Justice Committee Hearings on 16th

[LaBelleThatcher]

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.

[7up88]

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.

[7up88]

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]

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]

Meeting will be held in Committee Room 2 and can be viewed live on the day at:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp...Committee2.htm

[Rachel Divine]

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

[Rachel Divine]

Will the TV cameras will be there?

[samlad]

Will the TV cameras will be there?

If not, there's always Skype

[milkman]

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]

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.