New public consultation on prostitution laws

The_Thing · 05-07-2012 8:47pm

Delancey wrote: »

My guess is that the Ruhama agenda will predominate in this consultation and a valuable opportunity to reform our laws will be lost. As has been proved many times before this is a Nanny State and I see no reason why this will change.

All the more reason for people to make a submission of their own, if the government see that the majority of submissions from the public are in favour of legalising it they will have to take that on board.

I also believe Ruhama to have purposely used the spectre of an Amsterdam-like red-light district to frighten the policy makers. Most prosecutions in this country for brothel keeping have been the women themselves who for reasons of cost, companionship and security have been found working toghether.

Farcear · 05-07-2012 8:53pm

So...

Bearing in mind MagicSean's recent proposal on "law reform", how about we make a submission for this?

We may need a volunteer willing to disclose real name for the purposes of making the submission -- for obvious reasons this isn't a submission from Boards.ie

I would also propose that the submission be more "legal" than "political".

Exercise anyone else interested in?

Piliger · 05-07-2012 10:21pm

I disagree.

We should ALL make an individual submission. But here we should thrash out a good structure.

Starting with a basic layout structure that people can fill in according to their own views. It needs to include sections dealing with the kinds of prostitution .. the problems in each sector ... the affect on and views of society ... the role of coercion ... the role of choice ... the affect of criminalisation ... the arguments for legalisation ... the arguments for control and regulation ... the arguments for (legalisation or whatever variation of views you hold) in parallel with tough laws on unregulated prostitution ... etc etc...

Anyone want to work on this a bit ? we can then generate a skeleton structure for people to use.

GarIT · 05-07-2012 11:41pm

Piliger wrote: »

Anyone want to work on this a bit ? we can then generate a skeleton structure for people to use.

I will if I get the time.

iptba · 06-07-2012 12:08am

Vadakin wrote: »

Those who choose to become sex workers would have a safe working environment and could work if and when they choose to. Frankly I'm surprised that some feminist groups are against it. A legalised and regulated sex industry would empower women when previously they had little to no power.

I have heard that some feminists are against criminalising it, I think for the reasons you give. But plenty of feminists are in the "turn off the red light" camp.

iptba · 06-07-2012 12:11am

The_Thing wrote: »

Link here for submission guidelines.

Thanks.
I thought I'd copy it across to highlight it more:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/mediazone/pressreleases/name-8688-en.html

Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality invites contributions to Review of Legislation on Prostitution

The Joint Oireachtas Committee Justice, Defence and Equality is inviting written submissions from interested groups or individuals in relation to a review of legislation on prostitution.

Committee Chairman David Stanton TD says: “The Minister for Justice and Equality Alan Shatter TD has referred a discussion document on the future direction of prostitution legislation to our Committee. The Committee now welcomes submissions from interested organisations and citizens in order to feed into the legislative process.

“The Sexual Offences Act 1993 undoubtedly needs to be updated to take account of an ever more globalised and connected world. Any future legislation will need to reflect enhancements to communications technology, including internet and mobile devices, as well as increased mobility across borders.”

View more details on making a submission http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/justice/notice-for-web.pdf

The closing date for receipt of submissions is Friday 11th August 2012 at 5 p.m. The Committee will consider these written submissions and may decide to invite a number of contributors to public hearings should it feel that this is necessary.

Ends
For further information please contact:
Paul Hand,
Houses of the Oireachtas,
Communications Unit,
Leinster House,
Dublin 2

P: +3531 618 4484
M: +353 87 694 9926
F: +3531 618 4551
paul.hand@oireachtas.ie

Deputies:

Dara Calleary, Michael Creed, Alan Farrell, Anne Ferris (Vice-Chairman), john Paul Phelan, Seán Kenny, Finian McGrath, Jonathan O’Brien and David Stanton (Chairman)

Senators:

Ivana Bacik, Paul Bradford, Martin Conway, Rónán Mullen, Denis O’Donovan, Katherine Zappone.

iptba · 06-07-2012 12:15am

Farcear wrote: »

So...

Bearing in mind MagicSean's recent proposal on "law reform", how about we make a submission for this?

We may need a volunteer willing to disclose real name for the purposes of making the submission -- for obvious reasons this isn't a submission from Boards.ie

I would also propose that the submission be more "legal" than "political".

Exercise anyone else interested in?

If anyone can do a submission that's more "legal" than "political", that could be useful. I'm afraid I've no expertise in that area (I originally posted it in the Gentleman's club and they moved it over here).

Delancey · 06-07-2012 12:48am

Would I be correct in saying that under FOI laws any and all submissions are available to the public on request ?

Farcear · 06-07-2012 1:21am

Scanned / .pdf copes of all submissions are sometimes published on the department website as a matter of course in these consultation exercises.

Sala · 06-07-2012 9:52am

There is no evidence that legalising prostitution makes it a safer business for the women involved. Germany and the Netherlands have reported increases in human trafficking as a result of legalisation. In the Netherlands legalisation led to a massive increase in the number of children being trafficked in to sexual slavery. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that legalisation causes a huge growth in the illegal sex trade - it is estimated in parts of Australia as low as 10% of prostitutes are actually working in legal regulated brothels.

The arguments that legalisation of prostitution protects women, and that people should be able to engage in prostitution as a commercial transaction between two consenting adults, only work in theory. The reality is that legalisation can lead to more even social problems and exploitation than before, and unless there is compelling evidence that there is a model of regulation that greatly diminishes criminal activity and protects vulnerable people, than I am not in favour of legalisation.

The_Thing · 06-07-2012 11:00pm

The prostitutes in Sweden say it has gotten more dangerous since the ban was introduced there. The Canadian supreme court overturned their country's ban for that very reason. It's illegal in the United States, apart from parts of Nevada, yet criminalising it has been no more succesful than that country's war on the drug trade.

GarIT · 06-07-2012 11:27pm

Sala wrote: »

There is no evidence that legalising prostitution makes it a safer business for the women involved. Germany and the Netherlands have reported increases in human trafficking as a result of legalisation. In the Netherlands legalisation led to a massive increase in the number of children being trafficked in to sexual slavery. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that legalisation causes a huge growth in the illegal sex trade - it is estimated in parts of Australia as low as 10% of prostitutes are actually working in legal regulated brothels.

The arguments that legalisation of prostitution protects women, and that people should be able to engage in prostitution as a commercial transaction between two consenting adults, only work in theory. The reality is that legalisation can lead to more even social problems and exploitation than before, and unless there is compelling evidence that there is a model of regulation that greatly diminishes criminal activity and protects vulnerable people, than I am not in favour of legalisation.

Its illogical to ban one thing because of another unrelated thing. Legal prostitustion and child sex trafficing aren't related. Thats like making driving illegal because drugs impair your ability to drive.

Legalisation will not in any way lead to a safer environment but regulation will. You can make sex laws similar to alcohol. Its could be illegal to buy in public and only available in a licenced premises. Those licenced premises could loose their licence for breaking regulations, workers would have to have health checks and brothels could be forced to have security. There are lots of things that can be done.

There are laws regarding human trafficing and that is a seperate issue. Another persons illegal actions should not influence someones right to do something which does not cause harm.

Im some ways it could be argued that prostitution being illegal harms women, it takes away their right to earn a legitimit living. There can be many regulations to put in place to ensure that it causes no harm. But it is wrong to be against one thing because of something else that is happening.

Not everything that is Legal reduces criminal activity. Me being allowed to drive does not reduce criminal activity, because criminal activity is irrelevant. Its the same with prostitution, it doesnt matter about the illegal things that go on, it is only right that everyone has the right to be a prostitute if they wish, criminal activity can be policed seperately.

Do you have evidence to back up your claims, and do you also have evidence that shows that high sex trafficing rates are related to prostitution. High rates of child trafficing could be nothing to do with prostitution, there could be a huge number of padeophiles in the country that causes it, there is no proof that there is a relation.

Every person should have a right to choose whichever career they wish as long as it does not cause harm to others.

Our man in Havana · 06-07-2012 11:30pm

Delancey wrote: »

Would I be correct in saying that under FOI laws any and all submissions are available to the public on request ?

Yes. The submissions are also likely to be published also.

iptba · 06-07-2012 11:33pm

Can anyone give links to the publication of any previous consultations. I'm to see whether addresses are published (for example).
----
Also, could one get in any trouble for using a pseudonym?
Also, anyone have any thoughts on whether, if one used a pseudonym and said this (i.e. "X [not real name]"), a submission might still be considered?

iptba · 06-07-2012 11:43pm

GarIT wrote: »

Do you have evidence to back up your claims, and do you also have evidence that shows that high sex trafficing rates are related to prostitution.

It would be interesting to see whether every or nearly every foreign (i.e. migrant) sex worker was counted as a trafficked person. That sort of claim seems to have happened in Ireland i.e. there was a claim that something like 95% (?) of sex workers in Ireland were trafficked: I imagine what the percentage relates to is foreign-born/similar individuals. If a job gets a much better wage in another country, people can choose to move to that country, it doesn't necessarily mean they were trafficked.

The_Thing · 07-07-2012 12:17am

iptba wrote: »

It would be interesting to see whether every or nearly every foreign (i.e. migrant) sex worker was counted as a trafficked person. That sort of claim seems to have happened in Ireland i.e. there was a claim that something like 95% (?) of sex workers in Ireland were trafficked: I imagine what the percentage relates to is foreign-born/similar individuals. If a job gets a much better wage in another country, people can choose to move to that country, it doesn't necessarily mean they were trafficked.

A few years ago the Gardai initially thought that a certain group of women were trafficked, when they investigated thay found that they were in fact Scottish university students who were coming to Ireland to get paid for doing what they otherwise might be doing for nothing back in Scotland. You can't trust the ngo's for accurate figures because it is in their own financial interests to inflate them, more trafficking victims, more funding. And besides funding there is also the religious aspect on sexuality to consider.

Farcear · 07-07-2012 12:28am

iptba wrote: »

Can anyone give links to the publication of any previous consultations. I'm to see whether addresses are published (for example).
----
Also, could one get in any trouble for using a pseudonym?
Also, anyone have any thoughts on whether, if one used a pseudonym and said this (i.e. "X [not real name]"), a submission might still be considered?

http://per.gov.ie/regulation-of-lobbyists/

iptba · 07-07-2012 1:48am

Farcear wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Can anyone give links to the publication of any previous consultations. I'm to see whether addresses are published (for example).
----
Also, could one get in any trouble for using a pseudonym?
Also, anyone have any thoughts on whether, if one used a pseudonym and said this (i.e. "X [not real name]"), a submission might still be considered?

http://per.gov.ie/regulation-of-lobbyists/

Thanks.

If you were posting it as an example of a public consultation, unfortunately for this one there didn't seem to be any private individuals writing from a home address, rather companies and those with a professional connection in some way (using their work address).

---
I was thinking, if they didn't allow some degree of anonymity, it might put off sex workers. Also, if purchasing sex is still legal, then if they want to get those people's views, again anonymity would be important.

GarIT · 07-07-2012 2:55am

The_Thing wrote: »

there is also the religious aspect on sexuality to consider.

No, just no, end of.

Nobody should have their rights infringed on by a religion they are not a part of even if the religion is in the majority.

If it is against a persons religion to do something they can no do it themselves without being told to by the law as they have their own religious laws to follow, you cannot force a religion on somebody that does not follow it. If it is someones religious belief that something is wrong it is up to them to follow their religion not for the state to make them follow their religion. If religion was going to make decisions sex before marriage woule be illegal too. It is the goal of the Irish government to remove all religion from Irish law.

The_Thing · 08-07-2012 6:49pm

Would it be even legally possible under our current constitution to criminalise the buyer, but not the seller?

It is not illegal to either buy or sell, yet the ngo's say they want to decriminalise the sellers and criminalise the purchasers. How can you decriminalise something that is already legal?

And their talk of closing a loop-hole in the law ( it being not illegal to either buy or sell ) - is that actually a loop-hole?

Or is this yet another example of them being economical with the truth to suit their own agenda?

08-07-2012 7:11pm

The_Thing wrote: »

Would it be even legally possible under our current constitution to criminalise the buyer, but not the seller?

Why don't you tell us what you think about this?

The_Thing · 08-07-2012 8:04pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Why don't you tell us what you think about this?

No, I don't think it's possible. I tried to think of other examples where only one side is criminalised and the closest I could come to that was where someone unknowingly bought stolen goods. But a person can't unknowingly sell their sexual services to someone.

I think I read somewhere in the papers a few months back that it wouldn't be possible because both parties must be treated equally under the law - is that correct?

08-07-2012 9:03pm

The_Thing wrote: »

No, I don't think it's possible. I tried to think of other examples where only one side is criminalised and the closest I could come to that was where someone unknowingly bought stolen goods. But a person can't unknowingly sell their sexual services to someone.

I think I read somewhere in the papers a few months back that it wouldn't be possible because both parties must be treated equally under the law - is that correct?

Gender discrimination is acceptable and justifiable in certain circumstances such as in the case of M.D. (A Minor) -v- Ireland [2012] IESC 10

Edit: I should note that this judgment has been criticised by many observers but the point remains. Also the essential ratio, that being that women face a higher degree of risk when engaging in sexual intercourse, would apply here also by analogy albeit somewhat tenuously.

Dandelion6 · 12-07-2012 7:54am

Sala wrote: »

Germany and the Netherlands have reported increases in human trafficking as a result of legalisation.

Not true for Germany (link).

Questionable also for the Netherlands (link).

Dandelion6 · 12-07-2012 8:23am

GarIT wrote: »

High rates of child trafficing could be nothing to do with prostitution

Well it doesn't seem logical that legalising adult prostitution would lead to increased child trafficking, where child prostitution remains illegal. I'd like to see Sala's source for this claim too.

Dandelion6 · 12-07-2012 8:31am

Deleted User wrote: »

Also the essential ratio, that being that women face a higher degree of risk when engaging in sexual intercourse, would apply here also by analogy albeit somewhat tenuously.

But not all people selling sex are women. Nor are all (albeit most) buyers men.

12-07-2012 11:22am

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Also the essential ratio, that being that women face a higher degree of risk when engaging in sexual intercourse, would apply here also by analogy albeit somewhat tenuously.

But not all people selling sex are women. Nor are all (albeit most) buyers men.

Completely accept that point however the direct question I was answering was about the legality of discriminating between the sexes. Obviously this law will disproportionately criminalize male behavior.

Dandelion6 · 12-07-2012 7:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Completely accept that point however the direct question I was answering was about the legality of discriminating between the sexes.

I don't see where the person you replied to mentioned discriminating between the sexes. What they said was that the law would discriminate between the two parties to the transaction, i.e. buyer and seller. It would do so irrespective of the parties' sexes and so in certain cases MD would not be applicable (if indeed it ever would be).

iptba · 07-08-2012 1:20am

iptba wrote: »

Thanks.
I thought I'd copy it across to highlight it more:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/mediazone/pressreleases/name-8688-en.html

Just a reminder about this

The closing date for receipt of submissions is Friday 11th August 2012 at 5 p.m. The Committee will consider these written submissions and may decide to invite a number of contributors to public hearings should it feel that this is necessary.

i.e. end of this week. I'm not sure if many except those pushing for Swedish model (criminalise punters, but not sex workers) will write, so even a short piece could prompt discussion.

Sala · 07-08-2012 12:11pm

http://andreaskotsadam.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/trafficking.pdf

I was looking at the above which uses data to conclude that the statistics clearly show that countries with harsher prostitution laws are less subjected to trafficking.

http://www2.vwl.wiso.uni-goettingen.de/courant-papers/CRC-PEG_DP_96.pdf

Which looks at Germany where the number of victims of trafficking gradually declined between 1996/97, the first years of data collection, and 2001 but number increased upon fully legalizing prostitution in 2002 suggesting the legalisation of prostitution leads to an increase in
inward trafficking.

Child prostitution has risen dramatically in Victoria, Australia compared to other Australian states where prostitution has not been legalised. You may choose to believe that there is no correlation between a legalised sex industry and trafficking of people and exploitation of children but there are reports to the contrary and I think it would be very dangerous to legalise prostitution only to find it has caused more problems than it has solved.

The_Thing · 07-08-2012 6:46pm

iptba wrote: »

Just a reminder about this
i.e. end of this week. I'm not sure if many except those pushing for Swedish model (criminalise punters, but not sex workers) will write, so even a short piece could prompt discussion.

The deadline was extended -

The closing date for receipt of submissions has been extended to Friday 31st August 2012 at 5 p.m. The Committee will consider these written submissions and may decide to invite a number of contributors to public hearings should it feel that this is necessary.

Dandelion6 · 07-08-2012 8:15pm

Sala wrote: »

I was looking at the above which uses data to conclude that the statistics clearly show that countries with harsher prostitution laws are less subjected to trafficking.

The problem is that different countries have different definitions of trafficking, different reporting criteria, different data collection methods and devote different levels of resources to finding trafficking. So figures from one country cannot be reliably compared to figures from another.

Which looks at Germany where the number of victims of trafficking gradually declined between 1996/97, the first years of data collection, and 2001 but number increased upon fully legalizing prostitution in 2002 suggesting the legalisation of prostitution leads to an increase in
inward trafficking.

Here again is a link to the official German figures. Yes there was an immediate increase after 2002, but the numbers swiftly dropped and since 2005 have been lower than before legalisation.

Child prostitution has risen dramatically in Victoria, Australia compared to other Australian states where prostitution has not been legalised.

Cite?

iptba · 25-08-2012 7:44pm

In case anyone had any doubts about the approach of some women's, feminist and other NGOs:

http://www.turnofftheredlight.ie/2012/08/press-statement-56-organisations-submit-case-to-outlaw-payments-for-sex/

Press Statement: 56 organisations submit case to outlaw payments for sex

[..]

The Turn Off the Red Light Submission recommends that:

The Government act by amending the 1993 Sexual Offences act to criminalise the purchase of sex whilst at the same time decriminalising those who sell sexual acts.

The_Thing · 25-08-2012 11:28pm

TORL are lying when they say they have the support of the unions. I am a member of SIPTU and at no time were we asked to vote on this.

The deadline for submissions is the 31st of this month.

johnnyskeleton · 26-08-2012 1:15am

The_Thing wrote: »

TORL are lying when they say they have the support of the unions. I am a member of SIPTU and at no time were we asked to vote on this.

The deadline for submissions is the 31st of this month.

The guild of seamstresses maybe?

iptba · 26-08-2012 1:52am

The_Thing wrote: »

TORL are lying when they say they have the support of the unions. I am a member of SIPTU and at no time were we asked to vote on this.

The deadline for submissions is the 31st of this month.

I just checked and SIPTU are listed as one of those who are part of the Turn off the Red Light, and so people would presume, one of the 56 organisations supporting the submission.

Other unions are: Communication Workers’ Union, Impact Trade Union, Irish Medical Organisation, Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, Public Service Executive Union committee.

---
I see also the Labour Party are listed.

The_Thing · 26-08-2012 1:45pm

iptba wrote: »

I just checked and SIPTU are listed as one of those who are part of the Turn off the Red Light, and so people would presume, one of the 56 organisations supporting the submission.....

Unless the members of a union have been balloted and the outcome of voting was in TORL's favour then they cannot rightfully claim that they have that union's support.

iptba · 27-08-2012 7:53pm

I have just finished reading "Discussion Document on Future Direction of Prostitution Legislation". I found it reasonably balanced. I don't know the literature so perhaps important points have been missed. It also mentioned the different systems around the world which I found interesting enough.

I think I'll make a submission.

The document says:

The Swedish Approach

In 1999, Sweden changed its prostitution laws to punish only purchasers or consumers and not sellers of sex, an approach that has been followed by Norway and Iceland. This legislative approach is intended to address the demand side of prostitution. The purpose of the law was to eliminate street

prostitution and prevent new sex workers from entering prostitution. The Swedish legislation was part of a general initiative to end all barriers to the equality of women in Sweden. The law was based on the conviction that prostitution is, by definition, violence against women, and that no woman voluntarily decides to become a prostitute.9 In other words, the premise is that prostitution is a human-rights violation similar to slavery and so consent is irrelevant. And prostitution and trafficking in human beings for sexual purposes are viewed as issues that cannot and should not be eparated. Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin were influential in putting the issue in these terms on the public agenda.10 On this view, persons selling sex should be treated as victims of crime and should never be criminalised themselves. Society must therefore provide options for those engaged in sex work by introducing social and economic reforms and programmes making it easier for them to exit the trade and reintegrate into society.

I recall some feminists saying some odd things about sex and marriage e.g. that all penetrative sex is rape? All marriage is a form of sexual exploitation/instrument of patriarchy? Can anyone recall any details of such points of view/quotes?

BTW, one doesn't need to read the document to make a submission.

The_Thing · 27-08-2012 8:41pm

If these articles are anything to go by then the Swedish model doesn't seem to have been much of a success. Swedish prostitutes pay taxes and are able to avail of welfare, but their clients are considered criminals.

iptba · 28-08-2012 2:14am

Don't know if this is too late for everyone but I just came across the following (apologies about formatting):

https://www.facebook.com/turnoffthebluelight/posts/483700881648326

Get involved with the government consultation on sex work!

Ruhama, the Immigrant Council of Ireland and other NGO’s wish the government to criminalise the clients of sex workers which is an outrageous abuse of people’s rights. They claim that it will reduce crime which is untrue.

The government has published a consultation on sex work which can be obtained at the following link:

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB12000187

This is a balanced document which is different than the biased information that Ruhama and their friends produce. It is meant for the public to read and
help them form an opinion. Using these opinions the government will decide what legislation to draft.

It is important that users of this site have a look or a read of this consultation. As many as possible should then make a submission which can done using the following link:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/mediazone/pressreleases/name-8688-en.html

The link points us to the email address for making a submission which is:

justiceanddefence@oir.ie

After submissions are made there will be a conference on sex work sometime in the Autumn according to announcements. The more than can attend this conference the better.

A summary of instructions is here:

“The Committee will consider these written submissions and may decide to invite a number of contributors to public hearings should it feel that this is necessary.

Please note that recording of all submissions/communications will be undertaken by the Clerk to the Committee and the Secretariat and therefore submissions should not be sent to individual members of the Committee.

If you wish to make a written submission, please do so, preferably by electronic means to the Clerk to the Committee at: justiceanddefence@oir.ie

As a general guideline, submissions should consist of a separate document accompanied by a covering letter. Submissions should be presented as concisely as possible. The covering letter should contain your name and contact details (phone number and postal address and, if available, an email address).

If the submission is on behalf of an organisation, you should indicate your position in the organisation. You should also indicate if you would be prepared to appear in public session at any Committee meeting.

The main document should contain the following information:

(i) A brief introduction, for example, explaining your area of expertise;

(ii) Any factual information that you have to offer from which the committee might be able to draw conclusions, or which could be put to other parties for their reactions;

(iii) Any recommendations to the Committee which should be as specific as possible and should be summarised at the end of the document; and

(iv) An executive summary of the main points made in the submission, if your document is more than 10 pages long.

As already indicated, submissions should, where possible, be made by electronic means and it is not necessary to also forward a hard copy of your submission.

Making a submission is a public process

The Committee is not obliged to accept your document once it has been submitted, nor is it obliged to publish any or all of the submission if it has been accepted. However, the operations of a parliament are a public process, and you should be aware that any submissions made to a Committee may be published either as part of a Committee report, or separately, if the Committee decides to do so.”

Also you can email anonymously or not anonymously. Even if you decide not to submit anonymously your details will not be disclosed upon request. See the following response from the committee:

“All submissions, when made, become Parliamentary papers and the property of the Committee. This means that the Committee may decide to publish these and the information contained will be public. However, due to the topic being examined the Committee has agreed that where requested, any information likely to identify the sender would be omitted/redacted.

If you intend to make a written submission, I suggest that you should break it into two parts:

(i) a cover letter providing your contact details (this will only be used by the secretariat to communicate with you in relation to your submission), and

(ii) the content of your submission. This does not need to be a long document and need only contain any comments you may have regarding any revision(s) to the laws relating to prostitution. However, it should be clearly linked to the cover letter, for example, you could use an obvious reference number on the letter which is also on the submission heading.
(If I am complicating things, give me a call)

Submissions should be sent to the e-mail address justiceanddefence@oir.ie - clearly indicating in the subject field "submission on the review of Laws relating to Prostitution". The cover letter should be addressed to:

Alan Guidon
Clerk to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality
Leinster House,
Dublin 2.

My two colleagues are Mr Pat Neary (618 3153) and Ms Barbara
Hughes (618 3918). Pat and Barbara are fully aware that the submissions on this topic may contain sensitive information and the personal details will be handled appropriately.

If you require any further assistance please do not
hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards

Alan”

I received further clarification from the submission staff regarding anonymity. If you wish to give your true details (for bone fide reasons maybe) just put them on a separate document for the sole purpose of communication with the secretariat as was explained in The Traveller's post above. However you can use your TRUE email if you want for either document and it will not be revealed to the public if requested. So if you want you don't have to use mickeymouse@hollywood.com!

The deadline for submitting is Friday 31st
August!!

Please take a stand against Ruhama and other dictatorial
NGO’s. As many escorts as possible need to show that they have a right to
operate and do not need NGO’s to describe them as victims. Others including
ex-sex workers and clients need to make their views known as
well.

Treora · 28-08-2012 11:18pm

Mods - is there are case for sending in the thread as a submission? It would should both sides and thejournal.ie poll awhile back could be used as the constitutency for the thread.

iptba · 28-08-2012 11:20pm

Treora wrote: »

Mods - is there are case for sending in the thread as a submission? It would should both sides and thejournal.ie poll awhile back could be used as the constitutency for the thread.

If the mods never reply, any individual could do this I suppose.

iptba · 29-08-2012 9:23pm

I've just finished a draft submission. Would anybody be willing to have a look over it and get back to me with any comments/suggestions including on typos (you don't have to be thorough if you don't want to be)? It's 2586 words so shouldn't take too long to read. Thanks.

It just concentrates about complaining about the Swedish model. It is not written from a legal or constitutional perspective except that it quotes Article 40.1:

"All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law"

and talks about how some people want lighter sentences for women (e.g. Baroness Corston and the all-women meeting of Oireachtas members is mentioned). Quite a lot of it is about complaining that the approach is unfair to men. If you think you'd disagree with this approach [of mine], probably no need to look. One other person elsewhere has volunteered but they're doing their own submission so not sure if they will get to look at mine.

I don't want to take anybody away from doing a submission themselves. But I imagine not everyone will, even if one can do it anonymously.

iptba · 31-08-2012 3:10pm

Ok, sent mine in. I had only got one person who offered to look at it [my draft] but they didn't get to read it in the end because a deadline came up.

E-mail address is: justiceanddefence@oir.ie . Even a few lines would add more voices to the debate.
Best to explicitly say you want to be anonymous if that's what you want.

ETA: If there is any place to post submissions, I'd like to know about it so I could post my submission. As I recall, they don't have to post all submissons/make them all public; I've a feeling they might not make mine public. Also, it'd be good to have arguments out there soon so they can be discussed and perhaps others may use e.g. in oral testimony, some of the points made in written testimony.

charlemont · 31-08-2012 3:39pm

Typical nanny state pandering, There was a hooker living near me few years back and she and her crew were by no means "victims" or "trafficked". She was making serious paper and was fairly blatant about her work. I don't see why a woman like that can't be a prostitute legally.

The Turn Off the Red Light Campaign has garnered the support of over 57 organisations, including trade unions, human rights and victim organisations, frontline emergency workers and it has also got over 44,000 followers on twitter.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/deadline-for-oireachtas-prostitution-law-suggestions-today-565085.html

I wonder how many of those organisations actually balloted their members on this ? That claim about organisation support is a proper throwback to the Catholic era.

Piliger · 07-09-2012 3:57pm

WHat form was the receipt ? an email ? letter ?

Piliger · 07-09-2012 4:12pm

This is the texts of my submission - for anyone who may be interested:

A brief introduction:

I am a man of 50 years. I was married for 25 years and have children. I am now divorced. I have never involved myself in any form of ‘sex for either money or any other form of inducement’. And I have absolutely no wish to do so.

I deeply object to the way this legislation has been developed, and moved to an advanced stage without a broad debate among our people. The very manner in which submissions to this process has been handled and restricted has been bureaucratic, convoluted, semi secret and highly restricted to a tiny number of people who happen to learn of it’s existence and have the technical knowledge to do so. Information on how to make submissions is hidden in the depths of the Gov web site and almost no one knows about the process or the ability to make submission or indeed make anonymous submissions.

As a result the whole process is already being unjustly dominated and biased by the well funded pressure groups with their own special political and moral agenda, rather than the views of ordinary Irish people. This is not the way to go about Governing our country. Governing should be about the informed consent of the citizens and not about the amount of pressure and money that special interest groups can bring to bear on time starved members of parliament,.

1) Factual information:

The Primary Duty of the State in Ireland:
“the Government is generally responsible for seeing that law and order are maintained; that the needs of the public are addressed as far as is practicable; and that any dangers threatening the interests of the public are averted.

It is also generally accepted by the Irish People that another Primary Role of our State is to protect those citizens who are not capable for protecting themselves and of regulating our behaviour when that behaviour impinges on the rights and responsibilities of other people.

Over the last 50 years our Irish State has followed, in it’s role, the transition of our own people from looking for, and blindly accepting, direct guidance from religious or other moral organisations that previously dictated our personal behaviour and in particular our private behaviour between consenting adults. This can be illustrated by considering the changes in how the State has stepped back from censorship, the regulation of individual lives as regards sexual behaviour, contraception, divorce, homosexuality and other variations on the human sexuality and relationship theme.

It has become broadly accepted by the Irish people that what consenting and informed adults (those capable of giving that consent and of becoming informed) do in the privacy of their own homes and bedrooms is their own moral business and not the business of the State as long as it does not impinge on the rights of other people.

2) Recommendations to the Committee:

Consider:

When the State considers whether or not to regulate adult behaviour by one group of citizens, it should be considering whether that behaviour restricts the rights of other citizens or damages other citizens in our society in a way that is out of proportion to the rights of that group.

We are faced today with a horrible international crime. The trafficking of men and women against their will, and the forced involvement of them, mainly women, in sexual activity and in other forms of coerced behaviour.

It is not necessary to examine the morality of the specific sexual or other activity that is being coerced on these people in order to conclude that this is a criminal act and must be prosecuted with the full vigour of the State.

We are also faced with an age old crime that is organic to our own society and is not brought in from abroad. The intimidation and physical abuse of women in the course of coercing them to deliver sexual acts on other persons who pay for those acts, the vast majority of the payments being collected by the intimidators and abusers.

Again - it is not necessary to examine the morality of the specific sexual or other activity that it being forced on these people in order to conclude that this is a criminal act and must be prosecuted with the full vigour of the State.

My message to the Committee in this regard is – that there is no need for the Government to involve itself in the morality of interpersonal sexual behaviour where there is manifest evidence that individuals are being forced to act against their will, whether those actions are sexual, work, trafficking, drug dealing etc.

The exchange of sex for money:

As stated above, when this exchange is a forced act – against the will of the individual – the State has a clear and present duty to bring it’s power to bear against those who do the forcing, the coercion, the trafficking, the brutality, the intimidation.

However the nature of our human existence is that some people make informed and voluntary decisions to act in a way that some others feel is not in conformity with their own personal morality. The fact is that some people chose to engage in acts of their choice, in the privacy of their own living space, with other adults. That behaviour is no business of the State.

When the State puts structures in place to regulate against and prosecute the forcible involvement of men and women in actions they do not wish to involve themselves in – the State also has a responsibility to put in place an option where Irish Citizens and Residents can make their own choices what they want to do with their own lives, in private, and not influencing other people.

The truth of the matter is that there are women, and men, in this country and elsewhere who make personal and informed choices to share their sexuality, their bodies, with others in exchange for differing kinds of rewards, and sometimes they are financial rewards. They do it for a multitude of personal reasons, including that of taking power over their own bodies; their own lives.

This is clearly and self evidently a private choice. A person’s body is their own to do with what they will. If a person does not have that right, a right to chose our own personal behaviour, to exercise power over their own bodies, then what rights of any value do we have ? It is surely NOT the role of the State to wag it’s finger and say that is a choice we do not agree with or approve of.

It may seem frivolous – and attract the ire of some pressure groups – but the truth of the matter is that in our society, there are and always have been women, and men, who on a nightly and weekly basis exchange sex for entertainment, dinner, drinks, work advancement and other forms of gain. It is part of the long history of our human existence, nice or not nice at it may well be.

The ultimate question is not one of ‘sex for money’ but of consent, and ability to consent.

Clearly where is evidence that that consent is being removed by pressure, coercion, force, intimidated, blackmail - then the State has a DUTY to intervene and protect that person.

But in the absence of any evidence of such coercion – then the State has no duty, no RIGHT to become involved.

This is not a Moral judgement by the State. The State is not a moral arbiter when it comes to personal and private adult behaviour.

Blanket Legislation:

It is wrong and misguided and odious for the State to legislate, in an indiscriminate manner and across the board, that ‘payment for sex’ be prosecuted as illegal.

It is wrong and misguided for the State to criminalise individual private adult behaviour and as some have suggested, not just to criminalise it but to selectively criminalise only one party to criminalise ! On what basis of Governance or morality can that argument possibly be supported ?

It is also a naïve and misguided ‘dream’ that yet another prohibitive piece of legislation will ever reduce or do away with the ‘sex for money’ community – prostitution – whether forced or not. Prostitution in one form or another has been with us for millennia and will not go away because a powerful moral lobby want it stamped out under the jackboot of the State.

It is a complete and proven myth that women (or men) would never willingly offer sex for money. It is a complete and proven myth that women (or men) would never willingly get involved in the sex industry across the board.

It is evident from any mature examination of the sex industry across the world that there are people across the world who make those choices freely and willingly and, in many many cases, enthusiastically.

This is no way diminishes or dismisses the absolute FACT that there is a large coercive element in parts of the sex industry. But that is no justification for the condemnation of one group of citizens because the misbehaviour of others.

Conclusion:

I believe the Government should:

• Strengthen and extend all actions and legislation to prosecute and eradicate all coercion of women or men in ANY acts, including sexual acts, that are against their will. (Sexual, Labour, drug dealing and trafficking etc) 
• Support organisations that offer financial and other support to both men and women who find themselves in a predicament where they feel deprived of a choice whether to offer sexual services in exchange for financial inducement. 
• Establish a Dail Committee which, in the course of the next five years, will put forward a legal structure where Irish women, and men, who freely chose to adopt a lifestyle whereby they engage in the exchange of their sexual services for financial inducement to do so within the Law, the Tax statutes, the Health and Safety regulations and under the protection and regulation of the State. 
• Reinforce and strengthen the policing of the street prostitution that blights the neighbourhoods that are seriously impinging on the rights of ordinary women to go about their lives without being kerb crawled and insulted.

Such legislation will be a clear and manifest execution of the core Duty of the State to protect it’s citizens while protecting the vulnerable and underpinning the freedom of it’s people to their own choice of private lives.

Any rabid fear that there will be a deluge of women seeking such a structure would certainly be informative, but easily regulated and similar rabid fears of being swamped by foreign sex workers can also easily be regulated and limited.

Ireland has developed, in the last 50 years, as a model of modern society; a model of human rights; a model of equality and justice and fairness.

Ireland must have the confidence to follow it’s own path in choosing how to deal with the issues of trafficking, prostitution and coercion in the sex industry. It should and must not feel that it is duty bound to follow the actions of other states, especially those who excessively legislate against the private behaviour of consenting adults.

One only has to look at some European States, new to the EU, where the State has abdicated all responsibility to protect the innocent and vulnerable in the prostitution and sex industry – and where a legitimate sex industry built on consent has been used as a screen by international criminals to carry out their trafficking and abuse of women from all over the world. This is a cowardly abdication of the State’s responsibility hiding behind a pretence of liberalism.

iptba · 07-09-2012 6:16pm

Piliger wrote: »

WHat form was the receipt ? an email ? letter ?

e-mail. Here is what I got:

Dear Sir

Our Ref: <deleted>

I wish to acknowledge receipt of your submission in
relation to the review of legislation on prostitution.

The contents of this submission will be brought to
the attention of the Committee.

Please note that while the content of your submission
may be made public, none of your contact details will be made public.

If you have any queries in relation to this matter,
please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Barbara Hughes
Joint Committee
on Justice, Defence and Equality
Committee Secretariat
Kildare
House
Kildare Street
Dublin 2

Piliger · 07-09-2012 7:12pm

tks iptba - I just emailed again asking for acknowledgment. Fingers crossed.

iptba · 26-09-2012 5:35pm

The_Thing wrote: »

TORL are lying when they say they have the support of the unions. I am a member of SIPTU and at no time were we asked to vote on this.

Some people might be interested in this critique of the ICTU submission: The Irish trade union movement throws sex workers under a bus
https://feministire.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-irish-trade-union-movement-throws-sex-workers-under-a-bus-2/

New public consultation on prostitution laws

Comments