Female gardai pose as prostitutes

RussellTuring wrote: »

I don't see how anyone can justify punishing consenting adults for engaging in a transaction that harms no one else. As with other examples of prohibition, trying to moralise on behalf of everyone in society using the law does nothing but put prostitution into the hands of dangerous people; people who are willing to risk imprisonment and use violence to make a profit.

There is a lot of faith in that however. People are extorted for sex services across the world. The "industry" of prostitution is full of trafficked individuals who are doing this against their own will. There is nothing to suggest that legalisation makes this any better in the case of the Netherlands. The evidence does however show that a pragmatic model such as the Swedish model does work in eliminating sex exploitation.

That's not moralising beyond protecting the safety, dignity and respect of human beings.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Nothing apart from the actual facts

Cite them and lets discuss. I've presented the case for the Swedish system. You claim I'm misrepresenting the facts. OK, let's discuss what you think "the facts" are.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I just stopped listening to them when it became obvious (i.e. pretty quickly) that they were talking absolute shyte. I didnt know they were a Catholic organization but it does explain a lot !

From their site.

Grounded in a Christian perspective which emphasises the value and dignity of every human being, Ruhama works from a position of respect and uncritical acceptance of the women and seeks to actualise belief in their inner capacity to effect change in their own lives.

And

Ruhama was founded as a joint initiative of the Good Shepherd Sisters and Our Lady of Charity Sisters, both of which had a long history of involvement with marginalised women, including those involved in prostitution.

http://www.ruhama.ie/page.php?intPageID=4

The media always go to this organization for opinions on prostituition but given their links to the Catholic church i think they're just pushing an agenda. We never seem to hear the opinion of the prostitutes themselves in these stories. Ruhama always seems to speak for them.

philologos wrote: »

There was a report published by the Swedish Government reviewing the law in 2010 over 10 years after it was introduced. Details are available on the Wikipedia entry if you want a brief synopsis.

Had a perfunctory scan of a wiki-synopsis (so fully acquainted with the facts on Swedish vice law I ain't) but a couple of things jump out at me.

The report certainly seems less than compelling and as such a thorough appraisal of the model utilising international best practise and conducted by an independent body would be of considerably greater benefit.

Where two consenting adults freely agree to enact a transaction for sex, any state interference, with the exception of health and taxation regulation, would seem to me to impinge upon the basic privacy and personal freedoms of those involved.

"According to the National Criminal Police, it is clear that the ban on the purchase of sexual services acts as a barrier to human traffickers and procurers considering establishing themselves in Sweden".

Given the wooly assertion above, it would seem understandable that critics have found fault with the report on the basis that:

it adds nothing since it is not based on empirical research. They have commented on the lack of methodology and evidence and the failure to adequately consult with sex workers themselves and have questioned the scientific validity. They have also raised the question as to whether it should be translated into English (only a summary is available) to allow a wider examination.

Perhaps the most extraordinary excerpt below gives an insight into the bizarre rationale those espousing a prohibitionist approach in Sweden are prepared to countenance.

"Those who defend prostitution argue that it is possible to differentiate between voluntary and non-voluntary prostitution, that adults should have the right to freely sell and freely purchase sex (...) However, based on a gender equality and human rights perspective, (...) the distinction between voluntary and nonvoluntary prostitution is not relevant."

enfant terrible wrote: »

Is there any evidence of sex trafficking in Ireland?

Yes. On a simple Google search one can find much more.

What grounds does one have to deny it is probably a better question?

pablomakaveli wrote: »

There's no denying there is sex trafficking of some women. But is there any evidence that most prostitutes in Ireland have been trafficked here? Given Ruhamas idea that prostitution anf trafficking is the same thing.

It's impossible to tell if they haven't. Actually, it is by and large impossible to tell consent either. Largely as I would see it prostitution is the result of some coercion. Either physical coercion or financial coercion. I'm highly doubtful that if other career paths were equally as open to people that they would choose it.

As for trafficking figures they are very difficult to tell because of the reluctance of people to come forward. What figures we do have are probably a tiny representation of the whole.

That applies both to male and female prostitutes. I think Ruhama's aims are nothing short of admirable, and it's the right outlook to deal with any social issue that faces our society to treat people with respect and dignity is hugely important.

philologos wrote: »

That's not what Ruhama seem to be doing. They seem to be bringing awareness to sex trafficking and exploitation in Ireland and that's a hugely admirable thing as far as I would see it.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

There's no denying there is sex trafficking of some women. But is there any evidence that most prostitutes in Ireland have been trafficked here? Given Ruhamas idea that prostitution anf trafficking is the same thing.

The recent 'Turn Off the Red Light' radio campaign supported by Ruhama, ICTU Women, Immigrant Council of Ireland etc. was incredibly disingenuous in claiming all prostitution in Ireland was as a consequence of sex-trafficking.

Why did they propagate such a dubious claim?