The grooming of vulnerable children for sexual exploitation is an undeniable reality, and it is a fact that in most of the cases uncovered in England the majority of the perpetrators have been men from British-Pakistani backgrounds. But to limit our analysis of this crime to the criminals’ religions and ethnicities singularly fails to grasp the true nature and scope of the problem. It ignores the facts that most sex offenders who commit crimes against children are lone white males and that organised grooming for sexual exploitation is nothing new.
It comes as absolutely no surprise to anyone that the wealthiest and most powerful politicians and business leaders; people in the highest echelons of the British establishment, are entertained at annual – “men only” – fundraisers whereat exclusive agencies supply hostesses who are effectively there – whether the women know it or not – as prostitutes and sex toys. No one is shocked at this news. All Madison Marriage gives us is more hard evidence.
Opinions are split on much of the goings on reported in the so-called dirty dossier of Tory MPs' antics published by Guido Fawkes – funny that I’m writing this on the 5 November. Some of it is awful, of course. There is no question that getting “handsy” or being otherwise “inappropriate” with women – especially when one is in a position of power – is disgusting. But how bad is it, really, that the Prime Minister's deputy has been allegedly pleasuring himself to pornographic images online?
The argument that decriminalising the sale and purchase of sex as an interim measure until the socio-economic causes of prostitution have been addressed is nothing more than a messianic dream.
We’re not talking about the merely well-off, the comfortable, or the rich here; we’re talking of the grade of wealth that is stratospheres beyond earning potential, the sort of inherited wealth and power that comes from vast estates and the crème of imperial spoils.
Over any right to sell sex, people have the human right not to be forced into prostitution due to poverty, and this is exactly what Amnesty is advocating.
Humanitarianism, if it means anything at all, must be a commitment to the humanity of every person, and humanity is not cherished in any society where the poor are forced to offer up their bodily integrity for bread.
The decision of poor women to prostitute themselves was never and could never be a real decision. As poor, and therefore powerless, people they are simply following the formula of society laid down for them by the powerful.