RTE report: Bill makes purchasing sexual services an offence

sbsquarepants

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then we come to Ireland, and as more and more people abandon religion, so too is the sex work industry here suffering from it's own economic downturn (when we were a much more religious country, sex work was a booming underground industry!), and now that Irish society is becoming more enlightened from a religious point of view, more and more people are becoming naturally apathetic to the sex industry. It just doesn't have the same taboo any more which made it exciting and created the demand for it.
.

To be honest I think the reason for the downturn is simply that it is much easier than it ever was before to go out and find it for free - there is simply no need to pay for it when you can walk into any nightclub and pick up someone - the vast majority of people find that a more pleasant, less mercenary experience than paying a hooker.

Grayson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's been mentioned time and again in this thread that if it were legalised and regulated here (definitely not going to happen now anyway!), that it would solve a number of issues. It's all well and good to call for legalisation and regulation to protect sex workers, but that would only protect more affluent sex workers who chose sex work as their profession. It would do nothing for people who engage in sex work to survive, and the Government would have no interest in putting support systems in place for these people when the money isn't even there to provide for essential services to the general public! Where is all this money going to come from to regulate the industry?

Banning it doesn't help anyone, those who enjoy the work or those that don't. (Although you seem to think those who enjoy the work are richer than those who do it for the money)

It doesn't take a huge amount of money to regulate the industry. Australia does it simply by issuing licenses to premises and monitoring the premises. They pull tax from it and that pays for the money needed to monitor it.

One eyed Jack

Grayson wrote: »

Banning it doesn't help anyone, those who enjoy the work or those that don't. (Although you seem to think those who enjoy the work are richer than those who do it for the money)

Here's the thing (for me at least!) - I absolutely agree with you that banning sex work outright without anything to replace it does nothing for anyone. That's why for me personally, as another poster suggested, the proposed legislation is nothing more than just a fines revenue stream for the State. I haven't seen any proposals yet that go anywhere near proposing alternative opportunities for people who are either already in the sex work industry, or for those who are thinking of getting into the sex work industry. I firmly believe that you can't take something away from someone, without giving them an alternative.

The bit in brackets - who doesn't enjoy their work more when they know they aren't forced by economic necessity to work when they don't want to? I enjoy the work I do now because I don't need the money, someone else could hate the work I do because they have to work, because they know if they don't, they don't eat.

I know many sex workers and those that enjoy the work are infinitely happier, healthier, and indeed wealthier, than those people who are only getting into sex work to get by, maybe struggling to pay the rent as it falls due, or an overdue utility bill, etc. There are of course welfare supports in this country, but accessing them can be difficult when you're barely keeping your head above water in chaotic circumstances, and sex work suddenly appears to be a viable option. It ain't pretty, but it pays the bills.

It doesn't take a huge amount of money to regulate the industry. Australia does it simply by issuing licenses to premises and monitoring the premises. They pull tax from it and that pays for the money needed to monitor it.

Australian society has a much different attitude to sex work than Ireland for starters, a much larger population, completely different demographics, and has had their licencing system in place a good many years now.

Ireland on the other hand - smaller population, society has an aversion to sex work (both sex workers and their clients; remember the poster earlier who posted that a work colleague brought up the subject, now they're all convinced he's a regular visitor. Imagine the slagging he gets!).

The money just isn't there to put the initial support systems in place, and you already have war being caused over the healthcare system, which is a far greater priority than the provision of funds for people who want to get their rocks off, and the people who want to provide these services for them. Next time you're talking to an independent sex worker, ask them how they feel about paying tax, then ask them would they consider employment in a brothel. At least they'll get a bit of a giggle out of it, before they answer "no" to both questions.

P. Breathnach

sbsquarepants wrote: »

To be honest I think the reason for the downturn is simply that it is much easier than it ever was before to go out and find it for free - there is simply no need to pay for it when you can walk into any nightclub and pick up someone - the vast majority of people find that a more pleasant, less mercenary experience than paying a hooker.

I accept that many men can get "it" for free. But there are many who can't. That includes older men, men who are not at least passably attractive, men lacking in confidence or social skills, some married men who are not getting "it" at home and don't want to risk being seen seeking it elsewhere, men with unusual sexual predilections, and possibly other categories that don't come readily to mind.

The business will always exist. I would be quite happy to see it at least tolerated in the eyes of the law, and I would like to see some strategies in place to protect service providers.

the dark phantom

The Irish way in all its glory only serves to push the sex industry further underground thus increasing the risks for those involved. Way to go Ireland, Take a bow..

The Th!ng

When Alan Shatter published the consultation document it listed four possible directions in which the new laws could go. But only one (the so called Swedish model) was examined in depth so how can the Oireacthas committee make any valid recommendations when they didn't examine any of the alternatives. How do they know they are making the right decision?

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I disagree with your assertion above that I have any contempt for democracy.

From what you've posted, that's only true if your definition of democracy were to come from the pages of Plato's Republic.

Politicians are elected to represent public opinion, and the vast majority of the Irish public have no interest in sex work or the welfare of sex workers, so naturally they're not going to have any interest in public policy formation on the issue.

I'm afraid that's not what's happening though. What has increasingly been happening is not that people are uninterested, but that the process is being intentionally obfuscated, in little advertised backroom committies and only start being noticed once the process is to advanced to be halted. The cohabitation act is one case in point, in that many literally are oblibivious of what it entails, not because they have no interest (they certainly are very interested when they learn) but because they heard little or nothing on it.

Your attitude is essentially to say to them "tough shìt, you were not keeping an eye on the committee schedules in Lenster house, so it's your loss" - and that is contemptuous of democracy, IMHO.

sbsquarepants

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I accept that many men can get "it" for free. But there are many who can't. That includes older men, men who are not at least passably attractive, men lacking in confidence or social skills, some married men who are not getting "it" at home and don't want to risk being seen seeking it elsewhere, men with unusual sexual predilections, and possibly other categories that don't come readily to mind.

The business will always exist. I would be quite happy to see it at least tolerated in the eyes of the law, and I would like to see some strategies in place to protect service providers.

I agree with you. The worlds oldest profession is not going anywhere - it's idiotic to think it will ever disappear. (well at least until the holodeck or the hookerbot 3000 is invented:D)

Yamanoto

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There have been numerous campaigns run by numerous advocacy groups for sex workers. TOBL was set up in opposition to TORL, etc, but the thing was - none of these campaigns had any REAL support from what one poster earlier referred to among the general public as "the silent majority".

Well if the majority remain silent on an issue they're apparently opposed to, that allows for the vocal minority to claim THEY represent the opinion of "the silent majority". If people don't speak up, they can hardly complain that legislation is being foisted upon them when they never made their objections known in the first place!

I think any real opportunity for a serious conversation was effectively stymied by the tone and manner in which Ruhama, the Immigrant Council of Ireland and an amalgam of other special interest groups sought to frame the debate. By repeatedly conflating the selling of sex with the misery of trafficking and child prostitution (over the course of a clearly well resourced campaign), their message gained traction & undoubtedly hobbled those who attempted to communicate a far more nuanced picture of the issues surrounding sex for sale in Ireland today. By muddying the waters so effectively, it's also meant public representatives have by and large been loathe to step up & question that predominant narrative.

Remember, these groups have a moral and ideological objection to the selling of sex in any form - even where that transaction is entered into freely.

Given the more progressive social climate we now enjoy, it's been expedient for them to shift the emphasis away from their religious and moral objections and instead frame the argument in such a way that will resonate with the values of people in Ireland today - human rights, gender equality & child protection.

Unfortunately what we'll be left with is bad law, most likely unenforceable in practise. Indeed the prime beneficiaries of the legislation will be the CEO's of organisations who've advocated this exercise in window dressing, while behind closed doors, the lot of the majority of sex workers in Ireland will be markedly worse than it stands at present.

And they'll call that a victory?

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Same baiting. Not biting.
Nope. It does not matter what the "thing" being advocated is. It does not matter which group is doing the advocating.

The moment you equivocated saying "Group X have less right to advocate" you were already wrong. Regardless of the group and regardless of the thing being advocated.
Because, fact is, we all have equal right to advocate for anything in this society.
If you have real difficulty understanding the above - then I cannot help you.

Lol none of that is in any way relevant to anything I said.

But hey don't mind me -keep on your right telling sex workers what they need

however

If you wish to deliberately misquote / quote out of context in an attempt to score points and then deliberately misinterpret by choice then you are evidently looking for a bun fight which I refuse to enter into too. The fantasies continue ... :rolleyes:

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Lol none of that is in any way relevant to anything I said.

Except it is - because as I said the moment you decided to declare some people have less right to advocate on ANY issue than other people - you were wrong already.

gozunda wrote: »

But hey don't mind me -keep on your right telling sex workers what they need

Will do. Do not need your permission for it. However I was not talking about me because I am not a client or a provider in this industry. Where you think the clients have less or no right to advocate - I actually think their advocacy MORE relevant than mine. Because at least they - unlike me - have some exposure to that industry. Their opinion will be more informed then my own.

gozunda wrote: »

If you wish to deliberately misquote / quote out of context.......

Yet I did nothing of the sort. So you are deflecting really.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except it is - because as I said the moment you decided to declare some people have less right to advocate on ANY issue than other people - you were wrong already.

Except you once again are misquoting what was said. I can only presume deliberately at this stage. :rolleyes:

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Will do. Do not need your permission for it. However I was not talking about me because I am not a client or a provider in this industry. Where you think the clients have less or no right to advocate - I actually think their advocacy MORE relevant than mine. Because at least they - unlike me - have some exposure to that industry. Their opinion will be more informed then my own.

Were we talking about 'you'? but now that you bring 'you' up so to speak regarding clients and providers ...

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I advocate and lobby on the subject of the sex industry already. And the things I advocate for are done so with the workers, the clients AND the general public in mind.

So if 'you' advocate for 'workers, clients and the general public' - who is giving you the remit to do so? How exactly do know what the 'general public' the 'clients' or the 'workers' all want or are you just making it up as you go along?

You also claimed the following ...

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I know two girls who have said they want to do it - and they do not even need the money really. They just want to do it for a short time. Not as a career though. Just a few weeks to try it - they appear to think the idea somewhat sexy if done right and within their small conditions. They even asked if I would do their online stuff to almost "pimp" them (set up accounts on the websites for it and do "First line" response on the emails and pass on to them whatever sounds above boards).

Ok so you're not a 'provider' ... But it certainly sounds as if you are quite taken by the whole idea ....

I have done my best to explain the issue of clients advocating their version of reality for sex workers may be akin to the fox advocating for the welfare of fowl. I get that you don't get that so I'm putting this fantasy to bed.

The Corinthian

gozunda wrote: »

Ok so you're not a 'provider' ... But it certainly sounds as if you are quite taken by the whole idea ....

Go easy on the ad hominins there. They do nothing for your credibility in this discussion.

I have done my best to explain the issue of clients advocating their version of reality for sex workers may be akin to the fox advocating for the welfare of fowl. I get that you don't get that so I'm putting this fantasy to bed.

Perhaps, but it is a principle of modern society that everyone is entitled to representation - to advocate their version of 'reality'.

Remember, just because someone is allowed to advocate their version of 'reality', does not mean that as a society we should accept it, any more than an accused be found innocent simply because they have the right to defend themselves in court. But we are all entitled to that right. At least in a democracy - so if you were talking about another form of government, then my apologies.

gozunda

The Corinthian wrote: »

... it is a principle of modern society that everyone is entitled to representation - to advocate their version of 'reality'.

Remember, just because someone is allowed to advocate their version of 'reality', does not mean that as a society we should accept it, any more than an accused be found innocent simply because they have the right to defend themselves in court. But we are all entitled to that right. At least in a democracy - so if you were talking about another form of government, then my apologies.

Thanks for that.

It has already been stated several times on this thread that 'nuns' and 'feminists' don't have any valid input into this bill. Maybe so but the same could be argued for 'clients'.

I do agree with what you said

That everyone is entitled to representation - to advocate their version of 'reality'.

My point was that yes anyone can advocate but real support for sex workers is supporting them in their efforts to obtain rights and protection under the law.

gozunda wrote: »

...

Any one can of course advocate for the right of sex workers to seek legislation that will support them and give legal protection -what sex workers don't need is (clients) insisting /advocating for their own version of what they think sex workers need

aare

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sleepy it's untrue to suggest that the opinions of sex workers were ignored by the Justice Committee, they weren't.

Nonsense...

Initially *SOMEONE* had persuaded the DOJ that Ruhama spoke for all sex workers, and there was no intention to allow private individuals to make submissions.

I disabused them of that notion.

TORL offered to quietly ensure sex workers were aware of the time and date of the DOJ conference. We only knew about it at the very last minute because someone appalled by the exclusion sought me out and leaked it.

Initially David Stanton, Justice Committee chair was DELIGHTED to invite sex workers to speak and even willing to make all sorts of accommodations for them.

Suddenly that changed and every trick in the book was used to exclude us. I suspect when the submissions started to arrive and the committee realised we were not all ditsy blondes ideally suited to tokenism.

When the Justice Committee report came out, any reference made to submissions from sex workers actively misrepresented them (I know, they pulled that on me too).

The current Justice Minister agreed to see a rep from SWAI, a rep from Escort Ireland and three sex workers and spent all that time *informing* them that "sending a message" was more important than their safety.

The stuff I cannot post, that has gone on behind the scenes has been so blisteringly corrupt, ignorant and partial it would make your eyes water.

(I was always a cynic but this has taken things to a whole new low beyond anything I ever conceived of.)

colossus-x

Does this apply to male escorts? Gay male escorts that is.

The Corinthian

gozunda wrote: »

It has already been stated several times on this thread that 'nuns' and 'feminists' don't have any valid input into this bill. Maybe so but the same could be argued for 'clients'.

I've never suggested that.

My point was that yes anyone can advocate but real support for sex workers is supporting them in their efforts to obtain rights and protection under the law.

There's a difference between that and excluding people from having an input.

gozunda

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've never suggested that.

Didn't say you did

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's a difference between that and excluding people from having an input.

I agree with that.

aare

gozunda wrote: »

I have done my best to explain the issue of clients advocating their version of reality for sex workers may be akin to the fox advocating for the welfare of fowl. I get that you don't get that so I'm putting this fantasy to bed.

It's terrible, half of us have fibromaglia from patting the silly sods on the head.

By the same criteria, funding Ruhama to support and advocate for us is akin to funding the Waffen SS as a Jewish Welfare Society...

They spend their funding on silencing and attacking us, meanwhile, the people who need actual help get this (behind adult wall but not remotely saucy):
http://kissxkate.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/a-friend-in-need.html?zx=b481b717280a5aad

It is a sad sick travesty that is the most open secret in the country and *STILL* they get false validation from the Justice Minister herself.

gozunda wrote: »

My point was that yes anyone can advocate but real support for sex workers is supporting them in their efforts to obtain rights and protection under the law.

Some days it seems like that would be, just about, me...good thing sex workers are intelligent functioning adults who can self advocate really...

...except you have to get them confidentially past the stigma so they can do it...

This is what happened to me (with the full approval of TORL Ruhama and the Minister For Justice) when I tried a little "self advocacy"...on oath no less:
http://mymythbuster.wordpress.com/sworn-evidence-concealed-by-justice-committee-stormont/

A sex worker's worst fear is having her name exposed. When I stood up in my own right they only stopped short of publishing my visa card number and satnav co-ordinates...and NOBODY is prepared to bring an ounce of pressure to bear on them to take it down.

That was *NOT* a coincidence, it was intended to intimidate us all into silence and it's not even subtle.

Remember, sex worker are currently operating within the law just like everyone else, most are taxpayers and parents. If any other group of people were denied basic human rights to this extent people would storm the Dail.

gozunda

aare wrote: »

It's terrible, half of us have fibromaglia from patting the silly sods on the head.

By the same criteria, funding Ruhama to support and advocate for us is akin to funding the Waffen SS as a Jewish Welfare Society...

They spend their funding on silencing and attacking us, meanwhile, the people who need actual help get this (behind adult wall but not remotely saucy):
http://kissxkate.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/a-friend-in-need.html?zx=b481b717280a5aad

It is a sad sick travesty that is the most open secret in the country and *STILL* they get false validation from the Justice Minister herself.

Some days it seems like that would be, just about, me...good thing sex workers are intelligent functioning adults who can self advocate really...

...except you have to get them confidentially past the stigma so they can do it...

This is what happened to me (with the full approval of TORL Ruhama and the Minister For Justice) when I tried a little "self advocacy"...on oath no less:
http://mymythbuster.wordpress.com/sworn-evidence-concealed-by-justice-committee-stormont/

A sex worker's worst fear is having her name exposed. When I stood up in my own right they only stopped short of publishing my visa card number and satnav co-ordinates...and NOBODY is prepared to bring an ounce of pressure to bear on them to take it down.

That was *NOT* a coincidence, it was intended to intimidate us all into silence and it's not even subtle.

Remember, sex worker are currently operating within the law just like everyone else, most are taxpayers and parents. If any other group of people were denied basic human rights to this extent people would storm the Dail.

Where to now with the Bill?

aare

gozunda wrote: »

Where to now with the Bill?

Keep fighting...any way we can...this is monstrous stuff with far wider implications.

We have NGOs self appointing themselves to abuse their user group at will above the law...don't imagine that will stop at sex workers...or that it began with them.

AlekSmart

aare wrote: »

Keep fighting...any way we can...this is monstrous stuff with far wider implications.

We have NGOs self appointing themselves to abuse their user group at will above the law...don't imagine that will stop at sex workers...or that it began with them.

Fantastic,accurate and prophetic post !

Anybody thinking that the topic,timing and process behind this particular "Bill" represents "usual" Parliamentary business is approaching delusional.

aare's focusing on NGO powerplaying at the highest levels of Irish Administration is bullseye stuff !

The reality is that this Bill represents a FAR greater threat to Democracy in Ireland and to hard won,Individual Freedoms than 100 Irish Water's,yet we hear not a peep out of those who are to the fore about giving "The People" a voice in relation to water charges .

I'd go so far as to describe the thrust of this legislation as having it's basis in Evil (The pure stuff !)

AlekSmart

Yamanoto wrote: »

I think any real opportunity for a serious conversation was effectively stymied by the tone and manner in which Ruhama, the Immigrant Council of Ireland and an amalgam of other special interest groups sought to frame the debate. By repeatedly conflating the selling of sex with the misery of trafficking and child prostitution (over the course of a clearly well resourced campaign), their message gained traction & undoubtedly hobbled those who attempted to communicate a far more nuanced picture of the issues surrounding sex for sale in Ireland today. By muddying the waters so effectively, it's also meant public representatives have by and large been loathe to step up & question that predominant narrative.

Remember, these groups have a moral and ideological objection to the selling of sex in any form - even where that transaction is entered into freely.

Given the more progressive social climate we now enjoy, it's been expedient for them to shift the emphasis away from their religious and moral objections and instead frame the argument in such a way that will resonate with the values of people in Ireland today - human rights, gender equality & child protection.

Unfortunately what we'll be left with is bad law, most likely unenforceable in practise. Indeed the prime beneficiaries of the legislation will be the CEO's of organisations who've advocated this exercise in window dressing, while behind closed doors, the lot of the majority of sex workers in Ireland will be markedly worse than it stands at present.

And they'll call that a victory?

Yamanoto's bolded points scream out for answers...

Who funded this VERY comprehensive (and largely secretive) campaign ?

Why are these "Special Interest Groups" SO keen to limit personal freedoms at this juncture in Irelands history ?

What will the levels of benefit to these CEO's eventually be ?

The scope for future Governments to enforce widespread controlling measures will be vastly broadened if this devious piece of repression gets through the Dáil intact.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Except you once again are misquoting what was said.

Except once again I did not. You are just wrong in suggestion I did, I can only presume deliberately at this stage.

You clearly said one group of people had less right to advocate on one particular subject, than another group of people do.

And the fact is the moment you do that, you are wrong. In our society we have equal right to do so. Two other users have pointed this out to you too on this thread. I get that you don't get that so I'm putting this fantasy to bed.

gozunda wrote: »

Were we talking about 'you'?

Do keep up. I was referring to your line "keep on your right telling sex workers what they need"

gozunda wrote: »

So if 'you' advocate for 'workers, clients and the general public' - who is giving you the remit to do so?

Does anyone need to? We can all advocate for what we want, when we want, how we want. Why do I need a remit off anyone?

gozunda wrote: »

How exactly do know what the 'general public' the 'clients' or the 'workers' all want or are you just making it up as you go along?

The same way I do on any subject. I read studies, research, talk to the people involved, look at other countries that have implemented different policies and much more.

Why, how do you do it when you talk on a subject? Just make it up as you go along?

gozunda wrote: »

Ok so you're not a 'provider' ... But it certainly sounds as if you are quite taken by the whole idea ....

Whats the question? Or the point? You have not offered either here. Yet clearly you bring it up for a reason.

aare

Deleted User wrote: »

You clearly said one group of people had less right to advocate on one particular subject, than another group of people do.

Actually, NOBODY has a right to "advocate" on behalf of anyone against their will or without their consent, which is what Ruhama, and, by extension TORL are actually doing to sex workers...

(Also, AlekSmart take note...there is nothing whatsoever unusual about this happening in the NGO sector, it is just that sex workers are better positioned, being, at this point in time, independent of choice from the NGOs and state services, to fight it.)

Sex workers do not mind the clients advocating for them as long as they *KEEP IT REAL* because they know a lot more about sex work than Ruhama and TORL do. NB sex workers cannot stand either and, to my certain knowledge, have *NEVER* "let them in" beyond humouring them for good manners and/or the sake of peace and quiet.

Of course, anyone has the right to advocate for sex workers to be accorded the same human rights as anyone else and be allowed to self define, self determine and be given full adult autonomy...

In theory anyone has an equal right to advocate against that, but I would not recommend it..

aare

AlekSmart wrote: »

Fantastic,accurate and prophetic post !

Anybody thinking that the topic,timing and process behind this particular "Bill" represents "usual" Parliamentary business is approaching delusional.

aare's focusing on NGO powerplaying at the highest levels of Irish Administration is bullseye stuff !

The reality is that this Bill represents a FAR greater threat to Democracy in Ireland and to hard won,Individual Freedoms than 100 Irish Water's,yet we hear not a peep out of those who are to the fore about giving "The People" a voice in relation to water charges .

I'd go so far as to describe the thrust of this legislation as having it's basis in Evil (The pure stuff !)

Me too, it has absolutely shocked me the lengths people with power and money will go to to exploit a few ordinary, decent sex workers who are more interested in paying their bills than political activism, for personal power and profit.

It is not some great conspiracy, it is just ordinary, everyday life in a culture of conspiracy where the same players crop up again and again in different scenarios and contexts, and all of them rotten to the core through a system of mutual backscratching and hegemony rather than any central "evil scheme":
http://mymythbuster.wordpress.com/sending-a-message-is-more-important-than-personal-safety/

It's like an infestation by an attitude of psychopathic disregard for others that has become normalized within state services and "civil society" over a very long time.

aare

aare wrote: »

Actually, NOBODY has a right to "advocate" on behalf of anyone against their will

Except that is simply not true in a democracy. Perhaps you are arguing that it SHOULD not be true. But at this time it is. I can get up tomorrow morning and advocate, preach, petition Elected Representatives.... on any topic I like. I am neither a teacher nor a student, but I can advocate for what I want to see in or out of the education curriculum for example.

That is my right. You can not remove it from me.

aare

Deleted User wrote: »

Except that is simply not true in a democracy. Perhaps you are arguing that it SHOULD not be true. But at this time it is. I can get up tomorrow morning and advocate, preach, petition Elected Representatives.... on any topic I like. I am neither a teacher nor a student, but I can advocate for what I want to see in or out of the education curriculum for example.

That is my right. You can not remove it from me.

You are entitled to your opinion.

aare

aare wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion.

That was my point exactly. Thanks for now agreeing with it. Point being that we all have an entitlement to our opinion and we have equal right to advocate for them regardless of what "standing" we might have in the subject at hand.

aare

Deleted User wrote: »

That was my point exactly. Thanks for now agreeing with it. Point being that we all have an entitlement to our opinion and we have equal right to advocate for them regardless of what "standing" we might have in the subject at hand.

If that is what you prefer to believe.