Exclusion of Sex Workers from Justice Committee

ScumLord

aare wrote: »

so far, one free sex worker for balance.

If she's working for free she's probably not the sharpest tool in the box.

SB2013

Like everything this government has done, this whole process is just for show and will not accomplish its task due to its pointlessly limited approach.

Yamanoto

Czarcasm wrote: »

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

I'd like to be able to judge that for myself, thanks. Provide the statistics and let's take it from there.

Hendrik Wagenaar, associate professor at the Department of Public Administration at Leiden University has undertaken extensive research on prostitution in the Netherlands and wider EU:

Prostitution policy is also plagued by bad numbers. There are lots of bad numbers based on wild estimates. They say there are millions of victims of trafficking in Europe, but no one has ever counted them.

The whole prostitution debate is driven by emotional numbers, as I tend to call them. We counted the number of illegal prostitutes in Rotterdam, and numbers really were not that high. Each one is one too many, do not get me wrong, but the numbers are not that dramatic. We have about 400 cases of trafficking per year in The Netherlands. A lot of people say that this is just the tip of the iceberg, but no one has ever shown the iceberg, or proven that it exists.

I have heard things like ‘more money is made in trafficking worldwide, than in the drug trade and arms trade combined.’ That is complete baloney. Really. You don’t make that much money in trafficking. But it is that kind of stupidity that drives the discourse.

Sweet Rachel

Hi everyone. I am Rachel, active sex worker in Ireland.

Yes, we should voice our view in front of the Committee because the law affects us directly.

Prostitution is not a drug, is not an addiction , is work. Is a way to make money and no harm anyone.

sexworkie

Yamanoto wrote: »

I'd like to be able to judge that for myself, thanks. Provide the statistics and let's take it from there.

The only Irish reports we have on female indoor sex work in the last decade, which actually involved sex workers being asked questions, are:

Globalisation, Sex Trafficking and Prostitution, The Experiences of Migrant Women in Ireland (2009) - Research paid for by Religious Sisters of Charity

The Next Step Initiative Report (2005) - Research paid for by Government but carried out by Ruhama

So we have Catholic Church research, that's it.

Best username ever

ScumLord wrote: »

tool in the box.

Yeah, tool in the box...that's the way we like it, Oh yeah...

stoneill

Sweet Rachel wrote: »

Hi everyone. I am Rachel, active sex worker in Ireland.

Yes, we should voice our view in front of the Committee because the law affects us directly.

Prostitution is not a drug, is not an addiction , is work. Is a way to make money and no harm anyone.

I was going to post that this thread is as meaningless as the Justice Committee as there was no valid sex workers on the thread, but now we have at least one, who works in the industry and she demands that her voice, her point of view is heard.

The Th!ng

Sweet Rachel wrote: »

Hi everyone. I am Rachel, active sex worker in Ireland.

Yes, we should voice our view in front of the Committee because the law affects us directly.

Prostitution is not a drug, is not an addiction , is work. Is a way to make money and no harm anyone.

Alan Shatter's consultation document, released around this time last year, listed four possible approaches to the issue so I'm wondering if the committee is legally obliged to examine all four approaches before making their recommendations?

Sweet Rachel

I want to give the other side of sex industry ,the one many do keep it for themselves , for whatever reason/s..

Sweet Rachel

The Th!ng wrote: »

Alan Shatter's consultation document, released around this time last year, listed four possible approaches to the issue so I'm wondering if the committee is legally obliged to examine all four approaches before making their recommendations?

Sorry, I do not know how to answer to that.

The Th!ng

Sweet Rachel wrote: »

Sorry, I do not know how to answer to that.

OK, that's fair enough. Welcome to Boards.ie

sexworkie

The Th!ng wrote: »

Alan Shatter's consultation document, released around this time last year, listed four possible approaches to the issue so I'm wondering if the committee is legally obliged to examine all four approaches before making their recommendations?

The consultation document was balanced, but the Justice Committee has not been. To the best of my knowledge the Justice Committee is not obliged to look at all four approaches or indeed to invite sex workers or any other party in.

aare

I am beginning to wonder if the unpalatable truth is that the Justice Committee is too afraid of "Turn Off the Red Light" and the organisations that have joined it, usually without consulting their members, let alone any sex workers, to even be fair to the majority of sex workers who oppose "Turn Off the Red Light".

It is preposterous to even consider writing a report into future legislation for anything based almost entirely on consulting those who are actively opposed and rejected by the main stakeholders.

The Th!ng

sexworkie wrote: »

The consultation document was balanced, but the Justice Committee has not been. To the best of my knowledge the Justice Committee is not obliged to look at all four approaches or indeed to invite sex workers or any other party in.

But if they don't examine all four approaches equally how can they recommend the "best" approach?

aare

The Th!ng wrote: »

But if they don't examine all four approaches equally how can they recommend the "best" approach?

They can't, but don't think that will stop them. I understand that they have never even spoken to opponents of the "Swedish Model" in Sweden, despite making at least a couple of trips there at the taxpayer's expense.

You wouldn't buy a second hand car in such a shoddy way.

Of course, there was no need to make trips to Sweden on the taxpayer AT ALL...they just had to sit still and invite some of the sex workers who wanted to speak to them in.

Nodin

The Th!ng wrote: »

But if they don't examine all four approaches equally how can they recommend the "best" approach?

It's about appearances, rather than an actual methodology. Essentially its been a long drawn out bit of theatre with a few bob for whoever. The result will have its roots in social conservatism and political considerations, not any concern for the women involved or society in general

aare

Nodin wrote: »

It's about appearances, rather than an actual methodology. Essentially its been a long drawn out bit of theatre with a few bob for whoever. The result will have its roots in social conservatism and political considerations, not any concern for the women involved or society in general

I know you are only right, but it is SUCH a sickening travesty.

sexworkie

Nodin wrote: »

It's about appearances, rather than an actual methodology. Essentially its been a long drawn out bit of theatre with a few bob for whoever. The result will have its roots in social conservatism and political considerations, not any concern for the women involved or society in general

Why waste all this time and money pretending to debate though? Why not just cut the cr*p and bring the law in if it has already been decided? Many sex workers have worked long and hard to take part in this process in fast fading hope that it wasn't a farce.

Nodin

aare wrote: »

I know you are only right, but it is SUCH a sickening travesty.

I can't see it changing in the remaining years left to me, tbh. Bear in mind that "Playboy" was only removed from the banned list around 1995. Condoms were only made freely available two or three years earlier. The starting position on this is - for the forseeable future - going to be one of 'Sex is dirty and wrong' thus leading to a punitive restrictive approach, with the considerations of the women & men involved limited to forwarding that agenda.

Sweet Rachel

As far as I know someone said they will look into other legislations , yet , the focus in only in one. Makes me think if they were interested in others laws, would ve focus on all of them in the same time, not separate.

Nodin

sexworkie wrote: »

Why waste all this time and money pretending to debate though? Why not just cut the cr*p and bring the law in if it has already been decided? Many sex workers have worked long and hard to take part in this process in fast fading hope that it wasn't a farce.

My cynical take on it is that its an effort to look progressive for Europe, jobs/expenses for the boys and the theatrics of appearing to listen. It would be nice to be wrong.

CK73

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.

I would imagine this is very much the misrepresentation that they would like to shatter. Lord Morrow would have you believe this, but it just isn't true. If last year there were between 600 and 1000 women working within Ireland and Northern Ireland there were no than 20+ cases investigated for trafficking by the Gardai and police. That doesn't mean they were all trafficked, but possibly.

Now when you consider the huge expense and time spent performing raids on known locations where Escorts worked, this is a drop in the ocean compared to the ladies who were actually working.

Prior to that in 2009 the figures were 46 ladies found to be trafficked and this had reduced to 22 by 2011. With regards to children it was 17 in 2009 and down to 7 in 2011. Of course we would love to eradicate these numbers completely, but they just don't resemble what we are being told by the likes of Ruhama, TORL or Lord Morrow, who would have you believe that all Sex Workers are abused and subjected to violence. This does make you wonder. Why on earth would these women working of their own free will (and yes they ARE the majority) continue working if this is the case?

Can they really cling on to the stereotype for that much longer or are they going to let the general public meet the 'real' Sex Worker, who is educated, opinionated, confident and perfectly able to choose what she wants to do with her life? Dare they let them represent themselves, or are they scared that their 'excuse' would be blown out of the water with the reality of what they are really trying to do?

Please remember they are wanting to bring in this legislation to protect Sex workers (so they say), so surely we would all be singing from the same hymn sheet? (to coin a phrase), so how does it work if the reality is, there are very few that actually need protecting? Even less that are trafficked and that Sex Work is not abusive or violent between two consenting adults.

The Th!ng

Nodin wrote: »

It's about appearances, rather than an actual methodology. Essentially its been a long drawn out bit of theatre with a few bob for whoever. The result will have its roots in social conservatism and political considerations, not any concern for the women involved or society in general

I think Shatter genuinely wants to do the right thing, but he is being thwarted in his goals by Ruhama, et al who are only interested in what is best for themselves, not the prostitutes.

aare

Nodin wrote: »

My cynical take on it is that its an effort to look progressive for Europe, jobs/expenses for the boys and the theatrics of appearing to listen. It would be nice to be wrong.

My further cynical take is that they didn't think they would get away with claiming expenses to "research" New Zealand.

sexworkie

aare wrote: »

My further cynical take is that they didn't think they would get away with claiming expenses to "research" New Zealand.

If you'll excuse me plugging my own writing, you don't need to go as far as New Zealand to see other approaches. http://sexwork.ie/2013/01/29/denmark-and-ireland/

sexworkie

The Th!ng wrote: »

I think Shatter genuinely wants to do the right thing, but he is being thwarted in his goals by Ruhama, et al who are only interested in what is best for themselves, not the prostitutes.

That would explain how there was a balanced consultation document, then a conference and committee that have excluded sex workers.

CK73

It should also be noted that a report issued by the Police in Sweden shows that trafficking investigations have gone up by over 500% since the Swedish Model came into place. When there were no huge differences in trafficking after the first few years, they upped their game and invested a lot more money into finding trafficked women and started to get results.

This shows that either the Swedish model does not work to abolish trafficking, as there is more than ever before, or they were simply letting them down before and not putting enough money, time and effort into finding them. Either way, the legislation to criminalize men paying for sex, has not worked.

GalwayGuy2

They can't, but don't think that will stop them. I understand that they have never even spoken to opponents of the "Swedish Model" in Sweden, despite making at least a couple of trips there at the taxpayer's expense.

Hmm, it's a debate with lots of issues and agendas going on, but I'm very, very surprised they didn't speak to anybody who disagreed with the model (and apparently there are many)

sexworkie

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmm, it's a debate with lots of issues and agendas going on, but I'm very, very surprised they didn't speak to anybody who disagreed with the model (and apparently there are many)

They have spoken to a small number of people, mainly academics, who don't support Swedish Model. But so far no actual sex workers (though 1 sex worker has been invited to speak in future).

aare

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmm, it's a debate with lots of issues and agendas going on, but I'm very, very surprised they didn't speak to anybody who disagreed with the model (and apparently there are many)

However they found more time to speak to the idiot who made this penny dreadful of a documentary than just about anyone else...here is another take on it:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/eilis-ohanlon-where-the-hell-are-the-guards-when-needed-26820762.html