Exclusion of Sex Workers from Justice Committee

sexworkie

The Justice Committee is currently carrying out a review of prostitution legislation. They have heard from 15 anti-prostitution organisations already, including 2 Magdalene nuns, but they are only hearing from 1 sex worker.

This has been reported in the Sindo today
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/escort-web-firm-hits-out-at-rte-sex-work-expose-29076081.html

It is grossly unfair that the people who sell sex are being excluded like this from a consultation which is about their lives, and may lead to new laws brought in that further criminalise prostitution, drive it more underground and make selling sex more dangerous.

What do you think? Why will the Government not hear from the only people who can truly tell them what prostitution in Ireland is like?

P_1

Tough one to call actually.

You could compare it to the Government trying to legalise drugs, should they meet with the drug dealers in this case?

Seachmall

P_1 wrote: »

Tough one to call actually.

You could compare it to the Government trying to legalise drugs, should they meet with the drug dealers in this case?

Prostitution is legal so the drug dealer in your example would be Diageo.

And yes, they should talk with Diageo when discussing alcohol legislation.

sexworkie

P_1 wrote: »

Tough one to call actually.

You could compare it to the Government trying to legalise drugs, should they meet with the drug dealers in this case?

But in this case the government is largely being told by anti-prostitution organisations that all those who sell sex are victims who don't do so willingly.

Czarcasm

OP you hardly expect the government to be seen to be encouraging prostitution do you?

Strawberry Fields

Yes looks like they are just going through the motions of a consultation to arrive at the conclusion they want anyway.
This country is still very catholic I'm surprised people don't realise that more.

sexworkie

The old slogan "Nothing About Us Without Us!", which is often used to communicate the idea that no policy should be decided by any representative without the full and direct participation of members the group(s) affected by that policy, applies here I think.

Government is hearing from all these people telling them about sex work, but won't listen to actual sex workers, bar token gesture of they'll let 1 speak it seems. The hearing the 1 sex worker speaks at will probably also be private and not transcribed, thus off the record and easily ignored.

IceFjoem

Prostitutes aren't exactly an authority on social policy making. Other than "I have sex for money" I can't imagine they'd have a highly valuable input tbf.

sexworkie

Czarcasm wrote: »

OP you hardly expect the government to be seen to be encouraging prostitution do you?

I don't think allowing sex workers to talk about their lives, instead of only allowing others to talk about their lives, is encouraging prostitution, it's getting to the truth about a matter.

Seachmall

IceFjoem wrote: »

Prostitutes aren't exactly an authority on social policy making. Other than "I have sex for money" I can't imagine they'd have a highly valuable input tbf.

But prostitutes are an authority on prostitution.

Best username ever

IceFjoem wrote: »

Prostitutes aren't exactly an authority on social policy making. Other than "I have sex for money" I can't imagine they'd have a highly valuable input tbf.

What has sinking the banana got to do with it?

sexworkie

IceFjoem wrote: »

Prostitutes aren't exactly an authority on social policy making. Other than "I have sex for money" I can't imagine they'd have a highly valuable input tbf.

I'd strongly disagree. But if they are always ignored and denied a voice nobody will ever know.

Sin City

They could.legalize it and tax the sex workers.,
Legalizing prositution.could actured cut anyone who is.being trafficked against their will and also make it easier for.prositutes.to come.forward and report sexual attacks and even sexual exploitation

Logical_Bear

P_1 wrote: »

Tough one to call actually.

You could compare it to the Government trying to legalise drugs, should they meet with the drug dealers in this case?

sh1te analogy(but you got your whored thanks..excuse the pun!),either that or it was a typo and you meant drug user?

Seachmall

Sin City wrote: »

They could.legalize it and tax the sex workers.,
Legalizing prositution.could actured cut anyone who is.being trafficked against their will and also make it easier for.prositutes.to come.forward and report sexual attacks and even sexual exploitation

Prostitution is already legal in Ireland.

spankysue

I agree with you OP, the people who would be directly affected by this law should be consulted first.

I think it should be fully legalised and regulated anyway, as long as it's consenting adults, what's the harm?

dxhound2005

sexworkie wrote: »

The Justice Committee is currently carrying out a review of prostitution legislation. They have heard from 15 anti-prostitution organisations already, including 2 Magdalene nuns, but they are only hearing from 1 sex worker.

This has been reported in the Sindo today
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/escort-web-firm-hits-out-at-rte-sex-work-expose-29076081.html

It is grossly unfair that the people who sell sex are being excluded like this from a consultation which is about their lives, and may lead to new laws brought in that further criminalise prostitution, drive it more underground and make selling sex more dangerous.

What do you think? Why will the Government not hear from the only people who can truly tell them what prostitution in Ireland is like?

There seems to be a lot of politics in the sex work industry. I only looked it up because of your reference to the Magdelenes which I found curious. Apparently Ruhama which I have heard of before are the new Magdalenes.

http://sexwork.ie/2013/02/06/sex-worker-hearing-shambles/comment-page-1/

Sin City

Seachmall wrote: »

Prostitution is already legal in Ireland.

Yes it is , but still looked down the workers are seen as less than human and itsnot taxed. Having two girls working together for safty or even in the same building is illegal. (Brothel)

sexworkie

Sin City wrote: »

They could.legalize it and tax the sex workers.,
Legalizing prositution.could actured cut anyone who is.being trafficked against their will and also make it easier for.prositutes.to come.forward and report sexual attacks and even sexual exploitation

In terms of prostitution, legalisations usually refers to policies in place in countries like the Netherlands and Germany, where there are legal brothels. Arguably this simply wouldn't be appropriate in Ireland.

However what many sex workers want is decriminalisation like in New Zealand, which would allow sex workers to form small collectives. At the moment sex workers are forced to work alone by the Irish laws that say if 2 or more sex workers work together it is a brothel and they are all guilty of brothel keeping. Obviously it is undesirable, in terms of safety especially, that sex workers are forced to work alone to work legally.

These are things you will never hear if you don't talk to sex workers though, which is why it is so wrong sex workers are being excluded here.

sexworkie

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Apparently Ruhama which I have heard of before are the new Magdalenes.

Yes, there was an article about this in Irish Times some time ago:
http://www.paddydoyle.com/laundry-orders-run-sex-workers-aid-group/

Sin City

sexworkie wrote: »

In terms of prostitution, legalisations usually refers to policies in place in countries like the Netherlands and Germany, where there are legal brothels. Arguably this simply wouldn't be appropriate in Ireland.

However what many sex workers want is decriminalisation like in New Zealand, which would allow sex workers to form small collectives. At the moment sex workers are forced to work alone by the Irish laws that say if 2 or more sex workers work together it is a brothel and they are all guilty of brothel keeping. Obviously it is undesirable, in terms of safety especially, that sex workers are forced to work alone to work legally.

These are things you will never hear if you don't talk to sex workers though, which is why it is so wrong sex workers are being excluded here.

Ideally yes that would be the answer but I dont think the Irish government are that liberal that they would allow the New Zealand model exist in Ireland, especailly with Ruhama pushing the Swedish model and the Turn Off the Red Light, getting more exposure than Turn off the Blue Light and the Sex Workers Allience.

im invisible

Sin City wrote: »

... and also make it easier for.prositutes.to come.

nice placement of the full stop there

Czarcasm

sexworkie wrote: »

I don't think allowing sex workers to talk about their lives, instead of only allowing others to talk about their lives, is encouraging prostitution, it's getting to the truth about a matter.

How would you suggest then that you present your case then, given that women and men who provide sexual services of their own free will are very much in the minority and hardly representative of the majority of sex workers who are drawn into the industry because they feel it is the only choice available to them in order to survive, not to mention those that are forced into the industry against their will.

The government has a duty to the welfare of all of it's citizens, not just the minority who willingly sell sex to the minority willing to pay for it.

Sin City

im invisible wrote: »

nice placement of the full stop there

What can I say, Im re inventing grammar as I go aswell as inuendo and its nothing to do with using the phone to type. Honest

Sin City

Czarcasm wrote: »

How would you suggest then that you present your case then, given that women and men who provide sexual services of their own free will are very much in the minority and hardly representative of the majority of sex workers who are drawn into the industry because they feel it is the only choice available to them in order to survive, not to mention those that are forced into the industry against their will.

The government has a duty to the welfare of all of it's citizens, not just the minority who willingly sell sex to the minority willing to pay for it.

Do you have the full statistics to show the range of forced sex workers and free will sex workers?

MaxSteele

Why the feck are nuns and 'aul biddies from Ruhuma (well past menopause), even being consulted on their opinion ?

Exclude those dinosaurs and come to an agreement with the actual street workers and "brothel keepers". You'll get no where progressive with that other shower and their "turn off the red light" campaign.

sexworkie

Czarcasm wrote: »

The government has a duty to the welfare of all of it's citizens, not just the minority who willingly sell sex to the minority willing to pay for it.

This notion that the majority of sex workers are not willingly sex workers is coming from religious organisations like Ruhama. Why should they be able to speak over all sex workers? Why can't sex workers speak for themselves? Does anyone seriously believe the Magdalene sisters should be trusted to speak for sex workers?

sexworkie

Sin City wrote: »

Do you have the full statistics to show the range of forced sex workers and free will sex workers?

There is no reliable data about female indoor sex work (the most common type by far) in Ireland, because the Government has consistently handed funding for research over to Ruhama to carry out the research. Plus the Religious Sisters of Charity have also funded research. That's what we have as research.

sexworkie

There has been research in the UK though:
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/news/latest-news/2011/november/study-finds-migrant-sex-workers-not-forced-to-sell-sex.cfm

Czarcasm

Sin City wrote: »

Do you have the full statistics to show the range of forced sex workers and free will sex workers?

No I don't, because reported statistics will tell you absolutely nothing.

Sin City

Czarcasm wrote: »

No I don't, because reported statistics will tell you absolutely nothing.

So you are just guessing then

BrokenArrows

How about when they change drug laws they consult the drug dealers?

Seachmall

Czarcasm wrote: »

How would you suggest then that you present your case then, given that women and men who provide sexual services of their own free will are very much in the minority and hardly representative of the majority of sex workers who are drawn into the industry because they feel it is the only choice available to them in order to survive, not to mention those that are forced into the industry against their will.

The government has a duty to the welfare of all of it's citizens, not just the minority who willingly sell sex to the minority willing to pay for it.

You can't outlaw an industry because there's a risk of coercion. There are kitchen workers in Ireland today who aren't there of their own free will but outlawing restaurants is hardly the answer.

Better regulation and protective legislation is the answer.

But before that is possible a thorough and unbiased inquiry into the industry is required to unearth all relevant facts in order to make an informed decision either way. As OP has mentioned though, that's not happening here.

And the idea that the majority of legal sex workers in Ireland are prisoners is highly suspect.

Czarcasm

sexworkie wrote: »

This notion that the majority of sex workers are not willingly sex workers is coming from religious organisations like Ruhama.

Well obviously you were going to state that as if it were fact, knowing most peoples revulsion for anything associated with a particularly religious bent to it. I have no experience of Ruhuma and tbh I couldn't give a fiddlers what they think. I have met sex workers though who come from low income backgrounds and see sex work as the easiest and fastest way to make money.

Why should they be able to speak over all sex workers? Why can't sex workers speak for themselves?

There is nothing stopping you having your say, off you go, get a group of sex workers together and like the people that protest about the economy, you too can engage the public to garner support for your cause!

Does anyone seriously believe the Magdalene sisters should be trusted to speak for sex workers?

Allow me to be unequivocal about this- **** No! I don't believe for a second that the Magdelene sisters should speak for anybody. Good thing then that they weren't the only ones given a hearing-

The Irish Times also reports that the conference heard wide-ranging submissions from organisations including Ruhama, the Immigrant Council of Ireland and the Sex Workers Alliance of Ireland as well as public health representatives and academics.

The meeting was also addressed by Det Insp Simon Haggstrom of the Prostitution Unit of the Stockholm Police Force in Sweden, where the purchase of sex has been criminalised since 1999, and from Jack Verbruggen from the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice where prostitution was legalised in 2000.

Source: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irelands-prostitution-laws-to-be-radically-overhauled-to-reflect-internet-age-174357021.html?mob-ua=Y

Roger_007

Seachmall wrote: »

Prostitution is already legal in Ireland.

As I understand it the proposed legislation is not to make prostitution illegal but to make availing of prostitution services illegal. In other words a woman who offers sexual services for money will not be diong anything illegal but anyone who avails of her services will be breaking the law.
This is the Swedish solution.

Barking mad in my opinion.

Czarcasm

Sin City wrote: »

So you are just guessing then

I am indeed, making an educated guess based on MY experience. You're entitled to disagree, but it doesn't mean I'll take any notice prioritising the word of a stranger on the internet over my own experiences.

c_man

sexworkie wrote: »

They have heard from 15 anti-prostitution organisations already, including 2 Magdalene nuns.

Hahahaha!

Sin City

Czarcasm wrote: »

I am indeed, making an educated guess based on MY experience. You're entitled to disagree, but it doesn't mean I'll take any notice prioritising the word of a stranger on the internet over my own experiences.

Fair enough, Likewise I shall take your guess with a pinch of salt as your experiences would not be representative of the whole country /industry

Czarcasm

Seachmall wrote: »

You can't outlaw an industry because there's a risk of coercion. There are kitchen workers in Ireland today who aren't there of their own free will but outlawing restaurants is hardly the answer.

And there are human rights and employment laws to prosecute unscrupulous employers. This is not the case with sex work as many "employers" are not declaring their income.

Better regulation and protective legislation is the answer.

I totally agree, but the OPs beef here seems to be that one particular organisation is getting a more favorable hearing over them. This is not the case as there were contributions made from across the spectrum and even from other countries.

But before that is possible a thorough and unbiased inquiry into the industry is required to unearth all relevant facts in order to make an informed decision either way. As OP has mentioned though, that's not happening here.

It actually IS whats happening here, just that from the way the OP is written, the inclusion of the Magdelene laundries was an effort to skew opinion towards their cause by way of a two fingers to anything associated with the Magdelene laundries.

And the idea that the majority of legal sex workers in Ireland are prisoners is highly suspect.

Prisoners of circumstances perhaps, as in my opinion sex work is an archaic profession and in no way indicative of a modern society, or necessary in a modern society. The idea that the majority of sex workers in Ireland do so willingly is just as highly suspect tbh!

sexworkie

About the Conference in the Autumn you speak of Czarcasm. Yes, it was not only TORL organisations that were invited, there were also speakers who are against TORL, but did you know the Government didn't invite a single Irish sex worker, despite the fact numerous Irish sex workers were in contact with the Government, had made submissions to the Justice Committee etc? In the end news of the Conference was leaked to sex workers very shortly before it was to take place and a small handful of sex workers demanded to be allowed in and they were allowed into the audience only, not to speak. This Conference was a case of exclusion of sex workers also.

sexworkie

Czarcasm wrote: »

It actually IS whats happening here, just that from the way the OP is written, the inclusion of the Magdelene laundries was an effort to skew opinion towards their cause by way of a two fingers to anything associated with the Magdelene laundries.

The fact of the matter is the main organisation in this process is Ruhama.

Ruhama was set up by the Good Shepherd Sisters and Sisters of Our Lady of Charity.

The trustees of Ruhama are the Good Shepherd Sisters and Sisters of Our Lady of Charity.

The provincial leaders of the Good Shepherd Sisters and Sisters of Our Lady of Charity are directors of Ruhama.

Some Ruhama staff including spokeswoman Sr. Gerardine Rowley of Good Shepherd Sisters are nuns.

The Good Shepherd Sisters and Sisters of Our Lady of Charity are 2 of the 4 "laundry orders" that ran Magdalene Laundries in Ireland up until 1996.

It's the same people. Why is it wrong to mention that?

Czarcasm

sexworkie wrote: »

About the Conference in the Autumn you speak of Czarcasm. Yes, it was not only TORL organisations that were invited, there were also speakers who are against TORL, but did you know the Government didn't invite a single Irish sex worker, despite the fact numerous Irish sex workers were in contact with the Government, had made submissions to the Justice Committee etc? In the end news of the Conference was leaked to sex workers very shortly before it was to take place and a small handful of sex workers demanded to be allowed in and they were allowed into the audience only, not to speak. This Conference was a case of exclusion of sex workers also.

And have these willing sex workers talked to any unwilling sex workers or are they just out for themselves? If you want to speak about the health and safety of illegal sex workers (yknow, those that are under the age of consent), those that come from low income backgrounds, those with a poor standard of education, well then by all means start a thread on that and I'll be glad to listen.

But to start a thread knowing full well it's going to descend into the morality of sex work is purely disingenuous when all I can think is what seems to be coming across, even from the article you linked in the OP, is "We want the legislation reformed to open the market so we can earn more money!", damn all to do with the inclusion of the Magdelene laundries!

aare

Czarcasm wrote: »

How would you suggest then that you present your case then, given that women and men who provide sexual services of their own free will are very much in the minority and hardly representative of the majority of sex workers who are drawn into the industry because they feel it is the only choice available to them in order to survive

If it is the only choice available to them to survive I would say "willingness" crosses the line into active enthusiasm...

What would you do with such people otherwise...take them to the vet's and have them put down?

aare

IceFjoem wrote: »

Prostitutes aren't exactly an authority on social policy making. Other than "I have sex for money" I can't imagine they'd have a highly valuable input tbf.

I have gone through the archives of the Justice Committee Hearings and the NGO input seems to hold to a "fairies at the bottom of the garden" level of accuracy and veracity so that, whatever their input sex workers are certain to have a far more valuable contribution to make to an honest appraisal of the reality of the sex industry.

There is no point in writing legislation to target and meet the needs of a NGO generated fiction after all.

Czarcasm

sexworkie wrote: »

The fact of the matter is the main organisation in this process is Ruhama.

Ruhama was set up by the Good Shepherd Sisters and Sisters of Our Lady of Charity.

The trustees of Ruhama are the Good Shepherd Sisters and Sisters of Our Lady of Charity.

The provincial leaders of the Good Shepherd Sisters and Sisters of Our Lady of Charity are directors of Ruhama.

Some Ruhama staff including spokeswoman Sr. Gerardine Rowley of Good Shepherd Sisters are nuns.

The Good Shepherd Sisters and Sisters of Our Lady of Charity are 2 of the 4 "laundry orders" that ran Magdalene Laundries in Ireland up until 1996.

It's the same people. Why is it wrong to mention that?

It's not "wrong" to mention it, but it is presenting a misleading picture, the very same way you're trying to paint a misleading picture of sex workers in Ireland. There's so much information you're leaving out that it's not hard to be skeptical of your motives tbh. It certainly isn't for the betterment of the majority of sex workers, and sounds more like the tiny minority of sex workers that have it cushy and are educated well enough to not get caught up in the criminal end of sex work.

aare

sexworkie wrote: »

This notion that the majority of sex workers are not willingly sex workers is coming from religious organisations like Ruhama. Why should they be able to speak over all sex workers? Why can't sex workers speak for themselves? Does anyone seriously believe the Magdalene sisters should be trusted to speak for sex workers?

I agree, sex workers are sentient intelligent people, not dogs in the pound, if you want to know how they feel about earning their living you *ASK* them and wait for them to tell you. You do not gag them and talk over them as Ruhama and the Justice Committee are determined to do.

Czarcasm

aare wrote: »

If it is the only choice available to them to survive I would say "willingness" crosses the line into active enthusiasm...

What would you do with such people otherwise...take them to the vet's and have them put down?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

ScumLord

IceFjoem wrote: »

Prostitutes aren't exactly an authority on social policy making. Other than "I have sex for money" I can't imagine they'd have a highly valuable input tbf.

That's like saying farmers aren't an authority on social policy making why should we listen to them when coming up with regulations on farming. Economists aren't social policy makers, why should we listen to them...

The prostitutes are the people that know the facts, they live it day in and day out, they know what the customers want and why they use prostitutes, they know who are the victims and who wants to do the job. It is idiotic to not talk to the people who actually live the life and design the market. Because the fact is no matter what laws or policies the government comes up with these people will continue to do what they're doing. All we're talking about is how we react to the fact that prostitution happens and there's no way to stop it.

sexworkie

Czarcasm wrote: »

...the tiny minority of sex workers that have it cushy and are educated well enough to not get caught up in the criminal end of sex work.

It is according to Ruhama that this is a tiny minority. Why should we all listen to Ruhama and assume they speak the truth instead of have independent research and let sex workers speak for themselves?

sexworkie

Czarcasm wrote: »

And have these willing sex workers talked to any unwilling sex workers or are they just out for themselves? If you want to speak about the health and safety of illegal sex workers (yknow, those that are under the age of consent), those that come from low income backgrounds, those with a poor standard of education, well then by all means start a thread on that and I'll be glad to listen.

I'd be in favour of all sex workers being able to speak, not only one group.

Many sex workers care very much about anyone being abused in the industry in which they work and would be the first to try to help in such situations.

And the child prostitution thing here is a real red herring also.

aare

Czarcasm wrote: »

I have met sex workers though who come from low income backgrounds and see sex work as the easiest and fastest way to make money.

...and you think they should be handing over their power to make that decision to Ruhama because?