In this post on the effect of the sex purchase ban in Norway, I promised to return to the 2010 Annual Report of the Pro Centre. The Pro Centre is an Oslo-based agency which acts as both a national resource centre on prostitution and a health and social services provider to sex workers. You can read a full description of the Pro Centre’s remit here.
The Report is here. Unfortunately, it’s all in Norwegian, so I need to start off with a couple disclaimers. First, what follows in this post is a Google Translate job, and I can’t be sure Google got everything right. Second, my attempts to clean up Google’s translations may not be strictly accurate; this should not be seen as an absolutely authoritative translation. Finally, on many pages there were whole lines that turned into gibberish when C&P’d. If the context suggested that a gibberish line might relate to the sex purchase ban I retyped it myself for translation, but if it didn’t, I skipped it. Thus it’s possible that I have inadvertently omitted some relevant elements of the report.
All that said, there was enough repetition of the key points that I think it’s extremely unlikely that what follows actually misrepresents the report in any significant way. I will post any needed corrections, if an actual Norwegian speaker can bring them to my attention.
Now then. The report is broken down into different sections that cover the different areas the Centre works in. Each section has a different author, and not all of them have anything to say about the law. Among those who do, however, there doesn’t appear to be any disagreement about the law’s effects. The issues that they raise are grouped together below.
Have sex workers left the industry because of the law?
I’ll start off with this one, so yous don’t think I’m cherry-picking only the comments that criticise the law. This is, in fact, an area in which the law might be said to have had some positive effect. The Centre does believe that at least some sex workers have chosen to leave the trade; this is stated on page 15.
But there’s a pretty big caveat: these are indoor, Norwegian workers, and what it says about them is:
These women often have more options than prostitution and grab them now.
This seems to vindicate one of the points that I made in this post: the sex workers who can leave when their industry is criminalised are precisely the ones who always could leave – that is, not the trapped and desperate ones that abolitionists are concerned with.
As for the outdoor Norwegian workers, who have considerably fewer options? Many have disappeared from the street – but the report challenges assumptions that this means they’ve quit sex work:
Many have found other ways to get in touch with customers…Many have gained regular customers as they make agreements by mobile phone instead of meeting them in a prostitution district. (page 78)
Similarly, on page 88 it says that many sex workers are simply no longer operating
in the centre of town. Pro Centre are told that much of the drug trade and prostitution is happening in neighbourhoods, in people’s homes and close to the council flats
And on page 72 it says:
We have information that activity has continued to grow out in the more public spaces, such as in bars, clubs and other meeting points. There are fewer and fewer people working together in an apartment, to be less visible to neighbors and the outside world.
In other words, the market is reorganising to avoid detection. This makes it pretty much impossible to assume that a decline in detected cases actually means people have left the industry.
Some, however, are no longer earning enough through sex work – and it’s primarily the most vulnerable:
These are women with extensive and complex problems…When criminalisation was adopted in 2008, they became further marginalised…it was difficult for the most vulnerable drug users to obtain income by prostitution (page 33)
So what became of this group?
Some have found it necessary to finance their drug consumption in a criminal manner. (page 78)
That’s pretty much what I argued in this post would happen, isn’t it?
For non-Norwegians the report finds that the law has had some impact, but clearly not what was expected. On page 80, in relation to Nigerian street workers, it is acknowledged that:
the number of Nigerian prostitutes in Oslo has gone down considerably
However, also speaking of Nigerians it says on page 76:
We had an expectation that they would leave the country after criminalization, because they basically have few rights in Norway. This assumption is only partially suggested.
Since the law was brought in primarily as a xenophobic response to the appearance of Nigerian sex workers, Norwegians might see it as a success to the limited extent that it did persuade them to leave the country. But of course, “leaving the country” is not the same as leaving prostitution – so at best we can say that the law seems to have had some displacement effect on this group (and, as I’ve noted elsewhere on this blog, at least some were merely displaced across the border to Sweden). In fact, the report acknowledges this on page 41 when it says:
We thought last year that may of the foreign women would disappear… for example, to travel for prostitution markets in other countries.
However,
Far from most of them have gone
Going on to consider Thai sex workers, the report does say (page 77) that the law “probably” contributed to many of them seeking routes out of prostitution – but the way in which it did this is pretty rotten. I’ll discuss that further in the section on violence against sex workers.
On page 75 it notes more generally that
In recent years we have also had many foreign visitors who have few or no rights in Norwegian society. Alternatives to prostitution are therefore limited.
Again, this shows that laws that aim to eradicate prostitution by eliminating demand simply will not work for certain particularly vulnerable sectors of the population, because there is nothing else for them to do.
And apparently, even some of those who might be otherwise-employable are remaining in prostitution for lack of opportunities. Page 55 contains a letter written to the Department of Justice by a woman who decided to try to leave the industry after the law came in. She writes:
I got in touch with Pro, to take advantage of these “opportunities” to get another job. This was the promised support, and I was so stupid that I believed…Now it’s demanded that I should take a course in what I would say has no meaning to me in my situation. For a course of 18 months I will have nothing but to get a job in a supermarket. So I prefer to work as a prostitute…I had begun to believe in this and that it would give me the opening I need to change my lifestyle, but now I feel that this is in no way within reach.
This is just one person’s experience, of course, and it can’t be verified (then again, anti-prostitution material is full of such individual anecdotes). But it does point up another way in which abolitionist ideology often fails to recognise the reality of sex workers’ experience. If you assume that sex work is so awful that nobody would possibly do it if they had another option, it follows that any alternative would be preferable, and therefore it isn’t necessary to provide decent alternatives. But in fact, even a lot of sex workers who’d like to get out would rather stay in than take some of the crappy options available to them. Offering them useless courses that lead only to shit jobs is as insulting to them as it would be to anyone else.
So onto a related issue…
Has the law reduced the overall amount of prostitution?
As always, this is a question that really can’t be answered with certainty, because there never was a way to accurately measure the number of sex workers and there certainly won’t be now that the industry has been driven underground. The best that the Centre can do is estimate, based on the numbers it encounters.
On page 76 it says:
The foreign contingent has not declined to the extent that we had expected, and we observe that there are constantly new people….This group [Eastern Europeans] has had a rise since 2009 and is up on the same level as 2008 [before the law was introduced].
In relation to the indoor market, page 15 states:
we saw a drastic decline in the number of ads in 2009, while the figure rose again in 2010 and is now at the same level as in 2008…
On the same page, speaking of the foreign workers who “tour” the country for a short period of time and then leave, it says that this sector:
increased sharply in 2010.
In terms of the street sector, the findings vary by city. Page 14 states:
In Oslo, we estimate that street prostitution is made up of 670 different people (an increase of 34% from 2009, but 46% fewer than in the peak year of 2008). In Bergen, [an outreach agency] mentions that they have had contact with 101 different people in 2010 (a 15% decrease from 2009)…In Stavanger, [another outreach agency] reports that they have been in contact with 36 different women in 2010 (an increase of 16% from 2009).
So of Norway’s three largest cities, one noted a large drop in street prostitution immediately after the law was enacted but the numbers have since begun to increase significantly; one is seeing a decrease since last year, and the other seeing an increase. With no real pattern, these figures must cast doubt on claims that the law is “working” to reduce prostitution.
And speaking of the sex workers who come to use the Pro Centre’s services, on page 79 the report says:
We observe that despite the statutory prohibition there are more and more new users here, especially foreign women.
On page 56 it says:
A total of 632 people used the Pro Centre’s health services in 2010. This is an increase of 13% from 2009…We have seen the largest increase in Romanian women.
Again, this doesn’t prove that the number of sex workers in Oslo, or even the number of Romanian sex workers, is actually increasing. But it certainly doesn’t support claims that the numbers are decreasing because of the law. Those tempted to make such claims need to explain exactly how they arrive at them.
Has the law led to a decrease in trafficking to Norway?
Again, it’s impossible to accurately measure this, but the report suggests the law might have had some effect. On page 80 it says:
In 2010, we worked with fewer people vulnerable to trafficking than in 2009.
This is partially attributed to the decline in Nigerian sex workers in Oslo (noted above), about whom it says
Nigerian women are the vast majority of people trafficked at the Pro Centre.
But of course, we don’t know if they were simply trafficked to a different country, in which case it couldn’t be said that the law had any beneficial impact from their perspective. Furthermore, the report goes on to suggest that trafficked persons may now be declining to come forward, because of the consequences they face for doing so:
…it is known in the community that the help you get will pretty much be temporary. Some are actually more afraid of their situation after having taken the temporary help than they were before. They experience an even more unsafe situation when the aid ceases. They get a reputation in the community as being informants. In addition, there is a perception that the police use them, and [Immigration] then throws them out of the country…Several feel that they gave up all control over their own lives from the moment they began to receive assistance as victims of trafficking and were granted reflection. Some have said that they regret the choice they did, and that they never would have done the same again. More tell us that they felt they had more opportunities for the future and more control over their own lives when they were still under the control of traffickers, than they have as identified victims of trafficking.
You have to admit, that’s a pretty horrific situation for trafficked persons to be in. It’s not the fault of the sex purchase ban, of course. However, as I’ve said before, it can be easy to lose sight of all the other aspects of trafficking that need to be dealt with when outlawing prostitution is treated as the solution to the problem.
And Nigerians aren’t the only people who the Pro Centre thinks are being trafficked into Norway. Back on page 15, where the report (as already noted) refers to a sharp increase in “touring” sex workers, it says:
We are in no doubt that some of the traffic on the market, particularly from Eastern Europe, is well organised.
So, as all of the above shows, there’s not a lot of evidence in this report to justify claims that the law has had the positive effects it was intended to have. But what about the negative, unintended effects?
Violence against sex workers
As with everything else, getting precise statistics is impossible. But the Pro Centre certainly seems to feel the law has made things more dangerous. On page 72 it says:
With the changes and restructuring that have continued to develop on the market, women and men in prostitution have also been considerably more vulnerable and exposed in multiple contexts. We know that they now to a much smaller extent have the opportunity to work jointly with others. Many also go alone to unfamiliar places to meet the customer, unless the conditions can be checked out in advance, which means greater risk for such exposure to violence…We still hear that more customers are increasingly requiring more specific services performed, lower payment and the aggression level has increased.
During the last months of 2010, there were several robberies…They used the same procedure every time, and threatened with both crowbar and knives…This led naturally to life becoming even more uncomfortable and difficult for many.
As for those Thai workers I mentioned before, who have been motivated by the law to leave the industry? The reason why is given on page 77:
Statutory prohibition has affected this group particularly hard both in terms of police actions and the people/groups that have exercised violence and robbery against them.
So the law’s consequences have actually terrorised them out of prostitution. Is that really the approach that feminist abolitionists think we should take?
And what about those who can’t be terrorised out, because they’ve nowhere to go?
Unsafe sex
The report is unequivocal about this: it has increased. This is attributed mainly to having too few customers for too many sex workers:
We get a lot of feedback from prostitutes that condom use is declining. The high number of pregnancies and the increase in sexually transmitted infections also point in that direction. Many people tell us that using condoms when they perform oral sex has become almost impossible. There are many women who perform oral sex on men without a condom, making it difficult for those who want to use condoms to negotiate this with the customer. There is also a known fact that one gets more money to have sex without a condom, so that in a market that has a greater supply than demand, an increasing number of our patients reported that they take “trips” [not sure exactly how to translate that] without a condom. (page 57)
It’s pretty basic economic stuff: reduce demand below supply and you create a buyer’s market, where the seller is the one who has to make the concessions. The consequences?
We have unfortunately seen a rise in sexually transmitted infections. In 2010 there were 24 positive for chlamydia, compared with 8 last year. (page 59)
And it’s not only STIs that they’re seeing more of:
We have seen a continued increase in the number of unwanted pregnancies…This may be a consequence of the new sex purchase law which came into force in 2009, because we found that women were more hesitant to accept condoms. (page 61)
Of course, a dangerous consequence of unwanted pregnancies is:
Some women tell us that they provoke an abortion themselves using drugs or other methods. Such drugs are unfortunately easily accessible and can cause major health problems for women. (page 62)
And a further possible reason is suggested for the apparent increase in unsafe sex:
Several [sex workers] no longer wished to accept condoms when we arrived at visits. Condoms were the evidence police needed to prove prostitution. (page 11)
As “bad sex work policy” goes, does it get much worse than using condoms as evidence? Could they disincentivise condoms any more?
Worsened relations with police
The Nordic model was supposed to ensure that sex workers could still report crimes against them to police, since they wouldn’t run the risk of being arrested. What this assumption fails to take into account is that if your industry is criminalised, the police are not your ally. Their job is to stop you from doing your job. So why on earth would you want to alert them to the fact that you’re doing that job? This is a prime example of why policy-makers need to actually listen to sex workers, and not simply make laws on the basis of what seems intuitive to them.
In fact, the report confirms that the police are still targeting the most vulnerable. On page 78, describing drug-using Norwegian sex workers:
We still get feedback from the Norwegian users that the police chase them away from the prostitution district and threaten to punish them for invitation to criminal acts.
On page 89:
There have been a lot of police in the district in 2010, and some of [the sex workers] we have talked to have felt harassed by some officers. The women say they feel it is they who have been criminalised and not the customers. Several reported that they were expelled from the district for a day because they “encouraged criminal activity”.
And it appears to be sex workers in general (not just street workers) who the report describes on page 72:
There are sellers of sexual services, mainly women, who have been focused on by both the police and the community at large. We have received many inquiries from women who are both frustrated and angry over this. Many have expressed that they feel constantly monitored and pursued, which leads to a constant sense of anxiety and turbulence…They believe they are unlawfully criminalized and chased and find that the actions and attitudes they are faced with, is very offensive.
Which brings us to a related issue…
Has the law increased the stigma against sex workers?
I think that most people outside the sex industry have really no idea exactly how big an issue stigma is. I’ve seen a number of research pieces in which it is identified by sex workers as the single biggest problem they face – bigger than violent customers, bigger than pimps, bigger than STDs and all the other things that non-sex workers think of.
Stigma is a problem for sex workers on a number of levels. It’s a mental health issue in and of itself. And it also contributes to all the other “negative effects” I’ve outlined above. It puts sex workers at greater risk of violence, by suggesting they are appropriate targets for abuse. It puts their health at risk by discouraging them from seeking needed health services, or from disclosing their occupation to their health service provider. It makes it harder for them to negotiate safer sex, or for better working conditions with their brothel or agency, by portraying them as the weaker negotiating party. And it damages their relationships with police by making police think they don’t merit protection from harm, because after all, they should be used to it. (I could write a whole blog post about how the radical feminist view of sex work contributes to this stigma and therefore to the harms that sex workers face. And maybe someday I will.)
While the Nordic model is ostensibly supposed to stigmatise the buyer and not the seller, Swedish sex workers have long claimed that they feel targeted under the law. It is quite clear from reading the Pro Centre report that the same has occurred in Norway. On page 11 it describes how immediately after the law came into force:
…the evening news showed a female hotel owner in Halden with a big grin, saying she and her male employees who pretended to be whore customers now managed to get all the women they thought were prostitutes thrown out of the hotel…it was like a kind of invitation to the common man, the police and the media, actually all of us, a joint volunteer effort to combat prostitution. You can guess how this went over. Women in prostitution were scared.
On page 73, it says:
Stigmatisation of people with experience of prostitution has, if possible, become even stronger in the past year. Many feel, as mentioned, that they have become a sort of fair game
Page 64 also mentions increased stigma as a consequence of the law, in the context of explaining why many sex workers are alienated from the public health system. Alienating people from the public health system is bad. Seriously, folks, it’s not rocket science.
Nationality discrimination and loss of home
Page 11 notes that
Many women had their tenancy terminated because the police threatened the landlords with pimping charges if they let to prostitutes.
This seems to be hitting foreign sex workers (and perhaps not only sex workers) particularly hard:
On suspicion of prostitution activity, the potential landlord is contacted and warned of the danger of pimp charges if the lease does not immediately cease. It has thus been difficult for women of foreign origin to hire a private residence when Landlords have been skeptical. The fear is that there will be prostitution there, and that the landlord is thereby risking pimp charges against him. (page 71)
It seems that women travelling alone are also stigmatised in this manner:
Women’s identity documents have been checked against police records when they are booked into a hotel. (page 72)
The report concludes with a review of other recent literature from Sweden and Norway, including what looks like a very interesting report titled Local Consequences of the Sex Purchase Law in Bergen. Here’s a bit from its summary (page 104):
The report’s finding is that the sex purchase law has had serious consequences for women who sell sex in Bergen…The market to make money by organising others’ prostitution has increased. The report also reveals that women feel more unsafe than earlier, and that drug use on the market has increased. In relation to the number selling sex both on the street and indoors, there was a sharp decline in the number of women who offered their services immediately after the Act’s implementation. A short time later, an increase in the number of women could again be registered.
I’ll close this with a quote from the report (page 33) that sums up exactly what is wrong with the sex purchase ban. We can’t really say that it has had the effect of reducing the overall amount of prostitution or trafficking; it may have resulted in some women leaving the sex industry (although not necessarily for better alternatives, or in a very nice way) – but it will always leave some of the most vulnerable behind, and
it is they who do not leave prostitution that are left holding the bag.
When will the Nordic model be seen for the health and human rights debacle it evidently is?
The law has seemed to have less of an impact in Norway than sweeden and seems if the numbers of “working girls” hasnt fallen at all.
In Norway as opposed to sweden the law was to help stop trafficking not as a gender equality issue.
In relation to Nigerians (which seemed to be of particular concern). This could be helped with imposing laws that only EU/EEA citizens with PPS numbers can work in the industry this would limit the amount of trafficking overall and decrease the amount of african sex workers.
New Zealand has a similar law.
Hmm, I don’t see how that would stop trafficking. Traffickers aren’t exactly known for their concern about work permit restrictions, in fact they thrive in such circumstances because they can more easily control people who don’t have permission to work.
In any case I wouldn’t support prohibiting Nigerians (or anyone else) from working in the industry. That only creates a two-tier system and ensures that the excluded group remains marginalised and vulnerable.
Well done Wendy! on putting together that vital and extremely important article from your pain staking research and findings.
These types of articles are extremely important in the current consultation process about whether or not to remove sex workers rights and their clients rights in ireland.
The swedish law model has serious holes, and those holes could destroy peoples lives in ireland, so its important to expose them for what they are, and the consequences they hold for people such as the sex workers in ireland.
It is also important for the public to realise that the pressure groups of ruhama and its allies, are simply not best suited to be directing debates on sex work, for the simple reason being that ruhama are only an outreach service, that are an anti sex work organisation, seeking to convince sex workers why they should stop being sex workers, also the ruhama group are only seeing one side of the situation, there is another larger side that contains sex workers who want nothing got to do with people and groups that want to change their mindset/lives and convince them that what they are doing is wrong, ruhama preaches against sex workers as they incorrectly see them all as being exploited.
People have different experiences, just because ruhama helped exploited victims does not mean that all sex workers are exploited helpless victims, cut the stigma and respect and improve sex workers rights for gods sake. People have different experiences as a sex worker, its important to listen to them all, its also important for a sex worker to feel empowered and safe enough to report any assaults, threats or crime made against them, they are human beings they deserve rights too and they should not be discriminated against by people in society.
Many sex workers do not see wrong in what they are doing, its their lives, their choice and they need to be respected for their own adult sexual relationship decisions, its not illegal to offer sexual services in ireland, its not illegal to avail of those services either when they are offered by the sex worker and are being made by consenting adults.
As ruhama disagrees with sex workers servicing their clients, then they are hating on the current law, so they are only dictators, its also wrong when they use cases of trafficked victims as a method or tool if you will in an attempt to destroy and remove sex workers rights to equality and their clients rights to equality, just because they think that those adults are doing something wrong and then suggesting they are selling their souls etc, that is dangerous crazy dogma to mention souls in such a debate.
NOW where does that dangerous crazy dogma come from? one might wonder, well that crazy dogma comes from the fact that ruhama was founded by the same organisations that destroyed womens lives in the past and done the most horrific abuse imaginable to those poor innocent souls, the same organisations that destroyed womens lives in the past are now the trustees of the ruhama anti-sex-work group, the members of the organisations that ran the magdalene asylums are on the board of directors there, NOW that fact needs to hit home to the public and the government, wake the heck up people.
Who the heck are ruhama to be talking about criminals and saving souls? when all one has to do is look into their origins and runnings to see the kind of people they are, and people need to realise and comprehend that these types of people destroyed a whole irish female generation, and are now calling for a dangerous law model that wrecks peoples lives.
This group needs to be fought head on by the sex workers and their representitive organisations, if sex workers are to hold onto any of their rights at all, before its too late.
The negative swedish sex law was only barely stopped from being rushed in the backdoor without any real debate at all, what a disgrace and a scandal that there was no real consultation debate whatsoever. And as for the senators who refused to get the opinions of sex workers, those senators should have been expelled from the seanad for wanting to endanger peoples lives without listening to the people who say they would feel endangered from such a dangerous law.
Now lets get onto ruhama’s figures and estimates and their attempts to stop sex workers, In order to stop sex workers and maintain their funding, the anti-sex work organization ruhama are forced to adopt statistics and numbers based on shaky research and promote them as solid, incontrovertible fact. These numbers are then adopted by politicians, repeated by journalists, and finally accepted as ‘the truth’ by average people, until it seems that the country is overrun by naive, powerless sex slaves in need of benevolent rescue and rehabilitation.
The pushing and promotion of inflated numbers and misleading statistics, in order to stop sex work, that is what ruhama is all about, they are a disgrace, as they also use journalists and the media to their advantage to spread lies, and yes they do spread a lot of negativity and lies surrounding the lives of escorts, sex workers or whatever the heck those people want to call themselves, sex therapist is an interesting one.
The journalists who support sex workers rights are a rare thing in irish society, Kevin Myers is one of the only journalists that had articles defending sex workers.
A lot of the brothel offenses are just not backing up ruhama’s bullshit, as a recent sex worker rights organisation found out.
Independent research is whats really needed.
Listen to the sex workers, and just respect them for gods sake. . .
“Painstaking” is right! Google Translate is a pain in the arse
Thanks for commenting, as always.
Hey
I agree with you about two tier sex work and in gerneral I am against all restrictions on work and immigration control.
I am just thinking in the highly unlikely event Ireland fully legalises/decriminalises sex work here possible laws that might be brought in,
In new zealandd Sex work is prohibited for those on temporary visas, and immigration for is sex work is prohibited.
Under EU law I would say you couldnt restrict eu citizens but tou could those out side the eea
Yeah, you definitely couldn’t ban EEA citizens from working in the sex industry. Even in EU states where commercial sex is illegal, the European Court of Justice has held that they can’t kick out EU national sex workers (although of course they can apply any relevant criminal laws to them). The Swedish government was trying to get around this ruling by arguing that sex workers pose a threat to the fabric of society – great show of feminist solidarity, isn’t it? – but one of its own courts struck down that policy as a breach of EU law.
As for New Zealand, the ban on non-resident sex workers was inserted into the law against the strong opposition of the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective (a member of the NZPC described it to me as “inexcusable”). They oppose it for the same reason I do.
Great article. It’s plainly obvious to me that prohibiting sex work, by banning it altogether or by banning the activities surrounding it, or by going the Swedish, Norwegian and Icelandic route of banning the purchase of sex but not the sale (a de facto ban on sex work) is anti-women. I saw statistics that show that 93% of all sex workers are women, 4% are men and 3% are transgender. On its face, anti sex work legislation is anti women, just like banning abortion. I understand we’re into a 6 month consultation phase. One month has passed and there’s 5 more months to go unless Alan Shatter decides to cut it short. I intend to write plenty more letters to the Minister and the Taoiseach.
I saw statistics that show that 93% of all sex workers are women, 4% are men and 3% are transgender.
I think that’s probably overstating the proportion that is (cis) female, but I wouldn’t really trust any statistics in this area. You’re certainly right that the perception is that it’s mainly a female occupation, and that the laws are drawn up with that in mind.
Paul
I thought the 6 months consultation after the attorney general reviews the potential legislation for constitutional and other problems.
Are they not meant to publish actual papers on the consultation
Apparently, the consultation document has yet to be published so the consultation period may not even have officially started.
Alan Shatter had this to say when announcing the public consultation last month.
“I am concerned to ensure that public debate on this issue is open to the widest possible audience. I therefore intend to arrange a consultation process to help inform the future direction of legislation on prostitution”
It seems to me that everything is to play for. We may be heading in the Swedish direction, we may be heading in the direction of maintaining the status quo ante or we may be heading, however unlikely at this time, towards a New Zealand decriminalization approach. No wonder the Senators wanted to shut down the consultation phase a few weeks ago and move straight to execution.
I agree with what Guest said in another comment. The Achilles Heel of organizations such as Ruhama and the Immigrant Council of Ireland, who play an important part in the Turn Off The Red Light campaign, are the association of the founders of these organizations with the Magdalene laundries. That history must be highlighted.
Paul your more optimistic than I am.
I see us having too big problems.
1. Is the link real or otherwise between sex work and trafficking.
2.It the belief held that “something has to be done about prostitution”
I dont think the government wants to legalise sex work like in New Zealand or in Germany. it may want the issue to go away but thats not going to happen
Paul, the fear with bringing in the swedish model, is the fact that it has been proven to be a fallacy, a lot of countries have already rejected the law as its based on lies, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Finland and a few others have all rejected it, as its based on oppressive nonsense and discrimination against sex workers, the last country to introduce the law was Iceland and there is reports that they are finding the law extremely difficult to enforce, come on like, in all fairness, why the heck should gardai resources be directed for snooping activity against consenting adults just cause a few nuns at ruhama are against sex workers and sexuality in women.
Its ludicrous.
Also another fear with bringing in the law which has been commented on the report. is the fact that the law is “wholly utilitarian” and unconstitutional.
As the saying goes it takes two to tango.
Paul as for ruhama, its the their founders who are still basically running the group, the same crowd that enslaved women and children in the magdalene laundry concentration camps, are the trustees of ruhama, who also has members from the magdalene laundry congregations on its board of directors there, that tells you an awful lot and it tells you even more when they are speaking with their crazy dogma against sex workers, the ruhama group speak their dangerous crazy dogma in their ridicolous disturbing anti-sex-work campaign and are foolishly attempting to protest their crazy ideology to save souls and sex workers dignity, while the danger is destroying peoples lives in the long run with their negativity and army of brainwashed footsoldiers.
The ruhama groups very founders which are their trustees robbed innocent irish womens and childrens souls and dignity and enslaved thousands of them only as late as the 70′s, 80′s and 90′s.
Who the fuck are they to be talking about criminals?, what a sick joke. .
And as for the immigrant council of ireland Paul its the same situation, their founder and one of their most outspoken member against sex work is a celibate nun who was accused of failing to report abuse while she was in an authoritive role in the magdalene laundries where women were enslaved listening to her rubbish and bullshit about evil, going around the place with her crufifix on her neck talking crap against sex workers and the sex trade.
Freak.
They use their positions of power in irish society to enforce their own agendas paul, just look at them getting all cosy with senators and politicans who the senators and some of the politicans themselves got power from catholic institutions when they were getting schooling, they are sickening.
They are pro church, Mullens and Zappone in particular are very pro church organisations.
paul and guest
share your views.
But am worried reason isnt been looked at in this debate
I see two main problems for us getting our point across
1. The link that is been made between trafficking and sex work
2. The belief held may that “we need to end/stop prostitution”
Will the Swedish model work…hell no it hasn’t worked in iceland, Norway or Sweden why would it work here.
But the sex workers groups like SWAI and TOBL are new here in Ireland and so far havent been able to seek general support or political support here.
Ireland has had a Ostrich attitude to the sex industry for years look at the situation with porn videos/dvds.
Another problem is the lack of members on the pro sex workers side to speak publicly.
The government may see this as an easy issue who is really going to publicly oppose these laws
KMJ, there has been huge damage already done to sex workers rights advocates, movements/organisations in ireland, the two problems that you have described are starting to become embedded in irish society, the overestimating of instances of trafficked victims and saying that sex workers are brainless victims of abuse, the swedish law suits ruhamas crazy ideology and crazy dogma perfectly, where they can trample over sex workers and outlaw any rights of their rights to a sustainable livelihood or source of making money to fund a venture.
Also its very interesting that most of ruhamas so called trafficked victims are nigerians seeking asylum.
There has not been any sex workers rights marches or any sex workers going fully public to fully speak out against the law, and thats understandable, just look at the huge stigma around these people and groups KMJ, anytime they speak out, they find themselves outgunned in the media by ruhamas media contacts.
The government is infested with the pawns of the roman catholic church many of whom are members of their organisations, whatever the church and its organisations want, the church usually gets, they are massively funded, and incredibly wealthy, they still have massive power in irish society, the only reason why the government is still considering the law is because the swedish law is so unconstitutional and full of holes, they are probably too tied up with gardai resources and still are not convinced by ruhamas bullshit for obvious reasons, as the sex workers rights groups are starting to make themselves heard with great efforts, much to the anger of ruhama and its affiliates trying to keep them silent and quiet just like ruhamas trustees done to their thousands of enslaved victims in the magdalene concentration camps.
The government will always be under enormous pressure and strain to bring in the swedish law while they continue to fund ruhama, who will not shut up, them and their senators like mullens blackmail the government by holding them accountable for any trafficked victims and using the excuse of trafficked victims to remove sex workers rights.
The sex workers need to put a battle and kick their ass and send the nuns back to the 40′s and out of 21st century ireland.
By the way Paul this might interest you.
LAND surrounding a former mass grave at the largest Magdalene Laundry was quietly sold by the order of nuns who ran it for €61.8 million during the boom.
The revelation emerged as representatives of the women imprisoned in the laundries met with Justice Minister Alan Shatter.
They discussed the new inquiry and their case for an apology, compensation and a pension for the women involved.
The Justice For Magdalenes group (JFM) said the €296m made in property deals during the boom by the four orders who ran the laundries must form part of the conversation on redress.
The Magdalene Laundry site at High Park, Drumcondra, was the second most lucrative deal involving 18 religious orders responsible for abusing children in residential homes. In total, the 18 orders made €667m in property deals between 1999 and 2009.
When the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity first sold a £1.5m tract from the same High Park campus in the early 1990s, construction workers found a grave where 133 women were buried.
133 of their enslaved victims dead. Wonder what could have happened to them? SIGH
In 2009, the order told the Department of the Taoiseach it had sold two more parcels of land on the same High Park site.
The larger sale was made in 2006 when Barina Construction paid €55m for a 2.7-hectare green area inside the compound.
Six years earlier, a site that housed the laundry’s Martana House was transferred for €6.68m.
JFM and other representatives of the Magdalene survivors met with Mr Shatter for over two hours to discuss the inquiry into alleged torture.
The laundries were run by the Sisters of Mercy, the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity and the Sisters of Charity.
TWO OF the catholic congregations which ran Magdalene laundries in the State set up and continue to run the Dublin-based Ruhama agency,
The Ruhama Agency Founders & Trustees
• The Sisters of Our Lady of Charity
• Good Shepherd Sisters
The Ruhama Agency Board Of Directors
• Sr. Sheila Murphy a celibate nun and member of (The Sisters Of Our Lady Of Charity)
• Sr Frances Robinson a celibate nun and member of (The Sisters Of Our Lady Of Charity)
• Sr Bernadette Mc Nally a celibate nun and member of (Good Shepherd Sisters)
The Ruhama Agency main spokesperson and spreader of disinformation against sex workers
• Geraldine Rowley a celibate nun and member of (Good Shepherd Sisters)
Both those organisations the Good Shepherd Sisters and The Sisters Of Our Lady Of Charity enslaved thousands of irish women and abused them, and they now are running the campaign of hatred against sex workers.
In a letter to Justice for Magdalenes spokesman Prof James Smith on June 23rd last year, Sr Sheila Murphy of the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity said she did “not wish to have, nor do I see any purpose in having, a meeting with you at this time”.
In an e-mail of June 17th last year, Sr Bernie McNally of the Good Shepherd Sisters told Prof Smith she would not be able to engage in a meeting with him and “will not be able to respond further”.
As reported in The Irish Times , figures disclosed to Sinn Féin’s Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin by Minister for Health Dr James Reilly revealed that the Good Shepherd Sisters have received more than €14.4 million from the Health Service Executive since 2006.
No figures were disclosed for what sums the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity received over that period, or for what either order received from the Department of Justice.
Despite selling off extensive properties and having millions upon millions of euros, the Good Shepherd Sisters said, that they had no resources to contribute to the costs of redress for people who had been abused as children in institutions which they had also run.
Who the heck are ruhama to be talking about criminality and abuse? just look at their history and current members for gods sake, what a hypocrisy and deception played on the public and government officials.
The Immigrant Council Of Ireland Founder And Main Spokesperson Against Sex Work
• Stanislaus Kennedy aka sister stan a celibate nun and member of (Sisters Of Charity)
This nun is particular once had to give her lousy apology to victims of the magdalene laundries while she was in an authoritive role and was accused of failing to report the widescale pandemic of abuse going in those concentration camps they called the magdalene laundries.
She is a GOOD WOMAN?
That’s what people say. The people that is who control the media,
the people who’s opinion matters. What her victims of the magdalene concentration camps think of her is of no concern ….after all , they have no voice and really don’t matter just like todays sex workers opinions sometimes don’t matter to people, while those zealots.
Irish society has catholic institutions who can influence governmental policy and can control others peoples lives, although more people are starting to see the danger when catholic organisations influence policy and interfere in others peoples lives.
I read this in the Department of Justice report on prostitution/sex work published last month.
16: Enforcement.
The Swedish experience indicates that enforcement of the ban is resource intensive and that the level of detections is dependent on the allocation of resources and local policing priorities. For these reasons, the level of detections varies over time and between locations.
It is unlikely that outcomes would be any different here. A ban, if it were well enforced, could have beneficial effects, including deterring human traffickers. However, it might also be argued that policing operations to target the purchase of sex – which would be a minor offense – would divert law enforcement from
operations targeting serious and organised crime, including human trafficking.
According to the EU/IMF deal signed by the last government last December, there is a commitment to cut gardai numbers from 13,500 to 12,000, including 1,000 this year. Justice Minister Alan Shatter has had no choice but to pick up that baton.
So, it seems to me this could be a significant spanner in the works to advancing a Sweden style sex purchase act for the Republic of Ireland at least in the short term, at least as long as we’re under EU/IMF direction.
I’ve been told (though it’s second-hand information) that a lot of Gardaí who are actually involved in police work do not want the Swedish law to be brought in precisely because they think they are already too under-resourced for the amount of real crime they have to deal with, and they do not want to have to waste valuable time stopping consenting adults having sex. I think it’s an argument worth highlighting.
I agree
As far s i can tell in Sweden there is not distinction made in arrest for those who engaged in street or indoor sex workers. My guess is most arrests and definitely convictions relate to the street scene.
In Ireland any law would have to be seen as tackling indoor sex work as
A. This makes up the biggest quantity of sex workers in Ireland
B. Street prostitution is already illegal.
I read somewhere (maybe on this blog) reports from Sweden of police listening out side doors and through letter boxes to people having sex just to get proof of a crime.
Who knows, maybe ruhama and its trustees might end up so desperate that they may offer to throw the pressured Alan Shatter and the pressured justice department a few millions , after all its a fact that ruhama and its trustees are multi millionaires, huge quantities of that wealth from their trustees was built off the back of held captives, female irish slaves, women and children forced to do slave labour almost 24/7 with nuns as their masters watching over them and whipping them across the body with weapons when they disobeyed them, watch that irish movie called “The Magdalene Sisters” for an example of the stuff that went on in those slave camps only as late as 1993, the vatican banned that movie cause it exposed how they used slaves for profit.
Also ruhama is heavily funded by the government a huge portion of the funding gets distributed towards their crazy dangerous PR campaign against sex workers and sex work, a lot of that funding gets used for their social events etc that has almost 100 people there, teas and cakes etc, they even use such events to raise funds, even though they are worth millions, just look at the sales from their property, and they then invite government politicans and journalists like that guy from the sunday world at such public relations events and award them trophies for spreading ruhamas crazy dogma and crazy ideology, a lot of the funding also gets funnelled into their trustees and their congregations of course, you can be damn sure of that, its a money making racket.
They need to justify their funding year round so they will be spreading all sorts of crappy disinformation, they probably get loads of asylum seekers asking for help and places to stay, just look at all the services ruhama provides free of charge, reflexology, free education and support in accessing private accommodation, how convenient for a asylum seeker to say they were trafficked and then get put under the wing of ruhama and get powerful support from them to get accomodation, free education and a range of other serives to integrate into irish society in an attempt to get citizenship.
Ruhama then could use those women as tools at their disposal to publish their anti-sex-work campaign reports.
A lot of women could easily just ring up ruhama and say they were trafficked or affected by sex work and then get a whole lot of free services such as reflexology and free education classes and support in getting accomodation and all while doing sex work on the sly, ruhama of course benefits from these calls cause they can use statistics in an attempt to enforce their crazy dogma and crazy ideology.
The majority of ruhamas trafficking cases come from asylum seekers from nigeria, something like over 60% and some of the people they are trying to counsel are probably returning to sex work anyway in part time bursts of activity.
Never ever ever trust catholic organisations cause they lie and lie all the time, same with the priests and same with the nuns, they are all a pack of liars never to be trusted.
If a outreach group and trafficking support group was independent of catholic dogma and catholic organisations, then it would be more trustworthy.
Why should irish people trust organisations that harmed innocent irish women and children so badly in the past and are now trying to harm sex workers rights, while not even listening or accepting sex workers views and opinions.
Anybody with common sense would never foolishly trust such groups, cause they deliberately mislead people into accepting their dogma and ideology, the church groups have always mislead people.
The UN Convention against Organized Crime distinguishes between human trafficking and human smuggling linked to informal labour migration. I’m willing to be corrected here but it seems to me that the vast majority of illegal migrants who arrive in the Republic of Ireland are smuggled here and not trafficked here. How many illegal migrants are there in the country? What percentage of total sex workers in Ireland are illegal migrants?
When defining human trafficking, the Palermo Protocol on trafficking refers to the exploitation of the prostitution of others and other forms of sexual exploitation, not prostitution in and off itself.
Something had to be done about prostitution, according to the powers-that-be, since the foundation of the state. Frank Duff and his Legion of Mary led a successful campaign to have Dublin’s Monto red light district closed down in the 1920s. I read that as a result organized prostitution didn’t exist in the country until the 1970s.
Peter Stringfellow once tried to set up a strip club in ireland called Stringfellows, but was ran out of the country by legion of mary protestors, protesting outside the club for it to get closed down. Stringfellow ran out of the place cause he knows that irish people have a backward catholic mentality and guilt complex about all things sexual.
The video of the protesting was once on youtube.
The ruhama organisation are trying to bring the swedish law aswell in an attempt to close the strip clubs down, iceland closed the strip clubs once they brought in the swedish law, and now they can’t even enforce it or police it properly.
If ruhama had their way they would all women to be virgins untl after marriage.
Yep
I first heard of Ruhama in relation to there campaign to close down lapdancing clubs around 2003/2004.
I was looking at their website the other other day and noticed in their archive section reference to this dating back to just 2008.
The stringfellow issue was embarrassing.
Iceland has brought in the law banning strip clubs but it hasn’t been brought in in Norway or Sweden (Sweden wanted to, but weren’t able to)
If this law is brought in Lapdancing clubs will be next on the radar of Ruhama
The UN Convention against Organized Crime distinguishes between human trafficking and human smuggling linked to informal labour migration. I’m willing to be corrected here but it seems to me that the vast majority of illegal migrants who arrive in the Republic of Ireland are smuggled here and not trafficked here.
Unfortunately the distinction between trafficking and smuggling isn’t actually as clear as that. The idea is supposed to be that “smuggling” is voluntary on the part of the migrant, and a breach of the state’s immigration laws, while “trafficking” is coercive and a breach of the person’s human rights. But the Palermo definition of trafficking also takes into consideration the fact that sometimes consent is present in these cases too, so where exactly do you draw the line? An example, which is very common in real life, is a person who agrees to remit some of their earnings in their new country to cover the cost of their entry and work papers. This is debt bondage, and it’s recognised as being a form of trafficking, but there is no real coercion involved. Often this person will be seen as simply an illegal migrant worker, particularly if they are male and working outside the sex sector. But if the same person was a woman in a brothel she might well be considered a trafficking victim.
It seems to me that trafficking and smuggling are distinct offenses.
Trafficking seems to be related to the word “traffic” which implies movement. However, trafficking may not involve any movement across international borders. As far as I can see, trafficking means someone is forced to do something like slave labour or have organs removed or something else done against his/her will. It’s a very serious crime. It’s a crime against the person.
The use of the word “smuggling” is also problematic. Smuggling is used with the passive voice. We say “He was smuggled into the country”. We don’t say “He smuggled into the Republic of Ireland”. We have to add the reflective pronoun. “He smuggled himself into the Republic of Ireland” or we could say “He smuggled his way into the Republic of Ireland”. It seems to me however that one can smuggle oneself into a country. It might be difficult to smuggle oneself into a developed world country like the Republic of Ireland. I haven’t studied this. I think there are direct flights to the Republic of Ireland from non-EEA countries such as the USA, maybe Canada, also Dubai? Also, can someone from outside the EEA zone, arrive in an EEA country, pretend to be tourist, go to the Republic of Ireland until their tourist visa expires and then continue to stay? Then, the offense of smuggling would have been executed, no?
Anyway, smuggling, as far as I can make out, is an offense against the state, not an offense against the person. You enter a state and you stay without the permission of the state.
It seems to me that most smuggling would require outside assistance. In that case, there are two guilty parties, the guy who is smuggling himself and those who are assisting him/her to get smuggled. If a person just smuggles himself, then he/she is the only guilty person, obviously.
How to distinguish clearly between trafficking and smuggling? It seems to me to be easy. What you do is you introduce a new intermediate offense called “smuggling for the purposes of trafficking”. “Smuggling for the purposes of trafficking” is different to smuggling because here only those organizing the smuggling are guilty of a crime; the person being smuggled, of course, has no say over the matter. It would be an aggravated offense, where one is punished like one is punished if he/she is found to be involved in trafficking. Of course, one can also introduce another offense called “smuggling of a minor” which again would be similar to “smuggling for the purposes of trafficking”. Again, only the person organizing the smuggling is guilty of the crime. The minor is not held responsible whether he/she consents or not.
Consider two scenarios:
1) A person is kidnapped in one country, she/he is smuggled across an international border and then she/he is coerced into slave labour in that country. The offenses of “kidnap”, “smuggling for the purposes of trafficking” and, finally, trafficking” are committed.
2) A person is tricked into believing that a nice job awaits him/her in another country, she/he agrees to be smuggled across an international border and then she/he is coerced into labour that he/she didn’t want to do initially. The offenses of “deception”, “smuggling for the purposes of trafficking” and, finally,”trafficking” are committed.
Anyway, the effect of introducing these intermediate offenses is that the boundaries of the offenses of smuggling and trafficking become demarcated. That is good. I think when there is a perception that one offense segues into the other that is not good. I think when one conflates smuggling with trafficking that is just as dangerous as conflating sex work with trafficking.
Regarding the example you give of the man who still has to pay money when he arrives at his country of destination to cover entry and work papers, I agree that that is a form of trafficking, whether he accepts that he’s a victim of trafficking or not. Obviously, he is. If he refuses to pay any more money, presumably, the criminal organization has a network of goons to enforce any sanctions against him or anyone else of like mind.
One criticism I have of the Turn Off the Blue Light campaign is that they need to go on the offensive more. They’re criticizing the danger of a Sweden style Sex Purchase act being introduced to the Republic of Ireland. Anyone who has at least two brain cells to rub together can see that it is a stupid law. I think TOBL need to do more than just rubbish this proposal. They need to come up with an alternative. They need to be proactive and not reactive.
Clearly, the status quo in the Republic of Ireland isn’t pretty either. I read that even one person brothels are being shut down and the sole operator/sex worker is being prosecuted.
The general consensus is that the New Zealand style Prostitution Reform Act would be a progressive measure if enacted in the Republic of Ireland. What TOBL and affiliated groups need to do is take the New Zealand acts such as Prostitution reform Act 2003
http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/pra20032003n28301/
and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004
http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/crsa20042004n36276/
and amend them to the Irish context. Perhaps, they can contact Catherine Healy, the National Coordinator of the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, to ask for her input into how to improve the Act further in the New Zealand context. A lawyer or parliamentary draftsman can be asked to tweak the New Zealand legislation to the Irish context incorporating improvements on the New Zealand model. Wendy Lyon was discussing on the TOBL forum how the New Zealand act can be improved by, for example, allowing non-resident migrants to work as legal sex workers, and thus eliminating the illegal sex work sector altogether, and allowing local authorities to distinguish between managed brothels and small owner operated brothels for the purposes of zoning or locating brothel location.
At the end of last year and the start of this year, I was writing quite a few emails to the Irish Labour party advocating that certain new policy ideas and principles be adopted by their political party. Some TDs replied to me, for example, Michael D Higgins. He wrote back to me in February this year to thank me for writing and also to ask me to send relevant legislation forward to him. Apparently, he thinks I am a legislation draftsman. Here’s the thing: If you write to a TD with a raw idea, it’ll go in one ear and out the other. If you write to a TD to say “We are fighting for the health, safety, human, civil and labour rights of sex workers in Ireland”, that’ll go in one ear of a TD and out the other. However, if you submit concrete legislation to a TD, they’ll sit up and take notice.
I can make out a few lines of attack that can be adopted by the TOBL campaign and others. We can play the family values card. Guest wrote a excellent comment on this a few weeks ago. Paying for sex, whether in currency, exertion, drinks or other gifts, is a natural human condition. In palaeolithic times, caveman would present cavewoman with meat of auroch and, in return, she’ll reward him with sex. Whether it’s a gift, exertion, drinks, money or something else, it’s all the same thing. Sex work is natural. Anti sex work is unnatural. Sex work is pro family values. Anti sex work is anti family values. We can contrast our naturalism with the perversity of the Magdalene laundries. Both Ruhama and the Immigrant Council of Ireland are leading lights of the TORL campaign. Both these organizations were founded by and continue to be controlled by 3 of the 4 religious orders that operated the Magdalene laundries. The last laundry was only closed in 1996. In those prisons and temples of perversion, inmates, no matter what age, had to address nuns and other staff as “mother” and the nuns and other staff addressed an inmate as “child”. Imagine that: a nun in her 20s would address an inmate in her 70s as “child” and the inmate would have to address the nun as “mother”. That’s fucked up.
Another potential line of attack was discussed in Wendy Lyon’s excellent article here:
http://feministire.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/swedish-police-stats-show-more-not-less-prostitution-and-trafficking/
Sweden had has a Sex Purchase Act since 1999. Since then their politicians have been pontificating that they’ve broken the back of prostitution. It seems to me that such a act practically mandates a politician, if he/she supports the act, to say that it’s reducing or eliminating prostitution because the act is based on the mindset that the sex work industry can be destroyed as if by a legislative magic wand. Yet, as Wendy reports, in 2008, the Government ordered the police to mount a renewed crackdown on prostitution….after the politicians were already bragging that prostitution was being reduced if not eliminated. The subsequent Swedish police stats between 2008 and 2010 show that reported sex crimes, across all categories, increased significantly. Notably, recorded cases of the purchase of sexual acts by children increased by 402%, the purchase of sexual services by 569% and human trafficking for non sexual purposes by 563%.
Another line of attack I have mentioned already. The previous government has agreed with the EU/IMF to reduce Gardai numbers from 13,500 to 12,000, including 1,000 this year. The Minister for Justice has no choice but to implement this. There’s a freeze on Gardai recruitment presently. Yet, the recent Department of Justice/Dignity Project (&) Report acknowledges that a serious implementation of a Sweden style Sex Purchase Act would be resource intensive. We certainly should be reminding the government of this. It could buy us some time.
We can also play the international card.
As Stephanie Lord and Wendy Lyon wrote in this excellent article here:
http://feministire.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/swedens-sex-trade-laws-not-the-answer/
It has been widely recognised in the HIV/AIDS sector that sex workers who are not able to control their working conditions, most importantly condom negotiation, are at a higher risk of infection. This is the reason why virtually the entire global health sector supports the decriminalisation of sex work and granting sex workers occupational health and safety rights. The World Health Organization, UNAIDS, the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights,the UN Secretary General,the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health – all of these have called for the removal of laws criminalising commercial sex between consenting adults, primarily because criminalisation is a recognised risk factor for HIV/AIDS.
Clearly, the international health care consensus is on our side from the UN Secretary General down. The TORL will counter that we’re fear-mongering but I think it is better, on balance, to play the international card than not to play it.
Also, as I mentioned in my other comment, we can also point out that the UN Convention against Organized Crime distinguishes between human trafficking and human smuggling linked to informal labour migration. Smuggling and trafficking are clearly two different kinds of crime. This webpage gives a good explanation on the differences.
http://www.anti-trafficking.net/differencebetweensmugglingand.html
It seems to me that the vast majority of illegal migrants who arrive in the Republic of Ireland are, in fact, smuggled here and not trafficked here. I don’t know exactly what percentage of sex workers in Ireland are, in fact, illegal migrants. Does anyone know?
Also, we can mention that the Palermo Protocol on trafficking refers to the exploitation of the prostitution of others and other forms of sexual exploitation, not prostitution in and off itself.
We can also point out that previous governments, since the foundation of the state, have already tried quite vigorously to eliminate organized prostitution. Frank Duff and his Legion of Mary led a successful campaign to have Dublin’s Monto red light district closed down in the 1920s. I read that as a result organized prostitution didn’t exist in the country until the 1970s. It seems to me that the Religious Sisters of Charity, who run the Immigrant Council of Ireland, and the Good Shephard Sisters and Our Lady of Charity Sisters, who run Ruhama, are modern day versions of the Legion of Mary. Can’t we not learn from our own history instead of trying to import a Swedish solution?
Another smaller battle that the TOBL can wage is to have state funding for Ruhama removed for the purposes of providing outreach to sex workers since, as TOBL reports, they’re giving out cups of tea and not condoms and have this money given to the Sex Workers Alliance of Ireland instead or a similar organization that have the interests of the sex workers at heart. I think that this misplacing of government funds would be pretty scandalous in just about every other industrialized country in the world. If TOBL can win that smaller battle, that’ll be a serious blow to the TORL’s wider campaign to introduce a Sweden style Sex Purchase Act.
When I want to advocate for something, what I do is write to all the Government party TDs and Senators. In relation to advocating for a New Zealand style Prostitution Reform Act, I address my emails to the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, and the Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter, and carbon copy the same email to the remaining government party TDs and Senators. I don’t bother with the opposition TDs and Senators. The TOBL campaign were reporting how Independent TD Mick Wallace was practically silenced this year by Ruhama after he dared suggest that a harm reduction approach be adopted in relation to sex work/prostitution. I suppose it’s kinda frightening. In the recent Senate debate and vote on a motion advocating that a Sweden approach to prostitution be adopted, only Fianna Fail Senator, Mary White, stepped out of her party’s line, questioning the effectiveness of a Sweden style Sex Purchase Act, and was consequently threatened with expulsion by her political party.
Let me put it on the record here: I hate Fianna Fail. It’s not a party that’s into progressive ideas. I suspect many of you have cottened on to this too. As for Sinn Fein, last I checked, Aengus O’Snodaigh, Sinn Fein’s justice spokesperson, was picketing head shops last year. It seems to me to be only a short skip and jump before they would picket legalized brothels as well. As for the Independents, they seem to be more focused on the economic crisis than on social issues.
So, anyway, I think it is more practical to email the government party TDs and Senators. Even if Mick Wallace wasn’t silenced by Ruhama and continued to speak about a harm reduction approach to sex work on the floor of the Dail, what good is that for us? Would he introduce a Private Member’s bill advocating for a New Zealand style Prostitution Reform Act? The New Zealand Prostitution Reform Act was originally a Private Members bill introduced in 1999. I think it is better to aim for the top. My thinking is if we can educate and turn Enda Kenny and Alan Shatter to the wisdom of a harm reduction approach inherent to the New Zealand legislation, then they can turn the country.
(&) Dignity Project advocates for a Sweden, Norway, Iceland style Sex Purchase Act and gets EU funding – a scandal in and off itself.
In fairness to TOBL I think they have done quite a lot for the rather short period of time they’ve been in existence. See this post. I’m not sure they all agree amongst themselves what exactly the alternative should be to the Swedish law, though. It probably also doesn’t help that they’re constantly fighting smear attempts by people who can’t conceive of sex workers having minds of their own.
I don’t know exactly what percentage of sex workers in Ireland are, in fact, illegal migrants. Does anyone know?
It’s pretty much unmeasurable by definition.
Wendy a large portion of the migrant sex workers would probably be classed as illegal, theres about 200 or so of them currently choosing to do sex work in ireland year round, they are loads of south american sex workers from Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Venezuela, Puerto Rico etc.
But where do you actually draw the line with calling them illegal? the majority of them are international touring escorts/sex workers, they could go to ireland as a touring holiday to do sex work for about 2 weeks, and then go to somewhere else like the UK, France, Germany and Spain for another 2 weeks and constantly go back and forth etc.
Also Wendy a lot of the ones claiming to be south american are probably citizens of spain and portugal aswell, as they are latins with connection to those countries, as you could imagine they do speak spanish and portuguese in west south europe , so spain is not exactly foreign to them, they use spain as a platform to migrate.
Wendy and also sex work is legal in some of their own countries, in Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela a lot of the sex work is legal and fully regulated, and realistically these south american migrant women and indeed even men are fully experienced sex workers in their own country, and they go to western european regions like Ireland as the pay for the sexual services that they provide is much more profitable than what they can get back in south america for such services, so you have a pretty big influx of those sex workers in ireland.
Also there would be some nigerian sex workers, thats where it gets tricky, cause most of ruhamas so called trafficked victims were asylum seekers, if those sex workers get caught in a brothel they would get convicted under the brothel law, so they could escape being convicted and thrown out of the country by saying that they were trafficked, come on now Wendy like, why were they seeking asylum before they said they were trafficked and how in the name of god did they find themselves in brothels while seeking asylum, wtf is going on there?
Never ever trust catholic organisations like ruhama, they just to seem conflate and exaggarate the facts.
They have been always against the strip clubs, they have a charter for irish companies not to book strip clubs for corporate events, and about 50 companies signed it.
They have always considered lap-dancing clubs a target to ban.
They were trying to bring in a law that would make the dancers at least 20 feet away from their clients during the dance, or something like that, cause when the dancer is so far away, then not many people would be interested in purchasing any dances provided by the lap-dancer.
This is what ruhama said: In Ireland the emergence of lap dancing clubs as a form of mainstream entertainment demonstrates this growing normalization, often reducing such activity to harmless fun. The latest preventative initiative by Ruhama is the ‘Ruhama Charter’.This initiative was set up when we became aware of increasing efforts by lap dancing clubs to attract the corporate sector to use their establishments for corporate events.
They are against sexual entertainment in all its forms, on their twitter they are spreading a link against sex workers in UK, the link calls on the queen to ban advertising and brothels, but thats a joke cause the queen actually takes a cut from those brothels because of HM tax collecting service.
In all fairness like, these people are just so anti-sexuality in women, but thats to be expected cause their leaders are celibate nuns after all, Geraldine rowley is one of the most outspoken nuns among them, shes always doing PR campaign, on radio and interviews etc against lapdancing clubs and indoor sex workers.
They are so stupid that they do not realise that some people only do lapdancing to fund studies, while also having part time options like being a waitress during the day, waitress by day, dancer by night etc. Why can’t they just leave women alone, if they want to use their sexuality to have a livelihood.
The ruhama group are stuck in a time period, they never left the 40′s.
Their twitter is full of crap like this: Thank you to our Trustees, the Our Lady of Charity Sisters who ran a sale of work for Ruhama today and thanks to all who came to support it.
They are gross, they talk about criminals when their own trustees are guilty of enslaving thousands of women against their will, and they abused them, and never compensated their victims, even though they are worth millions, ruhama and their organisation are no better than any criminal trafficker of women, this idea gets reinforced when the idiots are directing gardai activity against street sex work, running the streetwalkers out of areas they are used to being in, and forcing them into more dangerous situations where they are open to attack in areas they are not familiar with, and of course ruhama absolutely hate any sex workers speaking out against them, if the sex workers do not fight back, then ruhama are going to have it all their own way, their own particular agenda gets reinforced and the public gets brainwashed into supporting anti-sexuality in women.
The streetwalker law should be more relaxed, but ruhama called for more pressure and now those street sex workers are forced into more dangerous situations and are more desperate, they would make more dangerous decisions cause of pressure, once their client numbers go down, then other abusive clients can heckle them into doing stuff that they would not normally do, such as not wearing condoms etc, ruhama is an outreach group and those idiots don’t even provide condoms, instead they provide tea and biscuits.
The ruhama are no better than pimps trying to run some independent sex workers out of an area, trying to entice them with tea and biscuits while running them out of the area on the sly by directing gardai pressure against their livelihood.
There is probably opus dei members in irish government that are biased towards catholic agenda, a lot of the judges, some of them would be probably opus dei with connections with ruhamas all hallows christian college.
A lot of the mayors aswell, thats how they get so much public support, its because of the connections within government guys like this, Neil Dean was Chief Financial Officer of Allied Irish Banks, Maurice O’Grady was Chief Executive of the Irish Management Institute, both opus dei, there is connections between the colleges, politicans, mayors, judges connected with all hallows college where ruhama gets its support from, many of the people in positions of power are usually a member of some catholic college or group, just watch and listen to senator mullens for example, he is pro church and is always making references to saints and attacking anyone who goes against church agenda, he was the one trying to force ruhamas motion through the backdoor, spreading all types of nonsense against sex workers.
None of the sex workers are going public against ruhamas agenda, cause of the stigma.
Good post Paul.
The Turn Off The Blue Light” campaign in fairness have now set up as a representative body for sex workers, they have got mentioned in the seanad and have also basically got mentioned on the report by the department of justice, not by name but at least by their actions, the report was saying that if all sex workers are considered exploited helpless victims, then the government would get a backlash by the sex workers rights organisations, which is true as “Turn Off The Blue Light” did give a backlash through the media, through the Sunday Independent and HotPress magazine etc.
Now thats great, but there still has been none of the sex workers in the organisation gone public as of yet, thats perfectly understandable as everyone who has been reading this blog, knows that sex workers face huge stigma and discrimination when they go public when demanding better rights.
There has been no real sex workers rights marches protesting against the proposed law, sex workers rights organisations must realise that marches and PR campaigns against the proposed law would have a devestating effect against ruhama’s agenda, the marches or public campaigns would make ruhama appear stupid, when they are promoting their agenda of saying all sex workers are exploited.
Any attention sex workers get by protesting against the proposed law, is going to have serious consequences for ruhama and the immigrant council of ireland, also keep highlighting those groups involvements with concentration camp operators, cause in reality thats exactly what the magdalene asylums were, they were concentration camps holding females which were being controlled by ruhamas trustees.
A sex workers rights public march and demonstration out in the open, would put huge dents in ruhamas campaign, sex workers could wear sunglasses and baseball camps if they want to keep a level of anonymity, this must be done during the consultation process, sex workers alliance and “Turn Off The Blue Light”, must combine ther goals together and organise.
Now ruhama has already done a major smear attack against TOBL through the sunday world, but all is not lost because TOBL were mentioned in the seanad and sex workers from the group have met politicans behind the scenes and have got mentioned in the department of justice report, theres more to be done and achieved, the war is not over.
What are ruhamas objectives? lets take a look
(1) Create a social panic and call for action around the issue of trafficked victims, exaggarate and conflate the level of trafficked victims in ireland and their connection to purchase of sexual services provided by sex workers, hold public events winning over politicans and publics minds by psychological warfare and make them convinced that ireland has a huge problem with trafficked victims, even if you are exaggarating it, a lot of people are going to jump on your bandwagon and call for action. As the whole issue can be very emotive.
(2) Convince the government that sexual services for purchase is not natural and that its exploitation and full of crime, call sexual services for purchase the derogatory name of prostitution, smear the sex workers providing sexual services for purchase by calling them prostitutes and prostituted victims, this increases stigma and discrimination against sex workers.
(3) Never make the government think that women voluntarily choose to provide sexual services for money.
(4) Paint a grim picture around sex workers lives and make them look to be helpless victims in need of rescue by ruhama the group that you are funding.
(5) Launch a public campaign against sex work through the media and make it appear to be something absolutely horrible.
(6) Launch and follow swedens example of saying that all sex workers were sexually abused victims during childhood.
(7) Make sex workers appear like braindead, brainless addicts and abuse victims in need of urgent rescue.
(8) Increase government funding of your organisation, by creating a fictional pandemic about trafficked victims.
(9) Make the men who purchase sexual services provided by sex workers appear to be monsters and full of sleaze for even daring to purchase sexual servces provided by a sex worker, who are now being portrayed as helpless abused victims in need of rescue and who are being raped by their monstrous clients.
(10) Call the government to bring in the swedish law, where the clients of sex workers are targeted by police, as they are now considered monsters, rapists and abusers due to the lies and stigma thats being spread.
(11) Hide any mention of the brothel cases being full with migrant sex workers who voluntarily provide and advertise sexual services to target an audience of potential clients, make these women appear to be trafficked victims and being controlled by pimps, even though you know its untrue.
(12) Quickly shoot down any sex workers speaking out against your agenda.
(13) Make the sex workers appear to be selling their souls and dignity, and make the government think that they need ruhamas urgent rescue immediately.
(14) Smear sex workers rights organisations through the media with lies.
(15) Convince the government that the law must change and swedish law must be put in, do not make the government think that legalized brothels are the answer, even though such options are safer for sex workers.
(16) Forbid any introduction or talk of introducing brothels as the being best optionfor your fictional pandemic , any talk of legal brothels, are to be countered with saying that since New Zealand, Germany, and Netherlands made brothels legal, trafficking in victims has increased.
(17) Attempt to rush in the swedish law through the back door, by creating a thoroughly one sided argument because of your status in society.
(18) Use the swedish law proposal as a mechanism to attack strip clubs aswell.
Notice the review there now paul, the ruhama group wants to make the government think that the status quo needs to be changed, and that their law is best, any talk of making brothels legal are going to be countered by ruhama who will say that when brothels are made legal, trafficking in victims will increase, they then will provide website links to crime trafficking in germany, netherlands and new zealand, even if the number of trafficked has been exaggarated, they will smear any mention of making brothels legal.
During the world cup in germany, they didn’t find any sign of trafficked victims apparently.
So as a recap paul.
WHAT RUHAMA ARE DOING IS CREATING A FICTIONAL PANDEMIC AROUND TRAFFICKED VICTIMS, IN AN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE LAW AND STATUS QUO, THEY WANT TO MAKE SEX WORK APPEAR TO BE FULL OF CRIME, THEY WANT TO REMOVE AND STRIP SEX WORKERS RIGHTS, BY MAKING THEM APPEAR TO BE ABUSED RAPED VICTIMS IN NEED OF RESCUE BY RUHAMA, THE GROUP THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS FUNDING AND THE GROUP THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LISTENS TO.
They want the status quo quickly changed, they want instant law formulation and only want their law to be considered as best, since they created a panic around the issue and sucker punched the public into believing the status quo must be changed, they will counter any arguments of suggestion of legal brothels by saying that when brothels were made in legal in places like germany, holland and NZ, they will say trafficked victims have increased, and that legal brothels are out of the question.
They will also say that if the status quo remains, then ireland will have 20,000 sex workers (oh no they can’t be having that) and they use barcelona as an example, even though ruhama are lying and are full of shit.
So its slippery and tricky paul.
THE ONLY REAL COUNTER OPTIONS TO RUHAMA
(1) SEX WORKERS MARCHES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND LESS DISCRIMINATION IN SOCIETY.
(2) SEX WORKERS MUST COUNTER ALL RUHAMAS RETARDED CLAIMS THAT ALL SEX WORKERS ARE ABUSED HELPLESS VICTIMS IN NEED OF RESCUE FROM THEIR CLIENTS, EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AND GIVE THEM THE TRUE STORY THAT SEX WORKERS VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE TO SERVICE THEIR CLIENTS AND ARE NOT VICTIMS AND ARE QUITE MATURE, EDUCATED BUSINESS PEOPLE AND ARE FULLY AWARE OF THE PROFESSION THEY ARE IN.
(3) EMBED THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF SEX WORKERS IN IRELAND ARE OPPORTUNIST MIGRANTS LOOKING TO FUND VENTURES AND STUDIES BY PROVIDING SEXUAL SERVICES FOR PAYMENT, ITS ECONOMIC MIGRATION.
(4) EMBED THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF SEX WORKERS IN IRELAND ARE NOT COERCED OR TRAFFICKED, A RECENT STUDY DONE IN UK PROVED THAT THE MAJORITY OF SEX WORKERS IN THE UK WERE NOT FORCED OR COERCED TO PROVIDE SEXUAL SERVICES.
(5) INTERVIEW MORE SEX WORKERS AND GET THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY, THEIR VIEWS AND OPINIONS, INSTALL THOSE INTERVIEWS ON SEX WORKERS RIGHTS ORGANISATIONS WEBSITES, DO NOT GIVE REAL NAME OF THE INTERVIEWED SEX WORKERS, IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO GIVE IT CAUSE OF STIGMA.
(6) SINCE SEX WORK IS ALREADY LEGAL IN IRELAND, DEFEND THE LAW, OR SEEK TO IMPROVE CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE LAW WITHOUT YOUR LIVELIHOOD BEING TARGETED BY PRESSURE GROUPS.
(7) FIGHT FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY, HUMAN, CIVIL AND LABOUR RIGHTS OF SEX WORKERS IN IRELAND.
(8) EXPOSE THE PRESSURE GROUPS CAMPAIGNING AGAINST SEX WORK, EXPOSE THEIR ORIGINS AND CONNECTIONS WITH THE MAGDALENE ASYLUM DEATH AND SLAVE CAMPS, EXPOSE THOSE IDIOTS FOR WHAT THEY ARE, INSANE CRAZY DOGMATISTS, WHO HATE SEX WORKERS AND NON MONOGOMOUS RELATIONSHIPS BY WOMEN.
(9) MAKE SEX WORK APPEAR TO BE NATURAL, BECAUSE SEXUAL SERVICES PROVIDED FOR PAYMENT IS NATURAL HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, SUCH BEHAVIOUR CAN BE SEEN ACROSS A WHOLE SPECTRUM OF INTERRACTIONS IN SOCIETY, ONE WONDERS WHY PEOPLE ARE EVEN CALLING SEX WORK A TRADE OR A INDUSTRY, WHEN SUCH EXCHANGEMENTS ARE NATURAL HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, A WOMAN INVOLVED IN ONE NIGHT STANDS ON WEEKENDS, BEING BROUGHT TO BED BY USE OF MONEY TO BUY DINNER AND WINE, DRINKS, IS NO DIFFERENT TO SEX WORKERS PROVIDING SEXUAL SERVICES IN RETURN FOR PAYMENT, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HAVING SOME WINE ASWELL. ITS THE SAME HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, ITS PERFECTLY NATURAL.
(10) Now thats only some of the ways to counter the pressure groups, there are probably many more ways to put up a solid fight.
AND QUOTE : The women who take husbands not out of love but out of greed, to get their bills paid, to get a fine house and clothes and jewels; the women who marry to get out of a tiresome job, or to get away from disagreeable relatives, or to avoid being called an old maid — these are whores in everything but name. The only difference between them and my girls is that my girls gave a man his money’s worth.
It seems to me that the Magdalene laundries were human trafficking organizations. A woman, once she was admitted, was given a new name, and was often shunted to another laundry in another part of the country. That made it more difficult for other family members to claim them back later because they couldn’t be so easily found. The Irish state was complicit in this and in the early 1940s many Irish state institutions switched form commercial laundries to the Magdalene laundries. These state institutions included the army, Áras an Uachtaráin, Guinness, Clerys, the Gaiety Theatre, Dr Steevens’ Hospital, the Bank of Ireland, the Department of Defence, the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries, CIÉ, Portmarnock Golf Club, Clontarf Golf Club and several leading hotels. Concern was expressed in the Dail that commercial laundries were losing business and jobs because of the switch to institutional laundries. The then Minister for Defense, Oscar Traynor, said that the contracts with the Magdalene laundries “contain a fair wages clause”. In fact, the women didn’t receive any wage. In 1999, one inmate, Josephine McCarthy, told CBS 60 minutes that when she was released after 3 years of hard labour and enforced silence in a Magdalene laundry, she was given a token wage of 30 shillings, which was $3.20.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/08/sunday/main567365.shtml
It doesn’t take much to delude the easily deluded such as Oscar Traynor.
There doesn’t seem like much to defend. I note the study TOBL did on brothel keeping offenses in the Republic of Ireland. I note the media research they did. In Kilkenny, in 2008, for example, a Chinese national was found to be operating a brothel in free partnership with another Chinese woman. She pleaded guilty and had no previous criminal record. She was fined 900 euro and jailed for 4 months. That’s disgusting. I thought we were known as “Ireland of the Welcomes”. Our present prostitution laws are enabling xenophobia. I also note that TOBL are saying that a sex worker can be convicted of keeping a brothel even if he/she is working by him/herself. It seems to me that any sex worker can be targeted then. As for those judges who are ordering EU citizens to leave the Republic of Ireland or else get jailed, it seems to me they are overstepping boundaries.
Paul, its very complex, you got to take a deeper look at the situation, agreed that the current law is not exactly great cause it fines and kicks out sex workers who operate in twos or threes for safety reasons.
But at least sex workers who operate alone are legal in ireland, their clients/livelihood are not targeted.
Thats the current status quo, and its being labelled as something horrible by ruhama and their satellite the immigrant council of ireland, they already created a fictional pandemic with their anti-sex-work campaign, huge damage has been done already, they want to remove all sex workers rights to privacy with their clients, the anti-sex-work campaign convinced the government that the status quo should be changed or at least be considered, to be changed.
NOW THATS WHERE IT GETS REALLY SLIPPERY, THE CURRENT LAW HAS BEEN QUARANTIED AND REVIEWED, AND ITS RUHAMA WHO ARE SITTING ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE INSPECTORS WHO ARE IN THE LAB, RUHAMA ARE STILL DOING PUBLIC CAMPAIGNS AGAINST THE LAW ALL OVER IRELAND, JUST LOOK AT THEIR TWITTER, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS GETTING PRESSURED INTO A LAW CHANGE, AND IF THEY DECIDE TO FORMULATE A NEW LAW, THEN RUHAMA ARE ON THEIR RIGHT HAND SIDE AND ITS THEM THAT ARE GOING TO TRY AND PUT IN THEIR OWN LAW, BECAUSE THE IRISH GOVERNMENT FUNDS RUHAMA AND THEY ARE SEEN AS THE BEST VOICE ON WHAT WAY THE LAW SHOULD CHANGE.
WITHOUT RUHAMA, SEX WORKERS CURRENT LEGAL STATUS WOULD NOT BE THREATENED, BUT RUHAMA ARE HOLDING A GUN TO THE GOVERNMENTS HEAD TO CHANGE THE LAW, WITH RUHAMAS AGENDA AT MIND.
THE RUHAMA GROUP SHOULD NOT BE GETTING FUNDING BECAUSE THEY ARE ONLY AN OUTREACH GROUP THAT GIVES TEA AND BISCUITS OUT AND LET THEIR ANTI-SEX-WORK ACTIVISTS TRY AND GET PEOPLE TO STOP BEING SEX WORKERS, ALSO THEY DO NOT RESPECT SEX WORKERS VOICES AND OPINIONS.
ALSO RUHAMAS FOUNDERS AND CURRENT MEMBERS ARE CELIBATE NUNS WITH A HISTORY CONNECTED TO MAGDALENE SLAVE/TRAFFICKING CAMPS.
THEY ARE JUST NOT SUITED TO BE SPEAKING ABOUT SEX.
THERE HAS BEEN NO SEX WORKERS RIGHTS MARCHES, THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE ASAP/IMMEDIATELY TO THROW OFF RUHAMAS CAMPAIGN, TOBL AND SWAI NEED SOME SERIOUS MARCHES AROUND DUBLIN FOR PUBLIC SUPPORT.
Excellent post
When this first started in the new year I got very frustrated very quick, when I realised the sex workers where unable or unwilling to put their case forward in a public.
While I do understand the reason for it I feel it has damaged our case
TOBL have come a long way very quickly and what ever the outcome of all this is they should continue their work.
I have mentioned to some in the past holding a international or european sex workers rights convention here with a march by sex workers around the world.
I have this vision in my head of 1000 plus sx workers from around europe standing out side the GPO and speakers standing on a platform address the crowd.
I am at a lost of what I can personally do to help bar write in letters.
and would welcome any thoughts.
The first thing that people need to realise is that sex workers are reluctant to fight publically for their rights, as you could imagine they want to keep their anonymity because of all the stigma and the consequences of speaking out against the disinformation being spread by ruhama, the immigrant council of ireland and their satellite campaign.
After all they are being portrayed as brainless victims in need of rescue, overall thats the picture that is being painted.
So to protect sex workers or at least encourage them to fight back, people need to counter the disinformation with reality and facts.
For instance there was a government-funded study done on sex work recently by Dr Nick Mai of the Institute for the Study Of European Transformation (ISET) and of the London Metropolitan University.
The findings of his study was that the majority of UK sex workers that he interviewed were not coerced or trafficked, they were freely volunteering to offer sexual services for purchase, because they found sex work to be a valid genuine profession.
There was something like over 100 sex workers interviewed in London and Dr Nick Mai found that the majority were not forced or trafficked.
Now if the same type of study was carried out in Dublin, it would destroy ruhamas disinformation campaign as it would be like the same in London, the majority of sex workers are not forced or trafficked, that would be the most realistic bet to take.
So its important to email Alan Shatter and the Department Of Justice and make them aware of Dr Nick Mai’s government-funded study, just google majority of uk sex workers not coerced or trafficked from Dr Nick Mai’s study and email the study to Alan Shatter and the Department Of Justice and tell them the real facts and tell them about the amount of disinformation ruhama is spreading.
Tell them that it would be crazy to direct gardai resources at consenting adults, come on now like, peeping in key holes for fucks sake, don’t they have anything better to be doing?
THE ONLY WAY TO STOP DISINFORMATION BEING SPREAD BY RUHAMA IS TO COUNTER ALL THEIR RIDICOLOUS CLAIMS WITH THE REAL FACTS AND THE TRUTH THAT MAJORITY OF SEX WORKERS IN WESTERN EUROPEAN CITIES ARE NOT FORCED OR TRAFFICKED AS THE STUDY IN LONDON HINTED TOO.
THE MAJORITY OF DUBLINS AND IRELANDS SEX WORKERS ARE NOT TRAFFICKED OR FORCED EITHER, JUST LOOK AT THE STATISTICS FROM THE BROTHEL CASES. OVER 80% OR NEAR 90% OF THE CASES ARE JUST OPPORTUNIST MIGRANT SEX WORKERS VOLUNTARILY CHOOSING TO DO ECONOMIC MIGRATION, YET GETTING A RAW DEAL IN THE COURTS.
It’s so strange to me that educated women in the first world would focus such a significant amount of energy toward battling the extraordinarily civilized Norwegian legislation concerning prostitution.
Pretty funny, to call Norway a human rights debacle, don’t you think? Xenophobia has nothing to do with this legislation. Scandinavia never had feudalism, so they understand exploitation better than most places. And South Africa understands exploitation and dehumanization too horribly well. That’s why Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and South Africa have all passed Swedish Model legislation.
What exactly is civilised about a law that further marginalises and stigmatises the most vulnerable sex workers, puts them at greater risk of violence and HIV, causes them to lose their homes and to turn to crime? Really now, do the sex workers described in this report sound as though they feel more civilised under the law?
Xenophobia has nothing to do with this legislation.
The article that I linked to shows that it did. Norway specifically declined to adopt the law for many years when Sweden was pushing it as an “anti-exploitation” measure – it was only when Nigerians started turning up on the street corners that the law was brought in. That’s a fact.
South Africa has not passed similar legislation. It is still a crime to sell sex there.
TOBL’s brothel keeping offenses report says otherwise.
http://www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/information/brothel-keepers/
…..However in recent years there have been some cases where it would appear sex workers working alone have been convicted of brothel keeping.
In general though in ireland, lone indoor sex workers are pretty much legal and the clients of the sex workers themselves are not targeted, however if a premises becomes a problem for the community where there are many clients visiting it, it becomes seen as a brothel, biddy noseybodies start reporting it and usually start complaining, and they get the sex workers convicted under one aspect of the law.
But its a relaxed law, here it is : .
Brothel keeping.
(b) being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of a premises, knowingly permits such premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel or for the purposes of habitual prostitution, or
(c) being the lessor or landlord of any premises or the agent of such lessor or landlord, lets such premises or any part thereof with the knowledge that such premises or some part thereof are or is to be used as a brothel, or is wilfully a party to the continued use of such premises or any part thereof as a brothel,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—
(i) on summary conviction to a fine
Now, note in (b) it says tenant, a sex worker when they are a tenant of a landlords property, IF THE TENANT/SEX WORKER, USES THE PROPERTY FOR HABITUAL/FREQUENT PROSTITUTION, IT WILL BE CLASSED AS A BROTHEL, IE FREQUENT/HABITUAL SEX WORK FROM A PREMISES = A BROTHEL UNDER THE LAW.
That is why sex workers tour all over ireland, its to avoid being reported by biddy noseybodies, who will be aware that sex work is going on in a property leased to them as tenants where they choose to be sex workers from that premises.
The touring is to kinda avoid detection.
In general, the current irish law accepts sex work as legal, if it doesn’t become a problem or an interference for neighbours etc.
Thats what the current model seems to be wrapped around.
However, there has been a consultation/debate on law change initiated by anti-sex-work groups like ruhama and co, they are tied with the anti-trafficking ring of the government, so ruhama and co are considered important, since they want to change the status quo, its their system that currently being considered as the best option, and they love the attention of it.
Sex workers organisations have done no marches, its totally one sided ATM, cause sex workers are not really fighting against ruhamas nationwide consultation PR campaign.
They have to get themselves heard through marches.
Conclusion is this, if the status quo changes in ruhamas favour, then sex workers are going to have it way worse with landlords or hotel managers who will not lease or give them rooms on their properties, as they as landlords or managers would be targeted for brothel keeping in a more aggressive manner than currently done in the status quo model, where its relaxed, also the clients/livelihood of sex workers are considered fair game to be hunted if the status quo changes.
Do you really think that the government will go against ruhamas motion, and legalize brothels?
Paul, there would be war, if they did.
The fight is still on, but the sex workers organisations like TOBL and SWAI are not really effectively combating ruhamas nationwide disinformation campaign, ruhama are way more active than the sex workers rights organisations.
The sex workers and their representative organisations could do with a few marches to raise public awareness or organise public events, speaking out against the law proposal.
The government are under enormous pressure to change the law, that pressure would be relieved if the sex workers started to get a bit of cop on and fight for their rights.
But of course theres so much stigma, they find it hard to speak out, also a lot of them don’t actually realise that the swedish law is anti-their-rights to equality and anti-sex-work in a totalitarian formula, that is threatening to get injected into their lifestyles, by the people who hate what they do, ie celibate nuns from ruhama etc.
Is very doubtful they would go the new zealand route, cause if they legalized brothels there would be uproar.
However there are also problems with the swedish law from a unconstitutional perpective that says in the report, that its not suited to the irish system.
Visit Limerick sometime.
Good. BRING IT ON.
I have two criticisms to make of the TOBL campaign as well as one additional comment relating to TOBL to make and then I’ll make one final comment on trafficking and sign off for now.
First of all, as I’ve written before, I think the TOBL need to proactively fight for something rather than reactively condemn the possibility that a Sweden style Sex Purchase Act is introduced here.
In my opinion, what they and the SWAI need to fight for is a New Zealand style Prostitution Reform Act. Their opponents, TORL, know what they want. They want a Sweden style Sex Purchase Act. Your side should know what you want too and be unanimous on it.
Clearly, the New Zealand legislation on sex work/prostitution is way superior to anything else on the planet, including Holland and Germany. In some German states, brothels are in fact outlawed in sizable towns up to a population of 30,000 people. Sounds like the Republic of Ireland to me. In the Netherlands, brothels have been “culled back” in recent years because of supposed links to organized crime.
Let’s take one area of sex work, street sex work. Here, as far as I can make out, New Zealand’s law is way better than what Germany or the Netherlands offer. Unless I’m very much mistaken, in New Zealand, a street sex worker can operate anywhere in the country. There are no zoning restrictions for street sex workers like there are in the Netherlands and Germany. There’s nothing New Zealand’s councils can do about it either. One council, Manukau city council, sought to impose restrictions on where street sex workers could operate (away from schools and churches and so on) but they failed to gain enough support to pass the by-law. The city council has since been merged into Auckland city council where their efforts are ongoing.
I say let the street sex workers exercise their own adult judgement about where they operate and I think in the vast majority of cases they would stay away from schools.
Of course, the New Zealand act can be improved upon. No distinction between Small Owner Operated Brothels and managed brothels is made by local councils for the purposes of zoning. Also, non resident migrants can be deported if found to be engaged in sex work which leaves a small illegal sex work sector still in New Zealand. So we advocate for an slightly improved version of the New Zealand act.
My second criticism is that, as far as I can make out, the personnel of TOBL are hiding behind a degree of anonymity. I really don’t think that is a good idea if they want to fight for a cause. In fact, by doing do, they are playing into the hands of TORL that want to present sex workers and their true representatives as infants or dupes of supposed patriarchy. Imagine if TOBL ditched the anonymity altogether and a sex worker representative who is also an active sex worker herself went head to head with a representative of TORL on Pat Kenny’s Frontline or Vincent Browne’s show on TV3. Think about what a blow that would be to the TORL campaign! They want to present sex workers and their true representatives as idiots, dupes, victims of Post Traumatc Stress Disorder, but here they are on a panel discussion moderated by Pat Kenny or Vincent Browne! And they’re not just talking about the issues that concern sex workers but the issues that affect the country as a whole and international issues. Think about what a huge blow just showing up on those shows would be for the TORL!
One additional comment. Reading the TOBL website, I get the impression that practically every organization in the country supports the goals of the TORL by default. In fact, the TORL is a lot weaker than TOBL make out. True, there are some dynamos of the TORL campaign, such as Susan McKay of the National Woman’s Council, the nun organizations, Ruhama and the Immigration Council of Ireland, and Doras Luimni. These organizations and people you will have to fight but they only represent 20% or so of the total number of organizations that TOBL think oppose them. Most of them are clueless chumps like the Labour party’s Pat Rabbitte, who will just say what they’re told to say. Don’t be distracted by them. Keep your eye on the source. TOBL has got to get in the ring and fight the core of the TORL. Even this 20% strength TORL will be bigger and stronger than the combined strength of the sex worker representatives. You may lose but at least you’re going to go down fighting. But, then again, you may win.
TORL have a weakness. They are arrogant and they are dismissive of their opponents, that is, TOBL and SWAI. They fully expect to give you a good trashing in the ring. They may be in for a rude shock.
I’ll be cheering you on from the sidelines. Alas, I am almost on the other side of the world, in China. I may write a few more emails to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice and the other Government party TDs. But this is your fight and this is your fight to win.
Just one more comment for now and then I’ll sign off. Previously someone (I think was Guest Sex Worker Representative) wrote that we should get rid of the defense in trial where a client says he wasn’t aware that the sex worker he visited was trafficked. We allow this defense in the Republic of Ireland. In the UK, it’s not allowed. I think we should get rid of this defense. However, I think we should also introduce a waiver where if a client does come forward to report a case of possible trafficking to the police no prosecution of the client is pursued. In Turkey, a well publicized hotline was set up for the public to report any cases of possible trafficking across all industries. In the 6 months up to January 2006, three quarters of the users of this hotline were clients of sex workers.
Paul says = Also, non resident migrants can be deported if found to be engaged in sex work which leaves a small illegal sex work sector still in New Zealand. So we advocate for an slightly improved version of the New Zealand act.
Yes, this aspect of the New Zealand act would not be good for Ireland,the law would need some remodelling.
Some aspects of the New Zealand law that would create trouble in Ireland.
(1) NZ law = Sex work is prohibited for those on temporary visas, and immigration for and investment in sex work is prohibited.
The majority of sex workers that advertise sexual services in Ireland are migrant EU citizens combined with tourist south american and other worldwide migrants, these sex workers visit Ireland as an investment opportunity, its not really illegal immigration as such, its more like sex work tours, a lot of those sex workers are internationally based and they tour many countries to do sex work.
The NZ law would be a disaster for those sex workers, so it needs to be improved upon, in fact the current irish law and court cases has deported both EU citizens and non european tourist sex workers, for operating in twos and threes for safety, not only were these sex workers deported, but they also had their money made from sex work forcibly removed from their appartments, which was a terrible thing to do by those disgusting judges, who really need a bit of cop on, some of them are just awful, many of the sex workers who were badly treated in court were in fact EU migrants from Slovakia, Romania, Czech republic, and were students doing sex work part time etc.
Some positives aspects of the NZ law is
(1) A distinction was made between voluntary and involuntary prostitution.
(2) Contracts between provider and client were recognised, and providers have the right to refuse services.
(3) Police activities changed from the registration and prosecution of sex workers to protection. The Police Manual of Best Practice was amended to include prostitution.
This all seems very positive and protective of sex workers, they are less likely to get heckled and hassled into doing something they don’t want to do. Basically what this means is that if the sex workers client does not like the service or expects something more than what the sex worker does not allow, then he can not get his money back, and he can go take his bullshit disrespectful attitude out of the sex workers professional premisis.
And if he persists in acting like an ass or even dares try assault a sex worker, then all the sex worker has to do is ring the police station to come kick the prick off the premisis.
Sex workers should have the right to at least have another sex worker with them for safety reasons, or an assistant or secretary etc.
I firmly believe that all power must be given to the sex worker to safely and effectively carry out her profession that is sex work, i believe the clients must be made to fear the sex workers power over them, i believe the clients must be made to feel fear of the consequences if they dare try something bad or acts like a bunch of morons.
The sex workers should not be afraid to report a crime against them.
The police need to get a bit of cop on, and stop making these sex workers afraid to report an abusive client.
Gosh what the heck is wrong with people? a wife or a girlfriend can report an abusive partner and not fear being stigmatized or criminalised by the police, the sex worker should not be made to fear reporting an abusive client/partner either.
Paul Says = Just one more comment for now and then I’ll sign off. Previously someone (I think was Guest Sex Worker Representative) wrote that we should get rid of the defense in trial where a client says he wasn’t aware that the sex worker he visited was trafficked. We allow this defense in the Republic of Ireland. In the UK, it’s not allowed. I think we should get rid of this defense.
Yes, indeed that defense needs to be abolished for the people purchasing sexual services advertised on websites that are not running background checks on its adverts, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, they need to take responsibility for who or what they are actually visiting when contacting those adverts from those websites guility of indiscriminate advertising creating ammo for the “Turn Off The Red Light” to attack freely volunteering sex workers.
If you take out hundreds of adverts on those websites without knowing who is calling them in, then you are part of the problem as to why sex workers are being threatened with de facto bans, you just create more and more ammo of trafficking cases for Ruhama to attempt to try and get the de facto ban on sex workers.
Paul says = there are some dynamos of the TORL campaign, such as Susan McKay of the National Woman’s Council, the nun organizations, Ruhama and the Immigration Council of Ireland, and Doras Luimni.
As long as those organisations and their spokespeople keep lying about sex work, then more and more people are going to see through their fallacy of a campaign, that says all sex workers are victims and trafficked, thats simply inaccurate. Dr NIck Mai’s study proved them wrong, Ireland and Britain are culturally very similar, so Mai’s research definetly had a meaning and is something of value.
Many of those organisations and their founders and current members were involved with the magdalene slave camps, a pack of insane nuns is all they are, they get excited with their radical neo fascist feminist pals at the mere mention of having a de facto ban on sex workers selling sexual services to men.
No one would any bit of decency at all, would let the nuns involved with the magdalene laundries sharpen and use their pitchforks in trying to force a de facto ban on consenting adult sex workers selling sexual services.
Pingback: Alice Schwarzers Anti-Prostitutions-Kreuzzug: Moralin, das Frauen schadet | gabrielewolff