The legalization of prostitution is at best an attempt to bandage up a societal problem... at worse it's the systemic oppression of women and the widening of potential for more!! Thankfully, The Salvation Army understands that the exploitation of women (sometimes named the 'sex trade') simply encourages trafficking and oppression... let's dig in and stop it. Here is IHQ's official statement about it: stay tuned in and read more for convincing evidence!
'The Salvation Army believes that women and men in prostitution should not be seen as criminal offenders by virtue of their activities in the sex trade industry. Many are drawn into prostitution by reason of poverty, ignorance or coercion. However, The Salvation Army does not wish to see prostitution treated or regarded as a normative or acceptable practice, or as a socially or morally legitimate career choice by any person. Legalisation of the sex trade unintentionally but inevitably creates a social climate in which those engaged in human trafficking can expand their industry, making it difficult for the police to intervene, even though advocates for legalisation claim that licensing gives more safety and protection. The Salvation Army has not campaigned publicly on the issue of prostitution laws because it wishes to maintain its position of trust with persons, especially women, in prostitution. However, the Army takes a stance against decriminalisation of any commercial exploitation of women or men for sexual purposes. The Army also supports measures to criminalise the activities of clients in the sex trade industry.'
1 comment:
I agree overall with the army's stance on this tragic, age old issue, however, doesn't the view that women and men involved in the sex trade industry should not be seen as criminal offenders result in the same thing as decriminalizing? I.e. it does nothing to take the temptation away and does not provide opportunity to help those forced into the lifestyle. I understand in reading through the statement that the army wishes to place the onus on the clients but is this not like fighting drug trafficking by arresting the users rather than the suppliers? I could very well be missing something so any thoughts are welcome.
Jim Dunstan
Post a Comment