Showing posts with label parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parliament. Show all posts
Monday, 1 June 2026
Sunday, 19 April 2026
Child sex trafficking has a long history in London
The Victorian sex abuse scandal that shocked Britain and changed the law – long before Epstein
The media exposes a scandal – a network of rich, powerful men are abusing teenage girls. Outrage spreads fast and the public demands that authorities reveal the evidence and bring the perpetrators to justice. Yet the system shields many of those involved, and few face serious consequences. This isn’t about Jeffrey Epstein – it’s a scandal that unfolded in Victorian London.
Our research focuses on the women and girls at the centre of those events. In July 1885, a series of newspaper articles ran in the Pall Mall Gazette with the headline The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon. They exposed systematic abuse and trafficking of young girls. From the day the articles were published, there was uproar. Parliament was inundated with petitions and there was a huge demonstration in Hyde Park.
MPs were forced to respond, passing legislation which raised the age at which girls could consent to sexual intercourse from 13 to 16. Records of those events are held in the Women’s Library at London School of Economics, and some are displayed in its current exhibition, The Women’s Library at 100.
Read more: Victims have told us the worst of Epstein’s crimes for decades – and they are still being ignored
Frustrated activists had turned to W.T. Stead, the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette. Feminist campaigner Josephine Butler, leading Salvation Army members and Stead undertook an investigation of child sexual exploitation, visiting everywhere from brothels to rescue homes. Stead even “purchased” a 13-year-old girl named Eliza Armstrong and sent her to France (in the Salvation Army’s care) to prove that such procuring and trafficking was possible.
Butler noted in a letter to a friend: “O! What horrors we have seen!”
The London scandal
The resulting articles took the reader through the process of recruiting and abusing young women. They portrayed a whole industry devoted to the exploitation of the girls: procurers and brothel-keepers, doctors who “certified” virginity and midwives who ministered to their wounds afterwards.
The series was swiftly syndicated around the world as “the London scandal” and people speculated on the identities of the men described. In New York, it was rumoured that many prominent American men visited the notorious brothel madam Mrs Jeffries’ houses. Some of her clients were named in the campaigning newspaper The Sentinel as MPs, Lords and Dukes, the Prince of Wales and King Leopold II of Belgium.
Some of these offences further criminalised women rather than those exploiting them. For example, if two or more sex workers operated in shared premises for safety, they could become liable for brothel-keeping – that is still the law today. A late amendment introduced by Henry Labouchere MP also outlawed all consensual sexual activity between men; the new offence was used to convict the writer Oscar Wilde a decade later.
Ironically, only Stead and several of his colleagues were convicted as a result of these events. They were imprisoned for the kidnapping of Eliza Armstrong. Meanwhile, the men accused by campaigners of exploiting underage girls were unprosecuted and unpunished.
Read more: Oscar Wilde’s The Ballad of Reading Gaol is a work of art activism beloved by Banksy
Lessons for today
There is much to be learned from this history. First, some very influential people do not want child sexual exploitation eradicated, making effective reform difficult to achieve. It was only through public pressure that new laws were finally passed in 1885. However, a combination of haste, conservatism and deference to elite male interests meant that the law was deeply flawed and moralistic.
Second, the victims and survivors of abuse are too easily blamed, ignored or politically exploited. Reporting of the Maiden Tribute scandal furthered specific ends. In France and America, it was used as proof of aristocratic degeneracy. Meanwhile, the exploited girls were dismissed by respectable society as “fallen”. As the MP Charles Hopwood said in the House of Commons, working-class “girls who went upon the streets … had a familiarity with these things from an early age and were quite able to take care of themselves”.
Third, the establishment tries very hard to cover up such abuse. In Victorian London, policemen were paid off and one who refused to be bought was constructively dismissed. Earlier in 1885, campaigners had brought a private prosecution against Mrs Jeffries because the police refused to take the case any further; the judge frequently reminded witnesses not to name clients; and Mrs Jeffries pleaded guilty mid-trial, before her VIP clientele was exposed. She escaped with a fine rather than imprisonment. In 1887, Mrs Jeffries would be prosecuted again under the new Act; her clients were not.
It is not easy to make the powerful face consequences. Of the leading figures exposed in the Maiden Tribute, the only person who ended up in jail was a woman: Mary Jeffries. The men faced no reckoning, except for gossip about their involvement.
The history, then, offers useful guidance for the present: put pressure on those in power to take effective and swift action, do not trust politicians exploiting abuse to gain power, rigorously uncover institutional corruption and ensure that money and influence do not protect abusers from rightful consequences. Most importantly, believe and centre the voices of victims and survivors.
Saturday, 1 November 2025
Latvia votes to pull out of Istanbul treaty against violence on women
Latvia's parliament voted on Thursday to withdraw the Baltic country from a treaty on preventing violence against women, saying that it promotes "gender" theories.
The vote would make Latvia the first European Union country to quit the Istanbul Convention, which the very same parliament had ratified in November 2024.
Thursday's tally was 56 to 32, with two abstentions.
The motion must now be signed by President Edgars Rinkevics, who has indicated he is not in favour but has also hinted that he might not override a parliamentary decision.
The Council of Europe convention requires signatory parties to develop laws and policies aimed at ending violence against women and domestic physical abuse.
Right-wing opposition parties voted to quit the treaty, while the governing coalition led by centre-right Prime Minister Evika Silina was split, with representatives of the Union of Greens and Farmers voting to leave the treaty and the other parties voting to stay.
The Council of Europe has repeatedly rejected allegations that the treaty imposes gender theories, notably stating in 2022 that "the Istanbul Convention does not establish any new norms on gender identity or sexual orientation".
The Latvian right wing maintains that withdrawing from the convention will not weaken the fight against violence against women because national laws are sufficient.
Women's rights groups have organised several demonstrations in Riga in recent weeks.
"The ratification of the Istanbul Convention in Latvia has produced significant results, which are not just words on paper, but represent lives saved," argued the MARTA Center, which advocates for the rights of women and migrants.
Latvia's right wing is also behind a recent proposed amendment that would restrict abortion access in the country.
(FRANCE 24 with AFP)
Thursday, 14 August 2025
Conservatives plan to end leniency for non-citizen criminals in Canadian courts
Conservatives to end leniency for non-citizen criminals
Non-citizens convicted of serious crimes should be deported,
not given leniency by virtue of their immigration status.
Should judges be allowed to use a non-citizen's immigration status to issue a more lenient sentence to a convicted offender for their crime?
While many Canadians would rightly say no, 2013 Supreme Court ruling (R. v. Pham) suggested otherwise, and legislation is urgently needed to address this problem.
Here’s why.
The Pham ruling effectively allowed judges to, in certain circumstances, consider the impact of triggering a removal process under Canada’s Immigration Refugee and Protection Act (“IRPA”) provisions when issuing a sentence. Those provisions include deportation without appeal rights for non-citizens convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum imprisonment term of at least 10 years, or for crimes in which a term exceeding six months has been imposed.
Lately, as public support for immigration has waned amid the Liberal government's rapid increases to the number of immigrants entering Canada that outpaced housing, healthcare, and job market capacities, several high-profile cases of judges applying leniency in sentencing due to potential impact on immigration status have emerged.
For example, a permanent resident received a conditional sentence after being convicted of trying to purchase sexual services from a 15-year-old, as a stronger penalty would have hindered him and his wife from obtaining Canadian citizenship. Another non-citizen in Canada on a visitor's permit was convicted of twice groping an 18-year-old woman's genitals under her skirt as she stood at the bar to buy a drink and received a discharge to avoid a permanent criminal record and allow a deportation appeal. There are many other examples that illustrate the trend of immigration status being considered in sentencing, with criminal lawyers now routinely arguing for lighter sentences so their non-citizen clients can evade deportation or denial of citizenship under IRPA's current provisions.
While it’s tempting to blame judges for this state of affairs, the fault squarely lies with the federal Liberal government, who, in spite of the increased evidence of leniency in sentencing due to consideration of immigration status in recent years, have declined to provide more clarity to judges through legislation.
This is why once the House of Commons resumes in the fall, Conservatives will introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code to rectify this issue. Our bill will add a section after Section 718.202 of the Criminal Code which will expressly outline that any potential impact of a sentence on the immigration status of a convicted non-citizen offender, or that of their family members, should not be taken into consideration by a judge when issuing a sentence.
The rationale for this change is straightforward. Anyone seeking residence or citizenship in Canada has responsibilities as well as rights. The citizenship guide clearly states that citizens must obey Canada's laws and respect the rights and freedoms of others, and IRPA outlines the potential consequences for non-citizens who fail to do so. Without legislative clarity on considering immigration status in sentencing, judges can apply aspects of the Pham ruling to undermine that principle for non-citizens, effectively end-running the deportation consequences already enacted by Parliament through IRPA.
In effect, the Criminal Code amendment that Conservatives plan to propose this fall will prevent judges from using aspects of the Pham ruling to prioritize the process of entering and staying in Canada over the responsibility to respect Canadian law required of those seeking to do so. It will also help quell anger from Canadians who have read about high-profile rulings where the perception has arisen that non-citizens are receiving leniency for a crime committed on Canadian soil simply by virtue of their non-citizen status.
The vast majority of people in Canada who have immigrated here or are on temporary visas abide by the law. Removal from Canada for non-citizens after being convicted of a serious crime is a no-brainer to both protect Canadians, the value of Canadian citizenship, and every person who resides in Canada and plays by the rules.
After a decade of Liberal post-nationalism and excessively high immigration levels, accepting this change would allow the Liberals to demonstrate some respect for Canadian citizenship by affirming that, at minimum, the privilege of residing here for non-citizens depends on adherence to the rule of law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)