View Full Version : Justice Committee Hearings on 16th
LaBelleThatcher
11-01-13, 12:09
The following persons/organisations have been invited:
Ms. Monica O’Connor
Dr. Kathryn McGarry, NUI Maynooth
Women’s Aid
Dublin AIDS Alliance
Sex Workers Alliance Ireland
Irish Feminist Network
Unless someone knows differently, it would seem that http://www.sexworkersallianceireland.org/ are just as determined to exclude real independent sex workers from the hearings as anyone else. As Ruhama insisted on bringing "prostituted women" in in camera, so could SWAI have insisted on bringing in sex workers.
They chose not to do so.
I have known for 3 years that SWAI only pay lip service to inclusion. I really did hope that would change and some sincerity enter the proceedings, but apparently not.
I have done, and will continue to do, everything in my power to get real independent sex workers into those hearings, and I do not mean "real independent sex workers that I like and get on with". I genuinely mean any "real independent sex workers who are adults and wish to speak for themselves".
But I am close to the point of despair here.
Monica O'Connor, Women's Aid and the Irish Feminist Network! These hearings are clearly a rigged farce. The pro-criminalisation side had more than enough opportunity to present their arguments the last time round. What about Dublin Aids Alliance? I'm guessing they'll be anti-criminalisation but given this is Ireland nothing would surprise me.
Another thing I don't understand about this website. You have hundreds of people coming onto an escort website talking about trivial stuff in the general chat section yet far fewer people seem to be talking an interest in this. This is basically the final solution to the prostitute question that is about to be imposed on Ireland and yet we have people here talking about favourite James Bond moments. What's up with that?
LaBelleThatcher
11-01-13, 15:14
Dublin AIDS Alliance should stand firm with us (know of them for years).
What is wrong here is endemic to our whole society. People like to close their eyes, put on their blinkers and convince themselves it is all in the hands of some great, benevolent "they" in the sky who will make sure it all turns out all right in the end...and if it doesn't they rant against the government (who are often at least more ethically motivated than the lobbies).
This may surprise you, but what is happening with these committee hearing also happens across the board...EVERY issue is decided by self interested NGOs with little or no input or consultation between the real stakeholders at all.
It is BAD being excluded from direct participation in hearings that decide your future as a sex worker, but it is a WHOLE WORLD OF WORSE to be excluded just because you were born with legs that do not work properly - and that happens too....and some Ruhama equivalent goes in and tells the committee whatever is to the advantage of themselves and their associates then claims that they speak for *YOU*.
EVERY initiative led by disabled or disadvantaged people (and ladies, when you are in a society that REFUSES to give you the same rights and respects as everyone else you are MOST DEFINATELY disadvantaged) gets hijacked by "the usual orgs" before it even begins...I have stood and watched it happen in front of my eyes.
LaBelleThatcher
11-01-13, 15:16
Meeting will be held in Committee Room 2 and can be viewed live on the day at:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/livewebcast/DVR-Flash-Committee2.htm
Rachel Divine
11-01-13, 17:23
Please, I need some emails, even phone numbers .. Now I remember I have one for SWAI .. Will ring tomorrow in the morning.
Any info I could use to contact those people, less Ruhama .. no need for it, I will appreciate..
oh yeah and a top up .. roaming in very expensive :D
Rachel Divine
11-01-13, 17:48
Will the TV cameras will be there? :D
Will the TV cameras will be there? :D
If not, there's always Skype ;)
To be honest , i think for the sake of people's stress levels , you'd be as well off not watching the meetings as its pretty clear that the process is a fait d'accompli anyway. Reading between the lines (e.g. Chairman David Staunton's endorsement of the Swedish Model, the absence of dialogue with Swedish workers , line up of pro-criminalisation etc.) , its fairly obvious that these meetings are mere exercises in optics and that the Commitee's recommendations will involve the adoption of the Swedish Law.I've no doubt there are Committee members with reservations about the Model but the relentless marketing of the 'success' of the model as the only means of helping women has gathered such pace that it makes it extremely difficult to halt the campaign.
However, Minister Shatter is a different proposition altogether and like others here , i've no doubt in his bona fides re the entire issue.So its well worth to take the time to politely email the Commitee members but also Alan Shatter about the concerns that the current process of recommendation has not only turned out to be ineffective but actually irresponsible considering the stakes involved .
Some of the tenents that should be central to any email :
(a)There is an absolute responsibility on all contributors to creating the safest environment possible for sex workers and an environment that is detrimental for traffickers.This absolute cannot be compromised by any contributor be they commitee members or lobbyists.
(b)Central to that responsibility ,is the requirement that all or any social policy proposed (in this case, the Swedish Model)be subject to the maximum critical,objective and independent scrutiny to arrive at the best decision.
Unfortunately,viewing the JC meeting so far,the Commitee has failed lamenatbly to do this because of (a) brevity of time for scrutiny of speakers (b) complete lack of meaningful challenge by the Committee members on the statements of the speakers.When queried, not a single speaker gave a satisfactory answer to the Committee ,who in response , merely nodded in a completely non-adversarial way. Nowhere near appropriate considering we're dealing with actual women in an potentially hugely hazardous industry.
(c) Because the health of vulnerable women is the only concern ,there's is a complete responsibilty on lobbyists of any model (in this case,Swedish Model) for a full, open disclosure on the positives and negatives on the policy that they propose.Failure to present both strengths and weaknesses does not merely do a disservice to vulnerable women, it is the deliberate abuse of the serious plight that these women face , simply to further their own agenda.
So far, not a single speaker in the TORL campaign has highlighted evident weaknesses in the Swedish Model re labour laws , the official intolerance of 'harm reduction' for sex workers , the forcing of sex workers to work 'underground' , the possible links to extreme levels of rape , the demand by most sex workers of repealing the law. Not a single mention by the TORL speakers. Such deliberate omissions destroys the credibility of such lobbyists re their claim that they have the best interests of vulnerable women at heart. Demands of ' dignity for vulnerable women ' ring very hollow indeed , when the same lobbyists deliberately manipulate what they want and do not want to be heard at the expense of transparency.
(d) There is a clear juxtaposition in the claims of the TORL advocates and those of the sociologists Mrs Ward and Wylie.Every TORL speaker states that the Swedish Model works and has been successful in reducng prostitution and trafficking in Sweden.The sociologists state that there's just isn't enough independent evidence to make such absolute claims - claims which go to the heart of the entire TORL campaign and their public support. Either there is independent evidence to support that the Swedish Model does reduce prostitution and trafficking or there simply is not and that prostitution has merely adapted to legislation but to the detriment of the sex workers health.
Which brings me to the conclusiion that the ONLY recommendation that any genuine party can make is that a delegation of 6 to 12 genuinely independent,agenda free sociologists conduct their own independent research , liasing with various policing authorities of different prostituion models e.g. Netherlands,Germany,New Zealand, Sweden,Australia ,Denmark for informed strengths and weaknesses of their respective models and speaking with sex workers at different levels (streetwalking,indoor , brothels,private escorts) to compile as much information as possible upon which an independent fully informed ,comprehensive recommendation can be made in an effort to create an environment of least harm.
I've no doubt that the Commitee members take their responsibility in this issue extremely serious and so would wholeheartedly agree that such a comprensive examination of all models is needed to arrive at the optimum environment.If indeed the best interests of vulnerable women are central to the TORL campaign , i'm sure they would also welcome such an independent, fully informed approach.
Nothing less than a fully informed recommendation by the Commitee is acceptable when dealing with any vulnerable women in such a difficult job as allowing any particular social policy re prostitution to pass without serious challenge is to add further abuse upon these women.
The Equalizer
11-01-13, 19:23
Fair Points have been made by all of the above.
Some Points and Suggestions in relation to the Consultation.
As 7up88 has pointed out, all arguments put forth to date (and seemingly any forthcoming arguments, if the list of those speakers on 16/01/2013 is any indication) are all from the "Pro-Criminalization" side of the debate. This in itself is biased and unfair. In any legal trial, hearing or consultation with regard to potential Legislation changes, arguments are invited by both those opposing and those in favor of any such Legislative changes.
If this is supposed to be a fair and open consultation, why have
(A)Independent Sex Workers
(B)Clients of Independent Sex Workers,
(C)Persons with no vested interested in the Sex Industry (either from a Client or Sex Worker standpoint) who flat out disagree with the proposed Swedish-style legislation
been vehemently denied the opportunity to put forward their side of the argument for consideration by the Joint Oireachtas Committee?
The negative implications which Swedish-style Legislation would impose upon those connected to the Sex Industry are well documented.
Right now, the JOC is showing itself in a very good light.
Keeping in mind the point I have just made in this post (and the points in posts which several others have made in recent months), I believe that in the interest of fairness and decency the entire composition of the JOC, and the procedures to which it adheres (as well as those whom the JOC allow to speak), should be reevaluated.
the traveller
11-01-13, 20:26
Milkman's and the Equalizer's post could be cut and pasted and sent to the committee and the minister as they sum up all that is wrong with this process. And like 7up88 I'm surprised that not more of the senior members have made a contribution to this debate here. When anything is posted in the general section, where more members can view it, it gets lost after a day
Well done LBT and Rachel, thanks for all your good work.
Sam, any chance of putting the next committee meeting on to You Tube like last time, I found that very helpful as I'll be at work that day and that was a great way to catch up, thanks.
We shouldn't lose hope yet. We should try appealing to the press. I do know that Kevin Myers of the Independent is sympathetic and has written articles in the past criticising the pro-criminalisation brigade. What good are all these exposes on Ruhama if they are just sitting on Sexwork.ie's blog which few people read?
LaBelleThatcher
12-01-13, 00:19
The trouble is that there is DEFINATELY an unofficial press embargo...well two actually.
Editors are frightened to print anything against the NGO sector at all because it has become SO POWERFUL (and all self appointed too)
Editors are frightened to p*ss off TORL because then they will lose regular source of salacious headlines.
Friendly journos write stuff up and watch it get spiked over and over again...
Sorry, but I think we need to get out there and start MAKING SOME NOISE of our own...and if anyone knows how to use "digg" etc to promote sexwork.ie PLEASE get doing it...
The trouble is that there is DEFINATELY an unofficial press embargo...well two actually.
Editors are frightened to print anything against the NGO sector at all because it has become SO POWERFUL (and all self appointed too)
Editors are frightened to p*ss off TORL because then they will lose regular source of salacious headlines.
Friendly journos write stuff up and watch it get spiked over and over again...
Sorry, but I think we need to get out there and start MAKING SOME NOISE of our own...and if anyone knows how to use "digg" etc to promote sexwork.ie PLEASE get doing it...
Simple! We Urgently need to legalise Prostitution in Ireland to face up to "The Real Situation in Ireland"
In relation to the issue of lack of representatiives of sex workers:
I would say to all sex workers/escorts who want thwir voice heard to contact the JoC and express their view
Say you willing to attend the JoC hearings and want to give your opinion
Coming on hear and complaining aint going to do any good
In relation to SWAI if you feel they are not representing you contact them, send them an email state that you want to be involved in the debate
Any country that has succeeded in getting through sex workers rights have done it through sex worker lead organisation
New Zeeland and Australia are some of the best examples of this but also in sweden sex workers campaigned for workers rights and got some (sick leave)
if Rose Alliance can operate in Sweden and POIN in Norway there is no reason why such a group cant be set up here.
but once again complaining about it wont work get involved
Rachel Divine
12-01-13, 23:28
In relation to the issue of lack of representatiives of sex workers:
I would say to all sex workers/escorts who want thwir voice heard to contact the JoC and express their view
Say you willing to attend the JoC hearings and want to give your opinion
Coming on hear and complaining aint going to do any good
In relation to SWAI if you feel they are not representing you contact them, send them an email state that you want to be involved in the debate
Any country that has succeeded in getting through sex workers rights have done it through sex worker lead organisation
New Zeeland and Australia are some of the best examples of this but also in sweden sex workers campaigned for workers rights and got some (sick leave)
if Rose Alliance can operate in Sweden and POIN in Norway there is no reason why such a group cant be set up here.
but once again complaining about it wont work get involved
I did sent an email to SWAI today in the morning, no reply.
well it is the weekend
which email you send it to?
I would say send it again.
Rachel Divine
12-01-13, 23:54
well it is the weekend
which email you send it to?
I would say send it again.
I found the phone number for them , I will ring tomorrow...
The email I got info all the time from..
LaBelleThatcher
13-01-13, 01:24
In relation to the issue of lack of representatiives of sex workers:
I would say to all sex workers/escorts who want thwir voice heard to contact the JoC and express their view
Say you willing to attend the JoC hearings and want to give your opinion
Coming on hear and complaining aint going to do any good
In relation to SWAI if you feel they are not representing you contact them, send them an email state that you want to be involved in the debate
Any country that has succeeded in getting through sex workers rights have done it through sex worker lead organisation
New Zeeland and Australia are some of the best examples of this but also in sweden sex workers campaigned for workers rights and got some (sick leave)
if Rose Alliance can operate in Sweden and POIN in Norway there is no reason why such a group cant be set up here.
but once again complaining about it wont work get involved
Just so you know...I have spent the past two years trying to get SWAI to stop the BS and actually include sex workers, and to be honest, did not stop short of DEMANDING they include Rachel...
Just to be ignored and stonewalled...AGAIN...
SWAI claim to include sex workers, and even make a show of inviting sex workers, but the truth is that if you try to participate actively, they exclude us as rigidly as ICI do...and I am honestly sick of keeping up a show of pretending otherwise because they oppose the Swedish Model.
SWAI also routinely ignore emails.
Many sex workers have already tried to reason with members of the committee to no avail. I have already been told that I will be called before the committee (though, let me make it clear, what I asked was *NOT* that I be called, but that the active sex workers who have requested a hearing be given one) but it never actually happens.
What is happening is absolutely disgraceful.
The Equalizer
13-01-13, 13:00
As I said in my previous post, very valid points have been made by all of the above, and very valid points have been made by posters since my last post.
In particular, I agree with a post made by the traveller; both milkman's and my (The Equalizer) posts on this thread should be cut and pasted, and sent to the Minister for Justice for consideration as both myself and milkman have highlighted alot of what is wrong with the current practices being implemented throughout this Consultation.
There are other points which I would like to make in relation to the biased manner in which the Consultation is being conducted:
Independent Sex Workers should demand a public explanation as to why they have been vehemently denied the opportunity to put forth their side of the argument during the Consultation process. (In addition, key personnel from Ruhama, Immigrant Council of Ireland and other organisations under the TORL umbrella should be held to publicly account as for their decision to exclude Sex Workers and their Clients).
As current members of the Joint Oireachtas Committee are showing themselves in a biased fashion, the membership and composition of the JOC in it's current form should be dissolved and a new JOC formed.
The biased manner in which not only the Joint Oireachtas Committee are conducting their operations, but also the fact that they are only affording (fabricated/skewed) one-sided arguments from TORL and Ruhama, should be (and can be) brought to the general public's attention.
P.S. If as the traveller suggested, anyone feels like cutting and pasting (any of) my points/suggestions to forward to the Minister for Justice for consideration, they have my permission (and my best wishes ;)) to do so.
P.P.S. I would also like to thank Rachel and LaBelle Thatcher (and anyone else taking a stand) for all your hard work in this whole regard
Rachel Divine
13-01-13, 13:39
Had a brief conversation over the phone with a SWAI member and he assured me they will do everything possible to get a sex worker into the hearing or arrange a private meeting...
I promised to LaBelle to be in Dub on the 16th.. I shall keep my promise ...
LaBelleThatcher
13-01-13, 15:23
Had a brief conversation over the phone with a SWAI member and he assured me they will do everything possible to get a sex worker into the hearing or arrange a private meeting...
I promised to LaBelle to be in Dub on the 16th.. I shall keep my promise ...
I will keep MY promise too...looking forward to it :)
To be honest, i'd be a little reluctant to recommend cutting & pasting of many of the valid points of various posters.If the same word for word emails arrive at commitee members inboxes, it just seems part of a concerted deliberate campaign ,repeated by a few people.
If people have an interest in demanding for a open ,challenging,transparent process ,then they should send an email in their own words ,listing the various flaws on the Joint Commitees workings and more importantly,the deliberate omissions of unpalletable flaws in the TORL proposal : both of which have been listed very well by many posters both in this thread but also in the other 'Joint Commitee hearings' thread.
Ultimately, EVERY individual in the JC room is FULLY aware of the flaws in the Swedish Model which have adverse effects on the lives of sex workers - Refusing to have an open , critical discussion on those flaws is akin to the 'turn a blind eye' policy appiled in the BBC for decades re the heinous behaviour of Jimmy Saville. When you KNOW that the full truth is NOT being told, your choice is simple : turn a blind eye for the sake of group think or actually stand up and be counted.
As i've said before , the common sense solution is to delegate a number of independent , agenda-free sociologists to do the research re all available models (re their strengths and weaknesses ) ,involving policing Authorities and sex workers to provide as comprehensive a recommendation as available information will allow.
the traveller
13-01-13, 18:34
I've already sent a e-mail to the minister and every person on the committee before Christmas. And guess what? Not one of them even acknowledged receipt. I think that shows the total disregard that they hold anyone in that disagrees with the preformed ideas they already hold. But hey! we live in hope!!
LaBelleThatcher
13-01-13, 19:55
I've already sent a e-mail to the minister and every person on the committee before Christmas. And guess what? Not one of them even acknowledged receipt. I think that shows the total disregard that they hold anyone in that disagrees with the preformed ideas they already hold. But hey! we live in hope!!
My experience is that one person from entire Justice Committee acknowledged receipt, and replied, with the promise of being brought into this hearing before Christmas, and one Senator acknowledged receipt of a personally addressed mail last week, then did not follow through.
Two TDs acknowledged receipt of my submission before Christmas both were to set up meetings, one never followed through, the other was caught spouting bilge in the Dail within days *WITHOUT EVEN REMEMBERING THE NAME OF RUHAMA* and has now lost his longstanding web admin (a former sex worker herself) as a result (and can consider himself lucky it was not left redirected to sexwork.ie until such time as they could work out how to access and undo it). One other TD claimed to have found the email in his junk folder after being challenged on facebook, but has never since referred to the contents (on the plus side, at least he no longer sends me unsolicited snail mail puff posts about his sterling work on behalf of some of the most revolting orgs I know outside TORL to an address I never gave him in the first place).
It will take more than email to make them realise they need to sort this travesty out.
Jack in the Box
13-01-13, 22:27
There are some great posts in this thread. We should email the committee and then possibly follow through with phone calls.
They need to look at the law in other countries apart from the oppressive situation in Sweden.
Also it should be drummed into them that they need to have sex workers at the hearings and others in order to counteract the biased TOTRL crowd.
After listening to the TOTRL speakers at the hearing for my sins it is clear that there are many holes in their statements that should be challenged more.
It is a good idea for sex workers to email in. I think that it might be an idea also to organise some sort of a petition whereby escorts who do not have a problem with sex work sign it. This would make it harder for them to be dismissed as a tiny minority.
Rachel Divine
13-01-13, 22:34
I got an invitation , Teresa putted me on the list ..
I know is a very important meeting, yet I dont want to feel too much pressure on me.
Have to think very well at the whole situation...
Jack in the Box
13-01-13, 22:41
I got an invitation , Teresa putted me on the list ..
I know is a very important meeting, yet I dont want to feel too much pressure on me.
Have to think very well at the whole situation...
Well done Rachel! You'll be well able for it. Go in there and kick ass. Blow away all the myths that Ruhama, the ICI and the other TOTRL clowns are making up. The very best of luck!
The Equalizer
13-01-13, 22:44
There are some great posts in this thread. We should email the committee and then possibly follow through with phone calls.
They need to look at the law in other countries apart from the oppressive situation in Sweden.
Also it should be drummed into them that they need to have sex workers at the hearings and others in order to counteract the biased TOTRL crowd.
After listening to the TOTRL speakers at the hearing for my sins it is clear that there are many holes in their statements that should be challenged more.
It is a good idea for sex workers to email in. I think that it might be an idea also to organise some sort of a petition whereby escorts who do not have a problem with sex work sign it. This would make it harder for them to be dismissed as a tiny minority.
It is a good idea for sex workers to email in. I think that it might be an idea also to organise some sort of a petition whereby escorts who do not have a problem with sex work sign it. This would make it harder for them to be dismissed as a tiny minority.
An excellent idea; I was also thinking something similar myself from a Client standpoint (whereby Clients could sign a petition as a sign of disapproval at the conduct of Ruhama/TORL [as well as the biased manner in which the JOC has conducted it's operations to date]).
However, a "Client petition" would require alot of vetting/policing by an appropriate member/members of the EI community (I do not feel comfortable discussing such vetting/policing in the public forum).
If, Jack in the Box (and anyone else for that matter), you would like any further details as to how I would propose implementing (and appropriately vetting/policing) a "Client Petition", feel free to P.M me.
LaBelleThatcher
13-01-13, 23:01
i got an invitation , teresa putted me on the list ..
I know is a very important meeting, yet i dont want to feel too much pressure on me.
Have to think very well at the whole situation...
best news ever :)
Great news Rachel and fair play to you - as you say,you have to think very well on the whole situation because all contributions by speakers are limited to about 5 minutes. Without in any way trying to influence your thoughts but i think the greatest impact that any anti-Swedish Model speaker can have is to politely challenge the entire process(not the commitee itself) as an inadequate means that such a crucial recommendation will be made.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the only way that a fully informed commitee can make a recommendation on objective,independent basis to create an environment of least harm is to delegate a team of agenda-free sociologists to examine all known social models that have been attempted by various countries.This means liaising with the various policing authorities and sex workers of the various juristidiction on strenghts/failings of the respective models so that a genuine fully-informed recommendation can be made by those in expertise in such matters.
Choosing (whilst not stridently challenging) any social model without doing the equivalent research on other models means that the Committee is merely hoping on the Swedish Model being right (whilst knowing that the only two independent speakers/sociologists suggest that the current situation is optimum). No argument can possibly be put forward by any group to advocate an ill-informed decision. No Committee member can refuse your request to have all-known research available before recommendations be made.
Was just thinking there whilst checking the animals for the night:
On the basis that there will be a few more hearings in the weeks ahead(we've yet to hear from the Garda Representatives or Union Reps so further meetings are a given) ,there also will a few other anti-Swedish model speakers at those meetings.
May I suggest that all anti-Swedish Model speakers (not Just Rachel) request that such a group of independent ,agenda-free sociologists conduct the necessary full research in all models in various jurisdictions in order to arrive at a fully -informed recommendation as part of the speech ?
More specifically , during the speech , actively ask the committee members themselves in two-way dialogue whether individually they feel it appropriate to choose any prostitution model to the exclusion of all others without having done the necessary research on all other available models .In other words, during submission, politely ask the committee members on the logic of recommending any social model as being best without having examined all the other models.Already ,the only two speakers of independence and expertise in sociology have disagreed with the Swedish Model so NO committe member can credibly object to having the maximum amount of available information on which to base a decision.
That doesn't mean criticisng the Commitee members themselves - That doesn't mean criticisng the TORL lobbyists(though they deserve a hell of a lot for their deliberate deception) - It just means that each anti-Swedish Model speaker actively demands that the Committe makes a fully-informed recommendation based on the maximum amount of information on all known models available. If the Committee have genuine concerns on (a) providing the best 'exit strategies' for those sex workers that want to leave (b) the safest environment for those who wish to continue and (c) the harshest environment environment for traffickers then NO committe member nor any 'concerned' lobbyists can credibly object to that widespread research.
Either Commitee members are in favour of making a fully informed recommendation OR
Committee members are in favour of choosing one social model to the exclusion of others without even examining them - thereby deliberately abusing the women who they claim they have concern about.
If I get time tomorrow,I'll try and draft an email here for anybody that wants to send to future anti-Swedish Model speakers. Its probably too late for the Dublin Aids Alliance or SWAI speakers (though an email challenging this ridiculously inept process is still worth sending) as they will already have their submissions and speeches already made. However, for future speakers AFTER January 16th , I think its worth sending such email to form part of the speech to the Committee.
The key to defeating the Swedish Model is merely establishing the facts - the way to establish the facts is via that delegation of agenda-free sociologists and considering we're talking about real women,real vulnerabilities and real violence ,no Committe member can credibly object to such full, comprehensive , independent research being done. ( esp if the committee members are actually asked during the speakers submission) . If all anti-swedish model speakers pro-actively request this full research,the committee will have no choice but acede to the request. If bizarrely, they ignore such a request , then all the anti-swedish speakers (incl Mrs Ward and Wylie) should email the Minister directly requesting such research be done in order to arrive at the optimum environment.
Rachel Divine
15-01-13, 12:39
The Committee doesn't want to hear from any sex worker :(
the traveller
15-01-13, 12:51
The Committee doesn't want to hear from any sex worker :(
Now why does that not surprise me!!!
Rachel Divine
15-01-13, 13:02
My laptop won't start and I have no battery left on the phone :(
This is madness.. I hope to fix it during the day and get news on what shall I do tomorrow, make my way to Dublin or not...
I've been thinking about the proposed legislation a lot recently. Do these pro-Swedish model groups really think that incriminating the client will make that much difference in Ireland? At the moment, it is illegal to pick up street prostitutes, but people still do it. Also, looking back to one of several documentaries we have watched lately (regarding the Swedish model), we have seen condoms in church graveyards because prostitutes have nowhere to work.
I would imagine that should this law pass, hotels will be more vigilant with regards to 'visitors' to their rooms, putting off escort and client bookings, not to mention that many men are married or escorts will be too provide out-calls to a stranger's home, so where are escorts going to work (given that it's not illegal to sell sex)? Will they end up rendez-vous'ing in car parks and graveyards because they will have nowhere to work too?
The Equalizer
15-01-13, 13:08
The Committee doesn't want to hear from any sex worker :(
An injustice in the extreme.
Not only has the Joint Oireachtas Committee excluded the voice of Independent Sex Workers (and their Clients) up until this point, but they promised (in the last few days) that an Independent Sex Worker(s) would be afforded the opportunity to put forth their side of the argument.
Now they have reneged on this promise, and are showing themselves in a worse light than previously.
This latest action is totally unacceptable, and makes a valid point in favor of dissolution of the Committee in its current form (with a possible view to restructuring of it's composition).
Anyone interested in implementation of a possibly appropriate course of action necessary to combat this latest injustice, feel free to PM me.
The Committee doesn't want to hear from any sex worker :(
How can you have a fair debate without a sex worker
Thanks for your efforts Rachel and also any other escort that made attempts to join the debate - no great surprise of the escorts exclusion which echoes Pye Jakobbssen criticism of the Swedish government's condescending attitude towards sex workers.To be fair to the Commitee, they'd argue that 3 , 4 or 5 sex workers of polar opposite experiences cannot fully represent the whole industry though it does smack of arrogance that sex workers will be subject to legislative change without having any opportunity to contribute.
On the plus side, no matter how excellent the presentation that Rachel and other escorts of this site would speak, the stand out testimony would ,undoubtedly , be given by the sex worker(s) that would be presented by the TORL lobbyists. When a genuine trafficking victim would speak about the stomach-churning episodes that she would endure, the understandable gut reaction of most people would be absolute zero-tolerance towards the industry in its entirety (irrespective of its counter-productivity) which would be wonderful 'fuel' for the TORL brigade. Just look at the vehement disgust expressed by most people at what happened to that poor Indiann medical student that died from rape - put a similar story as testimony at the JC meetings and whatever chance for balanced discourse goes straight out the window.
Just putting together the final touches to a suggested template email that any willing escorts interested in the proceedings may like to send to committee members,the Minister and future speakers on why the only viable recommendation that a responsible committee can make is to delegate the responsibility of a comprehensive , independent and critical research report on all prostitution policies as adopted in various jurisdictions to be provided by a select number of agenda-free sociologists similar to Ward and Wylie.Hope to have that finalised by this eveneing for any escort that's interested.
Another escort that was meant to be attending on Wednesday has been informed that yes, only committee members are allowed to take part in the Q and A sessions. She can still however come to observe and will do in order to try and get some time to talk to more politicians afterwards.
A sex worker is also in direct contact with people in the Department of Justice trying to put forward arguments.
There are talks of a more private committee meeting to be held and sex workers will be represented then by a sex worker. If that will materialise we will see but it is something SWAI and sex workers are pushing for.
LaBelleThatcher
15-01-13, 16:42
I have just spoken to the Justice Committee Office, and they are NOT prepared to admit that they refuse to see sex workers yet, but they are happy to confirm SWAI DO NOT speak on behalf of the Justice Committee, and it seems unlikely they even tried to bring a sex worker in with them at any point.
Also spoke to personal contact who tells me Dublin AIDS Alliance have pulled out of tomorrow's meeting for personal reasons so the do have a slot but that, unofficially, the Justice Committee have no intention of hearing any sex workers beyond the Ruhama puppets, WHATEVER,
Seems to me we have two problems:
The Justice Committee are pulling every trick in the book to mavoid hearing from sex workers
SWAI are piulling every trick in the book to avoid including sex workers
I am ready to demonstrate outside the Dail tomorrow if anyone else will join me. It is possible to cover up enough to avoid being identified on any kind of camera.
Curvaceous Kate
15-01-13, 16:48
I have just spoken to the Justice Committee Office, and they are NOT prepared to admit that they refuse to see sex workers yet, but they are happy to confirm SWAI DO NOT speak on behalf of the Justice Committee, and it seems unlikely they even tried to bring a sex worker in with them at any point.
Also spoke to personal contact who tells me Dublin AIDS Alliance have pulled out of tomorrow's meeting for personal reasons so the do have a slot but that, unofficially, the Justice Committee have no intention of hearing any sex workers beyond the Ruhama puppets, WHATEVER,
Seems to me we have two problems:
The Justice Committee are pulling every trick in the book to mavoid hearing from sex workers
SWAI are piulling every trick in the book to avoid including sex workers
I am ready to demonstrate outside the Dail tomorrow if anyone else will join me. It is possible to cover up enough to avoid being identified on any kind of camera.
If I was there I would support you in that. Well done to all who are trying to be heard.
Rachel Divine
15-01-13, 17:02
I have just spoken to the Justice Committee Office, and they are NOT prepared to admit that they refuse to see sex workers yet, but they are happy to confirm SWAI DO NOT speak on behalf of the Justice Committee, and it seems unlikely they even tried to bring a sex worker in with them at any point.
Also spoke to personal contact who tells me Dublin AIDS Alliance have pulled out of tomorrow's meeting for personal reasons so the do have a slot but that, unofficially, the Justice Committee have no intention of hearing any sex workers beyond the Ruhama puppets, WHATEVER,
Seems to me we have two problems:
The Justice Committee are pulling every trick in the book to mavoid hearing from sex workers
SWAI are piulling every trick in the book to avoid including sex workers
I am ready to demonstrate outside the Dail tomorrow if anyone else will join me. It is possible to cover up enough to avoid being identified on any kind of camera.
See you tomorrow :)
LaBelleThatcher
15-01-13, 17:04
See you tomorrow :)
Wouldn't miss you for the whole world :)
Rachel Divine
15-01-13, 17:12
Wouldn't miss you for the whole world :)
I am feeling better now.. the nerves are not as much as were yesterday and today.. :kiss:
LaBelleThatcher
15-01-13, 17:28
I am feeling better now.. the nerves are not as much as were yesterday and today.. :kiss:
There is nothing to fear only fear itself, and "fear is the mindkiller, fear is the little death"
:kiss:
Rachel Divine
15-01-13, 17:57
There is nothing to fear only fear itself, and "fear is the mindkiller, fear is the little death"
:kiss:
Too much pressure... I am not used to such meetings :o
the traveller
15-01-13, 17:58
Good luck ladies, I'll be thinking and rooting for you all day. If I weren't a 4 hour train ride and work tomorrow I'd join you.
LaBelleThatcher
15-01-13, 18:01
Too much pressure... I am not used to such meetings :o
Me neither...but it is HAS to be done...
In the best possible taste,girls , Balls of Steel …Ye’ve Got Balls of Steel….;)
LaBelleThatcher
15-01-13, 18:59
in the best possible taste,girls , balls of steel …ye’ve got balls of steel….;)
i know :D :D
The Equalizer
15-01-13, 19:30
Good Luck to both of you tomorrow.
Like the traveller, I shall be thinking of and rooting for both of you tomorrow.
Too much pressure... I am not used to such meetings :o
it's understandable that you'd be nervous and intimidated, so say that.
tell them how "the TORL campaign is based on lies and conjecture. independent research is necessary!"
Rachel Divine
15-01-13, 20:25
it's understandable that you'd be nervous and intimidated, so say that.
tell them how "the TORL campaign is based on lies and conjecture. independent research is necessary!"
Thats too much politics for me ...
What about "ye claim all sex workers are coerced into prostitution, yet, here I am, a sex worker, willing to speak to ye. I work on my free will and I never came across to a forced woman in this industry. Prostitution will never disappear , it didnt in Sweden , the model ye want to follow, got even worse for girls conditions to work in. Is that what ye want? Because is the only thing sure coming out of this law. The client will still pay for sex, legal or illegal. Is it not street prostitution illegal at the moment? Did that stopped men to use street workers? No, it did not. "etc...
Thats too much politics for me ...
What about "ye claim all sex workers are coerced into prostitution, yet, here I am, a sex worker, willing to speak to ye. I work on my free will and I never came across to a forced woman in this industry. Prostitution will never disappear , it didnt in Sweden , the model ye want to follow, got even worse for girls conditions to work in. Is that what ye want? Because is the only thing sure coming out of this law. The client will still pay for sex, legal or illegal. Is it not street prostitution illegal at the moment? Did that stopped men to use street workers? No, it did not. "etc...
yes thats good. they need to know that we smell the sh*t that TORL speak of.
all you can do is voice your concerns, if you're heard, that's another story.
Ireland has a history of getting it wrong and the vatican running the show.
LaBelleThatcher
15-01-13, 21:30
Let me also salute the many sex workers who WOULD be there is they did not have children to think of.
I do understand...it would be totally irresponsible to risk exposure...and that is me saying that...
I will encourage all escorts to join the protest tomorrow
If you are worried about been identified wear a mask like they do at similar protests in Paris
You will only get one chance
Rachel Divine
15-01-13, 21:55
All I wish for is a fair debate, thats all.
In case Ruhama manage to get "trafficked sex workers" in, also, are ones who are in this industry on free will , like myself, who are willing to speak up our side of story.
I get the idea Ireland being small, religious country and so on, is also fact that I am a person and not ashamed of working in sex industry, therefore, expressing such is my right, in the country I spend lots of money on accommodation, food, petrol, etc etc and condoms :D ... Joke aside, sex workers move money in this country , from criminal activity , as they call it, when I work on my own, free will ... Prostitution is legal , in such case :) and I am not a criminal ...
LaBelleThatcher
15-01-13, 22:26
I will encourage all escorts to join the protest tomorrow
If you are worried about been identified wear a mask like they do at similar protests in Paris
You will only get one chance
It is also possible to veil like Muslim women, the ordinary ones you see out shopping rather than this though:
http://www.desertveils.com.au/images/Yashmak1.jpg
(TOO scary!)
Wear dark glasses, wigs, very neutral clothes...
Gimp masks? ;)
Also, the Irish media have known my identity at various times over the past 20 years, even the hostile ones have NEVER blown that.
Christian Grey
15-01-13, 22:30
Best of luck LaBelleThatcher and Rachel
LaBelleThatcher
15-01-13, 22:34
All I wish for is a fair debate, thats all.
In case Ruhama manage to get "trafficked sex workers" in, also, are ones who are in this industry on free will , like myself, who are willing to speak up our side of story.
I get the idea Ireland being small, religious country and so on, is also fact that I am a person and not ashamed of working in sex industry, therefore, expressing such is my right, in the country I spend lots of money on accommodation, food, petrol, etc etc and condoms :D ... Joke aside, sex workers move money in this country , from criminal activity , as they call it, when I work on my own, free will ... Prostitution is legal , in such case :) and I am not a criminal ...
The bigger truth is that ANY adult who wishes to do so should be encouraged and sought to speak for them self LONG before any crowd of self appointed, interfering, busybodies are allowed to say anything, let alone make things up as they go along.
The ONLY time an organisation like Ruhama or SWAI should be called into a hearing like this is at the request of a sex worker as advocacy or supporting evidence.
These organisations are NOT STAKEHOLDERS...YOU ARE STAKEHOLDERS. NB I am not a stakeholder either, that is why my only demand is that *YOU* be heard, not me.
(I think I will write a letter to the HSE and the Probation service "on behalf of" Ruhama saying "No thank you, we don't want any funding this year" and see how far THAT gets me! :D)
justfrank44
15-01-13, 22:46
would love to be able to give more support to this than just hitting the thanks button. But I really do not have the depth of knowledge or the ability to articulate the point put forward as well as others. I did speak to Rachel recently about tomorrow, and I am highly impressed by her resolve and ability, and english is not her native tongue so fair play to her.Good luck tomorrow to anyone who attends, and while I am not hopeful of the outcome I applaud the effort being put in.
LaBelleThatcher
15-01-13, 23:52
would love to be able to give more support to this than just hitting the thanks button. But I really do not have the depth of knowledge or the ability to articulate the point put forward as well as others. I did speak to Rachel recently about tomorrow, and I am highly impressed by her resolve and ability, and english is not her native tongue so fair play to her.Good luck tomorrow to anyone who attends, and while I am not hopeful of the outcome I applaud the effort being put in.
Go sign the petition Frank :: THAT will help
http://www.change.org/petitions/irish-justice-minister-alan-shatter-and-chair-of-committee-david-stanton-stop-the-censorship-of-sex-workers-stop-their-clients-criminalisation?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=url_share&utm_campaign=url_share_before_sign
justfrank44
16-01-13, 00:01
already done belle.
Good luck to Rachel, LaBelleThatcher and any other escort that is attending today's venture :)
I suggested over the last few days that I’d string a basic email template up for anybody who wishes to contact the JC committee members or the Minister with a particular emphasis on the need for a comprehensive study on all known social policy models for prostitution as opposed to the yea or nay approach towards the Swedish model to the exclusion of all others. It may be also worth sending an email to future anti-Swedish Model speakers , so that they can respectfully request from the Committee the need for such a fully-informed and independent study . Came up with the template below.
Without wishing to step on anybody’s toes , but it may be preferable for just escorts (who agree with the sentiments below) to email the committee members , as the escorts themselves are the crucial people in the whole debate. For any escort that shares the sentiments of the email , could you please send a link to any of your colleagues who share the same views. After all ,the more escorts that contact Commitee members et al requesting a comprehensive balanced independent report ,the better.
Dear Sir/Madam,firstly thank you for taking the time to read my e-mail to you concerning the current Joint Committee Meetings in respect of the future of Prostitution and Legislation currently in situ.
I am writing to you ,aware of your contribution to the proceedings and respectfully request that attention be drawn to the main weakness of the current process and the uncompromisable need of the process to arrive at the environment of least harm for all sex workers.
There is an absolute responsibility on all contributors to creating the safest environment possible for sex workers and an environment that is detrimental for traffickers.This absolute simply cannot be compromised by any contributor be they commitee members or lobbyists.
Central to that absolute responsibility ,is the requirement that all or any social policy proposed (in this case, the Swedish Model)be subject to the maximum critical,objective and independent scrutiny to arrive at the best decision.
Unfortunately,based on the Joint Committee meeting so far,the Commitee is unable to do this because of (a) brevity of time for scrutiny of speakers (b) poor standard of critical challenge by the Committee members on the statements of the various speakers.
Also central to that absolute responsibility is the requirement on lobbyists of any particular social policy (in this case,the Swedish Model) for a full and open disclosure on the positives and negatives of any policy that they propose.
Unfortunately, the accepted negative consequences of the Swedish Model on many sex workers have not been discussed in any meaningful way e.g.
*the lack of equal labour laws for sex workers with those of the general population , *the criminalisation of sex workers who work together for safety
*the criminalisation of landlords who inadvertently/otherwise allow sex workers to work in let or rented rooms which pushes sex workers to work in clandestine conditions
*the suspicions towards sex workers who co-habit with a civil partner(as that partner is likely to share part of any income derived from sex work)
*the deliberate official policy of no ’harm reduction’ as the Model purports that to help sex workers continue in their work (e.g. distribution of condoms for health purposes) serves only to perpetuate the abuse.
Demands of “dignity for vulnerable women” ring very hollow indeed ,when actual flaws in a proposed model are not being disclosed for fear of undermining the bona fides of their proposed policy.
Indeed the very claims of success of the TORL advocates that the Swedish Model is the ‘only model that works’ are in themselves dubious as expressed by the only independent speakers so far , sociologists Mrs Ward and Wylie who stated that there's just isn't independent evidence available to substantiate the claims of the Swedish Model - claims which go to the heart of the entire TORL campaign and their public support.Even the biased Skarhed Report of 2010 admits that at best , prostitution has not increased though the working conditions for sex workers ,in general, have been adversely affected.
Which brings me to the conclusion that the ONLY recommendation that the Joint Committee can make is the need to assign a delegation of genuinely independent,agenda free sociologists conduct their own independent and comprtehensive research of all social Models , liasing with various policing authorities of different prostituion models e.g. Netherlands,Germany,New Zealand, Sweden,Australia ,Denmark for informed strengths and weaknesses of their respective models and speaking with sex workers at different levels (streetwalking,indoor , brothels,private escorts) to compile as much information as possible upon which an independent fully informed ,comprehensive recommendation can be made in an effort to create an environment of least harm.
Nothing less than a fully-informed,independent recommendation by the Commitee is acceptable when dealing with any vulnerable women in such a potentially hazardous occupation.
Here is the YouTube upload of the hearing from Wednesday. Thanks to sexwork.ie for the video :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0BtyEaUqoQ&feature=youtu.be
i watched it all. i thought Dr Mary Whitaker (SWAI) and Kathryn McGarry (NUI, Maynooth)
gave very forthright accounts of the reality of prostitution, both social scientists i note too.
LaBelleThatcher
18-01-13, 21:51
I love the way they intend reduce the ladies subject to "poverty coercion" by letting them starve to death.
Haven't bothered to watch the second day proceedings as the whole thing looks an exercise in optics based on day 1- however, followed some of dr brooke magnanti's tweets - she seemed very impressed with Kathryn McGarrys evidence based testimony whilst :rolleyes: at the contribution by emma regan(?) - any worthwhile impressions made on committee members ?
the traveller
19-01-13, 19:29
Thanks Sam for putting that up
I watched the first 1 hour and 20 mins and my observations so far are,
Women's Aid, stick to what you know because other than singing from the same TORL hymn sheet you have nothing new to add. You can not equate domestic violence with sex work. You've watched two sensationalised T.V. programmes and think you are now experts. As LBT has said you submission was full of contradictions.
Deputy Collins (F.F.) Limerick I've now watched you twice and both times the first question you ask is " imprisonment?"
I hope you are never old,
I hope you are never lonely
I hope you are never single and denied the company of a woman
I hope you are never fat
I hope you are never disfigured
and I hope you are never disabled,
because Sir you are a cruel and heartless bastard.
You want to imprison people for needing the company of a woman !
I thought that Dr. Whitaker came across very well and put forward all the points that I would have done. There's just one point that all don't seem to be able to grasp and that is drug using sex workers. The sex work does not come first and lead to drug addiction. It's the other way round, sex work is the only legal way they can earn enough money to feed that habit. This is a failure of the governments drug policy and nothing to do with sex work.
Senator Bacik I hope you are reading this (and don't worry you've an e-mail coming if you don't) you are a disgrace and your attitude disgusts me. You are not a fit and proper person to be on this committee. Why you even bothered to attend I don't know. Your mind is closed and already made up. You are not there to disagree with academics nor to espouse your radical feminist ideology, and for a Professor of Criminal Law you seem to have a very slim knowledge of the sex work laws in this country. Commercial sex between two consenting adults is NOT effectively a criminal offence, despite how much you would like it to be, or have you signed up to the TORL campaign of misinformation.
What you are there for is to listen to peoples submissions, ask questions politely, evaluate the submission and the answers you receive then make up your mind and give your verdict to the house not to all watching this.
I heard many times " when we were in Sweden we heard this from the police, we heard that from the social workers."
What the hell did you think you were going to hear " We got it wrong". To quote Mandy Rice-Davis " they would say that wouldn't they ". No, you fools, it's the rest of the world that's telling you the Swedish model is a failed model, as Dr. Whitaker told you. I think if the Lord god came down to earth and told you the truth of the harm this model does you wouldn't believe him.
And why didn't the committee grill Ruhama and the I.C.I. the way they did S.W.A.I. or is that because their minds are already closed. And how do you know that the workers there of their own free will are a minority, where is the evidence for that statement. There has been no independent research as you know!
Senator White you are a breath of fresh air. You seem to be the only one there that had any compassion at all for the clients of sex workers. You also realise that there should not link sex work with trafficking.
I watched that all this morning and have been brooding on that all day and thank god I've got that all of my chest.
When I watch the next half I'll comment on that as well.
The Equalizer
19-01-13, 20:11
Thanks Sam for putting that up
I watched the first 1 hour and 20 mins and my observations so far are,
Women's Aid, stick to what you know because other than singing from the same TORL hymn sheet you have nothing new to add. You can not equate domestic violence with sex work. You've watched two sensationalised T.V. programmes and think you are now experts. As LBT has said you submission was full of contradictions.
Deputy Collins (F.F.) Limerick I've now watched you twice and both times the first question you ask is " imprisonment?"
I hope you are never old,
I hope you are never lonely
I hope you are never single and denied the company of a woman
I hope you are never fat
I hope you are never disfigured
and I hope you are never disabled,
because Sir you are a cruel and heartless bastard.
You want to imprison people for needing the company of a woman !
I thought that Dr. Whitaker came across very well and put forward all the points that I would have done. There's just one point that all don't seem to be able to grasp and that is drug using sex workers. The sex work does not come first and lead to drug addiction. It's the other way round, sex work is the only legal way they can earn enough money to feed that habit. This is a failure of the governments drug policy and nothing to do with sex work.
Senator Bacik I hope you are reading this (and don't worry you've an e-mail coming if you don't) you are a disgrace and your attitude disgusts me. You are not a fit and proper person to be on this committee. Why you even bothered to attend I don't know. Your mind is closed and already made up. You are not there to disagree with academics nor to espouse your radical feminist ideology, and for a Professor of Criminal Law you seem to have a very slim knowledge of the sex work laws in this country. Commercial sex between two consenting adults is NOT effectively a criminal offence, despite how much you would like it to be, or have you signed up to the TORL campaign of misinformation.
What you are there for is to listen to peoples submissions, ask questions politely, evaluate the submission and the answers you receive then make up your mind and give your verdict to the house not to all watching this.
I heard many times " when we were in Sweden we heard this from the police, we heard that from the social workers."
What the hell did you think you were going to hear " We got it wrong". To quote Mandy Rice-Davis " they would say that wouldn't they ". No, you fools, it's the rest of the world that's telling you the Swedish model is a failed model, as Dr. Whitaker told you. I think if the Lord god came down to earth and told you the truth of the harm this model does you wouldn't believe him.
And why didn't the committee grill Ruhama and the I.C.I. the way they did S.W.A.I. or is that because their minds are already closed. And how do you know that the workers there of their own free will are a minority, where is the evidence for that statement. There has been no independent research as you know!
Senator White you are a breath of fresh air. You seem to be the only one there that had any compassion at all for the clients of sex workers. You also realise that there should not link sex work with trafficking.
I watched that all this morning and have been brooding on that all day and thank god I've got that all of my chest.
When I watch the next half I'll comment on that as well.
Deputy Collins (F.F.) Limerick I've now watched you twice and both times the first question you ask is " imprisonment?"
I hope you are never old,
I hope you are never lonely
I hope you are never single and denied the company of a woman
I hope you are never fat
I hope you are never disfigured
and I hope you are never disabled
I agree that even the idea of imprisonment is way out of order in this instance. And, I am not trying to stir any you-know-what, but if Deputy Collins (or anybody else currently advocating Swedish-style Legislation) should ever find themselves in any of the aforementioned categories (lonely, disfigured, fat etc.), and "felt the need" to "see an Independent Sex Worker", if they were arrested for seeing an Independent Sex Worker would they then believe that imprisonment is appropriate for persons who visit Independent Sex Workers?
Senator Bacik your attitude disgusts me. You are not a fit and proper person to be on this committee. Why you even bothered to attend I don't know. Your mind is closed and already made up. You are not there to disagree with academics nor to espouse your radical feminist ideology, and for a Professor of Criminal Law you seem to have a very slim knowledge of the sex work laws in this country. Commercial sex between two consenting adults is NOT effectively a criminal offence, despite how much you would like it to be, or have you signed up to the TORL campaign of misinformation.
What you are there for is to listen to peoples submissions, ask questions politely, evaluate the submission and the answers you receive then make up your mind and give your verdict to the house not to all watching this.
Very good points traveller. Members of any Committee whose mandate is to review Legislation (and consider any possibility for amendments to said Legislation) should be of a "neutral" viewpoint. The clear bias and prejudice which Senator Bacik is exhibiting are not showing her in a favorable light. The fact that Senator Bacik is unwilling to consider opinions or testimony from any side of the debate other than those in favour of Swedish-style Legislation are possible grounds for her removal from the Joint Oireachtas Committee, and be replaced with a person who approaches this issue from a neutral standpoint.
I heard many times " when we were in Sweden we heard this from the police, we heard that from the social workers."
Why were only Swedish Police Commissioners consulted during this consultation? Why not also include Police Commissioners from Denmark (who rejected Swedish-style Legislation), Holland (where the Sex Industry is legalized and regulated) or even Norway (who are considering the eradication of Swedish-style Legislation.
The Equalizer
19-01-13, 20:34
Thanks Sam for putting that up
Women's Aid, stick to what you know because other than singing from the same TORL hymn sheet you have nothing new to add. You can not equate domestic violence with sex work. You've watched two sensationalised T.V. programmes and think you are now experts. As LBT has said you submission was full of contradictions.
And why didn't the committee grill Ruhama and the I.C.I. the way they did S.W.A.I. or is that because their minds are already closed. And how do you know that the workers there of their own free will are a minority, where is the evidence for that statement. There has been no independent research as you know!
Senator White you are a breath of fresh air. You seem to be the only one there that had any compassion at all for the clients of sex workers. You also realise that there should not link sex work with trafficking.
I watched that all this morning and have been brooding on that all day and thank god I've got that all of my chest.
When I watch the next half I'll comment on that as well.
And there's more
And why didn't the committee grill Ruhama and the I.C.I. the way they did S.W.A.I. or is that because their minds are already closed. And how do you know that the workers there of their own free will are a minority, where is the evidence for that statement. There has been no independent research as you know!
The fact that the S.W.A.I. were grilled whilst Ruhama and the I.C.I. were (and still are) allowed to bulldoze their opinions again demonstrated that the Consultation has been conducted in a biased and prejudiced manner, and makes a valid point in favour of reevaluation (and a possible restructure) of the composition of the Joint Oireachtas Committee.
Senator White you are a breath of fresh air. You seem to be the only one there that had any compassion at all for the clients of sex workers. You also realise that there should not link sex work with trafficking.
I couldn't agree more with this statement (and I salute Senator White for putting forth a very valid side of the argument in favour of Legalization/Regulation of the Sex Industry).
Women's Aid, stick to what you know because other than singing from the same TORL hymn sheet you have nothing new to add. You can not equate domestic violence with sex work. You've watched two sensationalised T.V. programmes and think you are now experts. As LBT has said you submission was full of contradictions.
Given the fact that the "pro Criminalization" side of the debate have been afforded a disproportionate opportunity to put forth their opinions to date (whilst Independent Sex Workers and their Clients have been completely excluded), should there not (in the interest of fairness and decency) be a "cap" put on the amount of "pro Criminalization" arguments heard by the JOC ?
I believe that from here on, opinions of Independent Sex Workers (and their Clients) should be the focus of consideration by the JOC.
Valid points but lets be honest - everybody suspected that the JC was likely to turn out to be an exercise in optics as the decision has already been made beforehand - unwittingly slipped via Chairman's website. It all comes down to how the Minister takes the recommendations - in fact , HE is the only individual worth communicating with in the future (whilst people are welcome to send critical emails to the relevant parties for their deliberate ,dishonest agenda) .
God, i'd love if some escorts could release some stuff about some of those politicians - we all remember Emmet Stagg and his larks in the park - wonder does Bacik have anything to say about him ??? Doubt it.
I commend traveller and equalizer for watching the meeting as i'd find it depressing viewing -funnily enough , not so much beacuse of the legislative effects of carrying through the Swedish Model but the fact that all the people in the room are aware of the flaws and negative consequences of the model - they're all aware of the testimony of the only independent speakers (Wylie,Ward & McGarry) and most are happy to turn a blind eye to independent testimony just to preserve their agendas (whilst of course , protecting women don't you know).
I've always wondered about how the site www.paypalsucks.com has remained for years - the website's title doesn't stand on ceremony yet it has never been sued by the obvious party ,presumably because of genuine complaints about the company that would stand up in court. Always wondered whether you could title a website "Senator XX : Abuser of Sex Workers Rights? " listing out the unacceptable ,dishonest performances of the appropriate individual -Not an article , an actual website : How's that for a policy of "Name and Shame" Mr Collins : wouldn't be long before said individuals start getting itchy.....
LaBelleThatcher
19-01-13, 21:15
I thought that Dr. Whitaker came across very well and put forward all the points that I would have done. There's just one point that all don't seem to be able to grasp and that is drug using sex workers. The sex work does not come first and lead to drug addiction. It's the other way round, sex work is the only legal way they can earn enough money to feed that habit. This is a failure of the governments drug policy and nothing to do with sex work.
WHOA!!!
She came out with THAT crap????? :eek:
A statement like that is probably more dangerous than all of TORL put together.
Let me tell you how it works. There is actual evidence that drug use increased alarmingly among street sex workers *AFTER* the '93 act. Three reasons for this:
There was a sudden heroin epidemic at same time
The '93 act imposed intolerable levels of stress om street workers (who, by the way, didn't stop needing an income in the meanwhile)
Because of the stress above a higher proportion of new streetworkers were substance abusers and indoor sex workers were not daft enough to let anyone near them to do surveys
If you claim sex work causes drug addiction, and support with something akin to actual evidence you get the Swedish Model AND *drumroll* you ALSO get continued drug funding for sex work related projects (which is MYSTIFYING) and Swedish Model funding for drug project, such as, for example the NACD.
...and ALL the pieces just fell into place...
NOBODY but sex workers can be trusted to speak for sex workers.
Incidentally, I have known drug addicted sex workers since I was 14, and I have honestly NEVER met a single one, not even an alcoholic, who's addiction did not pre-date sex work. (I do know one who became addicted while she was AWAY from sex work for a couple of years and got clear before she went back though).
the traveller
19-01-13, 21:22
Don't give up Milky, the fight back is only just beginning. I did write to the minister after the last debacle and received no confirmation of receipt let alone a reply.
One other point I forgot to make was, when Dr Whitaker tried to discredit the numbers that are supposedly signed up to TORL Deputy Corcoran-Kennedy (F.G.) Laois - Offaly says " I don't mean to cut across you but ". Yes she did, because that was a very valid point. As someone here stated " I'm a member of ( I think ) Siptu and I was never asked for my consent be given to this motion ". Was very like the block vote at the T.U.C. conference where 1 person says they represent 1,000,000 people. That's where all TORL numbers come from.The mothers.
the traveller
19-01-13, 21:29
She came out with THAT crap
No, she didn't, but she didn't tell the committee re drugs and this is what the committee seem to think.
I would really like to go back and visit that part again but TBH I've seen enough of that today. But, hey, tomorrow is another day.
Also Dr Whitaker wants sex workers to talk to the committee and she didn't say she represented sex workers. She did seen genuine I must say.
LaBelleThatcher
19-01-13, 21:30
Let me give you my personal assurance that, at least, the SIPTU hierarchy now have ABSOLUTELY no doubt where sex workers stand on these issues. :D
At this point I am only astonished that nobody has been trampled in the crush to sell sex workers out for funding.
LaBelleThatcher
19-01-13, 21:31
No, she didn't, but she didn't tell the committee re drugs and this is what the committee seem to think.
I would really like to go back and visit that part again but TBH I've seen enough of that today. But, hey, tomorrow is another day.
I will look at the transcript (less vomitmaking) and see EXACTLY what was said there.
the traveller
19-01-13, 21:35
I will look at the transcript (less vomitmaking) and see EXACTLY what was said there.
So true!!!
LaBelleThatcher
19-01-13, 21:38
Haven't seen this before:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/housesoftheoireachtas/libraryresearch/spotlights/Spotlight_on_prostitution_September_130103.pdf
Here is link to debate:
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/JUJ2013011600005?opendocument
satisfaction
21-01-13, 00:05
Just reading over the debate, Dr Whitaker gave a good account but she was repeatedly asked how many escorts are independent, how many does she represent etc. With the committee assuming its only a small minority. It really looks like the only chance in hell of avoiding the Swedish model is if the independent escorts in Ireland put together a united front on it and show the committee the number of escorts working independently and of their own free will. Rachel and LaBelleThatcher have started this process, but all the independent escorts of EI need to get behind them in an effort to disrupt the committees current views. A very clear message from the independent escorts would be very powerful. I don't know if such a movement can be mobilized in the time-frame but to me it looks like the only chance of shaking things up.
LaBelleThatcher
21-01-13, 00:53
Just reading over the debate, Dr Whitaker gave a good account but she was repeatedly asked how many escorts are independent, how many does she represent etc. With the committee assuming its only a small minority. It really looks like the only chance in hell of avoiding the Swedish model is if the independent escorts in Ireland put together a united front on it and show the committee the number of escorts working independently and of their own free will. Rachel and LaBelleThatcher have started this process, but all the independent escorts of EI need to get behind them in an effort to disrupt the committees current views. A very clear message from the independent escorts would be very powerful. I don't know if such a movement can be mobilized in the time-frame but to me it looks like the only chance of shaking things up.
I agree with you about 200%
Teresa Whitaker and SWAI were a ticking time bomb with their constant exclusion of sex workers and their refusal to do anything much but pop up on a wire every time there was a conference. Politicians (and TORL) are not completely stupid, they were bound to notice.
Unfortunately the existance of SWAI at all was a great excuse to exclude REAL sex workers, and the only way real sex workers will be heard is if they start making some actual noise.
I want to stand down, I want to shut up, I want to slide back into the shadows where I belong, because ultimately, though I never forget to speak for *ALL* sex workers equally (not just any one clique) at the end of the day I am perilously close to being seen as being as bad as Teresa Whitaker, or Ruhama.
It is EASY to prove that I do not really speak for sex workers, you only have to pull up some of the silly, childish bitchfests that have been thrown at me on here to do that...
Literally the ONLY answer is for sex workers to stop bitching start speaking for THEMSELVES.
Politically I am a terminator...I am good at bringing down bad things, but beyond useless at building good things to take their place.
What happens now is up to the women (because I hope they will be standing up for themselves as women, with nothing ladylike about it).
I have literally done all that I can.
(Surprise, surprise I NEVER intended to hang around being a professional ex hooker and my gag reflex isn't good for incorporation into the NGO sector)
I need to take care of my own life and future now...but I am scared that, if I do...nobody else will fight on.
The Equalizer
21-01-13, 00:55
Just reading over the debate, Dr Whitaker gave a good account but she was repeatedly asked how many escorts are independent, how many does she represent etc. With the committee assuming its only a small minority. It really looks like the only chance in hell of avoiding the Swedish model is if the independent escorts in Ireland put together a united front on it and show the committee the number of escorts working independently and of their own free will. Rachel and LaBelleThatcher have started this process, but all the independent escorts of EI need to get behind them in an effort to disrupt the committees current views. A very clear message from the independent escorts would be very powerful. I don't know if such a movement can be mobilized in the time-frame but to me it looks like the only chance of shaking things up.
A very good idea; I was thinking something very similar myself.
Dr Whitaker gave a good account but she was repeatedly asked how many escorts are independent
Fair play to Dr Whitaker. Asking her, however, how many escorts are independent is a slightly silly question, though. However, as a true Independent Sex Worker (Rachel) verified in a reputable National Newspaper on 20/01/2013, "the vast majority of Sex Workers are working in this industry of their own accord". Rachel's testimony will carry alot of clout in the "pro Legalization" side of the Consultation.
A very clear message from the independent escorts would be very powerful.
I think that the views of clients would also be a very welcome perspective in the Consultation. If Rachel and LaBelle can conceal their identities whilst getting their points across, so too can The Equalizer ;) (and anyone else whose interested, PM me).
Read the transcripts and i thought Whittaker and McGarry provided excellent testimony - in Whittaker's case , there was an uncharacteristically high and constant challenge by the committee which she rebuffed very well.Its also clearly obvious that there is little or no concealment by some of the committee of complete and total bias in favour of the Model purely on the grounds of ideaology which is comprimising their absolute responsibility on acquiring the environment of least harm for escorts.
The Chairman is as bad . His statement that the Committee is 'looking at all models' to Whittaker is an out and out lie - pity Whittaker didn't ask him whether if the committeee had travelled to NZ , Germany , Denmark ,Netherlands to liase with their authorities as they had done with the Swedes.If they hadn't (which they didn't) ,then he was lying - pure and simple. When he corrected Whittaker that they had travelled recently to speak with the Swedes (November) , pity she didn't query him on their failure to speak to the sexworkers themselves so as to form fully-informed opinions.
Its infuraiting to see the Commitee challenge the anti-Swedish model in a much more robust way but leave the 'facts' and 'stats' provided by the TORL brigade pass in an unchallenging way.When you look back at the evasiveness of Denise Charlton on Day One when asked about other countries rejection of the Swedish Model , she was left bluster away w/out challenge . fucking disgrace but no surprise nonetheless.
the traveller
21-01-13, 22:59
I've now watched the second half of the meeting and my thoughts are as follows.
Ms Monica O'Connor quotes from hers and Jane Pillingers research entitled "Globalisaton, Sex Trafficking And Prostitution – The Experience Of Migrant Women In Ireland " This research was commissioned by Sr Stan Kennedy, founder of the Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI)http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/hundreds-of-migrant-workers-forced-into-sex-industry-406915.html so once again we are given biased evidence stated as fact. Would their sponsor have been happy with results that disagreed with their stated aims. Doubt if it would even have been published. Their findings may very well be legitimate but it is not independent research which is sadly lacking. Without truly unbiased research I can't trust these so called facts. I also note that the committee took a totally different approach with their questions to Ms O'Connor than Dr. Whitaker. Their questions were asked in such a way as to enhance her submission where as the questions to Dr. Whitaker were much more aggressive. Senator Bacik never asked one question of any other presentation so I can only conclude that she was present to discredit Dr. Whitaker's submission.
Dr. Kathryn McGarry gave an excellent presentation. Explained the faults with the Skarhed report unlike Ms O'Connor who praised said report. Also told the committee that there are many dissenting voices to the Swedish system in Sweden itself. Dr. McGarry is an independent researcher as are Dr.'s Ward and Wylie and I would trust their research more as they do not need to come up with research that supports their commissioners views.
The Irish Feminist Network want their presumptions taken as fact and once again think that there is a minority of sex workers working of their own free will despite there being no research saying so. Just because they and senator Ferris refuse to see themselves entering the sex industry doesn't mean that no woman enters the industry voluntarily and to want their refusal acknowledged as fact is a step to far. Once again what is needed is independent research because to introduce the criminalisation of clients with out this research is not justice but prejudice supported by law.
I heard exploitation mentioned many times but this exploitation is a two way street. Do not sex workers exploit the male sex drive? Would any male pay up to e200 per hour for the services of any other worker? No offence meant to sex workers I hope you realise. But the advocates of the victim mentality can't see that, it's only the male that is the exploiter.
Like the Milkman, I think the chairman's statement that we are looking at all models stretches the truth beyond belief. Why have I heard so many times "when we were in Sweden we were told this, that and the other". We all know what he advocates on his website so why try to fool us. Except it was Dr. McGarry he told that to not Whitaker but that doesn't alter his efforts to blind us to his bias.He also asked Dr. McGarry why do woman enter the industry and pressed her when she answered. " So it's financial is it". 'Cause it is, would any of us work if we didn't need the money to live or require the material things we want.Oh! Sorry I forgot all them T.D.'s and Senator's are there working away without pay. And these are the fools that are there running this country, no wonder they all made such a hames of the Celtic tiger.
Didn't realise that Monica O Connors and Jane Pillingers research was as blatantly flawed as that - more ammo indeed for criticising the model .
Whilst i thought both Whitaker and McGarry were excellent , one aspect that irks me when people talk about the exploitation of sex workers is that they ignore the 'relativism' factor.
Most sex workers in ireland are non-irish - Generalising for practical purposes ,an average after-tax job in their own respective countries may come in about €200 pw i.e. €800 per month.If said workers are lowly paid or unemployed in their own respective countries , takehome disposable income may come in about € 80 - € 120 pw i.e. €400 per month.
Given those stats, it makes perfect sense for ANY young person of such countries to rationally contemplate to migrate to Ireland to sell sex(an unpalletable job) as they can earn as much in one day than they can in a month in their native country.It's purely a question of economics.
Apply those same proportions with the average Irish worker whose takehome pay is probably about € 550 pw i.e €2,200 per month.Would it not make perfect sense for ANY young Irish person to rationally comtemplate migrating abroad if they could sell sex and earn as much in one day than they can in a month in Ireland i.e.€ 2,200 per day. Wave €2,200 for four hourly appointments of paid sex to most young people and the reality is , a significant minority would quite rationally accept it. Theyt wouldn't like the work ,but € 2,200 for 4 hours work a day for any Irish person would probably make them amongst the highest paid per hour worker in the country.Exploitation indeed.
the traveller
22-01-13, 09:30
Didn't realise that Monica O Connors and Jane Pillingers research was as blatantly flawed as that
Incestuous isn't it. But what gets me is that either the deputies and senators don't know this or chose to ignore it. Evidence that is put before this committee should only be taken as fact if it is truly independent. Something that this government should commission before any changes are introduced.
I note that in the only independent submissions none recommend further criminalisation. But will this committee listen to them?
Rachel Divine
22-01-13, 16:09
23rd January Justice Committee Hearing on Prostitution
Dr. Derek Freedman
Ms. Linda Latham, WHP
Doras Luimni TORL
Gay Men s Health Service GMHS
No sex workers :(