Slumdog Millionaire

It was on tv the other night, so my family decided to record it and watch it. It's especially relevant to us now because in February my brother is going to Rajasthan with his school to teach some underprivileged children. He's going to teach them about the organs inside their body and they're planning to put on a music show as well.

Anyway, I think Slumdog Millionaire was a great film because it showed you so vividly what life is still like in some parts of the world. It helps with the moral distance problem by bringing it closer to home. But at the same time it's entertaining, so you do not feel like you are being directly told to help the poor. It was brilliantly eye-opening.

However. Oh, there's always a however. I feel quite callous thinking of this however, actually. But, you know, follow the argument wherever it leads and all that. One thing that did strike me was their lack of planning for the future. Whenever they had any money, they spent it immediately. For example, when the kids stole a whole load of money from a rich guy, they immediately went and booked themselves into a posh hotel and drank all of the alcohol in the fridge. This resulted in them having nothing all over again. It seems like they are themselves perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

I know, how can I even think this? These people are poor, we are super rich, how can it possibly be their fault? But perhaps it is. Of course, I can't possibly judge a whole country by what three kids did in a film. I just mean to suggest that perhaps instead of our money, what they really need is an education of a different kind.

There is always lots of talk about how much better it is for us to help people by education, rather than just giving them money. For a start, a lot of the aid we have so far given has gone straight into the pockets of the leaders of the country. Apparently, according to my dad, who usually gets his information from somewhere reasonably reliable, if all the aid we had given to Africa had gone to the right places, instead of the government, they would no longer be in poverty.

Maybe this explains why mum doesn't believe in giving to charity. She argues that they were giving money to Africa when she was a little girl and it hasn't made a difference yet.*

So education is the right way to go, perhaps? We could then teach these people that it is wise to save for the future, when fortune may not be so sweet. Then they may not have to fight so hard to survive and might be able to begin to build a real life. This may take several generations, but it would be worth it.

I also like the idea of microfinance, which I have just seen an advert for on this website. The very lovely baby-hugging Peter Singer introduced me to the idea in his book, "The Life You Can Save". It's like money lending on a tiny scale. The company lends a very small amount of money, in most cases less than $5, which the family are obligated to pay back eventually. This amount of money may seem very small but it is often enough to buy just one batch of really good seeds, for example, which enables the family to then continue to produce quality goods that are both nourishing and fetch high prices. It also means that they don't have to get involved in the corrupt money-lending business in their countries, with impossibly high interest rates. A very good idea all round, I think.

But really, all the money and education in the world will not actually help the poorest countries as they are. The systems of government are just too corrupt and they will always find a way to suck the things that they want out of their people. They need checks and balances, like we have. (Again, apparently, as I don't understand much about politics in the UK. I just know that I like Boris [BoJo] because he is funny and rescues people on his bicycle, like a superhero crossed with a postman and I don't like Gordon [GoBo] because he is a silly idiot who thinks that if he talks about Susan Boyle enough, rather than actually doing politics, he will get some votes. I also know there is no point in voting for the LibDems.)

The problem is, sorting out governments usually involves going to war, which is also bad. It is startling, though, how bad politicians can be. I mean, we thought the expenses scandal was bad. At least we can afford to eat in spite of it. Somebody said that the people that who want to be in charge should never be, for this reason. (I don't know who, but they are famous.) And I think it's true! I think you, B/P JAM, would make a fantastic prime minister.

*She is correcting me now, saying that she doesn't think we should be giving to animals either. She's not a pet person.

"This House believes prostitution in all forms should be made illegal" - Speech opposing the motion

The current UK law on prostitution states that selling sex is not illegal. However, advertising that you are selling it is, as is any form of brothel. This legal grey area ought to be resolved.

I advocate the legalisation of prostitution. I do not in any way endorse the illegal trafficking of immigrant women to work as prostitutes against their will. This should not ever be legalised, as it goes against so many of their basic human rights. What I mean by saying that prostitution should be legalised is that women who have chosen to do this should be supported by the law, rather than hiding from it for fear of being persecuted.

You can look at this issue in two ways: morally and practically. Morally, I don’t see much of a problem with prostitution. We are not puritans, sex has become a large part of our society now. Young women wandering around blitzed out of their minds late on a Saturday night in tiny dresses frequently give themselves away for free. The only difference between one of these girls and a prostitute is that the prostitute is getting paid. She is probably more aware of what she is doing, as well. We don’t by and large go around pointing the finger at these women, yet prostitutes come under criticism for doing the same thing. What moral difference does money make?

So to practicalities, then. It makes a lot of sense to legalise prostitution fully, rather than to illegalise it. For example, it is currently illegal to run a brothel. Fair enough, you may think, this will stop women being viciously exploited by pimps. True. But what it also means is that two women are not allowed to work together. This means prostitutes are often forced to work alone so they cannot look after each other. The legalisation of brothels would enable women to stick together and look after each other more effectively, reducing cases of violence.

But prostitution is not just a case of stereotypes, where drug-addled women are beaten up. Sure, there are many women who have turned to prostitution to feed a drug habit. But there are also those who have chosen it for financial reasons, such as the blogger Belle de Jour. She was a girl with a PHD who took the decision with a clear mind. It helped her to get out of debt and she has not suffered any dramatic changes in self-esteem as a result of it. There are women out there who positively benefit from prostitution.

Not only that, but the clients of these women are often unfairly stereotyped. Not every client is a married man seeking further gratification. What about the disabled man with no family? He is constantly in and out of hospital with no physical contact other than that which he receives from the nurses. Is it right to deny companionship to this man, who may be disabled through no fault of his own?

These groups may be in the minority now, but this would change with legalisation. Once accepted, more women would be able to explore the possibility of doing this out of choice. It would also reduce the number of women who have been forced into the trade or because they believe they have no other choice. These women would no longer be afraid to speak out about their situations for fear of being prosecuted themselves. We would then be in a better position to help them.

We could also then help their drug-riddled companions. I believe the legalisation of prostitution would drastically reduce the problems that it is currently associated with. Firstly, the drug addicts would be able to get help. This may involve rehabilitation and getting out of the trade but it would help them.

Then, we would make it safer for those who have suffered violence when working as a prostitute. Currently, if a woman gets into trouble, she has nowhere to turn to. Soliciting is illegal in this country, so if the woman went to the police she may go to jail. Consequently, most women keep quiet about their situations and go on to suffer further abuse. Legalisation would bring this kind of practice to an end, as the women would be much better protected.

Furthermore, prostitution is not simply the objectification of women gone mad. With money, women do not have to rely on men as they have done in the past. They become independent and self-sufficient. It also stops the objectification of everyday women, as sex is readily available.

I'm not saying that all women should become prostitutes. You do have to be able to cope with it emotionally, and some women can't. It shouldn't become the only solution for women in financial crisis but it would work for some of them. This is not a reason to ban it, it is just another skill that they must have. Not every man is suited to being a doctor but that doesn't stop that trade. You have to have the relevant skills.

Prostitution has always happened, it's the oldest trade in the world. This means that it is likely to continue to happen, whatever the legal circumstances. Banning it only serves to drive it deeper underground, where the girls face more abuse. To protect these women, we must first acknowledge their situation.

Prostitution is a service just like any other, like an osteopath or a hairdresser. Let’s accept it, legalise it, make it safer, tax it and help those currently involved in it against their will get out of it.