Purchasing of sex will be criminalised (it appears) in the near future in Ireland

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.

You do realise that "long history of involvement" ALSO involved one heck of a lot of Magdalen Laundries?

goose2005 wrote: »

But how do you define "duress"? How many people working in supermarkets, sewers, slaughterhouses are only doing it because they "need the money"? Moreover, making prostitution legal would remove most of the illegal coercion.

Like all the other, unpleasant, things (slaughterhouses is a good example, as was coal mining, once), particularly in times like these, the "duress" tends to be impending *destitution*...passive coercion...

...and I know that there are complete d*cks (a lot of them with Ruhama) who believe there is a magic, money tree out there if you can only be bothered to go out and garner from it. Along with a whole wide world full of Garda cleared, montessori trained, kindly neighbours who will mind the kids for 50 hours every week for half nothing while you are the lucky one in 200 who gets a job in Tesco or McDonalds.

We have a great society, and one of the most flexible and compassionate welfare states in the world, but nothing is perfect. People slip through the cracks, and the further we get into recession, the more of them slip.

Now, I agree, a guy who KNOWS all that, probably, does, AND SHOULD, feel like a rapist and stay away, but that doesn't pay the bills and keep the kids fed, which is probably a major factor in discouraging people caught in prostitution from shouting that particular truth from the rooftops.

It makes me feel ill to see two reprehensible lobbies tearing the lives of people caught in prostitution apart between them like a couple of hounds with a hare:

• A sanctimonious Ruhama based lobby who want to decriminalise prostitutes (because if they didn't at least do that they couldn't even pretend to have the support of the women any more) but make it impossible for those in protitution to go on making a living by criminalising the clients instead...the few clients still left (at least for a while) are liable to be into a dangerous and abusive kind of financial and sexual edgeplay, with a potential for absolute disaster. Ruhama claim to be "user lead", thus donning the latest fashion in "grant harvesting", but they are nothing of the sort. Most people actually *in* prostitution regard them as a hypocritical and harmful nuisance, but there Ruhama have the advantage, because very few people in prostitution can afford to identify themselves at all let alone just to set the record straight on the reality of their relationship with Ruhama or the validity of the statistics they pull out of thin air to suit themselves and justify their own existance and funding.
• A stable of glorified pimps who want to see the most readily accessible forms of independent prostituion outlawed, and controlled prostitution legalised - also, very much, to suit themselves. Leading to a situation where active (rather than passive) coercion becomes far more common and harder to avoid

What we need to do is stand down the penalties that obstruct and identify independent prostitutes in the '93 act (literally forcing them under the control of pimps), and pur in place the zoming that should have been established in '93 instead.

A red light district is free, nightime security whether for people (which would *YOU* prefer? To be mistaken for a hooker for 5 minutes...or mugged?) or premises (trust me, people often go into prostitution because they are absent warm, fuzzy feeling about, far less personally invasive activities like theft and fraud. Free, safe and legal, they are no more going to stand and watch them happen than you would at home.

...and when that is established we do what we as a nation do best and avert our eyes and let them get on with preserving their lives, as we, as a nation, have failed to do, while they make their own way back to safety and the "vrai monde" without a stain on their characters.

Ruhama's Government funding should be withdrawn and put into a fund for very sick children where it will be of more use than harm for a change.

The other lobby should be diced and donated to the stray animals in our pounds, though I understand it would require further legislation to expedite this, I feel sure that will not be a problem.

NewHillel wrote: »

For a definition of duress, check out my previous link
Thank you for acknowledging that illegal coercion is implicit in prostitution.

Absolute rubbish...as a matter of hard fact "illegal coercion" was effectively unheard of prior to the '93 act, and though it increased significantly since AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THAT ACT is, in reality, at nowhere near the levels Ruhama claim.

Criminalising prostitution in any way actually encourages illegal coercion.

NewHillel wrote: »

If more people acknowledged this they might see why criminalising the punter is long overdue.

WHAT ON EARTH FOR?

Let me tell you what would happen if you criminalise the customers.

• The wealthy, organised pimps would find ways to circumvent that in order to increase both their market share and the coercive power they had over the women who work for them.
• The more informal and personal pimps would try to "resolve the income deficit" by bullying their victim.
• The independent prostitutes, usually already financially desperate, would suffer a devastating drop in income, be unable to pay bills, buy groceries and even lose the roofs over their (and their childrens) heads...and this being a recession they would have no other recourse left, because prostitution WAS the last resort.

Oh yes, THAT would really solve the whole problem of coercion in prostitution. :rolleyes:

If you want to solve the problem of illegal coercion in prostitution all you have to do is decriminalise it again, so that, once more, the women can call the guards for protection at the first sign of ANY form of active coercion.

The only reason you legislate to zone prostitution is to avoid conflict with the wider society who, like you, haven't got the first clue about the harsh and irresolveable reality of it and mostly have too many problems of their own at present to be able to take that on board.

NewHillel wrote: »

It is disingenuous to compare prostitution with the occupations mentioned above.

No it isn't, it seems fairly realistic to me...

I am not going to sugarcoat it, prostitution is deeply unpleasant and emotionally distressing, but no more so than a lot of other things, if only for specific individuals inspecific circumstances...I can remember a close friend having to work in a slaughterhouse at minimum wage...and worse, because they did not "fit in" they were constantly bullied...it was a bloody nightmare that no-one should ever have to go through, but there was no other work available...THAT was easily as bad and damaging as prostitution.

NewHillel wrote: »

(Or maybe you have evidence of supermarkets trafficking in people to work in their checkouts?)

Let us lose this fictional association between prostitution and "being trafficked" shall we?

"Being trafficked" is actually quite rare. SWAI tried to come up with some real statistics last year to counter the Ruhama propaganda and, so far, couldn't actually find anyone who had been trafficked!

But let's keep it real, in boom times people from poor countries are trafficked to rich countries, and not just for the purposes of prostitution, they wind up doing a lot of other unpleasant jobs for slave wages, in terrible conditions - but once the boom is over the opportunity to traffic people (usually willing migrants who have been mislead), and the profit in so doing dries up and it is over.

NewHillel wrote: »

There is a case to be made for legalising prostitution, in controlled environments. I would support this.

I hope you don't mean as in "controlled by pimps", because, of course that is another way to eradicate illegal coercion...you simply legalise it.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I get the point your trying to make and I agree that often people get driven into prostitution not because they want to but because they have to. But you seem to be presupposing (I think; correct me if I'm wrong) that the welfare system will solve these problems if the prostitutes stop their job and move onto benefits.

Anyone who is driven to prostitution surely weighs up the fact they could go on the dole and get other benefits and decide that isn't a viable option. If it was the more attractive option, then people wouldn't be choosing prostitution over it. Meanwhile, we cannot afford to increase welfare options in this country at the moment. Making it further illegal won't encourage prostitutes to stop doing that job and look into welfare; if that was an option, surely they'd have taken it already.

I think it should be legalised mainly because if it was, there'd be more room to protect people. It could be discussed then as well; thats the big problem imo. It's impossible to discuss this in a public forum as being pro-legalisation without exposing yourself to the social scorn and people thinking your a sick pervert or something...

Very much earlier in the thread but what a brilliant, insightful, down to earth post...plugged into reality ALL THE WAY.

rodento wrote: »

Now how can you protect someone by cutting off their income stream...

I know it is old, but this is too good to waste too...that is just the bottom line here.

YOU NEVER HELP OR EMPOWER ANYONE BY CUTTING OFF THEIR INCOME STREAM.

There is also a sly, underlying message in this:

That prostitutes are only selling sex because they were too lazy to find anything else...and if you take their incomes away they will HAVE to pull their socks up and get their fingers out...

I cannot even find words to tell you how insulting and degrading that implication is.

Guess some people will always see things differently :rolleyes:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/prostitution-memoir-could-lure-young-women-to-enter-the-trade-3003033.html

NewHillel wrote: »

With respect, comparing soliciting sex with a prostitute to 'buying a computer' is "absolutely, mind blowingly ludicrous". Equally, pretending that there are "employers", may make the punter feel more comfortable, but we all know that it is no more than a pretence.

It is well past time to call a spade a spade, and call it as it is. The Gardai and the authorities, have got this one spot on. If nothing else, it wil remove all the bravado from what is a murky, totally unsavoury business. Whether it is 1% or 50% of prostitutes that are working under duress, doesn't really matter. How is the punter to know which ones are, and which ones aren't? He can't!

This is not a debate about what happens between consenting adults, as the apologists for street prostitution try and pretend. It is about protecting the vulnerable from preying adults - who don't give a $hit, once they get their rocks off. A nice stiff sentence, would quickly help them to refocus.

But one could apply exactly the same logic to agency cleaners - you don't know if the cleaner you hire has had her passport confiscated by the boss and is only being paid €2 an hour - are you just as responsible as the head of the cleaning company? Should all cleaning companies be made illegal if a few workers in the industry turn out to be exploited?

"A discussion document on the possibility of such legislation criminalising the purchase of sex will be issued by the end of the month, according to the Department of Justice.

Although it is an offence to solicit prostitution in a public place, it is not an offence to sell or purchase sex, except in the case where someone knowingly solicits a person who has been trafficked for the purpose of prostitution."

"A group including representatives of the Department of Justice and gardaí travelled to Sweden last September to meet officials and experts to examine 1999 Swedish legislation which provides that a person who obtains or attempts to obtain a casual sexual relation, in any place, in return for payment commits an offence.

A report on the visit was published by the department at which time Minister for Justice Alan Shatter said a consultation document would be prepared to inform future legislation in this area."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0123/1224310626760.html

if we are going to ban prostitution why?

Or will it be another "Pious aspiration" law like it is illegal to cycle on footpaths. Once it is banned we can say put in our normal token effort to enforce it.

How many more laws are we going to pass the in Dáil that we are not will or able to enforce.

I honestly think that when it comes to the likes of prostitution and drugs they should just be legalised, regulated and taxed. Criminalising them only creates a new revenue stream for criminal gangs and doesnt do anything to stop them from happening.
At least if they're legalised they can be controlled, the people involved in them can be better cared for and the state can benefit from some of the proceeds.
look at Amsterdam, one of the most modern, prosperous cities in Europe. Relaxed drug laws, regulated prostitution and yet it hasnt descended into a den of iniquity.

I see your point but i imagine working as an illegal one would be much worse.

yeah id say it's an industry full of horror stories. Legalisation is by no means the perfect solution i just think its preferable to girls in back alleys getting beaten by pimps, catching god knows what, facing multiple rapes in a day, underage girls getting involved and of course the horror of human trafficking, a modern form of slavery.
Of course legalisation probably wouldnt end all that but if it would even put a dent in it it would be worth it.

I was talking prostitution in a private place where it is legal now.
No sure why whey would let you in to take photographs.

irishh_bob wrote: »

completley agree , you could legalise everything and anything but that wouldnt reduce the impact on people , prostitution is IMO something that should never be legitimised under any circumstances

I was only making the point that if it was legalised it could be regulated. You could put certain laws in place to ensure people's lives arent put in jeopardy. Security, screening, testing etc...
It would also take it out of the hands of criminals, which would have the twofold effect of removing a revenue stream from organised criminals and benefiting the state in the form or taxation.
Like i said it wouldnt solve the problem completely, but as you said yourself, it's about the impact on the individual, so if it helped even one person it would be worth it.

Yes, but it needs to be legalised properly, so as "to protect the kids"