View Full Version : Sweden’s sex work laws: Too good to be true?
vanessa.escort
13-10-12, 23:08
The process of regulating prostitution should be inclusive of sex workers, writes Louise Persson
SEX work is a hugely complex issue, and loaded with moral and ethical controversy. Ireland is currently reviewing its prostitution laws, and those complexities and controversies are all on show. In the middle is what is known as the "Swedish model".
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/swedens-sex-work-laws-too-good-to-be-true-210705.html
Excellent article Vanessa. Thanks.
Agree with - Morpheus - ,Thanks Vanessa.
Rachel Divine
14-10-12, 11:06
A law against pandering (benefiting from a person’s engagement in prostitution), one against the use of rental apartments for prostitution (in practice a ban on brothels or using one’s apartment for sex work), and the much-lauded sex purchase ban (the criminalisation of clients).
The Skarhed report has been criticised in Sweden for being biased and riddled with bad research and speculative conclusions. The criticisms should give serious pause for thought to anyone considering the Swedish model on the basis of this evaluation.
The successes claimed cannot be backed up with hard facts. There is a huge problem with data on sex work. It is widely acknowledged that despite our best efforts, our picture of the situation is full of gaps.
No serious effort was made to find out how prostitution had changed — something that would have been verifiable.
Sex workers cannot work together and help each other as they would be in breach of two of the relevant laws. This means they are more often alone, something we work very hard to avoid to reduce violence and rape;
* Cohabitants are put at greater risk, and sex workers risk eviction from their home if reported;
* Harm reduction efforts (eg, condom distribution) to reduce the harms of the sex work have proven difficult to carry out.
And as the Swedish sex workers organisation the Rose Alliance points out, there are now higher risks of encountering dangerous clients. This is the opposite of what we want.
A law against pandering (benefiting from a person’s engagement in prostitution), one against the use of rental apartments for prostitution (in practice a ban on brothels or using one’s apartment for sex work), and the much-lauded sex purchase ban (the criminalisation of clients).
The Skarhed report has been criticised in Sweden for being biased and riddled with bad research and speculative conclusions. The criticisms should give serious pause for thought to anyone considering the Swedish model on the basis of this evaluation.
The successes claimed cannot be backed up with hard facts. There is a huge problem with data on sex work. It is widely acknowledged that despite our best efforts, our picture of the situation is full of gaps.
No serious effort was made to find out how prostitution had changed — something that would have been verifiable.
Sex workers cannot work together and help each other as they would be in breach of two of the relevant laws. This means they are more often alone, something we work very hard to avoid to reduce violence and rape;
* Cohabitants are put at greater risk, and sex workers risk eviction from their home if reported;
* Harm reduction efforts (eg, condom distribution) to reduce the harms of the sex work have proven difficult to carry out.
And as the Swedish sex workers organisation the Rose Alliance points out, there are now higher risks of encountering dangerous clients. This is the opposite of what we want.
It should be in the interest of safety, to allow at least 2 escorts share an apartment, so they feel safe in their environment. The risk is much higher for them working alone of unsavoury characters visiting them...
Always put an escorts safety first!
Working for a Safer environment! ;)
Supported by 007
Rachel Divine
14-10-12, 11:45
It should be in the interest of safety, to allow at least 2 escorts share an apartment, so they feel safe in their environment. The risk is much higher for them working alone of unsavoury characters visiting them...
Always put an escorts safety first!
Working for a Safer environment! ;)
Supported by 007
My concern is both parts to be safe, the client and the escort.
Genuine clients must be safe!
I only want a massage. But I have to say I was in Amsterdam a few years ago and passing through the Red Light district on my way to a cultural event and it did seem to be self-contained and peaceful.
It should be in the interest of safety, to allow at least 2 escorts share an apartment, so they feel safe in their environment. The risk is much higher for them working alone of unsavoury characters visiting them...
Always put an escorts safety first!
Working for a Safer environment! ;)
Supported by 007
I can't agree more 007! And you'd think that groups like Ruhama, the immigrant council and Labour women would put safety of escorts first? Sadly they ignore the evidence and persist with their real aim of ridding Ireland of prostitution!!:angryfire:
When it has been pointed out that the Swedish model endangers sex workers (who choose to contunue in sex work), Swedish law makers have been quoted as saying that danger is inherent to prostitution already and therefore if doesn't really make a difference!!!!!:mad:
Anyway, I live in hope. Once again congratulations and thank you to Rachel, Amber and all the other ladies who attended. Even though not all of you got a chance to speak, you heard what was being said, and can write in to the minister with your views.
vanessa.escort
15-10-12, 10:29
If Ireland wants more money then they should do that sex workers have to comply with employment, health and safety, and human rights and equality legislation !
Rachel Divine
15-10-12, 15:29
The Working Group on the Legal Regulation of the Purchase of Sexual Services noted that indoor prostitution is not a significant target of law enforcement in Sweden, as it is too resources intensive , although two thirds of prostitution inSweden takes place indoors. Street prostitution has been a minor segment of the Swedish commercial -sex sector. Other commentators have observed the difficulty of prosecuting clients who must essentially be caught in the act to be charged. Evidence against pimps is also elusive, as it necessitates the cooperation of clients and persons selling sexual services, neither of which party is usually willing to reveal their activities to the police.
The 2010 evaluation of Sweden s legislation noted that police operations have "mainly targeted street prostitution and more organized forms of prostitution linked to procuring of human trafficking" .
It goes on to say that the "police have not ordinarily prioritised, or had the resources for, interventions against the purchase of sexual services via other forms of prostitution"
Rachel Divine
21-10-12, 17:46
To reduce human trafficking , sentence to life prison for those people who do it , no matter if they get caught with one girl/guy or 20 .... and/or any other circumstances ...
In America exists the death penalty and didnt stop people from killing others ....
To reduce human trafficking , sentence to life prison for those people who do it , no matter if they get caught with one girl/guy or 20 .... and/or any other circumstances ...
In America exists the death penalty and didnt stop people from killing others ....
Life imprisonment is the current maximum penalty under section 4(7) of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act, 2008. However, there have been no convictions yet, though as of May 2012 there are seven either due to come before the Courts or are having files prepared by the DPP.
One argument from TORL has been that it is incredibly difficult to secure convictions under this existing legislation, and that is why the law needs to be changed. However, what they fail to mention is that they want to amend the 1993 Act in order to criminalise clients, and have proposed nothing that directly targets those involved in human trafficking beyond what is already there.
Rachel Divine
21-10-12, 18:03
Life imprisonment is the current maximum penalty under section 4(7) of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act, 2008. However, there have been no convictions yet, though as of May 2012 there are seven either due to come before the Courts or are having files prepared by the DPP.
One argument from TORL has been that it is incredibly difficult to secure convictions under this existing legislation, and that is why the law needs to be changed. However, what they fail to mention is that they want to amend the 1993 Act in order to criminalise clients, and have proposed nothing that directly targets those involved in human trafficking beyond what is already there.
First of all, are no convictions , second , if was one or two , they would not have been life in prison for good..
Knowing you would get away with , or serve 2 years with suspension encourage traffickers ...
First of all, are no convictions , second , if was one or two , they would not have been life in prison for good..
Knowing you would get away with , or serve 2 years with suspension encourage traffickers ...
That is one problem with it. Though it is possible for a Judge to stipulate that one must serve a minimum of 30 years of a life sentence, it's incredibly rare. Normally the sentence is reviewed after 12 years, and temporary release is granted but this can be revoked if a person offends again and they go back into custody.
It's very much the same as the position in relation to manslaughter, in that the sentence can be anything from a suspended sentence and a fine, to life imprisonment. Completely at the discretion of the Judge.
Targeting clients is sidestepping the problem altogether, and to me, shows that the traffickers are really the last thing on TORL agenda, but rather it wants to target the more numerous group being clients, and by extension the escorts themselves.
LaBelleThatcher
21-10-12, 18:32
I do not think TORL know, or care anything about trafficking at all.
If you care about something the one thing you do NOT do is wave are dodgy stats from dodgy US websites. What you do it sit down, very quietly, with everybody who might just know something and get every little thing those people know out on the table, like a jigsaw puzzle and see what the picture looks like when you put it together.
Instead, what TORL have done is to systematically alienate and exclude everyone who might know something about real coercion and trafficking.
Partly, it is about this big, international NGO junketing society where the entry fee is to dedicate your organisation to blindly chanting "End the Demand" and creating false rationales to justify that.
Partly it is about disempowering enough sex workers to justify their continued funding. One fact they can only lie about, not change, is that, since their foundation in 1989 very few sex workers will voluntarily engage with them. They give the majority of sex workers the creeps at best. They certainly have never had anything real to offer.
This is awkward, it's only a matter of time, since the crash, before somebody turns off the tap on funding any NGO that is actively avoided and opposed by it's user group.
Half Man and Half Dildo
21-10-12, 19:36
68307
Rubina, the word bombshell in your username does not do you justice !!!
Rachel Divine
21-10-12, 21:46
could you explain exactly please what would employment in this area mean?:hug:thank yo:flirt:
Maybe she meant regulation on prostitution , each person to pay a tax , money will go to the Government ..
could you explain exactly please what would employment in this area mean?:hug:thank yo:flirt:
I would gather that she means generally.
Officially all escorts, like every other sole trader are subject to legislation in addition to the criminal law, covering things data protection, civil liability, taxation, equal status in service provision, etc. as things stand in the current partial criminalisation or "non-criminalisation" as one journalist referred to it.
Employment law is a complicated one, considering any form of agency or organised prostitution is illegal ab initio. Similar to that, further complication is added by the likelihood of any contract with an escort being void on the grounds of public policy or immorality (depending on the prevailing social norm).
Galway_Stud
21-10-12, 23:39
What do yea think law will be
One argument from TORL has been that it is incredibly difficult to secure convictions under this existing legislation, and that is why the law needs to be changed. However, what they fail to mention is that they want to amend the 1993 Act in order to criminalise clients, and have proposed nothing that directly targets those involved in human trafficking beyond what is already there.
Targeting clients is sidestepping the problem altogether, and to me, shows that the traffickers are really the last thing on TORL agenda, but rather it wants to target the more numerous group being clients, and by extension the escorts themselves.
That's exactly it Banjaxed! The TORL have duped the public into thinking that this new legislation has to do with trafficking, when it has absolutely nothing to do with it! The laws governing trafficking are already very strict. The issue is one of implementation (i.e. garda and legal resources) and the legal loopholes of obtaining convictions for trafficking.
When this has been pointed out to any of the TORL organisations, their standard line is that you can't separate trafficking from prostitution! It's a bit like saying you can't separate marital abuse form marriage! So why not just ban marriage!!!!!
The original consultation document by the Dept of Justice on this matter was excellent. See below:
In devising policy responses, including legislative and enforcement measures, it isalso crucial to clearly distinguish between human trafficking for sexual exploitationon the one hand, and prostitution on the other. While the two can sometimes overlap,human trafficking and prostitution are different phenomena requiring distinct policyresponses, if each is to be targeted effectively, efficiently and in a manner whichreflects the relative gravity of different types of criminal activity
Unfortunately this message seems to have got lost in the constant noise made by the TORL!!
LaBelleThatcher
22-10-12, 13:20
Ruhamas and TORL's excuse is that that if all clients were criminalised and named and shamed on conviction, then the demand for sexual services would end or decrease because clients would be scared to risk seeing sex workers. From that they are convinced that traffickers would not find the market lucrative to profit from exploiting vulnerable people in the sex trade. If clients were criminalised, Ruhama and TORL think that trafficking would end.
What always shocks me is that, in all of this, what would happen to sex workers, and their families if they succeeded in "eradicating prostitution" never even gets a thought, or a glance, let alone a mention...as if they were so much chopped liver.
...from organisations funded on the pretext of supporting and assisting sex workers...
Chilling...and so blatant...
It's taking a sledgehammer to a host of real human lives to crack a walnut that may, or may not, be there somewhere in the middle...
TORL only have a monopoly over journalists because journalists are afraid of losing the stream of sensationalised and titillating information TORL feed to them, 52 weeks of the year (often at the expense of sex workers' privacy and safety, just like everything else TORL do), that helps them keep getting bylines and selling papers. In terms of the media, it really doesn't matter whether it is true, or not, as long as nobody can disprove it.
LaBelleThatcher
22-10-12, 14:38
First of all, they can never eradicate 'sex for sale' completely. It has been part of mankind since extremely ancient times when thousands and millions of humans started to cohabit together in specific areas of the earth.
We can hardly go round basing legislation on the principle of:
"No need to worry about the negative impact because it will never work anyway"
Can we?
They strike me as behaving more like 14 year old girls on twitter and FB...and the junketing NEVER ends...I wonder how many women who genuinely want (of their own choice and free will) to leave sex work could do so on the real travel and entertainment budget alone?
Isn't that just a sickener?
End other people's sex work and SEE THE WORLD FOR FREE.
Clicked on the Denise Charlton link - the use of the words '1,027 women,including young girls ,being offered on irish sites' really sums up the decidedly corrupt mentality of this deceptive woman.
'young girls' implying paedophilia ; 'being offered' deliberately implying 'against their will' when Charlton is fully fully aware that the vast majority of prostitution here involves consent.
But telling the actual truth is damaging to their agenda - so no , the people must NOT be told the truth , warts ,beautyspots and all. The people CANNOT be trusted to make an informed choice based on the good,bad and boring reality of sexwork.
Instead,the public MUST be lied to and MUST be duped.....
........all for the 'good' of society,of course :mad: