Comment: Why Labour is prudish about sex
Thursday, 07, May 2009 11:30
Labour are worse than the Tories when it comes to what people get up to behind closed doors.
By John Ozimek
When sex and politics collide, it is usually no more than an excuse for some good old-fashioned crudity, along with a hefty dose of journalistic double standards and, more often than not, ministerial embarrassment. How else to deconstruct the serious but essentially misguided furore over expenses-gate, in which it was revealed that Jacqui Smith had signed off expenses for home entertainment (serious breach) that also happened to feature some smuttiness (mostly trivial)?
However, recent developments in Australia, coupled with a serious Labour obsession with sex - quite distinct from gender - raise the question of whether the issue might not eventually find its way on to the UK political agenda as a vote-winner (or loser) in its own right.
Apart from playing a part in Ministerial downfalls - from Profumo to David Mellor - sex has never been a stand-alone issue in UK politics. Its most famous exponent was Lindi St Clair, aka Miss Whiplash, who, after a run-in with the Inland Revenue, set up the 'Corrective party' to campaign for a liberalisation of the laws on prostitution and the sex trade. She stood in a total of nine by-elections before being made bankrupt in 1992 and disqualified from standing again.
For a more serious intrusion into politics, you must look to Italy and the 'partito dell'amore' which for a time looked as though it might actually gain parliamentary representation, in the form of one-time porn star and model, Ilona Staller - 'la cicciolina'. Her political credentials involved a stint as a parliamentary representative for the partito radicale: in addition to greater sexual liberalisation, the partito dell'amore also tapped into a range of issues around sex education and the environment.
However, the Australian experience takes sexual politics to another level. In part, this is due to the workings of the Australian electoral system and in part because some serious money is at stake. At federal level, the Australian Senate divides 32-32 between government and opposition, with many major issues decided by the Greens and a handful of independents. The latter have tended to take less liberal stands on a number of issues whilst 'family values' is the public platform of at least one independent.
A similar pattern occurs at state level, with close results in several legislatures and balance of power held by candidates who are populist, Christian and possibly reactionary. A series of increasingly restrictive measures in respect of the adult trade, plus government proposals for a controversial compulsory firewall to protect Australians from the dangers of 'harmful material' on the internet appear to have been the last straw.
In autumn 2008, the Australian Sex party was launched. They have no governmental ambitions: they would like to supplant a few of the independent senators at state and federal level, thereby ensuring a voice for the mass of ordinary Australians whose laidback views on sex are not well-reflected by a much more nannying Labour government. Their programme has a central core that is focused on censorship, licensing and associated issues: but they have widened out beyond this, to take on board issues such as gay rights, sex education and, as in Italy, some issues more readily associated with the Greens.
They have had no luck so far in their first electoral outing - in Queensland, widely reputed to be Australia's most reactionary state - but they are attracting attention and a not unfavourable media profile. The fact that their convenor, Fiona Patten, has national political experience and is widely regarded as media-savvy helps. So, too, does the reach of the adult business, which provides the Sex party with a ready made channel of communication to around a quarter of the Australian population.
The chances of such a development in UK politics seem slight. However, adherents to the Hegelian dialectical view of how issues evolve might be forgiven for wondering whether New Labour's obsession with sex might not have the perverse result of calling into being a strand of opposition to its politics that is itself grounded in that issue.
Historically, the Conservative approach to sex has been mostly pragmatic. They were responsible for the Obscene Publications Act in 1959, which was mostly a tidying up of existing law. They also passed the Video Recordings Act 1984, bowing to pressure over 'video nasties'. Otherwise, almost every major piece of legislation governing sexual conduct over the last few decades has been the work of Labour governments - with a major attack on a range of issues, from age limits, to rape, to prostitution over the last decade.
The difference in approach is symbolised by the different take on sado-masochist practice (sm) under the last Conservative administration and the current Labour one. In 1995, the Law Commission published a report looking at issues of sexual and other consent: the fundamental theme was the question of where the line should be drawn between state and individual right to set rules on consent and looked not just at sm, but also tattooing and religious (self)-flagellation.
On arrival in government, Labour set up the sexual offences review team, ignored arguments for a more liberal focus on sexual conduct (including the Law Commission), and proceeded to look at questions associated with individuals refusing consent.
They have dabbled with the law on rape, introduced new laws on possession of pornographic imagery, have made it a criminal offence to possess various images that it is quite legal to participate in, created a number of new sexual offences, and are now on the verge of creating draconian new law around sex work.
Critics - particularly those directly involved with these issues, such as the International Union of Sex Workers - complain that Labour appears wholly uninterested in listening to any evidence that conflicts with its own deeply held views. The extreme porn issue brought into being a couple of new organisations: Backlash and the Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN).
The latter is nowhere near as slick as the Australian Sex party: but it is based around a simple proposition, that government should have nothing to do with the bedroom activities of consenting adults. It's a bit early to say what impact this movement will have, although it appears to be slowly gathering support, including parliamentarians, rock stars and the LGBT community, as well as a media platform from which to argue its case.
All the usual suspects are there - from Peter Tatchell to Tom Robinson - and it is currently running a campaign against what it considers to be the EHRC's hypocritical definition of "sexual orientation".
Received wisdom is that if Labour lose the next election, the pressure for an active campaigning organisation around this particular single issue will fade. Or maybe not. From writing about sexual issues and speaking to many people involved in the politics of sex, there is a sense of a job half done. Gays have been liberated, but grudgingly. Labour are in favour of abstract rights - but please: let no-one talk about the mechanics of sexual practice.
Meanwhile, much of the recent debate about sexual issues has revealed two things about our parliamentarians. The first is a not wholly unexpected prudery. Fair enough: there are two sides to this debate, just like any other, and someone has to be against things.
Far more worrying is the absolute funk that many backbenchers get into when asked to comment on anything even remotely sexual. As one individual put it (off the record): "It's the Daily Mail", and "we want to have a job in five years time".
This would be laughable, were it not so serious: the only place where sexual issues receive serious balanced debate tends to be in the Lords: vast swathes of sexual diversity - perhaps 40 per cent-plus of the population - remain wholly unrepresented because we're still not grown up enough to have an adult debate about adult issues.
The need to resist New Labour prudery may therefore go away. But until parliamentarians feel able to talk openly about some subjects, the pressure for a campaign on sex and sexuality will continue to grow.
John Ozimek is an independent writer with a strong interest in topics of political and sexual liberty. He has been a Liberal parliamentary candidate, IT and marketing consultant, and founder and editor of two academic journals on the use and analysis of personal data. John is currently working on a book - 'New Labour - New Puritanism'.
The views expressed in politics.co.uk's comment pages are not necessarily those of the website or its owners.