHRC's interim guidance also says a women-only gardening club with more than 25 members will be legally required to exclude a trans woman, even if she's legally a woman, and even if her fellow members want her there. Perhaps you're just learning this, too. If so, pause a moment longer to consider what this would mean. This guidance, were it to become legally enshrined, would rob citizens, trans and otherwise, of the freedom to choose whom they associate with and to recognise others for who they truly are. It not only takes away trans peoples' right to define themselves in relation to their families and friends, but the freedom of those families and friends too. Does someone married to a trans woman no longer have a wife? Does the mother of a trans son, against her better knowledge, now have a daughter? What does this say about the courts' and government's readiness to curtail the freedoms of other minorities that, through no fault of their own, become politically inconvenient? The fight for trans safety is a fight for everyone's safety, whatever your identity, however you present, whatever your beliefs. The decade-long campaign against trans people is not about anyone's safety. It is exactly what it looks like: an organised effort to drive a tiny minority from public life, back into the closet. Do not let yourselves be fooled. MPs, consider what has changed since 2016 (hint: it isn't trans people), listen to what you heard at the mass lobby, heed the 100,000 who marched for London trans pride last weekend. The EHRC's proposals must be properly challenged and debated. This is a litmus test for the country's soul, wounded as it is, though not yet dead. Freddy McConnell is a freelance journalist
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Diddy files motion to overturn two prostitution convictions or demand a new trial
Sean ' Diddy ' Combs and his defence team are trying to overturn two prostitution convictions, saying that if the motion is unsuccessful, they will demand a new trial. The disgraced rap mogul has asked that his conviction for prostitution-related offenses under the federal Mann Act be changed to an acquittal, according to documents obtained by TMZ. The Mann Act involves transporting someone across state lines for sex. But, Diddy's lawyers says they believe he's the only person ever convicted under this statute who did not make money off prostitution, did not have sex with an alleged prostitute, and did not arrange the prostitute's transportation. They claim this means the 55-year-old has not done any of the things stipulated in the Mann Act. During the trial, none of the sex workers, nor Cassie Ventura or 'Jane' testified Diddy had sex with the hired escorts. They all said he was either observing and/or filming the so called 'freak-off' sessions while the women had sex with the sex workers. Testimony also revealed it was usually the women, not Diddy, who made travel and hotel arrangements for the hired escorts involved. Diddy's defence team also point out that his sexual involvement was basically voyeurism, and highlight 'multiple state courts have held that paying for voyeurism - to watch other people have sex - is not prostitution.' The rapper also says the male sex workers they hired were not only consenting, but they 'enjoyed the activities and had friendships with [Cassie and 'Jane'] and were not merely traveling to have sex for money.' Finally, Diddy says the freak-offs were protected under the First Amendment, because they were 'producing amateur pornography for later private viewing.' Diddy's defence team say if the court does not overturn his Mann Act convictions he deserves a new trial, where only evidence related to those counts is admitted. His lawyers say this would not include the video of Diddy beating his then-girlfriend Ventura. According to the documents the clip was only admitted in his trial because of the RICO and sex trafficking charges of which he's been cleared. The Mann Act involves transporting someone across state lines for the purpose of sex. But, Diddy's team says they believe he's the only person ever convicted under this statute who did not make money off prostitution, did not have sex with an alleged prostitute and did not arrange the prostitute's transportation And, if Diddy were facing the Mann Act charges alone, the footage wouldn't be relevant and could be unfairly prejudicial. It comes as Donald Trump is 'seriously considering' a pardon for Sean 'Diddy' Combs as the disgraced rap mogul awaits his sentencing in a Brooklyn jail. As the judge prepares his punishment for the former producer over prostitution charges, a source told Deadline that Trump has been mulling the reprieve. Diddy has been acquitted on three of his most serious charges. Insiders told the outlet that the idea had advanced from 'just another Trump weave to an actionable event.' The mogul was found not-guilty of sex-trafficking and racketeering earlier this month, but was convicted of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. Combs is set to receive his sentencing on October 3 and faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. A presidential pardon has been talked of since the beginning of Combs' trial, and Trump even indicated in May that he was open to the idea. The President said, when asked on the matter in the Oval Office, that 'nobody's asked but I know people are thinking about it.' 'I know they're thinking about it. I think some people have been very close to asking,' he added. 'First of all, I'd look at what's happening. And I haven't been watching it too closely, although it's certainly getting a lot of coverage,' Trump continued. 'I haven't seen him, I haven't spoken to him in years. He used to really like me a lot, but I think when I ran for politics he sort of, that relationship busted up from what I read. I don't know. He didn't tell me that, but I'd read some nasty statements in the paper all of a sudden.' 'So, I don't know. I would certainly look at the facts. if I think somebody was mistreated, whether they like me or don't like me it wouldn't have any impact,' he concluded.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
There never was a right for a man to enter a woman's changing room
Of course, Equality Network was itself free to intervene but chose not to. Mr Hopkins is in a better position to explain this failure but I'd suggest its unwillingness to accept that self-declaration of sex was firmly off the table at the outset hampered any legal argument its members were prepared to accept. Finally, there was no human rights breach. Had there been so, the Supreme Court would have been obliged to issue a declaration of incompatibility. It was never a 'right' for any man to enter women's changing rooms or other spaces and the absurdity of such an argument was laid bare in the court's painstakingly detailed judgment. Anyone now asking the UK Government to amend the Equality Act has the hopefully-impossible task of explaining exactly why basic human rights for women should be removed. In the meantime, women such as Sandie Peggie and Fiona McDonald ("Activist sues own union over gender beliefs",The Herald, July 26) will bravely keep holding employers and unions to account, despite unwarranted and ridiculous 'anti-trans' slurs. All power to their elbow. Trina Budge, Director, For Women Scotland, Edinburgh. Read more letters Blame the activists Tim Hopkins took over a third of a page on Tuesday to spout utter drivel. He talks utter nonsense about the Supreme Court judges not being properly informed, ignoring the wishes of Parliament (and, God forbid, Hansard), about them knowing better what the wording of various pieces of legislation mean, about ignoring other pieces of legislative interpretation, and, almost unbelievably, stating that their judgment contained a "staggeringly naive claim". I suppose we should all be glad that we have the likes of Mr Hopkins, who is clearly a much better-read and learned man than any of our highly skilled judges, to interpret the law. As far as I am aware the trans population in this country is tiny. They should of course have the same and equal rights as the rest of us, that is not in question. They do however appear to be disproportionately represented by a large number of very loud activists. I'm sure Mr Hopkins will know many of them from his past life. Without them the trans community would probably not be in this predicament. Finally, he wants Parliament to "urgently amend the Equality Act... to allow trans people to continue to live their lives in peace and privacy". Where will that leave women, Mr Hopkins? Gregor McKenzie, East Kilbride. Privacy is theirs to own Tim Hopkins pleads for "Parliament to allow trans people to continue to live their lives in peace and (where they wish) privacy". There is nothing and never was anything to stop them doing just that. An issue has been raised that never needed to see the light of day. All it has done is create division and dissension. That was all it was intended to do and the trans community were the chosen vehicle. Politicians, in attempts to unravel the Gordian knot that is humanity, find themselves entangled within it. The learned gentlemen of the bench attempted to offer clarity on what was established in law and on the statute books. In contrast to incoherent interpretations delivered by the political class, the Supreme Court judgment was concise, almost simplistic. However, the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 grants provision to the transgender community and the Equality Act of 2010 protection, thus logic supports a claim that it "would not be disadvantageous to trans people". Mr Hopkins claims: "It is fundamentally changing the situation for trans people across Britain, potentially affecting their access to services from healthcare to toilets." "Potentially" is not reality and the reality is that nothing has changed. Transgender people are perfectly free to live in peace and privacy is theirs to own. Maureen McGarry-O'Hanlon, Jamestown. Ignore this deflection Sandie Peggie, a veteran nurse who was suspended by NHS Fife for objecting to a young, male-born, trans-identifying doctor being in a female changing room while she was undressing, has enjoyed a groundswell of public support. However, NHS Fife's defence lawyer, Jane Russell KC, came up with two witnesses, both former colleagues and friends, who portrayed Ms Peggie in a supposedly new light ("Nurse Peggie recalled after claim she called trans doctor a 'weirdo'", The Herald, July 29). Their evidence mainly consisted of personal characterisations of Ms Peggie based on some politically incorrect banter at some point in the past. Ms Peggie actually didn't deny this and admits that it was in bad taste. Arguably Ms Russell's detailed questions about Sandie Peggie's menstrual flow and who is paying for her case weren't exactly tasteful either. Yet nothing of this should deflect from the matter at hand. What Employment Judge Sandy Kemp will have to decide is not whether Ms Peggie deserved to be suspended due to a supposedly flawed character. He will decide whether NHS Fife acted fairly and lawfully when suspending a nurse for insisting on her sex-based rights, no more, no less. His conclusion will ultimately guide public perception of the case. Regina Erich, Stonehaven. Nurse Sandie Peggie arriving at the employment tribunal in Dundee (Image: PA) End No 10 veto over Scotland I feel that we Scots are now like mushrooms over the constitution: kept in the dark and fed manure, by both politicians and the media. The concept of governance by consent seems to have been discarded by a simplistic numbers game. Labour claims an overwhelming 'mandate' on a third of the votes, while the SNP asserts only an elected majority of them can deliver on independence. Unionist governments lose support in Scotland when they are perceived to have failed and the [[SNP]] suffers the entropy of longevity in office when more things go wrong or are reported as such by an overwhelmingly unionist media. Ireland has the legal right to hold a border poll, when a polling majority is considered in favour of a united Ireland. This should also be the situation in Scotland, and when polling suggests a stable majority in favour of independence, it should happen. An impartial constitutional commission should be set up, by the UK and Scottish governments, to advise whoever is Secretary of State for Scotland on the constitutional etiquette. The days when incumbents of No 10 (especially one who boasts of being leader of the self-proclaimed 'England's Patriotic Party'), hold a veto over Scotland should be consigned to the bin of history. GR Weir, Ochiltree. Let's unite to oust the SNP First Minister Swinney has decided that he has an updated strategy for achieving Scottish independence. More fool him. He may have forgotten that the UK Supreme Court's ruling was quite clear in that there can only be another referendum on such a matter if the UK Government agrees. If the efforts of Alex Salmond and his prodigy Nicola Sturgeon failed to convince the people of Scotland that independence would be to their advantage, then obviously John Swinney is on a hiding to nothing. The Holyrood elections in May 2026 will hopefully see off the [[SNP]] for a very long period. Let us hope that after whatever alliance of political parties is needed to achieve this objective that we will see radical changes put into effect at [[Holyrood]], and also at local council levels. Fellow Scots, let us all be fully supportive of whatever alliance of political parties is needed to oust the SNP. Unless radical changes are put into effect at Holyrood, then the only answer to Scotland's dilemma is to return all political powers to Westminster. Hopefully that will not be the only option. Robert I G Scott, Ceres, Fife.
