Haven't seen this before:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/...ber_130103.pdf
Here is link to debate:
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas....5?opendocument
Banned User
Certified E-I Addict
Haven't seen this before:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/...ber_130103.pdf
Here is link to debate:
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas....5?opendocument
curvyirishgirl katie (20-01-13), milkman (20-01-13), Rachel Divine (20-01-13), The Equalizer (20-01-13), the traveller (19-01-13)
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), Rachel Divine (22-01-13), The Equalizer (21-01-13), the traveller (21-01-13)
Banned User
Certified E-I Addict
I agree with you about 200%Originally Posted by satisfaction
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.
Rachel Divine (22-01-13)
Established Member
Certified E-I Addict
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).
Last edited by The Equalizer; 21-01-13 at 00:57.
the traveller (21-01-13)
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.
Last edited by milkman; 21-01-13 at 11:14.
the traveller (21-01-13)
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/h...ry-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.
LaBelleThatcher (22-01-13), milkman (21-01-13)
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.
Last edited by milkman; 21-01-13 at 23:35.
LaBelleThatcher (22-01-13), the traveller (22-01-13)
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.Didn't realise that Monica O Connors and Jane Pillingers research was as blatantly flawed as that
I note that in the only independent submissions none recommend further criminalisation. But will this committee listen to them?
Escort (Non Advertiser)
Certified E-I Addict
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
