YES to Porn

 

 

 

 

 

The violence of mainstream internet pornography is absolutely staggering. It is simply filmed sexual assault with over 90% showing women, usually teenage girls, being brutally abused, often by gangs of men.

Despite this,  internet porn is shockingly currently effectively unregulated. The BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) regulates off line porn (DVDs, sex cinemas) with codes that simply do not allow the abuse and humiliation rampant on the internet. But these codes do not apply to online porn.  The Lib Dems have  condemned the idea that BBFC codes for porn DVDs should be applied to porn online,  describing this as the act of a dictatorship: 

These BBFC codes simply seek to eliminate abusive porn including urination –  on or into women which occurs in at least 12% of porn, according to the BBFC; ‘incest’ porn (the most popular type of porn); extreme humiliation, verbal and physical abuse; the portrayal of lack of consent; the infliction of pain as well as porn that ‘might encourage harmful behaviour in its consumption’. All of this is the very definition of mainstream online porn. In other words, the Lib Dems, would do nothing to stem the abuse that is pornography.

 

YES to 16 Year Old Porn ‘Stars’

Despite the violence of pornography until 2017 it was Lib Dem policy that girls as young as 16 could be filmed in abusive hard core pornography. This was rationalised by arguments like ‘you can die for your country at 16, so why can’t you make porn?’ (incorrectly as it turns out, as you cannot actually face active service until 18). 

NO Internet Opt In

The Lib Dems overwhelming opposed the Internet ‘opt in’ scheme – a safeguarding measure brought in to try and prevent the Tsunami of porn children face. ‘Opt in’ merely means porn is not automatically available to households but has to be actively ‘opted in to’. However, even this minor adjustment to try to safeguard children was seen as ‘extreme’ and ‘illiberal’.

 

NO Age Verification

In 2017, the party took this a step further, condemning Age Verification for porn sites. This is simply the proposal to put in place a mechanism to end children’s exposure to pornography – which surely they should never have been exposed to. No alternative to stop our children’s excessive exposure to abusive pornography was suggested, other than ‘improved education’. In fact the party seems to think technology is not the answer, when surely it is the only answer?

Over 50% of under-age children are accessing hardcore porn,  a possible 10% of 12-13 year olds are addicted to it, with many boys saying they want to inflict the abuse they’ve seen on girls in real life.

Doing nothing is simply not an option. 

YES to MP Pornographers

 

The Lib Dems aren’t just pro-porn but pro-pornographer, backing them at the highest level as their party’s representatives. Pornographer Anna ‘Span’ was selected as Parliamentary candidate under the blessing of then-leader, Nick Clegg, with her ‘feminist porn’ consisting of the usual line-up of women servicing men. Span is also an advocate of simulated rape porn. More recently, pornographer Michelle Gent, a former Lib Dem councillor for Ashfield, Nottingham, used local party HQ to recruit for her porn films.  

 

YES to Prostitution

The Sex Trade is horrifically abusive. The vast majority of those in it enter through a complete lack of choice – while underage, whilst homeless, because of povery, through coercion by abusive boyfriends (pimps), after being physically or sexually abused in family or care homes. Women do not chose prostitution. Once in it, the vast majority of those in prostitution have serious drug dependancy, suffer extreme post traumatic stress disorder and are routinely abused with a death rate (whether through murder, suicide, drug overdose or poor health) significantly higher than in the general population. In fact the only choice most women in prostitution would make is to get out. If they could.

Everyone agrees prostituted women (and men) should not be criminalised. However the Lib Dems want the entire industry decriminalised – including pimps and punters. This has been a disastrous move in every country that has tried it. Amsterdam is closing down its red light district as a failed social experiment. Germany has an estimated 1/2 million women rotting in state-sanctioned ‘mega brothels‘ where they are advertised like hamburgers on ‘all you can eat‘ deals. 

Find out more about the reality of prostitution: Nordic Model Now!  

 

 

YES to Sex Industry Policies by Pimps

 

The sex industry policies the Lib Dems have adopted are aggressively lobbied for by known pimps, brothel keepers and even jailed sex traffickers and their organisations.

Pimps and brothel keepers obviously have a clearly vested interest to ensure their business survives and thrives. And there is no better way to do this than by legitimising it – allowing not only its smooth running but the opportunity for massive expansion. 

These groups claim prostitution is ‘just work’ no different from any other and that everyone involved in the industry, including pimps and brothel keepers are sex ‘workers’ – just like the women they control. 

 

 

These sex industry lobbyists include ‘super pimp‘ Douglas Fox, owner of one of the largest Escort Agencies in the UK, who skipped jail on a technicality. Fox was not just part of the powerful International Union of Sex Workers, but got its members to join Amnesty International in order to push forward pro-prostitution policies.

The sex industry lobbyists also includes Alexjandra Gil, a pimp and now jailed sex trafficker. Gil has influenced at the highest level – as a known pimp she was not only a leader of pro-prostitution group NSWP but ensured branches of the UN adopted pro-sex industry policies. 

By listening to pro-prostitution groups, the Lib Dems, and others, are dismissing the voices of the vast majority of women’s groups and survivors of the sex trade who want to see the industry massively shrunk by criminalising pimps; who want to radically reduce its demand by criminalising punters and who want to help women get out.  

YES to Pimps as ‘Business Men’

Lib Dem policy formally recognises pimps not just as sex ‘workers’ but as respectable ‘business man’, who merely ‘manage’ the women they control. And this apparently, is what prostituted women want.  

 YES to Paying Pimp Groups

Remember the jailed sex trafficker, Alexandra Gil? Well The UK Branch of the international organisation she headed, the NSWP, have even been paid to the tune of £100,000 under a scheme initiated by a Lib Dem minister during the coalition Government to promote safer sex ‘work’ in Liverpool (under the so-called ‘Ugly Mugs’ scheme, whereby violent punters are ‘called out’). A worthy goal indeed, but when orchestrated by a pro-prostitution organisation, this simply further legitimises key sex industry players and their views. 

And, of course, it doesn’t stop there. NSWP and Ugly Mugs are pushing for pimps and punters to be decriminalised in Merseyside – an area where they now, of course, hold considerable sway. This is despite the fact that the UK’s only current legal prostitution zone (where pimps and punters can operate freely) in Leeds, has proven totally disastrous not only for women in prostitution (for whom the scheme was supposedly introduced to protect) but for all women.  

 

 YES to a Sex ‘Work’ Career

Given the Lib Dem stance on prostitution it is surely no surprise that Lib Dem Council leader, Denis Parsons, suggested it was only due to stigma that prostitution was not offered as a career choice to school girls (and perhaps a spot of pimping, sorry, ‘management’, to the boys). These comments caused such public outrage that the Councilor resigned. He has also, mildly, rebuked by then leader, Tim Farron. Interestingly the Lib Dem’s 2017 policy paper specifically advises that sex ‘work’ be omitted from career advice programmes. But isn’t this totally at odds with the party’s stance that prostitution really is ‘just work’ and ‘paid for sex is no different from sex’. 

 YES to Sex Trafficking

The Lib Dems even want to rewrite the law to allow  ‘consensual’ sex trafficking. Effectively Sex Traffickers would become ‘Travel Agents’. Presumably the onus would be on extremely vulnerable and abused victims to “out” that occasional pesky ‘non consensual’ trafficker? Again this is a strategy fiercely promoted by the sex trade. And it means that even the most unacceptable face of prostitution would be legitimised.