Debate on Prostitution at 11pm Tues 5th Feb on ITV1

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

RosieH, here is a quick run down.

Julie Bindel, one of the main people pushing for this change in the law, is part of a 'feminist' strand that believes all prostitution demeans women and is always violence against women and she cites some of her American colleagues work in her four country report. She claims to be an academic but her methodology is very weak and her work it's not recognised among professionals working with prostitutes. Here are some of the reasons supplied for my use by Dr Petra Boynton and Dr Tuppy Owens:

A draft of her 4 country study (completed for London Metropolitan Women and Child Abuse Studies Unit and funded by Glasgow City Council)was circulated before she'd ever even visited The Netherlands and interviewed they people she says informed her conclusions.

Her research is generally believed to have taken her around three weeks. Most people take a year or so to do that kind of work.

Her research was not published in any reputable scientific journals which is what you would expect for a study you claim to be so important.

The UK's leading scientists, researchers and healthcare providers disagree with her findings as do the esteemed Women's Institute!

The statistics of '80% (or thereabouts) of prostitutes being drug/alcohol dependent' is incorrect and taken from the police data which refers to street prostitutes arrested, not all street prostitutes or prostitutes in general.

When she did her lapdancing research many of the women complained they felt violated by her and the way she ran her research - even with some complaining to The Observer newspaper about their treatment.

She was also banned from many dancer websites for harassing members and causing distress.

She also conducted her research without any official ethical approval, thereby leading academic colleagues to officially complain about her poor research and bad practice to London Metropolitan University.

Other info that may be useful are Julia O Connel Davidson's recent rebuttal to Harman about the trafficking data:

Harriet Harman has made claims about the thousands of women trafficked into prostitution in the UK, but we need to ask where she gets her data from. Professor Julia O'Connell Davidson who has researched prostitution for many years gives an insight into how inaccurate Harman has been in a recent letter to The Guardian (28/12/07)

"Harriet Harman holds that a Swedish-style law against buying sex is necessary to stem demand for sex workers trafficked into Britain (Harman calls for prostitution ban, December 21). She was supported by former Europe minister Denis MacShane, who insisted there are 25,000 sex slaves in the UK. This is a startling assertion - 25,000 is more than the entire workforce of Debenhams. How is it that this vast number of women and girls are so readily available to male clients and yet simultaneously so difficult for the police to detect?

When 515 indoor prostitution establishments were raided by police as part of Operation Pentameter last year, only 84 women and girls who conformed to police and immigration officers' understanding of the term "victim of trafficking" were rescued". At this rate, the police would need to raid some 150,000 indoor prostitution establishments to unearth MacShane's 25,000 sex slaves. The fact that there are estimated to be fewer than 1,000 such establishments in London gives some indication of how preposterous MacShane's claim is.

Abuse and exploitation undoubtedly occur in the UK sex sector, but only a minority of cases involve women and girls being imprisoned and physically forced into prostitution by a third party. More usually, those who are vulnerable are working to pay off debts incurred in migration, or to supplement paltry single-parent benefits. Their vulnerability is in large part a consequence of government action and inaction - its failure to regulate the sex sector, its immigration and welfare policies etc. And raids by police and immigration officials normally result in their deportation or prosecution for benefit fraud,

not in their assistance or protection.

The government's concern about sex trafficking appears to have helped immigration officers meet their targets for deportations without protecting sex workers. Evidence from other countries (including Sweden) suggests that a policy of suppression, whether focused on clients or sex workers, can have very negative consequences for those who trade sex. But in place of serious debate based on independent research evidence, we are offered hyperbole and emotive rhetoric about sex slaves. We need to move beyond this and think not only about how to offer those who currently work in prostitution protection, but also how to ensure them rights."

Here is Bindel's four country report, which coincedently fails to look at New Zealand which has gone down the de-criminalisation route instead of legalisation and registration which most girls dislike. In New Zealand the girls can choose to work for themselves or for a brothel with an employment contract to guarantee equal rights to other workers. Unsurprisingly, most girls have chosen to work for themselves or with their friends instead of making brothel owners rich!

Ron Weitzer is a critic of the American researchers who are cited and emulated by Bindel. He exposes their flawed methodology and and inherent bias in a very good report written last year.

One last link I'd like you to look at is this one from Sweden which shows that far from reducing the incidence of trafficking, the Swedish rapporteur on trafficking says it has doubled.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Well done CWALD.

An open debate is great - but there is a strand of thinking that condemns all aspects of prostitution because it goes against a strand of feminist thinking that sees all such activitiy as violence againt woman-kind, whether the women involved belive that or not. It is a political view not a moral view and is simply not based on the fact. This view is absolutist as there is no room for compromise i.e. all prostitution is bad because it is an abuse of all women and all the men that buy sex are abusers - therefore totally ban it. It is difficult to have a reasoned debate with such a perspective, as anybody who disagrees is "clearly" supporting the sexual exploitation of women.

Citing drug abuse and people trafficing is an easy way of attacking prostitution but is not born out by proper research or indeed pragmatic rational thinking.

Surely to god it is obvious that whilst people trafficing is a bad thing - the majority of prostitutes are NOT trafficed but are working as prostitutes as a choice. Some like it, some tolerate it - but that is true for all jobs - the difference is "sex" and that is the problem as "sex" has become politicised.

[trinity]

I think the word choice is misleading in the context of this discussion. Women may be seen to choose to sell their bodies but almost always in an environment of lack of other skills or opportunities. If the choice is between not feeding their children or selling their bodies is that a choice? Similarly not feeding your drug habit or selling your body. These are choices made by people with no alternatives.

The example cited by Dom about the financial advisor is, I think, rare - the norm is much more depressing.

[KalamityKel]

That could be said about work in general though. I'm sure none of us, in an ideal world, would really want to work but we all have bills to pay, mouths to feed and all that. Why is making money from something that is yours to give wrong?

[Michael Palaeologus]

If the choice was between starvation and chicken gutting - what would you do?

If a woman chooses to go into prostitution, then it is a choice. There are jobs for people - but not necessarily nice jobs or well paid jobs; but these jobs would keep the wolf from the door - albeit in poverty. So a woman may chose to sell sex and make more money. That is her choce. She could stack shelves or flip burgers, but not make as much money and have to pay tax.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong in selling your body as long as it is you who is selling your body and not somebody else who is selling it.

The "economcs forces women in prostitution" misses the point, economcs forces people to work - what they actually do is there choice. Their choice governs how much they make and how much they enjoy what they do BUT it is their choice and the state has no business sticking its nose into that under the spurious mantle of stopping people trafficing.

[KalamityKel]

Thank you for extending my wee comments :p

[RosieH]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Citing drug abuse and people trafficing is an easy

> way of attacking prostitution but is not born out

> by proper research or indeed pragmatic rational

> thinking.

Michael, i think you're missing the point. I don't think anyone has said that all prostitutes are trafficked. The point about trafficking, about drug abuse, about violence against female prostitutes (and probably also male, though I haven't seen statistics on that) is not that 100% of prostitutes suffer these things, but that not 100% do not.

Neither has anyone said prostitution is bad I don't think.

The point I was trying to make was that not all prostitution is the fantastically empowering career choice being suggested on this thread. For many people, it is a bleak and miserable existence.

And yes, many people may find their 9-5 a bleak and miserable existence, but the analogy is rather casually drawn. Coming to the office on a daily basis doesn't increase my chances of being violently assaulted (the tube notwithstanding), nor of my being addicted to class A drugs.

I am a feminist, but I don't have any "feminist" concerns that all men are rapists (Chav, are you not a feminist?? or probably the speech marks indicated something you consider not to be very sisterly..?) Personally, I am all for whatever steps need to be taken for prostitutes to live safely and happily, but I don't think turning a blinkered eye to all the realities of an argument is going to help advance that cause.

[Michael Palaeologus]

I think I agree with you.

Make the world safer for prostitute women (and men) - by legalising it and regulating it.

I cant help thinking that the dark side of prostitution is not exactly unique to this profession yet is still used as an excuse to ban it.

Enough from me on this subject now.

[Rolo Tomasi]

Anyone tape it? I only caught the last 5 minutes.

[Domitianus]

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry it's not on tonight. They recored 2

> episodes, and the one I was on is next week

> Tuesday at 11pm.

>

> Dom - come and join me at the next debate!!!

Only if you debrief, I mean brief me beforehand, or do I mean debrief?

[LizzygotDizzy]

How did it go then Chav? My cousin works at ITV and says your programme has already been recorded, it was meant to go out Tuesday gone, but got pulled because apparently it all disintegrated into a personalised slanging match against one of the speakers, she's trying to find out what happened today and whether or not it is in fact going to be broadcasted at all.

[mockney piers]

Ha ha ha, great. "keep your cool" we said...

;-)

[lozzyloz]

Lizzy, any chance of a pirate?

[LizzygotDizzy]

I doubt it, not worth running the risk of losing her job over! Shame though eh :(

[LizzygotDizzy]

I could've posted it on here via a weblink ha!

[LizzygotDizzy]

Actually don't know whether or not it will be aired next week, will hopefully find out later

[Maximay]

And it has "all gone quiet over there", as one might say! And bizzarely everyone seems to be in a "post a new thread any thread quickly!" mood today!

[KalamityKel]

I'll have u know my threads always are carefully thought out b4 creation :p

[Keef]

Maximay Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And it has "all gone quiet over there", as one might say! And bizzarely everyone seems to be in a "post a new thread any thread quickly!" mood today!

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry it's not on tonight. They recored 2 episodes, and the one I was on is next week Tuesday at 11pm.

Sorted.

[Maximay]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Sorry it's not on tonight. They recored 2

> episodes, and the one I was on is next week

> Tuesday at 11pm.

>

> Sorted.

It appears you have not read the previous posts Keef, I suggest you do, on this very same page, so shouldn't be too difficult for you to find!

[Keef]

Yeah fair enough, but there really is no need to be nasty about it, I was trying to be helpful.

[Maximay]

My apologies, I thought you were being sarky and I was being overly defensive. Seems I should stay off the forum when I am feeling depressed, I seem to take it out on people a lot on here, purely because I can. My grandchildren have now been abandoned by their mother and left with me as their mother has decided to run off with her new partner. So not only do I have to console them in relation to the loss of their father when he died, I have to now explain what happened to their mummy, heartless B**** is all I can think of to say about her, and I don't know what I am going to do to help my grandchildren come to terms with all this except try be there for them. Apologies to anyone I have offended when I have very deliberately come on to cause offence sometimes, been rude or posted unkind things, I will be posting no more.

Max

[lozzyloz]

Sounds like you need some help and support. Ironically one of the people you've given a hard time too is also somebody that would totally sympathise with your plight and offer some advice. I hope you can find people around you that can support you and the grandchildren through what seems like extremely difficult circumstances. Perhaps the kids are better of with you if you can give them the love, stability and security they're craving for.

[trinity]

What a horrible situation to be in Maximay. Please continue to post - we all have days when we are grumpy as anything and probably for reasons that are really trivial compared to yours.

Keep posting - you may find it helps.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Just logged back in, I've been really busy.

I hope they do air it, but I think Ms Bindel may try to get an injunstion because she was a bit outnumbered, but she is usaually a bully to any sex workers who are arguing against her, myself included about 10 years ago, so I think some of the women used it as an opportunity to get their own back. But like I said the evidence is that these kind of repressive laws are much more harmful than decriminalisation or even legalisation which is far from ideal. I managed to get many of the important points accross, so it would be a pity if they didn't air it because of Julie Bindel's vanity.