The Philosophy of Wrong.

People have behaviour patterns. There are individual behaviour patterns and there are group behaviour patterns. One of the behaviour patterns that typifies the “British political anorak” of which your Editor and many we suspect of this organ’s readers, must be watching the BBC 1’s “Question Time” late on Thursday evening and then “This Week” (when most people with jobs to go to in the morning are off to bed) presented by Andrew Neil with guest Michael Portillo who is generally joined by a senior Labour figure, currently Alan Johnson.
Last night, correction early this morning, Mr Neil’s platform for his self expression provided a welcome opportunity for an uncomfortable topic to be discussed: paying for sex, prostitution. It was interesting to note that whilst Alan Johnson expressed a preference for the so called “Nordic Model” – that criminalises the procurement or the seeking to procure the supply of sexual services for money or monies worth by an individual whilst making a legislative declaration that in ALL circumstances the supply of sexual services for money or monies worth by an individual IS ALWAYS to be construed as act of a victim of a crime and that “victim” is therefore innocent of any wrongdoing – Michael Portillo expressed a preference for the libertarian philosophy that “it is not the function of the state to intervene in such acts as; “the supply of a service by a willing seller to a willing buyer.”
British Gazette readers will know that this organ and it’s Editor has taken a libertarian approach to this issue (which can be referred to by clicking on the hypertext link at the bottom of this article) and therefore we will not reprise the details of the argument here. Instead we will look at the hypocrisy contained in the position of those espousing the “Nordic Model” approach to this issue.
In particular we would suggest that this analysis of hypocrisy refers in particular to two individuals, Harriet Harman and Fiona Mactaggart. Both of these two women are vociferous proponents of the “Nordic Model” – they are also vociferous supporters of what is known as “equal marriage”.
The purpose of today’s article is to demonstrate that these two stances taken by these two women is fundamentally hypocritical.
The hypocrisy contained in the “Nordic Model” is quite literally written into the statute itself. For a man (and it generally is a man) to seek to put forward the defence that the woman (and it generally is a woman) willingly and without any form of coercion offered and/or agreed to supply him with a sexual service is no defence as the legislation regards the supplier as an unwilling victim of the defendant. The court will in all circumstances convict the defendant where the prosecution can demonstrate that the defendant was on the premises occupied by the woman. The court will convict even when the woman (the so called “victim”) gives witness evidence to the court that she was a willing participant to the transaction and that she is in no way under any form of coercion or bailment by another party. Such evidence must and would be ignored.
This is because the “Nordic Model” is the enshrinement into law of a moral and philosophical position that the creation of a market (supply and procurement) of sexual acts is wrong and therefore has to be legislated against and those guilty parties (the procurers but not the suppliers) must be punished either with a fine or imprisonment.
How then we hear you ask Dear Reader is the attitude of such as Harriet Harman and Fiona Mactaggart hypocitical?
Because of their attitude towards what they would describe as “GAY rights”.
Many Christians will part company with your Editor and the British Gazette on this controversial topic. Their attitude will be clear and based on scripture.
Not only do they regard the procurement, seeking to procure and the supply of sexual services for money or monies worth by any individual as immoral and “a sin” they can also cite scripture in:
1 Corinthians 6:13 v 12 – 18: 12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. (King James ver.)
Verse 18 makes the traditional Christian attitude towards sex clear: Sex is for married persons only. Those who are not married – to each other – are not to engage in sexual activity. In other words, the widely accepted practise of couples “living together” as “man and wife” on an informal basis is wrong.
The logical extension of 1 Corinthians 6:13 v 13 is obvious: if having sex with one’s girlfriend before she becomes your wife is immoral visiting a brothel and having sex with a prostitute is the more so!
And we haven’t even got onto the topic of what is now known as “same sex marriage” – something enthusiastically endorsed by Harriet Harman and Fiona Mactaggart!
So, now let us beard these two lionesses in their den:
In the 1950s, homosexual acts between men were illegal. It did not matter as to the degree of consent or whatever the age of the individuals – such acts were always illegal. This was demonstrated in Regina v. Turing and Murray, that was brought to trial on 31st March 1952 when Alan Turing and Arnold Murray were charged with gross indecency under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.
Both Harriet Harman and Fiona Mactaggart would vociferously argue that this prosecution was wrong and that it was right to repeal Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.
And yet the reason for Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act being placed on the statute book back in 1885 was due to a deep and sincere belief of the teachings of the Christian gospel. That such actions as engaged in between Mr Turing and Mr Murray were immoral, sinful, wrong and must be punished by the full measure of the law of the land. Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 did not care one jot or iota that Mr Turing and Mr Murray might have fallen deeply in love with each other. The law regarded their actions as unacceptable and deserving of punishment.
Indeed much of the opposition to “equal marriage” is based on the same gospel, that marriage can only be between a man and a woman and never between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Of course, Harriet Harman and Fiona Mactaggart would regard and describe such objections as bigotry!
And yet they themselves are guilty as just as much bigotry in championing the “Nordic Model” to deal with the real and present danger to public health presented by prostitution. This is because the “Nordic Model” does nothing to deal with the very real public health problem of sexually transmitted infections that occurs with uncontrolled, unregulated, unlicensed prostitution.
STIs do not respect an innocent spouse’s chastity.
The state has a duty to protect the innocent and the health of the nation. Controlling, regulating and licensing those engaged – as customers and suppliers – in prostitution will help do this. The implementation of the “Nordic Model” will only make the STI situation worse.
Herewith the British Gazette’s views on prostitution: http://www.british-gazette.co.uk/prostitution-should-we-make-it-legal/