Legislation for headlines
>> You don't think it's a big deal? Well, what would you and your editors' perception be if you were
>> the one being enslaved and bonked every hour? (pk_de_cville)
PK, you are missing the point. Tim isn't against tough laws for those who force women into slavery or even tough laws for those punters who contribute to the slavery buy using sex slaves. He was merely explaining that this legislation extends much further than this - this is something which has been done for political reasons, for the benefit of the politician, not the sex slave.
You see, making someone a sex slave is already illegal. Using a sex slave is rape, ignorance is no defence. However, it is very hard to detect and prosecute, it's akin to (say) fishing for sardines with a rod and line - the results aren't going to be very good. So what the government have decided to do is to akin to starting fishing with hand grenades.
The government can now convict many more people under legislation and at reducing sex slavery - ergo headlines in a few years will read X number of people convicted using sex slavery legislation thanks to Jacki Smith. The facts that;
* some of these people could and would have been convicted using current legislation,
* some of these people weren't harming anyone (i.e. difference between trafficked and enslaved)
* the impact on sex slavery is negligable
* the impact on sex workers on the whole is detrimental
These will all be over-looked.
It is akin to the governments stance on 'Knife Crime'. Prior to 1988 you could carry any bladed or sharply pointed item you wanted, it was down to the CPS and police to prove that you intended to use the item as a weapon (i.e. carrying with intent). Then they changed the law so that you could be prosecuted for carrying most (i,e. not small folding) bladed or sharply pointed instruments in a public place, if you could not provide a good reason (i.e. shifted the burden of proof) - even if you intended no harm and could prove that - in order to make the prosecutors job easier.
However, given that the burden of proof is shifted to the individual the offense was much lesser than that of carrying a weapon with intent. Ten years later 1998, a single district judge (i.e. lawyer with min. 7 years experience) decided to misread the poorly written legislation and change the law by classifying safer lockable folding knives as 'not fold-able'. Fast forward to the present day and the press jump up and down about cautions for potential murders, and the government is looking at putting the tariffs for knife possession - on a par with carrying with in intent or even possession of an illegal firearm. How do they justify it? Well a good way is to use the increase in hospital figures for people injured with a sharp object, ignoring the fact that these may be accidents, or may have occurred in the home (attacks do), or may have been caused broken bottles or glasses (or other previously non-pointed/sharp objects), or just plain increased reporting.
His article isn't against having laws, it is against having poorly written, poorly thought out and unnecessary laws (to combat things which are already illegal - especially when the only motive for doing so is to make ease the burden on prosecutors and to get good press.
The IT angle - logical thought and consistent, high quality analysis is what IT should be all about (tenuous I know). It is just a shame it isn't what politics or the media are all about.
BTW, have you looked at what the government considers a suitable punishment for men found guilty of raping these women (or possibly raping given the way the legislation is written)? They are intending a £1,000 fine. Clearly they are aware that the laws are draconian, hence the reason for the petty penalty - i.e. They consider it on a par with driving when your photocard licence has expired. Ofcourse, that will all change if the media kick-up a stink about paltry £1000 fines - then they will up the penalty to match that of rape.