Sir, – Breda O'Brien's article of November 15th displays a confusion of morality with legality ("Legalising prostitution legalises a fantasy – that sex does not involve the self", Opinion & Analysis). The debate is not about whether prostitution is "wrong". The issue is whether the customer should be criminalised or not. There are many things that are considered wrong and that the state (rightly) does not intervene to prohibit: for example worshipping false gods, or missing church on Sunday. States that do enforce morality are called theocracies and have a bad press (rightly so).
As a general rule it is not the legitimate function of the state to police private behaviour, insofar as such behaviour is confined to consenting adults. The logical result of a contrary view – regardless of its well-intentioned adherents – is that, potentially, it leaves the way open for the government to criminalise anything it doesn’t like.
Historically, laws prohibiting alcohol and gay sex are examples of how governments have got things disastrously wrong when the principle of individual freedom is not held as paramount. It’s entirely consistent both to disapprove of prostitution (which I do) and also not to want to control what other people do with their bodies.
The analogy with buying votes is invalid because buying votes undermines the democratic system. Buying sexual services may indeed morally harm one or both parties involved, but that’s an issue of morality, and should not be one of legality. Whether an individual wishes to indulge in fantasy, or risk the stability of a relationship they are involved in, is a matter for the individual’s conscience, not for the criminal courts.
Whether sex can be separated from a person’s body is an interesting question which, whether the answer is in the negative or the affirmative, is the appropriate province of metaphysics and moral philosophy, but not of legislators. In any case it’s not clear why, from a legal point of view, we should ban one form of alienation and not others. Any kind of paid work which the worker would not do if he or she were not paid for it could be described in terms of “bribery,” or indeed as a form of slavery for that matter. If the commodification of sex is banned, why should not other forms of commodification be banned as well?
There are well-worn arguments that the whole capitalist system should be prohibited since it involves both commodification and exploitation, both of which are seen as bad things by critics. What is not clear is why sex should be singled out over other activities (eg bricklaying or plumbing) as one that should not be commodified, unless such singling-out is for basically moral reasons. Such moral qualms may have validity in their own right, but they have no legitimate place in law-making or law-enforcement. It is a serious, and dangerous, incursion on freedom to allow the Garda to weigh up the relative quotas of love and money in any given relationship. – Yours, etc,
PAUL O’BRIEN,
Dublin 8.
Sir, – It is undeniable that vulnerable young women are trafficked for sex. It is also undeniable that some women choose to work in this area. Why are people seeking to use the “Swedish model” or, indeed, any model taken from another country?
From exposure to the debate on radio and in the newspapers in recent weeks, it seems that none of the “off-the-shelf” options from other countries even work properly for where they were designed. Is it not possible to carry out a proper analysis of the issues at play in Ireland and create the “Irish model”? At least that way we could have a solution designed to work properly for all those concerned in Ireland, making sure that trafficking is tackled and that those that choose to work in prostitution are properly protected. I would have thought that the illusion of a one-size-fits-all solution working anywhere would be well over. Although maybe people are looking to cover their behinds so that, when the “model” doesn’t work, they can point at the Swedes and blame them. That way no one need be accountable for the consequences. Actually, that sounds exactly like an Irish model. – Yours, etc,
STUART BOYLE,
Raheny, Dublin 5.