This is nothing new. Some financial statements of Ruhama dug out by Sexwork.ie
Income for 2011 - 616,676 Euro!!:scared:
It is unclear to me where these funds come from. In the auditors report they mention 3 main statutory funders? I presume these all all government funded i.e. tax payers money?
I also wonder if they haven't included donations they have received and also the fines that the courts have ordered payed to them?
Anyway, 616,676 is a heafty sum. It was even higher in 2010 - 716,700 Euro!!
From what I understand the majority of their funds go towards staff salaries!!:angryfire:
By exagerating trafficking figures they stand to gain financially.
Another intersting point is there are three Nuns listed on the board of directors. All from the Magdalene sister order no doubt.
Sexwork.ie seems a much more muscular and robust endeavour than the TOBL site. There is also no ambiguity about what angle the site takes and who is behind it. (It says it's an escort advertising comapany's blog on sex work);).
Well, to all the people behind the site - well done and keep up the good work. I hope you will be able to keep up the momentum until the fight is done.:clapping:
the traveller
24-09-12, 09:08
Laura left a link to a very interesting article by a lady who works with sex workers in the London Olympic boroughs. If you have an interest in this I urge you to read it as it shows just who have the most to gain by painting this industry with the biggest and blackest brush they can find.
http://thetraffickingresearchproject.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/sex-work-and-the-london-2012-olympics-how-was-it-for-you/
As you can see once the funding went away so did all the NGO's and media presence. Just wish and hope that our committee will see that but I doubt it very much. Everything I've read from the Dept. of Justice seems to be fair and balanced but unfortunately the committee members seem to be coming with preconceived ideas.
These ideas are fed by the very people that have the most to gain by always using the words trafficking and child when they talk about sex work. The TORL coalition have used discredited facts by Melissa Farley in support of their submission, which I'm sure is one of the reasons why they would not publish their submission. Laura also left a link to Dr. Brooke Magnanti writing on Ruhama (http://sexonomics-uk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/when-help-is-anything-but.html). In it she links to the Canadian courts view of Dr. Farley evidence which I've reproduced here.
[352] I find that some of the evidence tendered on this application did not meet the standards set by Canadian courts for the admission of expert evidence. The parties did not challenge the admissibility of evidence tendered but asked the court to afford little weight to the evidence of the other party.
[353] I found the evidence of Dr. Melissa Farley to be problematic. Although Dr. Farley has conducted a great deal of research on prostitution, her advocacy appears to have permeated her opinions. For example, Dr. Farley’s unqualified assertion in her affidavit that prostitution is inherently violent appears to contradict her own findings that prostitutes who work from indoor locations generally experience less violence. Furthermore, in her affidavit, she failed to qualify her opinion regarding the causal relationship between post-traumatic stress disorder and prostitution, namely that it could be caused by events unrelated to prostitution.
[354] Dr. Farley’s choice of language is at times inflammatory and detracts from her conclusions. For example, comments such as, “prostitution is to the community what incest is to the family,” and “just as pedophiles justify sexual assault of children....men who use prostitutes develop elaborate cognitive schemes to justify purchase and use of women” make her opinions less persuasive.
[355] Dr. Farley stated during cross-examination that some of her opinions on prostitution were formed prior to her research, including, “that prostitution is a terrible harm to women, that prostitution is abusive in its very nature, and that prostitution amounts to men paying a woman for the right to rape her.”
[356] Accordingly, for these reasons, I assign less weight to Dr. Farley’s evidence.
[357] Similarly, I find that Drs. Raymond and Poulin were more like advocates than experts offering independent opinions to the court. At times, they made bold, sweeping statements that were not reflected in their research. For example, some of Dr. Raymond’s statements on prostitutes were based on her research on trafficked women. As well, during cross-examination, it was revealed that some of Dr. Poulin’s citations for his claim that the average age of recruitment into prostitution is 14 years old were misleading or incorrect. In his affidavit, Dr. Poulin suggested that there have been instances of serial killers targeting prostitutes who worked at indoor locations; however, his sources do not appear to support his assertion. I found it troubling that Dr. Poulin stated during cross-examination that it is not important for scholars to present information that contradicts their own findings (or findings which they support).
[358] The applicants’ witnesses are not immune to criticism. The respondent asks this court to assign little weight to Dr. Lowman’s opinion. The respondent called Dr. Melchers, a research methodologist, to provide an opinion on Dr. Lowman’s three major prostitution-related studies. Dr. Melchers was highly critical of Dr. Lowman’s empirical observations, largely based on the language of causality used in his affidavit. During cross-examination, Dr. Lowman expressed discontent with portions of his affidavit, citing “careless” language and “poorly reasoned argument.” Dr. Lowman rightly takes responsibility for the content of his affidavit, which was drafted for him by law students. In his affidavit, Dr. Lowman made a direct causal link between the Criminal Code provisions at issue and violence against prostitutes; however, during cross-examination he gave the opinion that there was, rather, an indirect causal relationship. Such inattentiveness on such a crucial issue is indeed concerning. During cross-examination, Dr. Lowman gave nuanced and qualified opinions, which more accurately reflect his research.
One part of that judgement I find very interesting is " I found it troubling that Dr. Poulin stated during cross-examination that it is not important for scholars to present information that contradicts their own findings". In other words don't worry we won't tell you anything which tends to disprove what we have to say. As I said the biggest and blackest brush they can find!