Ivana Bacik Set to Become a TD

[Stephanie]

: I debated her in The Dail in 2013 in front of The Committee leading up to new Law .

I found her to be dishonest , willing not only to lie to others but to her own self as well .

Overbearing , illogical , not willing to listen to have a balanced pragmatic discussion ;

My experience with her was rather negative , she was insensible in her argument against

our profession : stated personal OPINIONS whereas I was recounting personal experience

‘on the ground’ and Rachel at the time wholly plugged into the dynamic of the foreign Girls’ world ;

I was asking about Legality of criminalizing one party of an exchange - as opposed to both : or Neither .

Legally their Law is an a*se .

She had no answers to questions I posed to her , could not back up her position .

The decision ( based on Moral disapproval of Sex Work ) had already been made ,

and when Rachel and I went in front of them , well , it was no more than a charade :

: only Two active sex workers were allowed to testify / Rachel and I —

— when at the same time they had heard from dozens of Anti organizations ( Ruhama et al ) ,

they had listened to testimony from embittered ex street walkers who had been active in 90’s ::

:: which ( their experiences ) would have absolutely no relevance to 21st Century indoor Entertaining .


I have no nice words re her .

Intellectually corrupt , morally compromised .

** eh too early to be posting :

: she was stating personal OPINIONS re sex work whereas I was asking and pushing the issue

as to constitutional legality of criminalizing one party in an exchange : she had no answer to it .

They had done No relevant current on-the-ground research into our profession and to the state

of Providers , : Independent / Assisted / Coerced . They had Zero current data .

It still upsets me now .

They done All us wrong - out of Decent upstanding Clients they made criminals , and had made

No dent in the small percentage of sex industry that is predatory . Despicable .

[mcsocrates]

Very honest and relevant points Stephanie but I fear you won’t be listened to. Ivana Bacik is a great supporter of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy but only when it suits Bacik’s agenda.Sheer hypocrisy .
The fact that Ruhama is largely run by the nuns in charge of the Magdalene laundries (one of the biggest scandals in this state’s history) goes unremarked by her.
You couldn’t make it up

[The Libertarian]

Stephanie - Well said!

And let alone your wonderful points, this individual was part of a committee which was at a level where it recommended that anybody looking at an escort related site which may be an escort looking for security hints or safe sex advice or a curious teenager let alone a responsible punter, be treated as a paedophile looking at child pornography!

Could somebody please explain to me how anybody putting a view which is so divorced from reality should be in public office?

Also it has been stated that the then minister for justice was pre-warned that this insane law would make life hell on earth for sex workers and ignored it!

I can't think of any other law off hand which has been enacted save the now gone 8th amendment where it was blatantly obvious harm would be caused to a group of relatively vulnerable people (due to dangers inherent in the job) as a result!

HOW CAN A LAW WHICH DOES OBVIOUS HARM BE CONSTITUTIONAL - HOW?