An exchange on a post I made yesterday has prompted my thoughts today.  I had written of a girl who the police had been unable to convict of soliciting, and had instead chosen to obtain an ASBO, thus criminalising her attempts to earn a living by the perfectly legal method of prostitution.

Within minutes, posters had arrived who fully believed that being a prostitute meant that she was also living in subsidised housing – ‘their taxes’ – defrauding the taxman, not registered for VAT, and a variety of other offences, all based on the fact that she was a prostitute, therefore ‘immoral’ and that the police were doing a good thing in criminalising her by whatever means on account of her ‘public lewdness’ ‘gross indecency’ and last but not least, her offence of ‘littering’ – proven by the fact that condoms had been found in the area where she worked and ‘obviously’ they were not only ‘her’ condoms, but she was the one who had thrown them to the ground.

It seems to me that there is a new mood in the country, one which seeks to use the police, (and council officials, where they are empowered) to enforce ‘morality’. I quoted a previous post concerning a girl who had been given an ASBO for trying to commit suicide. Suicide is also perfectly legal, but those who were offended by her repeated attempts to take her own life had resorted to the ASBO to enforce ‘their’ morality.

English Viking correctly points out that the law of the UK is in itself the formalisation of a moral code, but then goes on to tell me that the UK, in basing its laws and standards on the moral code outlined in the Bible is in some way superior to Islamic laws based on the Koran.

Here I have some difficulty. I cannot for the life of me see that any book written by a mere man (man in the generic sense!) can claim any superiority over another book. It is said that Islam is ‘savage’, based, I presume, on the oft quoted demand that the hand of a thief is removed – in what way is that more or less morally superior than the Bible’s ‘eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’? Until relatively recently, in the UK we followed such teachings with the notion of a ‘life for a life’, and executed murderers.

How can the day in which you are exhorted to stop work and pray, or the manner in which you cover your head when doing so, or the name of the building in which you do so, or which food you eat or don’t eat, possibly claim moral superiority? A few hundred years ago, Christians were cheerfully beheading Muslims and leaving their head on the petard on the basis of these tenets and a belief that God was on their side, now Muslims are fragmenting planes and all who travel in them out of the belief that covering their head with a burkha rather than a mantilla means God is on their side.

Society has been engaged in a constant battle to impose a particular morality on everyone else. The law in the UK – formalising the morality of the UK! – is currently engaged in preventing one group of people from drinking the fermented fruit of one plant, whilst smoking the dried leaf of another plant, in the same public building.

Another group – the ASBO demanders of Oxford, seek to prevent a woman having ‘fleeting sex’ in the back of a car being rewarded by pieces of paper which can allegedly be exchanged at the Bank of England for real gold. Meanwhile we are exhorted to feel pity for a married couple who live in the back of their car – and presumably have sex there. an act sanctified by the receipt of a piece of paper signed by a man allegedly on God’s behalf.  One can only presume from this that it is a combination of a man wearing his collar back to front ‘sanctifying’ the latter relationship by murmuring special words over the couple and the first couple having sufficiently valued sex to put a price on their fleeting encounter that leads to this outcome.

We have recently had the farcical situation whereby a British government official was seriously considering that it might be right and proper to be instrumental in withholding food and sustenance from the starving people of one African country because its rulers refused to sanctify a man entering the anus of another man with his penis – whereas they had no problem with him doing precisely the same thing to a woman. This is morality?

Before long we shall have the atheists printing their own book, designing their own hat and demanding that Thursdays everybody stops work and eats Tofu. Prostitutes and their customers can arrive at the atheist tower – perhaps the local fire brigade would donate their training tower, since a belfry or a minaret, or some such structure reaching to the sky appears to be an essential facet in dignifying this process – and intone three times ‘let this grubby fumble last no longer than four minutes and no man deign to question the price’ followed by the ritual inhaling of dried leaf and supping of dried hops in a building which has special dispensation from the state to house small quantities of same on the same premises.

Why don’t we impose our own morality on ourselves instead of worrying about what everyone else is up to? What difference does it make to any of us – assuming that there is a God to answer to one day – whether Amy jumps off the end of Aberystwyth pier, or Nicola gets paid a tenner for her troubles? – I fancy God will be more interested in what we’ve been up to, and will expect Nicola and Amy to account for themselves.

It has been said that it is my Libertarian beliefs that cause me to defend Nicola, the prostitute. It is not. It is my Quaker belief that other people’s morality is not my business. It is also my belief in law and order; we have a crime called soliciting, if you do not act in such a way that you can be charged with soliciting, then it is a dangerous business to use a catch all ‘anti-social’ charge to stop you doing that which ‘offends’ others. Before you know it, ASBOs will be used to stop you describing your religious beliefs on the Internet, or dressing in Goth clothing, or holding hands in public, or dressing your child in pink, or acting in a way which someone else believes is lewd and offensive – and then we will have a version of the religious police stalking these lands. The question is – whose religion will they be upholding? Yours – or one of the many competing religions?

Kind regards,

A Happy Quaker. No book, no tower, no hat, no ‘middle man’, can eat what I like; would probably suit most Libertarians.

Edited to add: My congratulations to English Viking – whilst we disagree, I admire his fortitude and skill in defending his beliefs on two separate threads at the same time for some 12 hours…….

Westerlyman August 16, 2010 at 22:15

EV. I believe that I understand your position. I just do not agree with it.
This is because I do not believe in God. If I believed in God I would want to
follow the instructions in the manual. It would be stupid not to, if I
believed.

I did try for a while but you cannot decide to believe something. That is
delusion. You either believe something, or not, and I do not.

But once one accepts non belief in God(s) one asks oneself what is right
and what is wrong. How should one deal with the world to achieve the most
fulfillment and happiness. Libertarianism provides an absolute morality
because it provides the basic idea from which one can reason all other moral
questions.

I am sure that you will disagree. You have to if you truly believe that God
has told you what is right and wrong because so many of the things that God
prohibits are perfectly acceptable to me, and others who share my
viewpoint.

Sorry, I got off the subject of the unfortunate prostitute. As my daughter
would say: ‘Oh well.’

English Viking
August 17, 2010 at 17:42

You are correct …. I disagree.

Kingbingo August 16, 2010 at 19:18

“if she stays within the bounds of the Law”

So is it the law or the bible that is the final arbiter of what is
right?

Because they differ.

English Viking
August 16, 2010 at 19:37

It depends whether you are attempting to be obedient to God’s
commandments, as all Christians should be.

There are many things which are sins and not crimes, and visa versa.

Prostitution is not permitted for a Christian. That non-Christians behave
in a non-Christian fashion is hardly suprising, and although I believe that
all men will be held to account for their deeds, the standard of behaviour
God requires from a Christian far exceeds that which a non-Christian
displays, and that laid out in the Common Law of England. The Bible is the
final (only) arbiter of what is right and wrong for me, and where the Law of
the Land and the Law of God conflict, I will disobey the Law of the Land and
hang the consequences.

JohnRS August 16, 2010 at 11:01

@indigomyth

You commented that “English Viking

English Viking
August 16, 2010 at 15:44

I am not trying to speak on yours or anybody else’s behalf, you just keep
saying I do. If you want to live near a brothel, fine.

What concerns me is that I may end up, not through my choice, living next
door to a brothel, and experiencing the concomitant troubles which are
naturally associated with these places. I do not wish the Law to be altered
to suit a few Libertarians who want to de-moralise the nation.

She was not (I’ll say it again, for the hard of thinking) NOT ‘plying her
trade’ legally, she was soliciting on the street. I have already stated,
twice, that if she had conducted herself discretely and within the law,
whilst I disagree on a moral level, she is free to do so at her own
risk.

I have nowhere stated that I am offended by her behaviour; trying to make
me out to be small-minded won’t work.

This bit is funny – ‘If he wants to be offended on his own behalf, I

Kingbingo
August 16, 2010 at 15:48

@English Viking: I need some help.
I understand that people enjoy
certain things. Having a good meal prepared and served to them, using some
ones car and race track to do some racing, learning tennis, getting a
massage, having sex. But WHY is only the last one on that list morally
wrong?
Also, I understand that if you work in a shop or an office, or
you teach tennis, or you drive a taxi or you sell sex you are doing things
for people that they want, and are prepared to pay for, and hurt no one in
the process. So WHY is the last one on the list morally wrong.
I

English
Viking August 16, 2010 at 16:31

I’ll do my best to answer. I’ll tell you what I believe, but please
don’t then just reply with a long list of why I’m an idiot to think such
things, it won’t change my mind, any more than I think this comment will
change yours.

Commenters have spoken about me inflicting ‘my’ morality on others.
Whilst the accusation itself is wrong, the concept is as well. A moral
must be absolute; it cannot be relative to anything, else that leaves
the ‘moral’ open to change if the thing it is relative to changes. God
does not change. The Bible says that he is ‘the same, yesterday, today
and forever’, and it also quotes God himself saying ‘I am not a man,
that I should change my mind’. ‘My’ morality is no such thing, it is
God’s. I believe he is the supreme being, the creator of everything,
including me. I am his property, he has rights as to the use of his
property. He has said ‘Thou shalt….’ and ‘Thou shalt not..’ and as a
believer am expected to obey his commandments. He has given mankind a
great gift: sexual pleasure. He has also placed restrictions on when
this pleasure can be enjoyed, and when it is inappropriate, wrong,
sinful. The Bible teaches that sex is only to be enjoyed by a man and
his wife. It teaches that it is not just a physical union, but also a
spiritual one as well. It teaches that some forms of sex are what God
calls ‘abominations’, perversions of what he intended. These are all
forbidden. As the epitome of moral perfection, I believe when He says
‘This is wrong’, it’s wrong. I don’t need a massive explanation from Him
as to why it is wrong. It is wrong because He has said so. As it
happens, He does give reasons for the restrictions, and should you wish
to know more, He has written a book on the matter.

Men (and women) do not, generally speaking, like being told what to
do. They like to think they are in control, they make the decisions and
‘nobody’s gonna boss me around’. To most people, the idea that God
should have a right to tell His creatures what they can and cannot do is
anathema to them. I suspect Libertarians may be even more unlikely to
submit to His will than your average Joe, as they have replaced the idea
of God having absolute moral control with Man having relative moral
control, but as I said at the top of the comment, if a moral is to be
any such thing, it must be absolute, and the only person with the
perfect authority to issue such morals is God.

Anna
Raccoon August 16, 2010 at
16:47

English Viking,
I think the basic problem is that you are saying
that she ‘must’ have been soliciiting, which you consider
immoral.
If she had been soliciting, they would have nicked her for
soliciting – my objection is that what they have done is criminalise
that which they could not criminalise in any other way.
I think
what is riling everybody is that whilst your logic says she ‘must’
have been soliciitng, we don’t yet, or hopefully we don’t, have a
legal system based on ‘she must have been’ – you can either prove it
or you can’t.

Kingbingo
August 16, 2010 at 17:20

English
Viking August 16, 2010 at 17:30

Anna,

To have an ASBO granted against a person, the applicant, in this
case the Police, must prove to a very high standard (virtually the
same as beyond all reasonable doubt, just called a different thing
because it is civil, not criminal) that the person concerned was
behaving in an anti-social fashion. This hearing takes place in front
of a JP. Witnesses for the prosecution are heard, and can be
cross-examined. The same process is carried out for the defense. ONLY
if the court is SURE of the validity of the accusation (the legal
definition of sure is beyond all reasonable doubt) can an order be
imposed.

The post itself and your initial comments concerning the coat over
the arm show that she WAS soliciting. I suspect that the reason she
has not been charged AGAIN (she has got form for this) is that she has
not been ‘rehabilitated’ by previous punishment and so the only way to
stop her soliciting late at night is to enforce a curfew. If she had
stayed within the law and conducted her ‘business’ from home, she
would not have had this bother, but a Court of Law has found her to be
guilty of soliciting (they must have done, to have granted the ASBO,
if they did not agree, or there was insufficient evidence, the Court
would not have granted the order). She has faced due process, she has
had the opportunity to put a defense, and that defense was found
lacking. I don’t know if you think that the Police or local Council
can just issue these things at will, but they can’t. You are correct
that it can either be proven or it can’t, and it has been proven
beyond all reasonable doubt, in a Magistrates Court.

Anna Raccoon August 16, 2010 at 17:53

“a Court of Law has found her to be guilty of soliciting”

No, it bally well hasn’t!

It has found her guilty of anti-social
behaviour. It remains your supposition that she was
soliciting, or rather ‘must have been’.

English
Viking August 16, 2010 at
18:17

That supposition was gleaned from your comments concerning her
walking the streets at all hours with the tell-tale coat over her
arm. That and the statement of a Police Officer:

indigomyth
August 16, 2010 at 18:48

EV,

I was merely summing up for JohnRS, what I understood your position to
be, because it is an interesting, and challenging viewpoint. JohnRS is not
me, and I did not tell you to shut up or butt out.

//What concerns me is that I may end up, not through my choice, living
next door to a brothel, and experiencing the concomitant troubles which
are naturally associated with these places. I do not wish the Law to be
altered to suit a few Libertarians who want to de-moralise the
nation.//

The former part of your concern is a very good one. However, it can
easily be solved by getting rid of absolutely all publicly owned streets.
In that circumstance, it would be down to each individual group of
residence, to decide what could and could not go on on their street.
Rather like with private housing estates.

In my experience, Libertarians do not wish to deregulate things in
order to make society more immoral. They wish to do it because they
believe that the application of violence (which is all that the law is) is
such an awful and terrible thing, that it must be used in only the most
extreme circumstances. Indeed, given my rather Darwinian approach to
lifestyle choices, it would seem likely that you and people like you would
be most successful, since you would be less likely to succumb to the
disease and degradation that affects other people (such as
prostitutes).

On another issue, I thing you are incorrect in your perception of
Libertarians and Libertarianism. Libertarianism is very keenly attuned to
moral arguments – indeed, Libertarians make absolute, non-relative moral
claims whenever they say that aggressive violence is absolutely wrong. It
does not matter if it is here or in Saudi Arabia, today or 10,000 years
ago, a libertarian can safely say that aggressive violence is, and always
will be, evil. Hardly the sentiments of a moral relativist? There are also
some very good blogs written by Libertarians who are Christian (including
this one, of course). I recommend Marmalade Sandwich, and The Humble
Libertarian. Both excellent Libertarians who are Christian, and who most
certainly are not moral relativists.

Kingbingo
August 16, 2010 at 19:22

“I do not wish the Law to be altered to suit a few Libertarians who
want to de-moralise the nation.”

Libertarians have no wish to demoralise the nation. They simply wish
the state not to pick one of the thousands of competing sets of moral
values and impose ‘that one’ by force.

Rather if you do no harm the state will leave you alone.

English
Viking August 16, 2010 at 19:31

indigo,

I realise it was not you who was being rude.

As far as I am aware, Anna is not a Christian, in that she is not
following Christ. That’s what it means, a disciple or follower of
Christ. Christians attempt to keep Christ’s commandments. Anna was/is a
Quaker.

Christian Libertarian is an oxymoron. A Christian believes the
teaching of the Bible, which includes the notion that God has instituted
Government to promote good (God’s idea of good) and punish the bad (same
again), with the death penalty if necessary. As the majority of
Libertarians seem to baulk at the idea of God telling anybody what they
can and cannot do, I fail to see how one can hold the two beliefs at the
same time.

BTW According to the Bible, aggressive violence is not always
absolutely wrong, and it doesn’t teach pacifism either.

Kingbingo
August 16, 2010 at 20:49

“A Christian believes the teaching of the Bible, which includes the
notion that God has instituted Government to promote good”

Perhaps why the state and the church have historically been such
close buddies. The church gets to call on the states violence. The
state gets legitimacy.

English
Viking August 16, 2010 at 22:07

The Bible teaches that the ‘Church’ is not an organisation,
building or institution, it is the body of Christ, made up of
individual believers. Anything more or less is unscriptural.

indigomyth August
17, 2010 at 07:05

EV,

//BTW According to the Bible, aggressive violence is not always
absolutely wrong, and it doesn

English
Viking August 17, 2010 at 17:39

indigo,

Romans 13 speaks of the State executing God’s vengeance on
wrong-doers, with a sword (death-penalty) if necessary.

Revelation talks of Christ himself slaughtering his opponents, and
the birds gorging themselves on the flesh of the fallen, along with
the false prophet and the anti-Christ (both men) being thrown into
burning pits of sulphur. It speaks of Christ treading his enemies as
one treading grapes in a wine-press.

When He came the first time, he rode a donkey. He was railed
against, flogged, beaten, crucified. He claimed (I believe Him) that
these things were tolerated, not because he was unable to stop them,
but because it was not His Father’s will that he should set up His
Kingdom, at that time. He was here to be offered as a sacrifice for
sin, and would not have done that had He, as He claimed He had power
to, called ‘more than 12 legions of angels’ to protect Him.

When He comes back (He said he would, and I no reason to doubt
Him), He will not be on a donkey, He will be on a Charger, for
war.

Most are unaware of the coming events, and seem to think of Christ
as a combination of Santa and a little baby in a manger. They are
going to be in for a shock.

The use of violence by a believer is currently restricted to self
defense of oneself (even then there are numerous occasions when one
should not strike back) and the defense of others, where far fewer
restrictions exist. The defense of one’s nation is also permitted
under certain circumstances.

Ancient and Tattered
Airman August 15, 2010 at 23:58

The great ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341 – 271 BC) wrote something
in an epigram that no religious person can logically answer.

English Viking
August 16, 2010 at 16:59

I’m not religious, and I can answer it. But you don’t want the answer,
you want to argue.

Ancient and Tattered
Airman August 16, 2010 at 21:08

Are you clairvoyant in thinking I want to argue? Not like you then sir,
but I would very much like to see your ‘answer’ to the epigram, as nobody
has managed it so far.

Michael August 16, 2010 at 21:06

It’s not really that hard. Error in conclusion drawn on line 4.

Ancient and Tattered
Airman August 16, 2010 at 21:10

Is there a word you prefer to use in place of ‘malevolent’? Enlighten
us, do!

Michael
August 16, 2010 at 21:13

Merciful

Ancient and
Tattered Airman August 16, 2010 at
22:42

Merciful? How does that fit with the third line?

Is he able, but not willing? (to prevent evil)
Then he is delete
malevolent insert merciful.

I really don’t think so.

English
Viking August 17, 2010 at 17:16

You have a corrupted understanding of right and wrong, good and bad,
malevolent and benevolent, due to the corrupted nature you have
inherited from Adam.

If God were to wipe the evil from the world, there would be no-one
left. That He tolerates evil, for the time being, is evidenced by the
fact that you and I are still breathing. This is one aspect of His
mercy.

The day is fast approaching when mercy will give way to justice and
evil, and all those that do it, will be no more.

indigomyth August 15, 2010 at 23:35

..property

indigomyth August 15, 2010 at 23:33

JohnRS,
//As long as what I do in my life does not affect anyone else,
what business is it of anyone elses what I do/think/eat/believe/wear?//

Ah, but English Viking’s contention is that it does affect other people,
and he cites the affect that a brothel would have on the surrounding house
prices (as well as the emotional damage done to the family etc). Now, it seems
perfectly clear that such an “affect” may indeed occur. The question ought to
be whether this can be considered “harm”. After all, I am offended (ie
“affected”) by someone saying I am going to hell for not believing in God.
Does this mean it ought to be illegal? Absolutely not. It certainly “affects”
Muslims when someone draws a cartoon of their idiot idol. Are we to believe
that drawing Mohammed cartoons ought to be illegal? It certainly “affects”
many people to see two men kissing in the street; ought that to be illegal?
The problem is that “affect” is a very loose and woolly term – we need to talk
in terms of “harm”, and it is most sensible to talk about harm as being
aggressive violence, or threat of the same, against a person, or their justly
held

JohnRS August 15, 2010 at 23:25

“other people

Westerlyman August 15, 2010 at 22:48

EV I hope that no one brow beats you to shut up. Your religion is your
business and I do not want anyone (or any law) to try and stop you expressing
your opinion.

Neither do want to see any particular flavour of morality used to
promulgate or enforce laws against consenting adults in voluntary exchanges
that harm no one else.

Choose whatever morality you want to live your life by and express your
opinion about it as much as you like. My objection is to those people who seek
to enforce their morality on others.

Claiming that your form of morality is superior or your book the word of
God is mirrored by Muslims who claim the same. The difference being somewhat
nuanced because they claim the Koran is the actual word of God and most
Christians claim the Bible is the spirit of God speaking through men. (funny
that God only spoke through men of the middle east and never spoke through
women, native Americans nor any of the peoples of the far east)

You are right that I prefer the Judeo-Christian ethics to the Islamist ones
but that is like saying I prefer having leprosy to having AIDS. Its all
relative and I would prefer to remain disease free.

English Viking
August 15, 2010 at 23:09

Muslims believe that the Koran was dictated to Mo by the Angel Gabriel.
Christians believe that men used the pen and ink, but were moved by the Holy
Spirit, who according to Trinitarian belief IS God, therefore we view the
Bible as the actual words of God himself, untainted by human
interference.

God has no need to speak through other men or women in other regions of
the world. He has said all he has to say, for the time being. They can read
the Bible in their own languages, if they want to know what He says.

indigomyth
August 15, 2010 at 23:22

I think Muslims believe that some parts of the Koran were actually
written by Allah himself.

Brian August 16, 2010 at 00:30

Which version of the Bible? There’s additions and omissions of books
between the Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox versions.

English Viking
August 15, 2010 at 22:31

Anna,

I wouldn’t normally be picky, but it is the title of the post.

It’s ‘religious’, not ‘religeous’.

Brian August 16, 2010 at 00:17

Anna, Is it a combination of religious/righteous?

Anna
Raccoon August 16, 2010 at
08:30

Rather a combination of inattentiveness and multi-tasking, I fear
Brian!

I have corrected it now. Thank-you.

English Viking
August 15, 2010 at 22:25

indigo,

Burglary involves risk, sweat and skill, and the burglar will receive
payment for his efforts. Drug dealers are in the same boat. They make lots of
cash, but it is not work. My understanding of work is 6 in the morning,
sweating in a hot factory.

I’m afraid I confused prostitution with soliciting. One is currently legal,
the other is not. I have already stated that if a person wishes to be a whore
in their OWN home (not Council or some other tax-payer subsidised housing)
then they are legally entitled to do so. I disagree with it, but it pointless
to ban it as the ban cannot be enforced. I would not allow a person to openly
conduct business, and I would define ‘openly’ as meaning ‘if, at any time, the
premises becomes known to the authorities as being used as a brothel’. If a
person really was discrete, no-one but her customers would know. If she was
not, and all sorts of nutters were appearing at all hours, the value of
neighbouring houses will be adversely affected, and that, in my book, is
‘harm’. Steps should then be taken to prevent further damage by preventing her
from conducting ‘business’.

I fail to see how the above scenario can come about without the woman
soliciting customers, which is illegal. The reason (I think) that prostitution
is not illegal and soliciting is is because it is impossible to prove one
whilst the other is easy to prove.

I have no idea about the law concerning on-line soliciting, but it would
fall into the category of ‘not being discrete’, IMHO.

indigomyth
August 15, 2010 at 23:21

EV,

//My understanding of work is 6 in the morning, sweating in a hot
factory.//

Based on that, I don’t work! Do you consider working in an office, to be
“work”?

//If a person really was discrete, no-one but her customers would
know.//

What if someone blew the whistle on the activities? If some moralistic
individual decided to investigate the suspected prostitute, and then blew
the whistle on the activity? In that sense, it would not be the fault of the
prostitute for alerting people to the activities, but the whistleblower for
drawing attention to the activity. It would seem rather unjust to punish
someone for something that they did not do.

//I have no idea about the law concerning on-line soliciting, but it
would fall into the category of

Dennis August 15, 2010 at 23:34

“I fail to see how the above scenario can come about without the woman
soliciting customers, which is illegal.”

I agree, but surely the issue here, however one sees the morality, is
that a Magistrates’ Court has imposed the equivalent of two years house
arrest for an offence which only carries a fine, and declared unlawful an
activity which otherwise would not be so.

indigomyth August 15, 2010 at 22:06

I am not sure with what the law is on online soliciting? Could this woman
not have sought clients online?

English Viking
August 15, 2010 at 21:30

Well, better late than never. Christians tend to busy on Sundays.

…’I had written of a girl who the police had been unable to convict of
soliciting, and had instead chosen to obtain an ASBO, thus criminalising her
attempts to earn a living by the perfectly legal method of prostitution.’

It is not the job of Police to convict criminals, they just arrest them and
charges are brought if the CPS advises so. She WAS arrested and charged with
soliciting. She also could have conducted ‘business’ in a private way, at her
home, legally, but chose to repeatedly break the law by hawking herself on the
street. She is a drug abuser, and therefore a criminal, you correctly state
that I cannot prove that she does not pay tax and is not a benefit cheat, I
have equally correctly stated that you cannot prove otherwise either.

…’It seems to me that there is a new mood in the country, one which seeks
to use the police, (and council officials, where they are empowered) to
enforce

indigomyth
August 15, 2010 at 22:01

EV,

But why ought prostitution be illegal? I accept that it is a sin, and
that it is unhealthy, and that is damages a person, and causes distress to
the prostitutes family, but I do not see how this amounts to justifying
making it illegal. If we are to set down laws purely on the basis of
punishing aggressive violence, then that would certainly rule out murder,
theft, (most) taxation, rape, all those sorts of crime, that I am sure you
and I agree on. But I do not see how we get to declaring prostitution
illegal, on the basis of the above assumption? Perhaps it is because we
conflict on the fundamental idea of what the purpose of government. You have
said that you believe that the purpose of the State is to make the
population happier and healthier. I do not believe this; I believe the
purpose of the State is to punish those that physically aggress against
others, nothing more. Perhaps this is the source of our disagreement?

The crucial difference between prostitution and theft, is that the latter
involves harm (of the direct physical sort) or threat of the same, to
non-consenting participants and their property, whereas the former does not.
I agree, the process and ancillary activities of prostitution may attract
the sort of people who are likely to commit those sort of activities, but I
do not see the reason to ban an activity that is not, of itself,
aggressively violent?

//2. Prostitution is not a job, it is not work//

In what sense do you think it is not work? What is work? If someone
physically exerts themselves in a task, are they not performing “work”? If
work is the process of conducting an activity in return for payment, then
surely we must consider prostitution work – they perform sexual acts for
money. What is your definition of “work”?

Brian August 15, 2010 at 22:44

To the best of my knowledge, drug abuse per se is not a crime. Legal
drugs can be abused just the same as illegal drugs. Possession, supply,
production, importation of illegal drugs and allowing premises to be used
for illegal drug use are crimes under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
It
goes without saying that abuse of any drug is not recommended.

indigomyth August 15, 2010 at 20:13

//We have recently had the farcical situation whereby a British government
official was seriously considering that it might be right and proper to be
instrumental in withholding food and sustenance from the starving people of
one African country because its rulers refused to sanctify a man entering the
anus of another man with his penis

passat21 August 15, 2010 at 18:19

No doubt within the ranks of those who see prostitutes as

Demon August 15, 2010 at 17:56

“Other people’s morality is not my business”

Hammer, nail, head.

Exactly

Excellent post

Westerlyman August 15, 2010 at 17:28

One does not need to revere any ‘holy’ book to know what is right or wrong.
One does not need a moral code that has been written down by various people
who claim to have been in touch with some God they imagined or invented.

We atheist libertarians know already. Causing harm to another or their
property is wrong. Causing harm to yourself is not wrong, just stupid.

I am not talking about being offended. Being offended is a choice. But
there is no law against being offended (even if some religious people think
otherwise).

We should never initiate force although we should have the right to respond
to it by whatever means are necessary. The only laws we should have should be
those that provide a framework for us to seek protection and recompense from
those that harm us.

Nobody should have the right to stop this young woman from selling herself
or taking drugs. We may disapprove of her choices but no one should have any
right to interfere in them. The laws against soliciting are wrong but they are
the law. If that is what she was doing then prove it. If you cannot prove it
then leave her alone.

There are far more drug addicts and prostitutes that lead useful and
worthwhile lives than those that destroy themselves. People are not just one
label, they are a multitude of labels; partners, parents, brothers, doctors,
musicians. There is far more to most people than is apparent and we do not
know the facts surrounding this woman’s child or ex-partner.

Everything else is supposition. We rightfully do not allow speculation to
be used to convict in a court of law. So called, moralists, however, seem able
to reach judgments with only a few facts.

English Viking has a moral code which he says is based on his
interpretation of the Bible. This is fine for him. Let him live his life
according to his set of rules. His choice but not mine. I have no problem with
anything done by consenting adults that does not cause harm to anyone else. I
am NOT my brother’s keeper.

English Viking
August 15, 2010 at 18:47

‘I am NOT my brother

Thaddeus J.
Wilson August 15, 2010 at 19:52

My Bible studies are somewhat shaky, EV, but I thought by then the deed
had already been done and the phrase was just a cover up?

English
Viking August 15, 2010 at 21:35

You are correct. It was his reply to God himself when He asked him
where his brother (that he had already killed) was.

I meant look what happened to Cain, not Abel.

Sorry my first comment was not clear.

Thaddeus J.
Wilson August 15, 2010 at 22:13

I’m still unclear why you think this has any meaning.

English
Viking August 15, 2010 at 22:29

My point was that I believe that we are not totally independent of
each other. No man is an island, and all that.

IMO, when a person develops and expresses the idea that everybody
else is none of his concern, even his own brother, then society breaks
down and everyone will suffer.

Thaddeus J.
Wilson August 16, 2010 at
08:26

Indeed, the basis of libertarianism is that we should all
interact … voluntarily. The problem is that as soon as coercion
becomes part of the equation, then people are summarily denied their
freedom to do as they will.

It sounds to me that you have no tolerance for views other than
your own and would be quite happy to coerce people not in engage
freely and voluntarily in a mutually beneficial transaction.

Given that one council is hounding one prostitute while another
is paying for them for disabled people, it seems to me that the
state isn’t very clear on how to handle “morality” either.

English
Viking August 16, 2010 at
15:59

I assume the above is directed at me.

That the State is utterly useless and does not enforce the
current laws is not evidence of a fault in my argument.

It is blatantly obvious that I disagree with prostitution on
every level, but I say now, for the FOURTH time (I wish people
would actually read what I say, not what they think people ‘like
him’ say), if she wishes to act as a prostitute, she is at liberty
to do so, provided she stays within the law. I do not want to
attempt to make non-Christians live up to the standards expected
of Christians; that would be ridiculous, it is not Christianity,
it wouldn’t work and it completely misses the point of the Gospel,
which is not that we should do this, that or the other in order to
get to heaven, but that Christ has already made a way, FOR THOSE
WHO CHOOSE TO ACCEPT, to repent of their own volition. A person is
perfectly at liberty to refuse God’s offer, as most, sadly,
do.

I do not want to ban the currently legal form of prostitution,
which this woman was NOT doing when she received her ASBO. It is
utterly pointless to ban stuff if the ban cannot be enforced, and
if a person is discretely conducting ‘business’ from their own
home, how on earth can anyone prove what is going on? Soliciting
is the problem. That is not to say I would either condone it or
not speak against it either. I have my opinion, I am entitled to
voice it and I shall do so whenever I see fit.

BTW When you accuse someone of intolerance, it helps if you are
not being it yourself.

Kingbingo August 16, 2010 at 16:35

English
Viking August 16, 2010 at
17:53

I don’t know if my brain is wearing out, but you’re getting
a bit deep for me.

Let me make myself clear; I have never claimed to be
‘tolerant’, so trying to prove that I am not is pointless. The
word ‘intolerant’ is being so badly applied and so over-used
nowadays that it is becoming as trite as calling people
‘racist’ or ‘bigot’ because they do not like immigration.
I
am not a Libertarian, although I agree with some of its
tenets, so proving me illiberal is equally pointless.

I tolerate all sorts of things. The reason I tolerate them,
and not either participate in them myself or encourage others
to do so is because I disagree with them. The word ‘tolerate’
itself contains within its meaning the idea that something is
happening which the person doing the tolerating is having to
make the best of a bad job with, to accept the thing as
happening whilst not either agreeing or enjoying it. It does
not mean allowing people to do whatever they please, whatever
the consequences and not speaking out against it.

I was making a legal argument (at the moment it is legal to
conduct ‘business’ from home, providing one does not solicit).
Previous posts will show that I disagree with it, I condemn
it, I pity the people involved in it etc, etc, but I accept (
I tolerate it, you see what a nice guy I am really?) that it
is legal. A ban would be unenforceable and therefore
pointless, that is the only reason I tolerate it, because I
know I cannot stop it.

I do not think that all laws written by men are
automatically moral, for the reasons I gave a few comment ago,
i.e. the relative morality of men is not moral.

Anna Raccoon August 16, 2010 at 17:55

So, you don’t mind her working at home, it is walking
down the road with a coat over her arm which is so
offensive?

This is a highly efficient means of soliciting – even
Google has never heard of it, and Google was able to tell me
what a reverse steamboat was….

Try Googling ‘coat over arm = soliciting’………

electro-kevin August 15, 2010 at 16:52

It’s quite possible that the police were being reactive to local concerns.
Doubtless the area is littered with used condoms and they just happened to
pick on the wrong girl. Happens all the time.

What kind of area do you live in, Anna ? A nice one ? Or is it one in the
midst of a red light area. I’m sure how you opinions will be coloured by your
circumstances. Those farthest away from the issue will be the most liberal on
it.

Prostitution may not be illegal but soliciting is. And I doubt very much
she’d been submitting tax returns. Does one get a rebate for condoms ?

Anna
Raccoon August 15, 2010 at 17:22

As it happens Electro-kevin, I not only lived in a brothel’s resting
house – as I said in my first post – when I was younger, but I then went on
to live in Pigalle, the centre of the red light district in France, so have
copious experience of the thoughts, trials and tribulations of prostitutes
on both sides of the channel. Many of the girls became friends, I still wear
a bracelet that was given to me by one girl, I still wear a ring that I
bought from another girl when she was desperate for the money, I am still in
regular contact with yet another girl, who is now a proud
grand-mother.
As you say, this probably acounts for my opinion of them,
which is extremely liberal. This is no rosy view from a distance that I
exhibit.

electro-kevin August 15, 2010 at 21:06

I find the continental approach to prostitution is far better than our
own. Over here it seems to be much more seedy and dangerous. Many UK
street prostitutes tend to be funding a ‘habit’ and attract a rather nasty
type of clientel. No discerning brothel would have either.

electro-kevin August 15, 2010 at 21:12

Anyway. My original question. Do you live in an area where
prostitutes solicit in the open and leave used condoms lying around
?

I’m an athiest and an altruist btw.

Toquemada August 15, 2010 at 16:18

Lets get one thing straight,
If I cant smoke a fag in an enclosed area
,neither can a slapper have a leg over, when I can smoke in a back street pub
,I could’nt give two monkeys
where tarts drop their thongs.
Freedom for
all or freedom for none,
take your pick,,,,,,,,one or t’other

Witch Finder General

Paul
Irvine August 15, 2010 at 15:43

I am, I must admit, looking forward to the English Viking’s response to
this.

And, to echo Jiks;

Frank
Davis August 15, 2010 at 14:07

It seems to me that there is a new mood in the country, one which seeks
to use the police, (and council officials, where they are empowered) to
enforce

Rationalist
August 15, 2010 at 15:43

“deepening moral vacuum, as traditional Christianity has been in a long,
slow retreat”.
Matthew Arnold said it all ….
Dover Beach (a
fragment)
……. The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round
earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I
only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the
breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles
of the world …….

Macheath August
15, 2010 at 13:09

A thought-provoking post and an interesting view of the Quaker perspective;
there’s something I’d like to ask you, though.

For some years I worked in a Quaker-run institution; although I am an
atheist, I found their principles were generally very similar to my own and it
was very easy to fit in.

One practice, however, did disturb me. The largely non-Quaker staff
annually elected two representatives to attend meetings of the governing body;
when these representatives were not Quakers, they were obliged to remain
silent throughout the meetings whatever was said in their presence.

The reason given was that decisions were taken by concensus and for
non-Quakers to speak might affect the outcome. Non-Quaker staff might submit
opinions in writing beforehand, but should not be allowed to influence the
process of the meeting itself.

Any thoughts on the matter of relative morality?

Anna
Raccoon August 15, 2010 at 13:23

I suspect, although I don’t truthfully know, that it may have been
thought that non-Quakers would not have spoken under the same circusmtances
in which a Quaker would speak at such a meeting. Therefore their utterances
might be given a weight which was undeserved. This is not, I stress, because
of any belief in the essential ‘worthiness’ of an utterance by a Quaker,
rather an understanding of the circumstances under which a Quaker might
speak at a formal meeting. What I am trying to explain in my ham fisted way
is that the relevance is not the person, rather the time and the place.

Macheath August 15, 2010 at 13:58

Thank you – I wish the management had explained it to us so clearly
(or, indeed, at all).

I would suggest that the chief fault in the system, therefore, lay in
applying the structure of a religious meeting to matters that should be
secular, for example staff pay and conditions, as well as to the more
appropriate areas of disciplinary policy or charitable activities.

Smoking
Hot August 15, 2010 at 11:54

Convert to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and embrace
Pastafarinism as it is the only true religion. All will then be well, the
pirates will come back and Global Warming will be no more.

http://www.venganza.org/

Joss
Albert August 15, 2010 at 11:51

This is a beautifully constructed post. Perfect for a Sunday morning!

Michael August 15, 2010 at 11:47

Interesting one. As a Christian and something of a libertarian I suppose
I’ve a foot in both camps. The perniciousness of the ASBO comes from the fact
that it holds the comfort of man, rather than truth or justice, as it’s moral
foundation. The “custom built” nature of the punishments discriminate, meaning
all are not fully equal under the law.
It should be said that I don’t have
a problem with one book (the Bible) having superiority over another (the
Koran). The Koran was written around 650AD, and is a pretty thin copy of parts
of the Hebrew scriptures, peppered with mistakes as a lot of it was written
from memory by folks who weren’t the most educated.
The Bible is
surprisingly self-referencing across history (prophetic), logical, mystical..
in short, everything you could want in a holy book
The
“eye for an eye…” bit is oft quoted, even by Jesus who ditched it in favour of
“turn the other cheek”. But Old Testament people _were_ a bit savage, and this
was a _limitation_ placed on their demands for vengeance.
And yes, I know
Christians have done some pretty bad things in their time. You don’t have to
look too much into history, just visit your local church, you’re bound to find
a few nutters.
But without this foundational truth as a basis for our
society, all we have left is the nagging foreboding that something is very
wrong. The only logical basis we have left for creating any law is to medicate
this feeling by controlling others. Voila, the ASBO, and tyranny.

Ancient and Tattered
Airman August 15, 2010 at 22:51

Sorry Michael, you said:
“But without this foundational truth as a
basis for our society” and the whole of your argument collapsed. It is NOT
truth, it is merely belief. Truth can be repeatedly proven. Belief is a
supposition.

Michael August 16, 2010 at 19:08

Ancient…
Respectfully disagree with your position on Truth. Even the
great Dawkins himself aknowledges the possibility that there might be a
God. We could both die and find out my supersitions are spot on, and even
though I couldn’t prove it whilst still alive, that would not alter their
status as Truth.
But I do agree with you that the nature of proof
should be the same for any scientific, philosophical, or even religious
problem. Francis Schaeffer said that the proof consists of two steps:
–
The theory must be noncontradictory and must give an answer to the
phenomenon in question (the nature of man in the Universe).
– We must
be able to live consistently within our theory (do you have sufficient
logical basis for saying you love your family, for example).
Taken with
the historical record of scripture, and set against the negative
considerations (that personal man is the random product of time plus
impersonal factors of environment) I would say that the Christian has
sound logical basis for faith.

Ancient and
Tattered Airman August 16, 2010 at
22:34

Then we must respectfully agree to differ Michael.

backwoodsman
August 15, 2010 at 11:45

Wonderful post Anna. New christians, manic muslims, politicised police. A
plague on all their houses.

Brian August 15, 2010 at 11:42

Anna,
Re ” The law of the UK is in itself the formalisation of a moral
code,” is one view but there are others.
What is law? is first term stuff that keeps one thinking. Is law what a
sovereign with power says it is? Or is it natural, hard-wired even, like
Rousseau thought? Or based on rational thinking as Bentham argued? And we
haven’t reached the twentieth century!

Tech August 15, 2010 at 11:38

Excellent post and most reassuring as I’ve been becoming increasingly
irritated by atheist libertarians who frankly seem anything but libertarian
when it comes to those who have different beliefs (same holds true for those
who prefer *alternative* health care in many instances too).

Subrosa August 15,
2010 at 11:07

The answer Anna is that the Righteous want their morals imposed upon us
all. They don’t want us to have individual choice. We must all conform to
their beliefs and interfering in other people’s lives is certainly one of
them.

Jiks August 15, 2010 at 10:59

“Why don

Ted Treen August 17, 2010 at 09:14

Couldn’t agree more. People should be free do do anything they wish which
has no adverse effect (direct or indirect) on others.

If you aren’t affected by it, and neither is anyone else, what right do
you have to prohibit or castigate it?

Pah!
A plague & a pestilence upon all “nannies”.

English Viking
August 16, 2010 at 18:59

Comments are wonky yet AGAIN.

The fact that she had a coat over her arm is neither here nor there. The
fact that a Magistrate considered her guilty of the anti-social behaviour of
soliciting, beyond all reasonable doubt, is both here and there.

If you were falsely accused, would you not at least turn up to the Court to
say so?

I do mind her ‘working’ from home, you know I do, I’ve said so many times
in these threads, unless you don’t read my comments properly. I don’t like it,
but accept that, if she stays within the bounds of the Law as it currently
stands, no-one would know and a ban is pointless as it is unenforceable.

Google is not the font of all wisdom.

I have explained my position, ad nauseum. Other readers can make a decision
as whether it has any validity.

Enough.