View Full Version : Prostitution Consultation Update
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/mediazone/pressreleases/name-8688-en.html
Thanks for that update, Patricia. For those who mightn't have time to follow all the links and download the pdf, the following is the most important information:
The Committee will consider these written submissions and may decide to invite a number of contributors to public hearings should it feel that this is necessary.
Please note that recording of all submissions/communications will be undertaken by the Clerk to the Committee and the Secretariat and therefore submissions should not be sent to individual members of the Committee.
If you wish to make a written submission, please do so, preferably by electronic means to the
Clerk to the Committee at: justiceanddefence@oir.ie
As a general guideline, submissions should consist of a separate document accompanied by a covering letter. Submissions should be presented as concisely as possible. The covering letter should contain your name and contact details (phone number and postal address and, if available, an email address).
If the submission is on behalf of an organisation, you should indicate your position in the organisation. You should also indicate if you would be prepared to appear in public session at any Committee meeting.
The main document should contain the following information:
(i) A brief introduction, for example, explaining your area of expertise;
(ii) Any factual information that you have to offer from which the Committee might be able to draw conclusions, or which could be put to other parties for their reactions;
(iii) Any recommendations to the Committee which should be as specific as possible and should be summarised at the end of the document; and
(iv) An executive summary of the main points made in the submission, if your document is more than 10 pages long.
As already indicated, submissions should, where possible, be made by electronic means and it is not necessary to also forward a hard copy of your submission.
Making a submission is a public process
The Committee is not obliged to accept your document once it has been submitted, nor is it obliged to publish any or all of the submission if it has been accepted. However, the operations of a parliament are a public process, and you should be aware that any submissions made to a Committee may be published either as part of a Committee report, or separately, if the Committee decides to do so.
LaBelleThatcher
05-07-12, 16:00
Just spoke to them and I am awaiting clarification of what provisions can be made for anonimity.
LaBelleThatcher
05-07-12, 16:18
Any submissions made under your own names will not be subject to the freedom of information act, and the information will stay with the committee.
Further options for anonymous submissions may be sorted out tomorrow, but, in the meanwhile, there is one definate option:
Anyone who is willing to make submission under their real name can include any amount of anonymous submissions as part of that.
I have already given my real name to the Department and I am willing to convey submissions from either ladies or clients. I hope one or two other people will emerge as I am uncomfortable with the idea of everything being in my hands (power corrupts, I would rather not find out how much it can corrupt me!) .
I think numbers count Eileen - so I will definitely be making a submission. I think the more of us that do it the better, given that we are up against well funded governmental agencies and NGOs. And you can be sure there will be no end of submissions from them.
The bit about giving one's name, address and phone number - has put my nose out of joint a bit! But I plan to be "creative" in that regard.
As regarding the submission itself, I won't be writing a thesis and plan to keep it simple. The consultation document has more than enough info. I will just outline parts of the document I support.
The main tenants of my submission:
1) will be to oppose any further criminalization for any escorting related acitivity,
2)and suggestions to decriminalize certain aspects - eg. advertising, definition of brothels, etc
There is a list of questions in the consultation document and I plan to pick out the ones I feel are important and answer them accordingly.
Now to get all that down before the deadline in August!:)
P.S.for those who haven't checked out the above link;
Submission deadline is Friday 11th of August 2012 at 5pm.
Half Man and Half Dildo
05-07-12, 17:53
“The Sexual Offences Act 1993 undoubtedly needs to be updated to take account of an ever more globalised and connected world. Any future legislation will need to reflect enhancements to communications technology, including internet and mobile devices, as well as increased mobility across borders.”
Seems like they have their minds made up already.....
And it's no suprise to see Ivana Bacik, Ronan Mullen and Katherine Zappone are on the commitee, too.
Seems like they have their minds made up already.....
And it's no suprise to see Ivana Bacik, Ronan Mullen and Katherine Zappone are on the commitee, too.
Indeed, those were the first two worrying details I noticed. Hardly going to be a balanced view or objective discussion of the submissions considering the behaviour of some of those particular Senator's previously on the issues.
Seems like they have their minds made up already.....
And it's no suprise to see Ivana Bacik, Ronan Mullen and Katherine Zappone are on the commitee, too.
Indeed, those were the first two worrying details I noticed. Hardly going to be a balanced view or objective discussion of the submissions considering the behaviour of some of those particular Senator's previously on the issues.
However, the actual consultation document (which was compiled by the Dept of Justice) is very balanced and I think actually gives more info to build a case for less legislation. We have to live in hope inspite of those on the panel.
Half Man and Half Dildo
05-07-12, 18:07
However, the actual consultation document (which was compiled by the Dept of Justice) is very balanced and I think actually gives more info to build a case for less legislation. We have to live in hope inspite of those on the panel.
Fingers crossed.
Following on from my previous post, I do think as many of us clients writing in would be helpful. Obviously not saying we are clients, and not necessarily giving our identities away. (I mentioned "creativity" in my last post regarding identity. I am going to sign mine - Bill Clinton!!! Not!)
It's a pity this section of the forum is like the graveyard slot!! Minimal traffic! I think a few posts in general chat to remind people would be good. And more importantly to raise awareness that the Swedish model isn't a done deal!! I had honestly been under the impression that it was just a matter of time until I read the consultation document which is extremely well researched and balanced.
I do hope some of the ladies get together and make a summission as part of a group/consortium.I'm quite sure you wouldn't have to divulge your names etc.. I presume you'd need a commisioner for oaths or equivalent to verify that the signatures on the submission belong to real people (similar to what activists for political prisoners do when collecting signatures). Brock or Banjaxed may be able to cast more light on this from a legal point of view.
I do think a submission from a group of escorts would carry far more weight than indivdual submissions from client posters. Afterall the whole basis of the Swedish model and the dogma of Ruhama/Immigant council - is that no woman in her right mind can work as an escort willingly!! You have to tell them otherwise. That on it's own implies that any change to the law that affects your ability to earn a living (such as criminalising your clients), is a violation of your human rights!
LaBelleThatcher
05-07-12, 23:03
P.S.for those who haven't checked out the above link;
Submission deadline is Friday 11th of August 2012 at 5pm.
Needs repeating, possibly every hour on the hour...
LaBelleThatcher
05-07-12, 23:20
Morpheus,
I think lots more people read than post on this forum.
Because it is perceived as terminally "uncool"
Because there is the possibility of kindergarten level harassment on other forums if they say anything people do not like.
...and the second point is not a "countersnipe" it is very, VERY important, because we have a really good chance of winning this *IF* we can all manage to remember which side we are on and row in the same direction to the best of our ability.
Talking to committee secretary today, he certainly wasn't horrified in any way by the idea of clients making submissions, it is only logical.
Not keen on that committee but they do not get to make the decisions. I suspect the very last thing they expect is for anyone from the sex industry to make submissions at all, let alone have to look them in the eye and then go back to dehumanising us and usurping our adulthood and autonomy.
Whatever else, there is no excuse for that. In the Senate they talked about us as if we were children or livestock, let them try and do that again *after* they have met some of us.
I haven't go a clue how I shall do it but I intend to make submission on the scale of an NGO...I need to do this for myself, but also because, like it or not *I AM* Irish sex worker self advocacy...and whoever rises up in the morning (and I hope to feck a few people are going to) cannot backdate that to 1993.
LaBelleThatcher
05-07-12, 23:49
I do hope some of the ladies get together and make a summission as part of a group/consortium.I'm quite sure you wouldn't have to divulge your names etc.. I presume you'd need a commisioner for oaths or equivalent to verify that the signatures on the submission belong to real people (similar to what activists for political prisoners do when collecting signatures). Brock or Banjaxed may be able to cast more light on this from a legal point of view.
I think that would work...no reason whay a solicitor should not submit on behalf of and anonymous client either.
I do think a submission from a group of escorts would carry far more weight than indivdual submissions from client posters. Afterall the whole basis of the Swedish model and the dogma of Ruhama/Immigant council - is that no woman in her right mind can work as an escort willingly!! You have to tell them otherwise. That on it's own implies that any change to the law that affects your ability to earn a living (such as criminalising your clients), is a violation of your human rights!
I can't say how vitally important this is. It's not about pleasing me, or pleasing Pat, it is about your own futures, and if you do not show you care, how will anyone else?
the traveller
05-07-12, 23:56
Missed all the above yesterday, thanks for all the info. Will be sending in a submission,with name and address etc. Will await any more help in framing a reply but will have it done by deadline day.
My view on any changes I would like to see, and I am open to other ideas, is similar to Morpheus.
I like things the way they are, off the streets, discrete but available in clean, comfortable conditions. The only major change would be to see two ladies work together for their safety and associated activities i.e. advertising, domestic help and the ability to rent without the fear of eviction be permitted. Maybe some form of licensing arrangement with health checks etc.
This activity will never go away and pushing everything underground will be no good for the escorts,the client or exploited or underage workers. The state has no right to be a sex control force. They may not agree with my morels but as long as what happens is between two, and I emphasis, consenting adults, is no business of the state.
LaBelleThatcher
06-07-12, 01:35
Maybe I am a bit of a dissenting voice but I also want to see street zoning. It isn't right to legislate to protect one group of sex workers and leave another group hung out to dry.
Not everyone who needs to earn money from sex work is able to make the kind of investment indoor workers do...not everybody wants to. Not everybody has the temperament. Not everybody has the looks.
If you are breaking it down to the basic truth of everybody having a right to make a living by selling sex you cannot make it conditional on being able to invest in clothes, uniforms and premises, or looking like a glamour model, or being willing and mentally able to offer a long list of favourites. "Everybody" means everybody.
...and "everybody" means protecting the rights of streetworkers too.
the traveller
06-07-12, 05:41
streetworkers too
What I mean by "off the street" is, ever seen the Reeperbahn or Canal street. Do you want to see Temple Bar like that? I don't but that is what full legalization taken to the limit would be like. But as I said , I'm open to all ideas.
LaBelleThatcher
06-07-12, 09:23
What I mean by "off the street" is, ever seen the Reeperbahn or Canal street. Do you want to see Temple Bar like that? I don't but that is what full legalization taken to the limit would be like. But as I said , I'm open to all ideas.
I don't think that is very likely Traveller, remember, we had decriminalised streets for 10 years between 1983 and 1993 when the majority of sex workers were street workers (because there was no internet, and cards in phone boxes never seemed to take off here). And nowhere ever became like the Reeperbahn or Canal St!
The problem was that a lot of the areas were residential for very wealthy people, and that, during the recession of the early 90s, the women became too numerous and noticeable.
I don't believe in that kind of zoning. You zone areas that are (otherwise) dead at night and need additional nighttime security or traffic calming.
Half Man and Half Dildo
06-07-12, 19:12
In the Senate they talked about us as if we were children or livestock, let them try and do that again *after* they have met some of us.
Not only that, but Ruhama met with the senators before the debate in a "we want you to say this, do that....." last-minute bout of lobbying. Now replace Ruhama with the bankers in the above scenario and imagine the fallout that would ensue if a debate into the financial collapse then took place, or replace bankers with gas fracking companies, etc. No matter what the issue is one-sided lobbying should not be allowed.
the traveller
07-07-12, 09:55
we had decriminalised streets
Yes but not fully legal ( but I do stand to be corrected)
Repperbahn is the product of a fully legal system. But the ladies are safe, there's a police station on the corner by Burger King
and seen many of the workers talking and laughing with the police.
LaBelleThatcher
07-07-12, 11:19
Yes but not fully legal ( but I do stand to be corrected)
Repperbahn is the product of a fully legal system. But the ladies are safe, there's a police station on the corner by Burger King
and seen many of the workers talking and laughing with the police.
We used talk and laugh with the Guards - why not? In fact, if anyone was attacked or felt threatened in any way, the guards would come down and make sure we all knew about it.
Repperbahn type situations (which I would, personally, find to be in VERY poor taste) are the reason why you use zoning for street work. Exemption from the '93 law within the zones, one warning (any time the zones are changed too) outside them then zero tolerance.
That suits everybody better...you give the street workers the right to work, but demand they behave responsibly with that and you contain the red light districts in specific areas where they do more incidental good than harm - everybody is happy.
Legalisation means taxation, and so many of the street workers are only working due to economic imperatives that I would *NEVER* accept the idea of them having to work to pay the revenue commissioners. There would be something truly obscene about that.
LaBelleThatcher
07-07-12, 11:29
Not only that, but Ruhama met with the senators before the debate in a "we want you to say this, do that....." last-minute bout of lobbying. Now replace Ruhama with the bankers in the above scenario and imagine the fallout that would ensue if a debate into the financial collapse then took place, or replace bankers with gas fracking companies, etc. No matter what the issue is one-sided lobbying should not be allowed.
I tried to post a reply to this last night but it vanished on me...
As I get further into the mechanics of the consultation process it STUNS me how many sane, intelligent, open minded people genuinely believe Ruhama have some kind of mandate to speak on behalf of us, and they believe that because Ruhama tell them so, which is simple fraud particularly if it is the basis on which so much annual funding is awarded.
When they listen to Ruhama they genuinely believe they are listening to us.
This must come to an end.
But the only way to really end it is if ladies take their courage in their hands and start to speak for themselves.
The INDOORS project produced the video Equal Rights to advocate for sex workers' rights.
This video was made with and for sex workers in order to make people aware that sex work is work and that sex workers should be entitled to the same rights as other workers.
The European project INDOORS, a partnership of nine European organizations, aims to support and empower all sex workers.
For further information and other INDOORS results and products, visit www.autresregards.org
Help us spread the word: SEX WORK IS WORK!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R2VElkTTHo
Taken from former American escort, Maggie McNeill's blog (http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com). Good to note that the organisation in question (a coalition of nine pro-sex work groups from across Europe) has received approval from the European Commission and received funding to the tune of €350,000. Hopefully it's actually serious about it's beliefs.
LaBelleThatcher
07-07-12, 18:06
I have a feeling sex workers may be entitled to the same rights as other workers already under employment legislation.
I have a feeling sex workers may be entitled to the same rights as other workers already under employment legislation.
If we're to get overly technical, unfortunately the vast amount of employment legislation only covers those who are employees (on a contract of service) and not the self-employed/independent contractors (on a contract for services).
I've yet to see an implied or express contract with a sex worker which was not void, whether on public policy or other grounds. :D It seems the "contract for services" is only maintained by common decency.
I have one unrelated point to make: if they're planning to criminalize the clients I can see it extremely difficult trying to prove in court. I mean, why would the seller jeopardize his/her industry and business by testifying against their client? The government know this and are in a dilemma what to do.
The current administration will likely loose the next election. Sinn Fein are the second most popular political party in Ireland right now. They have also called for the legalization of this industry. Praise to Sinn Fein.
LaBelleThatcher
08-07-12, 16:26
Naughty Masculine...you just pointed at the elephant in the room...now they will have bto sent a SWAT team of Nuns to smoke you out and fry you...
BECAUSE...the one thing Ruhama and TORL do *NOT* want you to know, is that it is likely that the only way to criminalise the purchase of sex in accord with all related legislation nin Ireland is to criminalise the provider as well.
This is the main reason why I stepped in.
I watched Ruhama operatives, with my own eyes, promise that they would always help us fight further criminalisation, now what they are doing is raising a campaign that can only succeed if it also further criminalises sex workers by the back door.
...while they wash their hands of all they have done and give another shedload of false promises to sex workers to fight for them to be decriminalised...and, in the meanwhile, offer them accomodation in one of their brand new, state funded, hostels for independent rescue where the can learn a new trade in one of their supported employment schemes...
Sound paranoid? Not really, when over the past few years similar, highly profitable, commercial projects have sprung up all over the country targetting mildly disabled and/or disadvantaged adults far more suited to independent living and taking advantage of the property slump for rapid expansion and the recession to move into the supported employment market. As welfare is, inevitably, cut back, their market is becomes coerced and consolidated further.
All of it at greater expense to the taxpayer than if the same people were left independent.
It is hardly likely that the inventors of the Magdalen Laundries intend to miss out on this new round of profit and power. The Good Shepherd sisters and Daughters of Charity already own, or part own, similar projects aimed at other target groups.
I know most of the ladies here will just tour in a different country if the law comes in (until every country shuts down)...but there are plenty of other women who cannot do that.
I leave it to your imagination what will become of them if Ruhama get their way, as welfare is cut more drastically, particularly for single and special needs parents.
We can't sit down and knit money that does not exist, to sustain welfare resources that have become unsustainable, but we CAN call a halt to the creation of further poverty and to those who seek to exploit and profit by it...at the expense of the state.
A sex worker costs the state and the taxpayer *nothing* to be able to afford a good, sustainable quality of life for herself and her family. Isn't that the sort of enterprise we should be encouraging and protecting?
Jack in the Box
09-07-12, 00:31
In my submission I will be pointing out that criminalising the clients of sex workers is against basic civil rights and that sex work is essentially no different than other activities around consenting adults and sex like selling a magazine with an attractive model on it or having sex after cutting the grass for your partner.
It is also an attack on a person unable to obtain sex by other means.
Crime in the industry can be minimised by a whole variety of methods like for e.g. allowing sex workers to employ vetted reputable body guards. Maybe also something like a tradesperson’s VAT number could be given to escorts to combat trafficking. If clients are criminalised they will be less likely to report crime as well. Not that anybody should believe Ruhama’s twisting around and lies about crime.
In the meantime it would be no harm for E-I to do and internal audit of activities so that it can go to Ruhama and say to them: “Where’s your evidence?!”
The best of the New Zealand, Dutch and Nevada models to name a few should be adopted.
It would do the economy a world of good if we don’t behave like the Taliban in this country.
We should spread the word about the submission. And the deadline for submitting is Friday 11th August at 5PM. This should be posted on the general chat forum together with the necessary links.
People need to sit down and make time for reading the consultation and making a submission.
As many as possible should make a submission. Also the more we can get to go to the conference the better. Everything should be tried to fulfil these goals.
Desirable Encounters
02-09-12, 10:56
.....today's edition of The Sunday Times.
Page 10 of the main section
Half Man and Half Dildo
02-09-12, 11:36
.....today's edition of The Sunday Times.
Page 10 of the main section
Yeah, read it about half an hour ago, interesting reading. The article says there were over 700 submissions. From the gist of the article it appears that E-I's submission was a surprise to them for some reason. I doubt that the majority of submissions will be in favour of criminalisation. Will the TORL mob be willing to accept the decisions of the committee if it doesn't favour them - somehow I don't think so.
I am so pleased to hear that over 700 submissions where made and hopefully they will have the intelligence to look fairly and see that we are just normal people like them but decide to do this as are profession.