RTE report: Bill makes purchasing sexual services an offence

cletus van damme

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.

I think we all agree though.
is the point not they are advocating on this topic but claiming they are representing sex workers when they are not.

I can petition my TD on what I like - and I do - but I cannot claim to be representing anybody but myself (maybe my gf and kids at a stretch).
These lobby groups claim to represent many people and also are campaigning on a minority scenario (trafficing and coercion ) as if it was the majority of sex cases.

aare

cletus van damme wrote: »

I think we all agree though.
is the point not they are advocating on this topic but claiming they are representing sex workers when they are not.

I can petition my TD on what I like - and I do - but I cannot claim to be representing anybody but myself (maybe my gf and kids at a stretch).
These lobby groups claim to represent many people and also are campaigning on a minority scenario (trafficing and coercion ) as if it was the majority of sex cases.

Initially they did try to claim to government that they spoke for us all. To my certain knowledge very few sex workers have ever engaged with them, since 1989, beyond humouring them so they will go away. They know little to nothing about the real nature of the sex industry. They know this perfectly well themselves.

I think they get their figures from a combination of people who take up offers like free massage (Why not? The lady who gives them is a volunteer and seems almost too genuine for her own good) and making figures up, because they can (if anyone checks they can hide behind "confidentiality" and the same kind of stigma they encouraged Stormont to use against me).

As far as trafficking is concerned...until I got involved again even I used believe that was happening, but in the past three years I cannot find one verifiable trace of it...not in the Irish sex industry, not through the family connections to organized crime (fo' REAL :rolleyes:). Not through my own old connections...

...and all these people open up to me many times more than to Ruhama et al. It is just a new buzzword and a back handed excuse for persecuting sex workers, illegal immigrants and the black economy through aggressive prevention strategies.

Every case that comes up seems to be either a technical breach of the law or backside covering fantasy...

Coercion has always been really, really rare in the sex industry...one simple reason, it doesn't sell. In any public venue, whether on the streets, or in the clubs in St James, no matter how well you dress, how much evening primrose oil you chug your income will take a serious dip when you are premenstrual.

We give off vibes with our body language and pheromes and the vibes of misery and distress repel the majority of men.

Only those who have never owned or partaken of a male sexuality could convince themselves that it is based upon a need to impose control and inflict pain (which is what TORL claim).

gozunda

[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.

My right to cross the road is tempered by the reality of oncoming traffic. It may be 'my right' but my decision to do so is based on likely consequences and whether it is a good idea or not. From the above it would therefore appear that you are pitching your right to 'advocacy' on behalf of sex workers in a similar manner to Ruhama and TORL.

aare

aare wrote: »

If that is what you prefer to believe.

Yeah I prefer to believe reality and not your fantasy.

If you think I am wrong however - by all means show me the data upon which you think we do not have equal rights to advocate what we wish.

cletus van damme wrote: »

I think we all agree though.
is the point not they are advocating on this topic but claiming they are representing sex workers when they are not.

Then perhaps they should say that rather than saying they have no right to advocate.

If their point is that we should take their input as being less important than that of the people actually directly affected - then by all means that is fine.

But declaring they have no right to advocate in the first place - is simply wrong - and does not match the reality of the democratic ideals we actually live under here in the real world.

gozunda wrote: »

From the above it would therefore appear that you are pitching your right to 'advocacy' on behalf of sex workers

And it is. You might not want to take what I say on board or respond to it - but that does not mean I have no right to do it. Would be useful if you learn the difference.

aare

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah I prefer to believe reality and not your fantasy.

If you think I am wrong however - by all means show me the data upon which you think we do not have equal rights to advocate what we wish.

What I am really trying to say to you is that I realized I was allergic to arguing for the sake of arguing last time I saw my Grandfather, my father and his two brothers in the same room...round about 1970...

They would have loved you.

So no rebuttal then. Didnt think so.

aare

The full madness from Stormont today (second part further down):
http://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2014/12/09&docID=216851#682835

AlekSmart

aare wrote: »

The full madness from Stormont today (second part further down):
http://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2014/12/09&docID=216851#682835

Gosh...as a recent arrivee to this thread,I am immediately drawn to His Lordships introduction .....

Members may be aware that I am a practising Christian, like many others around the House today, and I have always strongly believed that every person is made in the image of God and therefore has an intrinsic dignity that must be respected. Human trafficking is a horrific abuse of a person made in the image of God. The process of bringing this legislation to the Assembly has made it abundantly clear to me that every Member of this House, regardless of their faith or lack of it, agrees that human trafficking is a heinous crime which needs to be tackled in this Province, even if there is some disagreement on how best to achieve that goal.

For me, taking action was very much motivated by my Christian faith and principles. I am not ashamed to say so.

Oh dear.......

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...

Gozunda wrote:

...
From the above it would therefore appear that you are pitching your right to 'advocacy' on behalf of sex workers

And it is. You might not want to take what I say on board or respond to it - but that does not mean I have no right to do it. Would be useful if you learn the difference.

I note you are partaking in selective and out of context quotations again :rolleyes:

Here is the full sentence here for your benefit


My right to cross the road is tempered by the reality of oncoming traffic. It may be 'my right' but my decision to do so is based on likely consequences and whether it is a good idea or not. From the above it would therefore appear that you are pitching your right to 'advocacy' on behalf of sex workers in a similar manner to Ruhama and TORL.

Nice ...

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

I note you are partaking in selective and out of context quotations again

Nope. That has been - and continues to be - your imagination. And you have not once rebutted my actual point while espousing this imagination. Which is that if we have a right to advocate on an issue in this society - then we all have an EQUAL right to do so - and your claim that one group has less of a right to do so than another - was simply false. Nice.

Garlicrosemary

gozunda wrote: »

I note you are partaking in selective and out of context quotations again :rolleyes:

Here is the full sentence here for your benefit


My right to cross the road is tempered by the reality of oncoming traffic. It may be 'my right' but my decision to do so is based on likely consequences and whether it is a good idea or not. From the above it would therefore appear that you are pitching your right to 'advocacy' on behalf of sex workers in a similar manner to Ruhama and TORL.

Nice ...

How are you actually incapable of realising that anyone is entitled to advocate for whatever they want? Do you understand what democracy is?

The Corinthian

What an odd argument. Of course, in a democracy, anyone is entitled to advocate for whatever they want. Doesn't mean that anyone's going to take what they say seriously, let along agree with them.

I think what may be happening is that people are making the same mistake you often get here, where it comes to opinions; everyone is entitled to an opinion, but no one is entitled to having that opinion respected. Some seem to confuse the two.

Storm in a teacup TBH. Girls, stop fighting - you're all pretty.

Garlicrosemary

The Corinthian wrote: »

What an odd argument. Of course, in a democracy, anyone is entitled to advocate for whatever they want. Doesn't mean that anyone's going to take what they say seriously, let along agree with them.

I think what may be happening is that people are making the same mistake you often get here, where it comes to opinions; everyone is entitled to an opinion, but no one is entitled to having that opinion respected. Some seem to confuse the two.

Storm in a teacup TBH. Girls, stop fighting - you're all pretty.

Yes but when some people can't acknowledge that everyone is entitled to an opinion or to advocate for whatever they want it's not surprising that that would be challenged for the nonsense it is. No one here stated that everyone is entitled to have their opinion respected.

The Corinthian

Garlicrosemary wrote: »

Yes but when some people can't acknowledge that everyone is entitled to an opinion or to advocate for whatever they want it's not surprising that that would be challenged for the nonsense it is. No one here stated that everyone is entitled to have their opinion respected.

I understand and I suspect that this is because when we say everyone is entitled to advocate for whatever or their own opinion, they mistakenly presume that this entitlement stretches as far as the advocacy or opinion being taken seriously.

You get it all the time here, with people defiantly saying that they're entitled to their opinion; of course they are, but they're not entitled to other people not pointing out their opinion being little more than a steaming pile of excrement.

They can't differentiate between the two entitlements. My guess is that the disagreement here is based on the same misunderstanding by some. Unless you want to try to explain it using finger puppets, just move on.

aare

The Corinthian wrote: »

I understand and I suspect that this is because when we say everyone is entitled to advocate for whatever or their own opinion, they mistakenly presume that this entitlement stretches as far as the advocacy or opinion being taken seriously.

I think the problem stems from the two uses of the word "advocacy".

One may, of course, advocate for any opinion one wishes.

One has no right, however to advocate on behalf of a person or group without mandate.

At present we have an entire NGO sector raking in billions based on confusing the two.

The Corinthian wrote: »

just move on.

PLEASE...PLEASE

The Corinthian

aare wrote: »

One has no right, however to advocate on behalf of a person or group without mandate.

No one here has suggested this though, from what I can see, which is why I don't see why there's an argument.

At present we have an entire NGO sector raking in billions based on confusing the two.

This is another issue, not related to the principle that anyone has a right to advocate or have an opinion. And this issue exists because such NGO's have managed to be clever enough to ingratiate themselves with lazy politicians and civil servants who prefer to deal with single organized groups and so tend not to bother checking if said groups really do advocate on behalf of a person or group with a mandate or if, as is often the case, are all fur and no knickers.

It's like when you do a press release; never copy protect it, because people are lazy and it'll get used only if you allow them to cut and paste it.

aare

aare wrote: »

One has no right, however to advocate on behalf of a person or group without mandate.

Except yes they do. You might not like it, or want them to do it. But they have every right to in fact do so.

Take Atheist Ireland for example. They advocate for atheists. Do they speak for all atheists, or do all atheists agree with them? Clearly not. But they do it anyway. They advocate for atheists regardless of whether those atheists are members or not - agree or not - or want them to or not.

How many children's rights advocacy groups are actually made up OF children? Once again - another example of people advocating on behalf of people or groups other than themselves.

What of womens rights groups? There are men in that. Associations looking out for the homeless - how many of the people advocating from those groups are themselves homeless? Any? What about all the people advocating both for and against abortion. How many of them have been pregnant? How many are women? Are they not also advocating for others therefore?

So yes - they have EVERY right to do so - and it happens ALL the time. What you actually _do_ with their advocacy however is your own choice but they both do it - and have every right to do it - despite your wish to pretend otherwise.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

Take Atheist Ireland for example. They advocate for atheists. Do they speak for all atheists, or do all atheists agree with them? Clearly not.

Last time I checked, you didn't need 100% support on 100% of issues for a mandate.

How many children's rights advocacy groups are actually made up OF children?

Last time I checked children are excluded from advocating for themselves, instead that falls upon parents to do so or to give a mandate to those who would.

What of womens rights groups? There are men in that. Associations looking out for the homeless - how many of the people advocating from those groups are themselves homeless?

I think you're getting confused between being a member of the group in question and having a mandate from the group.

So yes - they have EVERY right to do so - and it happens ALL the time. What you actually _do_ with their advocacy however is your own choice but they both do it - and have every right to do it - despite your wish to pretend otherwise.

That it happens all the time does not mean that it should - crime happens all the time, after all. The reality is that there are advocacy groups that have widespread support from those they claim to represent and you have advocacy groups that are just good at lobbying and PR. Both may be recognized to advocate for a particular group, but to suggest that they both have a right in principle to be recognized so is a bit like arguing that I can rob you because I can.

While I agree that everyone has a right to advocate whatever they like, the question of whether they have a mandate or have simply scammed themselves recognition is more a question of Realpolitik than principle. As this argument is about the former, I don't think you can really use the "it's true because it happens in the Real World" argument - lots happens in the Real World that really shouldn't.

aare

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one here has suggested this though, from what I can see, which is why I don't see why there's an argument.

But we must not forget that it *IS* the giant, obese, overweight, pink hairy mammoth in this particular room...though it has been stood down a little in impartial discussion...the origins of this whole issue are in Ruhama and closely affiliated organisations steamrollering this issue on the totally false premise that they speak for sex workers.

There have been times throughout this when I have felt I almost need to start every sentence with:

"The first thing I must say is that Ruhama and affiliates not only do not speak on behalf of sex workers, they have never listened to sex workers EVEN when they can actually corner them into engaging (because few, if any sex workers ever engage with Ruhama of their free will"

But it makes discussion cumbersome.

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is another issue, not related to the principle that anyone has a right to advocate or have an opinion. And this issue exists because such NGO's have managed to be clever enough to ingratiate themselves with lazy politicians and civil servants who prefer to deal with single organized groups and so tend not to bother checking if said groups really do advocate on behalf of a person or group with a mandate or if, as is often the case, are all fur and no knickers.

It's like when you do a press release; never copy protect it, because people are lazy and it'll get used only if you allow them to cut and paste it.

This is the fight that got me back into the sex work issue in the first place. In my innocence, I once (early 2011) believed that, as sex workers are intelligent (like most self employed people they tend to be of above average intelligence), autonomous adults it would be a pieca cake to dragoon their self advocacy past all the self serving lies, compared to the more thoroughly infantilized and dehumanized issue I had usually taken up on this basis.

I am no longer that innocent.

(Incidentally, people can go back through my posts on this ID to establish that I was, in fact, a far more miserable hooker than most...and on the edge of being bourne shoulder high by friends of Ruhama before a longstanding adversary pointed out that the "bearers" wanted to criminalise something, to which my reflex response was, approximately: "GOOD GRIEF isn't it miserable enough without THAT as well?").

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

Last time I checked, you didn't need 100% support on 100% of issues for a mandate.

Last time I checked, I never claimed you do.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Last time I checked children are excluded from advocating for themselves, instead that falls upon parents to do so or to give a mandate to those who would.

Last time I checked, that was not my point. My point was that people DO advocate on behalf of others. All the time. And it is their right. Even people who are NOT themselves parents advocate on these issues. I also gave other examples not limited to children or those unable to advocate for themselves.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you're getting confused between being a member of the group in question and having a mandate from the group.

Or you are confusing a point I am making, with one I am not making.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That it happens all the time does not mean that it should

Nor - again - did I claim it should. I just claimed it DOES and that it is our right to advocate on whatever issue we wish. I never made any other point other than this - and certainly never made a point on what "should" be. Only what actually IS.

The Corinthian wrote: »

While I agree that everyone has a right to advocate whatever they like

Which is all my point is - has been - and remains being.

gozunda

Garlicrosemary wrote: »

How are you actually incapable of realising that anyone is entitled to advocate for whatever they want? Do you understand what democracy is?

Thanks for that I can only presume you read nothing that went before. Btw that was not the issue. aare and others have already covered the ground. Reread the posts.

Garlicrosemary

aare wrote: »

But we must not forget that it *IS* the giant, obese, overweight, pink hairy mammoth in this particular room...though it has been stood down a little in impartial discussion...the origins of this whole issue are in Ruhama and closely affiliated organisations steamrollering this issue on the totally false premise that they speak for sex workers.

There have been times throughout this when I have felt I almost need to start every sentence with:

"The first thing I must say is that Ruhama and affiliates not only do not speak on behalf of sex workers, they have never listened to sex workers EVEN when they can actually corner them into engaging (because few, if any sex workers ever engage with Ruhama of their free will"

But it makes discussion cumbersome.




This is the fight that got me back into the sex work issue in the first place. In my innocence, I once (early 2011) believed that, as sex workers are intelligent (like most self employed people they tend to be of above average intelligence), autonomous adults it would be a pieca cake to dragoon their self advocacy past all the self serving lies, compared to the more thoroughly infantilized and dehumanized issue I had usually taken up on this basis.

I am no longer that innocent.

(Incidentally, people can go back through my posts on this ID to establish that I was, in fact, a far more miserable hooker than most...and on the edge of being bourne shoulder high by friends of Ruhama before a longstanding adversary pointed out that the "bearers" wanted to criminalise something, to which my reflex response was, approximately: "GOOD GRIEF isn't it miserable enough without THAT as well?").

There is a gaping chasm between claiming you represent a section of society and advocating for a section if society.