Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Exclusion of Sex Workers from Justice Committee

Options
24567…20

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    BrokenArrows
    Registered Users Posts: 7,500 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


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


  • Options
    #33
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #35
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


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

    Hahahaha!


  • Options
    #38
    Sin City
    Registered Users Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #39
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #40
    sexworkie
    Registered Users Posts: 24 ✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    sexworkie
    Registered Users Posts: 24 ✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #43
    aare
    Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #44
    aare
    Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    aare
    Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    sexworkie
    Registered Users Posts: 24 ✭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?


  • Options
    #50
    sexworkie
    Registered Users Posts: 24 ✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    aare
    Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    The Th!ng
    Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭The Th!ng


    Ruhama and the Immigrant Council of Ireland are both agents of the Catholic Church, they have hi-jacked the issue of human trafficking to further their own moralistic agenda. The ethos of the Magdalene laundries manifests itself in their desire to regain control over the lives of the prostitutes which they lost when prostitution moved from the streets to indoors.


  • Options
    #53
    aare
    Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭aare


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    This makes no sense whatsoever.

    Why, do you think people stop wanting, or having a right, to survive just because their options on that are limited to sex work?


  • Options
    #54
    sexworkie
    Registered Users Posts: 24 ✭sexworkie


    The Th!ng wrote: »
    Ruhama and the Immigrant Council of Ireland are both agents of the Catholic Church, they have hi-jacked the issue of human trafficking to further their own moralistic agenda. The Ethos of the Magdalene laundries manifests itself in their desire to regain control over the lives of the prostitutes which they lost when prostitution moved from the streets to indoors.

    Agree, it's like the Government cannot stand up to these nuns, even now. Technology has been the Magdalene Sisters enemy. First the washing machine. Then the Internet (which enabled sex workers to move off-street where Ruhama couldn't obstruct them so easily). The reasons the Magdalene sisters give for needing control over 'fallen women' - they are sinners, criminals, victims... - changes to suit the times, but their need for control remains the same.


  • Options
    #55
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Unfortunately I'd have to say that even were the sex workers treated with the same respect accorded to the religous backed organisations, the outcome would be much the same. The solution was never going to be a liberal or progressive one.


  • Options
    #56
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    sexworkie wrote: »

    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?


    I wouldn't assume anybody with a vested interest in the subject is capable of speaking the truth tbh. Independent research and statistics as I've said before are completely worthless because many sex workers I've met are unwilling to talk about their experiences, let alone allow themselves to be subjected to what they would see as an interrogation.

    Many of the sex workers I've met are highly intelligent, but lack the tools and the confidence to express themselves in a public forum. I've met many who are street workers for whom english is not their first language, so that presents its own difficulties in them being able to speak for themselves.

    Many sex workers I've talked to are also hindered from speaking for themselves due to the social stigma surrounding sex work and the immature attitudes still pervasive in Ireland that think "sure what's the harm if a girl or a guy wants to sell themselves for sex, it's their body?". There's a hell of a lot wrong with it, but that gets shoved under the carpet by more affluent and independent sex workers who think "I'm alright jack, I choose to be a sex worker and I don't see a problem!".

    Just because it's working out for a minority does not mean the government should take the word of that minority as gospel so to speak over the opinions of those with far more experience of the issues on a wider scale (and not just the Magdelene laundry nuns btw as I've pointed out already!).


  • Options
    #57
    aare
    Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭aare


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I wouldn't assume anybody with a vested interest in the subject is capable of speaking the truth tbh. Independent research and statistics as I've said before are completely worthless because many sex workers I've met are unwilling to talk about their experiences, let alone allow themselves to be subjected to what they would see as an interrogation.

    I think most people can be counted upon to express themselves eloquently and accurately on the topic of their own best interests, which is what the aim of law reform is supposed to be, the best interests of sex workers, in the context of also protecting the best interests of the wider society, and sex workers are no exception.

    The best interests of religious backed NGOs, however, are of no relevance at all to the issues, yet they have been heard and noted ad nauseam, while sex workers are gagged.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Many of the sex workers I've met are highly intelligent, but lack the tools and the confidence to express themselves in a public forum. I've met many who are street workers for whom english is not their first language, so that presents its own difficulties in them being able to speak for themselves.

    As all statistics, even Ruhama's, agree that the majority of street workers are native Irish ladies I cannot see any problem with them presenting their testimony as Gaelige if English is a problem.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Many sex workers I've talked to are also hindered from speaking for themselves due to the social stigma surrounding sex work and the immature attitudes still pervasive in Ireland that think "sure what's the harm if a girl or a guy wants to sell themselves for sex, it's their body?".

    I am not sure I can quite grasp why this is a valid reason for gagging them and refusing to let them speak too?
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    There's a hell of a lot wrong with it, but that gets shoved under the carpet by more affluent and independent sex workers who think "I'm alright jack, I choose to be a sex worker and I don't see a problem!".

    Ok...with you so far...so because you are *NOT* a sex worker and you do see a problem you views should take priority over sex workers who don't see a problem?
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Just because it's working out for a minority does not mean the government should take the word of that minority as gospel so to speak over the opinions of those with far more experience of the issues on a wider scale (and not just the Magdelene laundry nuns btw as I've pointed out already!).

    Tiny problem...it isn't "a minority"...the MAJORITY of sex workers go on working and wanting to work because it is the option that works best for them...and until they are consulted directly that truth will never be excavated out from under all the self serving lies of people who do not know what they are talking about and care less...


  • Options
    #58
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    aare wrote: »
    Tiny problem...it isn't "a minority"...the MAJORITY of sex workers go on working and wanting to work because it is the option that works best for them...and until they are consulted directly that trusth will never be excavated out from under all the self serving lies of people who do not know what they are talking about and care less...


    And on that note I'll bow out of this discussion as I can see it's going nowhere and people are getting hung up on one organisations involvement in legislation that won't make one iota of a difference to the majority of sex workers circumstances.


  • Options
    #59
    aare
    Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭aare


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    And on that note I'll bow out of this discussion as I can see it's going nowhere and people are getting hung up on one organisations involvement in legislation that won't make one iota of a difference to the majority of sex workers circumstances.

    Sex workers disagree, that is why THEY should be consulted and listened to.

    Incidentally there were more than a dozen of Ruhama affiliated organisations heard by the Justice Committee on this issue, and, so far, one free sex worker for balance.

    Hardly "one organisation's involvement" there.


  • Options
    #60
    The Th!ng
    Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭The Th!ng


    Last week Dublin City Council voted against supporting the TORL campaign. Denmark considered implementing the Swedish model, but recently rejected the idea as being unworkable.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgbz6JrFdqw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    charlemont
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    I knew a foreign hooker who lived a few houses down from me, That woman was making serious paper, She would go home every now and again and bring more of her friends/workers back here and there was nothing forced about it, They just wanted money, simple as. Ireland was the easiest country for them as so many older men particularly in rural areas are single. These women could see this country for what it was straight away. They were no fools whatsoever.
    Some of the local junkie girls would look up to them and see them as career women Ha Ha.


Advertisement