Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260
- 280)
TUESDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2008
MS SANDRINE
LEVÊQUE AND
MS NADINE
STAVONINA DE
MONTAGNAC
Q260 Chairman: Do you think that
applies to most girls who work in lap dancing clubs?
Ms Stavonina de Montagnac: In
the eight years I was working in the industry and the hundreds
of girls I have spoken with, a high percentage yes. A lot of girls
enter it when they are very young and naive thinking they will
be stars. It is a celebrity lifestyle that is sold to them and
they think that being sexy is empowering. You are only empowered
for three minutes when you are on stage; the majority of the time
you are not empowered. If anything like that went on in a normal
career you could probably sue the employer. You have no rights;
there is no sick pay; if you do not like it you leave, that is
the answer to every complaint.
Q261 Chairman: It is said that you
can make quite a lot of money doing this.
Ms Stavonina de Montagnac: No.
Q262 Chairman: That was not your
experience.
Ms Stavonina de Montagnac: Not
every day. In fact when women do not make a lot of money just
to save face they have to claim that they do because it is how
they are perceived by other women if they are failures. If you
are pretty you make a lot of money and you are successful. Women
should be judged by more than just how they look.
Q263 Philip Davies: Sandrine, I thought
your last answer was very helpful in the sense that it was perfectly
clear that this is not about democracy or licensing or anything,
it is the fact that you do not like lap dancing clubs. That was
particularly helpful. This idea that it promotes sexism (you gave
a case where there was a payout for discrimination), why is it
any worse than any other business? The Commission for Racial Equality
had a large number of people who claimed racial discrimination,
that does not mean it was inherently racist as an organisation,
so why do you think lap dancing clubs are inherently sexist just
because somebody pursued a claim?
Ms Levêque: I take issue
with what you started out by saying. If you had listened more
carefully to what I was arguing, because of what I was outlining
about the links to sexism and objectification, lap dancing clubs
have a very different social impact which means that licensing
processes need to be as democratic as possible to take that into
account. It is all very linked; it is not two separate issues
which often happens with women's issues, they get put into a niche
corner and are seen as something separate. To come back to what
you are saying about the links to sexism, I think that institutions
which operate on the principle of men being able to pay women
to take their clothes off for them simply because they are paying
them to do that is inherently sexist and it promotes gender stereotypes
which is recognised by many women's organisations as something
of concern. We are surrounded in our society by media advertising
industries, a culture basically in which women are objectified
in a way which has little or no parallel for men and boys. I do
not think it takes a feminist to recognise that; I think that
is just the way it is. That is something that does need to be
talked about and discussed. The fact is that that cannot happen
at the moment in licensing because a local council cannot overrule
a licensing application on the grounds of gender equality; it
cannot even take it into account. We have looked at that very
extensively with legal experts and a gender equality specialist
from Matrix Chambers, a licensing barrister, and they have very
clearly shown that that needs to be changed.
Q264 Philip Davies: I appreciate
that that is your personal view and it is your heartfelt view,
but do you not accept that other people might take a different
view to you and that actually many women might take a different
view to you and whilst you see it as exploitation and sexual discrimination
many women do not see it like that. Surely if they want to do
that of their own free will, why should you impose your particular
perspective on life on every other woman? Is that not sexism against
women in itself, that you want to make the decision for them?
Ms Stavonina de Montagnac: If
a famous painter who makes a lot of money was asked, "Would
you paint if you weren't getting paid?" what would the answer
be? Yes, of course. If a doctor was asked to save somebody's life
without being paid, would they still do it? Yes, of course. Would
any woman strip off if she was not getting paid? Anyone, even
those who claim to be happy? It is just not going to happen. If
there were better job prospects for women and better attitudes
towards women, women would not go into these places. Of course
they have to claim to be happy. I would liken it to the Stockholm
syndrome whereby the abductee is identifying with their abductor
in order to survive; you have to find light in any situation you
have. Statistically the kind of ladies that end up in lap dancing
places are the ones who are already unhappy, who are in a very
difficult financial situation, a broken down relationship or come
from abusive households. They find that this is the way for them
to prove themselves to be empowered and rebellious; it is not
because they chose to do it.
Q265 Philip Davies: Are you saying
then that women who do lap dancing are only doing it because they
could not do any other job, that they are not capable of doing
any other job so they have to resort to this? Nobody actually
makes a positive choice to do lap dancing, is that your contention?
Ms Stavonina de Montagnac: I think
initially they would have a lot of difficulties in life and because
it is glamorised they think this is a good shortcut to get to
where they want to be, to get on the housing ladder, pay for education,
to get out of poverty, to buy children's Christmas gifts or to
look like a star like everybody is supposed to be aspiring to.
What I am saying is that if we call a spade a spade then without
closing the clubs maybe there is a possibility to run them better,
to have a better attitude towards men and those who are vulnerable
when they enter the profession who feel they want to get out there
would be support available for them. We do not want to upset people.
If there is a need in a society for this then it should be provided,
but I think it is wrong for people to be abused in an environment
and brainwashed into believing that is what they want. I was not
happy but some obviously claim that they are.
Q266 Philip Davies: I understand
it was not for you and neither of you two like it, but in terms
of the licensing perspective, in terms of the licensing objectives
and the protection of children from harm, public safety, prevention
of crime and disorder, prevention of a public nuisance, would
you not accept, taking aside your moral views and your personal
experiences, that lap dancing clubs from a purely licensing perspective
probably have a better track record than most nightclubs and many
pubs which you seem to have no objection to.
Ms Levêque: Before I get
to that, I want to come back to what you were saying before. We
are not saying that all women hate lap dancing clubs; that is
a gross simplification of our argument and clearly not what we
are saying. Of course some women do want to go to lap dancing
clubs, want to work in them or want to run them; we are not saying
that that is not happening. What we are saying is that some women
do have an issue with them and some men have an issue with them
and that should be taken into account. It is simply not happening
at the moment and that is the core issue here. I think focussing
it on whether women choose to work in lap dancing clubs or not
is actually slightly beside the point because the core issue really
is that if a lap dancing club is intending to open in your area
as a community you have every right to have a say in that. The
licensing objectives that you have just outlined do not reflect
those community objectives of community cohesion, tourism, generation—or
whatever you want to call it—and equality objectives. I
object to you calling our issue with lap dancing clubs a moral
objection because that is not the case. It is an equality issue,
not a moral issue.
Q267 Philip Davies: We can agree
then that some people think they are good things, some people
think they are bad things; some women like them, some women do
not; some men do, some men do not. Surely the answer to this particular
issue is that if you do not like lap dancing clubs do not work
in them and do not go and visit them. If you do like them, then
go and work in one and go visit them. On that basis surely everybody
is happy because everyone can exercise their free choice.
Ms Levêque: The whole point
is that you do not have to go into a lap dancing club to be affected
by it. That is the core issue here. I happen to live near five
strip clubs. I happen to have worked in the city and experienced
the sexism that they promote. I do not think that you have to
go into the four walls of a lap dancing club to appreciate that
they have an impact on the local community. What we are trying
to get across here is that under the licensing objectives the
Licensing Act was fundamentally not drawn up to take those issues
into consideration. We are not saying that they are the only issues
that should be considered; everyone has their own views and everyone
is entitled to their own views. That is what makes a democracy.
If we are serious about having a democratic licensing regime we
need to have a mechanism for all those views to be considered.
If you look, there is case after case where that is not happening.
Those same licensing objectives have been described as a straightjacket
to us by residents up and down the country.
Q268 Paul Farrelly: I want to explore
some of the alternatives to the current regime. From personal
experience in my town—which is an old market town, Newcastle-under-Lyme
in Staffordshire—the biggest licensing controversy by far
over the past few years has been the opening of a lap dancing
club called "Lace" in Newcastle-under-Lyme. A lot people
felt that that is the sort of thing that belongs in the big cities—Stoke-on-Trent
next door—rather than in our town. I think to a certain
extent the controversy was whipped up, as it were, by the press
because lap dancing is always going to make a sexy story. The
licensing committee, three of them, headed by the current mayor,
waived it through because they were told that they could not object
on moral grounds. They could, of course, have taken a stand as
it were, turned it down and referred it to a court to decide,
but they did not. The application was waived through but by extension
after that for their lack of courage in standing up they then
blamed the government and by extension me which I think was really
unfair because not taking one side or the other the last place
I am likely to want to be seen is in a lap dancing club in my
home town. I have some sympathy for the arguments that you have
been presenting on the licensing front, but on the other hand
we questioned the police who have said that these establishments
tend to be better run and regulated and ordered than a lot of
pubs, and that is certainly the experience in Newcastle-under-Lyme
where the town late at night is not full of randy blokes wandering
around harassing girls who are wearing the same short dresses
in the middle of winter at midnight as they wear in the summer.
The problems in the town are with blokes coming out of pubs drunk
wanting to pick fights, and also the problems as well with the
character of our market town being changed by three pubs (co-owned
by a conservative councillor actually) illicitly showing premier
league football matches and attracting yobos on a Saturday afternoon.
There is no public order issue with the lap dancing clubs so it
must be a moral issue however you wish to define it. Can I ask
you what sort of licensing regime you would like to see and whether,
in your experience, if councils insisted on trying the sex encounter
regime for lap dancing clubs, what hurdles have they faced and
what success have they had?
Ms Levêque: To go back to
the public order issue, I think it is also important to note that
some of the problems we are talking about are not quantifiable
by statistics because we are talking about things that people
do not always report. If you do not feel comfortable going to
a bus stop because it happens to be near a lap dancing club it
is not something you are going to go and tell the police about.
What we are seeing in specific cases—like in Durham or Stourbridge—is
that women from sixth form colleges were coming forward and saying,
"We don't feel comfortable walking past that strip club when
we're going home after college; we just don't feel comfortable
with it".
Q269 Paul Farrelly: I understand
that but my question is about alternatives and in your experience
have some councils tried to go down the sex encounter licence
route and faced obstacles?
Ms Levêque: The problem
at the moment is that lap dancing clubs are exempt from that regime
because they hold a premises licence for regulated entertainment
which is what we are trying to change. A sex encounter establishment
is a venue where visual entertainment for sexual stimulation takes
place, in other words a lap dancing club, yet they cannot fall
under that category. Councils have not been able to use that extra
power.
Q270 Paul Farrelly: Have any councils
tried?
Ms Levêque: In Hackney the
council was actually using that category until quite recently.
It was not clear that lap dancing clubs were exempt from that
category. They did not realise that and are now supporting the
call for it to be made legal.
Q271 Paul Farrelly: I have a specific
example from where I live in London in Hackney, just around the
corner from the High Street, where there was an application for
a lap dancing/pole dancing venue and they turned it down.
Ms Levêque: Yes, because
it was an sex encounter establishment licence that the lap dancing
club had to get and that is a really good example actually of
how that regime is actually much more democratic.
Q272 Paul Farrelly: So they sought
that licence, did they?
Ms Levêque: Hackney thought
they had the power to use it but they lawfully do not. The lap
dancing club and the solicitors they hired to represent them obviously
did not cotton on to that. I went to that licensing hearing; it
was Satchmo's so I know which one you are talking about.
Q273 Paul Farrelly: You are saying
that although Hackney went down that route, had the applicants
got smart lawyers then they would have gone to the courts and
said that the council should not only not have turned it down
but could not lawfully do it.
Ms Levêque: That is the
advice we have from our legal experts. And actually Hackney Council
was one of the many councils that responded to the government
consultation saying that they do want extra powers because the
powers they have at the moment are simply inadequate. Also it
is interesting that the shadow minister for women's office, who
also did a consultation on this issue, got the same picture.
Q274 Paul Farrelly: Hackney did take
a hard line and actually threw the ball back into the applicant's
court, so should it not be applauded and should other councils,
from your argument, have done the same thing?
Ms Levêque: That situation
was a case in which many residents had objections and they were
not straight jacketed into the full licensing objections because
the council believed it could use the SEE licence when, as I am
saying, lawfully it could not. That paints a very different picture
from other cases where the council simply has not been able to
do that. In the City of London around the same time there was
a case for City Golf Club where many residents objected but the
council felt that it had no choice but to grant the licence and
the club is due to open shortly. There has been a case recently
in Plymouth where that has happened also. One thing I think is
worth mentioning is that lap dancing clubs have access to superior
resources. They can pay skilled licensing lawyers; they have licensing
experts; they have a lot of access to those resources to make
their case. The system as it works now puts a lot of onus on residents
to try to counter that so you have residents organising massive
campaigns, trying to get barristers to work for them for free,
really having to collect a lot of evidence when it should be the
other way round.
Q275 Paul Farrelly: I just want to
turn the argument round now. Could you not be accused of bracketing
entertainers in the same category of people offering sometimes
a illegal sexual services? For years, if you look in the stage
magazine, there are adverts in there for entertainers and people
knew, rightly or wrongly, when you took a job on a cruise ship
to get your Equity card it quite often entailed taking your clothes
off. My girlfriend was trying to get into Equity at the time actually
so I know a lot about it because that is something that she would
not get involved in. Equity, to a certain extent, rightly or wrongly,
has given a certain acceptability to that. If you take a well-regulated
lap dancing club—as I am sure we will hear from Peter Stringfellow
in a moment—where the police go and where they employ their
mystery shoppers (for all I know Peter might employ his own mystery
shoppers) and may fire any girl on the spot who offers sexual
services afterwards, do you have evidence as to the proportion
of clubs where this sort of activity goes on so you can fairly
say it is right and proper to bracket one type of entertainment
with another?
Ms Levêque: I would say
that that is beside the point because a sex encounter establishment
is not a venue where you can buy direct sex; it is not a licence
to sell sex, that would be a brothel and would be illegal. Claims
that our proposal would see lap dancers labelled as sex workers
are being put forward as a provocative tactic by opponents such
as the Lap Dancing Association. At no point have Object or the
Fawcett Society, our partners, ever suggested that this should
happen. As an argument it is fundamentally flawed because the
very definition, as I have just said of an SEE is not a licence
to sell sex. There is absolutely no reason why lap dancers would
be suddenly re-classified as sex workers and attempts to say that
that would happen are just a way of trying to focus the attention
back onto the women yet again and away from the customers and
the club owners that run the industry.
Q276 Paul Farrelly: Then do we not
come back to the argument of the police where the police find
it difficult; what proportion of nudity is acceptable? If there
is a topless scene at Drury Lane should that be included in the
licence?
Ms Levêque: The 1982 Act
includes the test of "to a significant degree". A licensing
authority would have to make a decision and it leaves it in the
hands of licensing authorities to decide to make that judgment
about "to a significant degree". They have to decide
(a) whether the entertainment offered is a sexual encounter; is
it live, visual entertainment for sexual stimulation; and (b)
is it to a significant degree. So is the venue putting on that
entertainment to such an extent that it should have to get the
licence is basically what would need to be asked. I think any
reasonable licensing authority would not allocate that licence
to situations which did not merit it. However, I would add that
the SEE licence has existed in London for over 20 years and we
have never seen cases of theatres being asked to get a sex encounter
establishment Licence for a play. I know that has been put forward
by the Lap Dancing Association as a reason not to go down this
route. It just misrepresents reality because that licence is in
existence at the moment. It is used for peep shows; it has never
been used for plays.
Q277 Mr Sanders: What about male
strippers and male performers? I do not just mean the glossy Chippendales;
we do read articles about fairly sleazy male performances. How
do you treat them? Do you treat them differently?
Ms Levêque: To come back
to the definition, it is very clear that a venue where live visual
entertainment for sexual stimulation is happening then they would
come under that category, but I would say it is a bit of a red
herring because the dynamics are very different and in terms of
numbers you are talking about a tiny, tiny minority of the industry.
Q278 Mr Sanders: Surely you have
to look after minorities. As a matter of equality surely you would
have to treat it exactly the same way.
Ms Levêque: Of course, yes.
That is why I am saying it would come back to the definition of
an SEE. If people wanted to have a say in the licensing of such
a venue then they would be entitled to their say, which is what
we are calling for with our proposal that lap dancing clubs should
have to get a premises licence and a sex encounter establishment
licence. If people have concerns about male lap dancing clubs
they can bring those concerns up.
Q279 Mr Sanders: So if it was not
in a permanent club environment but was ad hoc performances
in another venue, how would you tackle that?
Ms Levêque: It comes back
again to what I was saying earlier about "to a significant
degree". If a venue is putting on performances of that kind
on a regular basis then logically they would be required to get
a sex encounter establishment licence.
Q280 Mr Sanders: How would you define
"regular"? This is the difficulty.
Ms Levêque: Why would you
need to define it? It does not matter if it is male or female
performers that are performing the activity. In terms of a licensable
activity it is the nature of it that is the important fact; it
is not the gender of the person who is doing it.[8]
Chairman: We need to move onto our next
session. Can I thank both of you very much.
8 Note by witness: I believed Mr Sanders had
said "gender" not "regular". Back
| 
