I thought long and hard about whether or not to respond to Feminist Fightback’s post on my piece about Douglas Fox and the IUSW, because to be honest I’m not convinced that this debate is getting any of us anywhere; but then the more I read it the more bizare and straw womany it becomes, so I just want to clarify a couple of points:
Feminist Fightback supports the right of sex workers to organise amongst themselves to fight exploitation in the sex industry and transform the conditions under which they work. The International Union of Sex Workers is the only such organisation in the UK, as a result Fightback has supported this union and worked alongside it, just as it has a number of other trade unions on various different issues. Some of us have attended London IUSW meetings that are open to allies, while a few other Fightback members are themselves sex workers and members of the IUSW. Cath Elliot’s supposed ‘exposé’ hardly strikes us, then, as a piece of biting investigative journalism. We have no need of her advice to be careful of who we make alliances with for we are perfectly capable of investigating, analysing and making judgements about the political issues on which Feminist Fightback campaigns.
Lol. Ok, first off I never claimed this was a piece of biting investigative journalism, in fact I think I made it pretty clear that most of the issues I raised came out of comments on the F Word thread where this whole debate first kicked off.
As for “Feminist Fightback supports the right of sex workers to organise amongst themselves to fight exploitation in the sex industry and transform the conditions under which they work.” I have to question how Feminist Fightback think that’s possible when sex workers are being represented in the IUSW by the owners of the agencies that employ them? How is it possible for workers to change their working conditions when their union rep and other union colleagues are the ones setting those conditions?
This is precisely the point I was trying to raise in the original piece: that if sex workers are to have a voice, that voice must be their own, not that of their employers, their pimps, or their clients. That’s exactly what trade unionism is about, and that’s what the IUSW, by its own admission and by its very nature is not.
It is no secret that Douglas Fox, a male escort who also runs an agency, is a member of the IUSW. But Cath Elliot seems to think that by ‘uncovering’ this single fact she has discredited not only the entire union but also all arguments in favour of sex workers’ self organisation and decriminalisation. Through an absurd leap in logic Elliot moves from a discussion of Fox to conclude that the IUSW is ‘populated with pimps, agency owners and punters’. Unfortunately no other evidence for this is offered. Nor does Elliot offer any further arguments against sex workers’ right to unionise. In the absence of more sophisticated debate, we’d like to address Elliot’s accusations one by one.
“But Cath Elliot seems to think that by ‘uncovering’ this single fact she has discredited not only the entire union but also all arguments in favour of sex workers’ self organisation and decriminalisation.”
Where have I made any such claim? If you read the original piece you’ll see that I acknowledge that in theory there’s nothing wrong with sex workers organising amongst themselves and electing spokespeople to represent them, but the point is that this isn’t what’s been happening in the IUSW. As others have mentioned, it has a membership of about 100 people, several of whom are agency owners and punters, who claim to represent the voices of some 80,000+ sex workers.
And no one has still managed to answer the question that’s been posed throughout this debate, which is: bearing in mind how vocal the IUSW has been about new legislation specifically designed to help those most in need of it, which everyone agrees is street prostitutes, how many street prostitutes does the IUSW actually have in its membership?
It bears re-stating that because one member of the union runs an escort agency this does not mean that all members are ‘pimps’ and punters. In working with the IUSW we have met members in a variety of jobs in the sex industry including strippers, maids and men and women selling sex in brothels and working independently. Unlike other trade unions the IUSW finds itself in the position of seeking to organise workers who are effectively illegal, denied the right to work by laws which criminalise the conditions under which sex is sold. Decrimalisation is deemed a pre-condition to transforming working conditions and challenging the exploitation which takes place within the sex industry. For this reason union membership is open to others working for decriminalisation, including academics and researchers in this field.
In which case it’s not a trade union, it’s an interest/lobby group or a trade association, which is why I continue to question the GMB’s involvement with the IUSW.
Incidentally, I was talking to a GMB rep the other day who has represented several sex workers, and who told me that none of the workers they represented were members of the IUSW. They were GMB members by dint of their day jobs, and were more comfortable with that form of representation than they were with IUSW representation, precisely because of the issues of confidentiality that FF raise here.
Moreover, the GMB membership ensures confidentiality, for how else could a union seek to recruit illegal workers? It also seeks to challenge the fetishisation of ‘prostitution’ by actively recruiting from a variety of jobs within the sex industry, including, for example, security staff in strip clubs or receptionists in brothels. This is a common trade union approach – to organise all workers in a particular industry collectively rather than pick out a particular trade or role in isolation. (A comparison is the RMT union whose members include drivers, platform staff and cleaners on the London Underground.) We ask Cath Eliott what she would like the union to do? Demand that each individual out themselves? Specify exactly how much cock they suck, whether the do or do not do penetration in order to confirm for her whether they can truly be considered ‘authentic’ sex workers?
I don’t dispute it’s a common trade union approach to organise all workers in an industry, but the key word again here is workers, not employers, not customers, not self-elected spokespeople whose only interest is in preserving the status quo for their own monetary gain, but workers.
And the RMT is a crap comparison. The RMT union does not include the likes of Virgin boss Richard Branson, and nor does it include the likes of me, a customer of the service, and nor should it. If as a train user I want to be involved in lobbying for improved standards and conditions on the UK rail network, I would have to join a rail user group like Passenger Focus: my interest in the rail industry does not give me any right to join the RMT, just as a punter’s interest in the sex industry should not give him a right to join the IUSW and appropriate the voices of those who do “suck cock.”
This concern for so-called authenticity is worrying. By implication it equates suffering with legitimacy. Does a woman who sells sex have to be addicted to drugs, working on the street and regularly beaten and raped in order to qualify to speak on behalf of sex workers? Can we not accept that a variety of experience exists in the sex industry? Can we not recognise that trade unionism is often about better off workers working alongside those experiencing the worst conditions, in order to improve the lives of all? In fact, we suggest that for Cath Elliot and other opponents of sex workers’ rights, the only ‘authentic’ sex worker is the sex worker who agrees with them.
Straw woman alert! No, the only authentic sex worker is someone who is actually a sex worker, in whatever part of the industry that happens to be. A sex worker is not an agency owner, and a sex worker is most definitely not someone who buys sex.
Finally, we would like to raise the wider question of why so many wish to block open debate on the subject of sex work – be this through refusing to speak on platforms where the voices of those they disagree with will be heard, through misinformed smear campaigns against sex workers’ organisations, or through mythologising and false claims regarding trafficking (for the government’s almost total lack of actual information on sex trafficking see here). Why does such a fundamentalist attitude persist around feminist responses to sex work? Why can we not think through the complex issues? Why can we not try to deal with the messy reality of the situation rather than resort to myth-making and scare mongering?
I think the fact that I posted the article on a blog where everyone from all sides of this debate has been able to comment and debate openly says more about my willingness to engage in discussion on this subject than does FF’s bizarre and somewhat hypocritical decision to post a bland statement on a site where all comments have been disabled.
Those who want to decide whether they support the IUSW can find out what this union is and stands for for themselves – by reading IUSW materials and website, talking to the GMB or listening to IUSW representatives when they speak at events. We in Feminist Fightback continue to discuss and debate with each other what we think about the multifaceted issue of sex work, We do not claim to agree with every individual member of the IUSW, any more than we agree with all the policies of the other trade unions whose members we work with. We do, however, believe that anyone who is serious about fighting violence and exploitation in the sex industry needs to side with the workers organising within it, rather than seeking to criminalise or deny such workers a voice.
I fully support the decriminalisation of those working in the sex industry, and I support their right to a voice in this debate. I simply question whether the IUSW can be that voice, or that the interests of sex workers can be fairly represented by an organisation that purports to be a trade union, but that accepts into membership both customers and employers.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Presactly. Asking that sex workers are actually sex workers instead of punters is not saying they have to ‘suffer’. It does say they actually have to be sex workers though.
And Feminist Fightback and all those who blithely talk about “agency”, “choice” and “empowerment” completely ignore coercion, poverty, and drug addiction. I mean there may well be women who’ve openly chosen to become a sex worker instead of maybe a QC, or a television presenter, or an accountant. But I’ve never met any. And the only voices we here of actual sex workers by choice in these internet debates it seems, are from the US. I’m not saying their opinions are invalid, just why aren’t they are any similar voices in the UK. That aren’t male and/or agency owners.
The point is that Feminist Fightback only like sex workers who agree with them as well.
I suppose you could argue that sex workers can be punters themselves and vice versa, although I have no idea if one could back this up.
I’ve been following this with interest, since I’m honestly not sure what I believe here. If sex work were, by and large, a safe profession for women to work in if they wanted to then I’d be fine with it – but I don’t think that it is. A lot of the women who do speak positively of the work they do, do so because they’re in a position where this is easy for them. Like Belle du Jour, they’re educated and articulate, English is their first language, they don’t have a pimp to tell them not to do it. Were obviously not getting the full picture here, and every time we try we have the media jumping down our throats and sensationalising the whole thing. It’s difficult to have a reasoned debate about this, but I think that you’re doing a good job.
“I fully support the decriminalisation of those working in the sex industry, and I support their right to a voice in this debate. I simply question whether the IUSW can be that voice, or that the interests of sex workers can be fairly represented by an organisation that purports to be a trade union, but that accepts into membership both customers and employers”
Finally,
However, It’s not your place to consistently interrogate us on how we organize and constantly put us up for scrutiny by your lilly white and entitled standards. All of those who labor erotically and our support staff here in America are criminalized to the detriment of everyone’s health and safety. This lack of equal protection under the law for us has a detrimental effect on non sex workers’ health and safety.
FYI, the Lusty Ladies Theater, a peep show in San Francisco, is a unionized shop and they are also co-operatively owned by their own workers. So their contract with the union holds the traditional ’employer, employee’ language of which the ‘owners’ are also the ’employees.
The crime bill the IUSW opposes is a really bad bill and will effect to your detriment your personal health and safety. You ought to stop with your immature objections and show some solidarity.
Hi Kaite, thanks for your comment and welcome to my blog.
Maxine – “It’s not your place blah blah blah”
My place? What, so as a writer and an activist it’s not my place to question what’s going on? To raise and debate issues that I and many others think are important?
So what exactly is my place then Maxine?
“The crime bill the IUSW opposes is a really bad bill and will effect to your detriment your personal health and safety”
Utter bollox. I could equally argue that prostitution and the sex industry is detrimental to the personal health and safety of all women, not just those working in it. Perhaps you ought to stop with your selfish “it’s all about me” attitude and show some solidarity.
As for my “lilly white and entitled standards,” you know Jack shit about me Maxine, so I’d suggest you don’t make too many assumptions.
And don’t waste your time coming back with yet more personal abuse: if you’re not interested in discussing things civilly don’t bother commenting ‘cos you will get deleted.
Kaite, can I point out as an aside that no one has ever (AFAIK) proved that Belle du Jour is a genuine sex worker and not a professional writer?
My view of the sex industry is based on what I’ve heard from people who’ve been in it, and the sex workers I see IRL. Who are of course ‘street’ sex workers, because I’m not in the habit of visiting brothels. And they are harmed by it. There is also a huge problem in the UK of girls as young as 12 being coerced into prostitution by men who they initially think are their ‘boyfriends’. The women I know as friends who’ve BEEN sex workers were underage when they started. And were escaping from abusive home backgrounds.
The fact that some people make money out of, and want to be in, an industry that is harmful overall isn’t in itself an argument for its continued existence. Otherwise we’d still have slavery, because slavers didn’t want that abolished. The only argument is to
Maxine, the bill doesn’t threaten MY health and safety because I’m not a sex worker. Or are you using the ‘men who cannot buy sex will commit rape’ argument? Because then you’re saying punters are dangerous rapists.
What DOES threaten my health and safety at the moment are men who buy sex, who think they’re entitled to harass and treat like shit all women. Actually I have many reservations about the proposed law – the main one being that the government won’t provide the help and assistance women who want to exit the sex industry need. Independent sex workers won’t be threatened by it, because it is not illegal to sell sex in the UK.
Just criminalising buying sex wouldn’t work to help street sex workers because if you are addicted to drugs, you aren’t just going to stop taking them, so the first think I’d like to see is heroin on prescription. I’d like to see a LOT more support offered to street sex workers. And of course I would like to see all criminal penalties taken away from anyone who is selling sex.
And FWIW once again. The law is different in the UK than it is in the USA. Just selling sex itself is not, and never has been illegal. I don’t see any reason for that to change, it would be impossible to enforce anyway. However something MUST be done about coercion, child rape – yes rape, and about women who desperately want to exit the sex industry but can’t access help.
The proposed law is to criminalise men who buy sex from women who are ‘controlled for gain’. This doesn’t stop anyone selling sex independently. It’s already illegal BTW to ‘live off immoral earnings’ so the position of brothel owners will be the same. They’ll be doing something illegal.
Sorry drifted off mid sentence. “The only argument is to minimise harm to those who are already harmed by the sex industry”.
Maxine, you’re in the USA. Why are you so bothered about the UK law anyway?
And the other proposal Maxine, is to increase penalties for ‘kerb crawling’. Which again is ALREADY ILLEGAL.
Polly – “Actually I have many reservations about the proposed law – the main one being that the government won’t provide the help and assistance women who want to exit the sex industry need.”
Yep, those are my reservations too; without adequate funding behind it to help women exit prostitution the proposed law is liable to create more problems than it solves. I haven’t seen anything yet about funding being put in place for exit strategies, but I think the onus would probably be on local authorities to deal with that aspect rather than central government, and LAs are already strapped for cash as it is.
I also agree with heroin on prescription, but unfortunately I don’t think this govt is brave enough to do it.
Polly – good point, thanks! It could easily be a J T Leroy situation but without the awesome wigs.
I like some of the work Feminist Fightback do – although I think I lack the hardcore socialist credentials to actually join – but they do seem to portray a very rose-tinted view of the sex industry. I can see why employers want to get involved in making the business fairer, but I think we have to have the kind of healthy skepticism we’d have for another other profession: do they really have their workers’ best interests at heart, and are unions like IUSW risking being too heavily influenced by them?
To go off on a tangent – Cath, why is heroin on prescription a better idea than meth? The legalisation of drugs argument isn’t one I’m really familiar with – out of ignorance, not out of disagreement.
Kaite – “why is heroin on prescription a better idea than meth?”
For various reasons. Methadone is as addictive as heroin, and can have a lot of unpleasant side effects. Furthermore a recent study in Scotland showed that less than 4% of heroin users had managed to beat their addiction using methadone, so it’s by no means proved itself as an effective treatment.
Prescribing heroin for street prostitutes in particular also means that it takes some control and power out of the hands of pimps. The women are not then reliant on these men for their fix, and are less vulnerable to coercion and exploitation.
The vast majority of street prostitutes are addicted to heroin and other substances, and for a lot of them the only reason they’re working the streets is in order to fund their addictions. Supplying heroin on prescription would mean that for many there would be no need to continue working the streets, and it would also mean the drugs they’re getting would be a lot safer as they’d be supplied under proper medical supervision.
There’s an interesting article about it here by Johann Hari.
Kaite – “I like some of the work Feminist Fightback do”
Yes, so do I. I thought they did some fab work around the pro-choice campaign last year for example. I actually agree with them on a lot of issues: just not this one.
Well said Cath and speaking as a drugs worker (who is having a rest from the fire fighting of it all at the mo) – our govt’s attitude towards drugs has actually created a highly lucrative market for criminals to operate in. In many other countries, drug addiction is treated as a health problem. Here it is treated as a legal problem.
Kaite – “why is heroin on prescription a better idea than meth?”
To use the words of many a client of mine “methadone is cheap and fucking nasty”
Methadone is actually MORE addictive than heroin Kaite and rots your teeth. Heroin (pharmaceutical grade) isn’t really that harmful a drug. They give it to you in hospital when you’ve had an operation but it’s called diamorphine then. And most people don’t come out of hospital junkies.
A lot of people who are prescribed methadone will sometimes just sell it and buy street heroin. Prescribing it doesn’t help those who are addicted to heroin to stabilise their lives at all generally. Which they can do quite easily. One of Margaret Thatcher’s chief advisers on the NHS was a heroin addict for years, but nobody noticed because he was a doctor and could get hold of it easily. The social costs (financial in terms of crime, and others) of not prescribing heroin are much more than the cost of prescribing it.
Oh, interesting! Thanks, guys.
Cath – were you at the pro-choice rally outside Parliament in the autumn? I’m fairly sure I was standing next to you a some point, racking my brains to figure out why I recognised you. Then a few days later I was reading CiF and facepalmed 😉
kaite – I was at the last rally if that’s the one you’re talking about – the one the day before the bill’s last parliamentary reading when they decided to sell out the women of Northern Ireland.
I don’t dispute it’s a common trade union approach to organise all workers in an industry, but the key word again here is workers, not employers, not customers, not self-elected spokespeople whose only interest is in preserving the status quo for their own monetary gain, but workers.
Absolutely. I don’t get what part of ‘workers’ all the nay-sayers don’t understand. It’s just plain logic. Unions are for the workers, trade bodies are for the other interested parties (punters and pimps). But apparently we are against prostituted women because we won’t recognise the IUSW/pimps/johns? Fer crying out loud, to support the pimps/johns is definitely not in the best interests of the “workers” (women). I luv how our opponents twist that about (not).
However, It’s not your place to consistently interrogate us on how we organize and constantly put us up for scrutiny by your lilly white and entitled standards.
Maxine the comedian! If you had actually met Cath IRL, “lilly white and entitled” would not be the phrase of choice. It just makes you out to be an idiot out to do a smear campaign. When I read that phrase I thought “nutter” and pretty much read “blah blah blah” after that. For all we know, Maxine herself is “lilly white and entitled” and has even less authority on the subject. Certainly, as far as the situation in the UK, when she is in the US – for sure.
Do the sex-pozzie “feminists” actually get some kind of commission on this bullshit, or do they do it purely to get head-pats from the boyz?
“A lot of people who are prescribed methadone will sometimes just sell it and buy street heroin. ”
Heroin is the word in not caring,
“Prescribing it doesn’t help those who are addicted to heroin to stabilise their lives at all generally.”
People die, they just do, what can you say? You stare across Idaho,
I ended up in Toledo on my way to Detroit once, I went because we had the greatest guitar sound of all time
I also drove to Cannes in a rusty Triumph Toledo. it was twinned with the rust belt. I prefer Toledo in Spain though best of all.
There is a convent next to the Church of San Juan de los Reyes and I saw this Spanish girl standing there wearing tight dark brown leather jeans
and a red silk blouse and her hair was just perfect and what little wind there was made it wisp like a banner on a castle and I thought, there is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear
Some girls make you feel drunk and dry in the throat just looking at them.
Physical attraction wallows in indiscretion, it is not something that is ever timely or appropriate. If I had a fault it was that I’d sell my entire future for a girl today and betray that same girl for something I could shoot up.
You stare across Idaho, and the greatest guitar sound of all time, was in love with something he shouldn’t have been in love with.
I woke up one day in a hospital in Velsen, the room was white, and I looked around, and I thought f*ck detox, and it turned out they had stitched my arm back on, it wasn’t detox it was something else.
That is a story about a junkie getting his arm back.
Heroin is a beautiful nightmare.
Yvette
The reason people die from heroin (overdoses) is because it is not controlled in strength and purity, and is cut down with all sorts of crap. The people that OD usually get caught out with a purer batch than what they are expecting/used to.
I was reading about the women who were murdered by Steve Wright in Ispwich yesterday. Probably they would have all been alive today if they’d had access to heroin on prescription. Drug rehab exists anyway- but they didn’t want to enter it because as sparks says methadone is ‘cheap and fucking nasty’. None of those women wanted to be doing sex work – and they weren’t ‘just’ sex workers, they all had other aspects to their lives.
The Johann Hari article Cath linked to shows how it’s possible for people to stabilise their lives when prescribed heroin. It is not a harmful drug when prescribed.
Aside – I heard some idiot this morning on the radio saying ‘alcohol is not a drug’. Really? We all have drugs of choice, and a moralistic/legalistic approach to drugs policy, instead of seeing it as a health issue doesn’t work.
One of the women murdered in Ipswich did a news interview before Wright killed her. They interviewed her while she was on the street, asked her why she was when it was dangerous to be out, and police had warned prostitutes to stay at home. She said she didnt have a choice, she needed the money, so she had to be out there.
She wasnt out there chatting about sex workers rights and its offensive the way these people have tried to appropriate her voice. She said it as we say it – it is not a choice, and people in her position should be given ways out and other options. Her voice has been appropriated by people like Doogan and organisations like the IUSW, its sick is what it is.
‘The Johann Hari article Cath linked to shows how it’s possible for people to stabilise their lives when prescribed heroin. It is not a harmful drug when prescribed.”
Heroin kills via OD, or in combination, it definitely kills, eventually, it is not a life enhancer, it is a form of slow suicide.
methamphetamine was easier to give up, and considerably more debilitating.
Some people say meth, is far more addictive, and it probably is, for them, and i really pity people addicted to meth
What is for sure, is the idea of waking up and knowing two hours of the day is geared towards getting drugs.
It is easier if you are rich, however
I remember looking at the watch as I squirted over to Harley Street. It is a big deal, I would blow out a TV project given the choice of A or B.
We are talking addiction.
“methadone is ‘cheap and fucking nasty’. ”
Physeptone (ampoules) was once a designer drug, that was viewed as desirable in its own riht, one can squirt it into bacardi, or whatever, I think maybe the linctus, is a sink estate type of spitting in their face.
I’d eat sh*t before I’d take free syrup.
Yvette
prescription methadone is very sweet and easy to take. i dont think its nasty, exactly,for non heroin users who want to try the experience out it seems less nasty than just doing smack. thats how i saw it anyway. but we got it from smack addicts selling it to buy H, and ill say too that people who try methadone first like this ime pretty often go on to smack themselves. i think supplying methadone creates much more problems than it solves, i think supplying heroin directly with strict and sensible rules (and a slow weaning off through purity control) would be a better idea.
Exactly V. I had a relative who died from a heroin overdose. AFTER he’d got completely clean. It’s really better for women to be taking legally prescribed heroin than having to do sex work just to buy street heroin. I’m sure these women were aware of the existence of methadone, but they didn’t want to take that option. If you want to give up heroin, it’s easier to get off than methdone. However tobacco is one of the most dangerous drugs going. And that’s still on sale legally.
Here’s an interesting thing. On Penny Red’s blog there is a a reference to ‘Stephen Paterson speaking on behalf of the IUSW’. Given Mr Paterson’s ‘disinterested bystander’ pose below I was intrigued. So I went to Google and put in – “Stephen Paterson” IUSW – and this is what I got.
Now sadly when you go to the Independent article in question, the comments have disappeared. But sex worker?????
Will the real Stephen Paterson please stand up. And explain why he’s entitled to speak on behalf of sex workers?
And for anyone who’s forgotten: below Stephen Paterson claimed that he is not a) a sex worker b) a client of a sex worker or c) has any financial interest in the sex industry whatsoever.
So why is he a spokesperson for the IUSW then?
I am replying in a personal capacity,not as a member if Feminist Fightback in which I am involved. Firstly, however, I’d like to point out that we in Fightback found it a bit odd that Cath didn’t send us a copy of her article which specifically mentions and criticises our organisation. We found it on various feminist lists instead. Contrary to what she suggests, the first place we posted our reply was on this website, giving her ample opportunity to comment.
I am pleased to hear that Cath Elliot supports the decriminalisation of sex work and sex workers right to organise. I would like to know, in that case, why she didn’t think this was worth mentioning in ‘The Great IUSW Con’, an article which was widely promoted on feminist lists. As I’m sure Cath is aware, the debate around this question is highly contested and dominated by people who do NOT support decriminalisation (most prominently the government). Cath should not be surprised if her article, then was bandied about by abolitionists and promoted as a reason to support the Crime and Policing Bill. If she is serious about decriminalisation perhaps it would have been more sensible to frame her attack on a sex workers’ organisation in a more balanced manner.
On the question of bosses in unions – Cath does rule out the whole of the IUSW on the basis of one single member being an escort and an agency manager at the same time. She has not responded to Fightback’s protest that this is hardly a reasonable thing to argue. With regards to the RMT comparison, interestingly a tube worker and active member of the RMT union emailed Fightback in reply to our comments pointing out that all unions have managers and mid-level bosses in them. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, IUSW is not any different from other unions in this respect. Douglas is not Peter Stringfellow. He runs a small escort agency while also working as an escort himself, in an illegal industry in which such roles are often blurred.
Let’s be clear: I have no interest in defending porn barons, sex-industry empires or bosses in any industry. As a socialist I have my own views about how all unions should be run differently and organised from a rank and file perspective. However, I don’t think that singling out the IUSW for special attention, and making mis-informed generalisations about the entire union, is a constructive or honest way for Cath to present what she claims is her own balanced and nuanced view on sex work.
[Stephen Paterson] So why is he a spokesperson for the IUSW then?
Well exactly. I didn’t buy his ‘disinterested bystander’ stance for an instance – it smacked of MRA tactics.
One of the women murdered in Ipswich did a news interview before Wright killed her. They interviewed her while she was on the street, asked her why she was when it was dangerous to be out, and police had warned prostitutes to stay at home. She said she didnt have a choice, she needed the money, so she had to be out there.
The woman was Paula Clennell, aged 24, and addicted to heroin (let us remember her and her name). I recall that interview at the time, it haunts me to this day.
She was not out on the streets by “choice”, unless one calls supporting a habit ‘choice’. And she was murdered by Wright just a day or so after that interview. She was Wright’s last victim.
At the time I did a memorial to the young women caught up in the cycle of ‘[habit-]forced’ prostitution, and also blogged it when Gemma Adams went missing (because that was about the first time it hit the internet news). Of course those that supposedly support “sex workers” were all rather quiet on the events at the time. Now suddenly they ‘care’ more than the anti-pornstitution bloggers. I call bullshit. It is exactly events such as these as to why we are anti-pornstitution.
http://stormcloud.wordpress.com/2006/12/17/ipswich-in-memoriam/
“The woman was Paula Clennell, aged 24, and addicted to heroin (let us remember her and her name). I recall that interview at the time, it haunts me to this day.”
I looked her back up again after I typed that. I remember her face.
Laura Schwartz
Not exactly. I support the decriminalisation of those working in the industry, I don’t support across the board decriminalisation. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to hear that I support the Swedish model, which decriminalises the workers, and criminalises instead the punters, those who prey on and exploit some of the most vulnerable women in society.
But thanks for your response.
“Since Cath Elliot raised the issue of who, as feminists, we make alliances with, we would like to question the company she keeps by supporting the proposed government legislation to further criminalise sex work.”
http://www.xtalkproject.net/?p=168
I can tell you absolutely,
the schoolgirl theming thing, in Newcastle was a show stopper for the IUSW.
I suggest you bang in a few FOIs inc. the period when Jacqui Smith was a schools minister.
It was game over
Gregory
PS
The state of Illinois is still pursuing an explanation ( from Jacqui Smith) for its child citizen victims of British teachers and not a single neo-con or religious fundamentalist in sight.
The IUSW are on a hiding to nothing because they are too self-focused to smell the coffee.
There were two lines at some participating clinics and pharmacies. Physeptone was very sought after because it was glassware. That was the case for Cambridge for sure.
A lot of people would have tried that first. The preferred solution was to get drugs in Harley Street. It was a time factor thing. People were busy.
It is a scary thing, how much was ‘ambition’ and loyalty to the record industy part, of tht culture it taking care of its own.
There are two standards of justice. One for the rich and famous and another for people who are without the same resources.
Yvette
Laura Schwartz- the IUSW’s new spokesperson is, apparently, Stephen Paterson – a man who by his own admission is not a sex worker or in any way, shape or form connected with the sex industry.
Do you, or feminist fightback, not think that’s odd? Or do you think that maybe I should randomly become a spokesperson for say, a motor industry union? On the grounds that I can’t drive, don’t own a car, and don’t really have any interest in the industry?
One thing’s emphatically clear, Cath, no sex worker needs you as a representative to uphold her (or his) rights. You don’t have any first-hand experience of the sex industry at all. Leave it to those who have.
“You don’t have any first-hand experience of the sex industry at all. Leave it to those who have.”
Like me? I’ve been busted, half-dusted, and I’ve been corrupted, but I’ve never driven a Chevrolet
Yvette
“Laura Schwartz- the IUSW’s new spokesperson is, apparently, Stephen Paterson – a man who by his own admission is not a sex worker or in any way, shape or form connected with the sex industry.”
Are we talking faux gendering? Didn’t Julie Bindel get that made illegal?
Yvette
if abolitionists spent as much time campaigning against the paedophilia in the religious industry,more children would be saved from paedophile priests
John’s also have some ‘strange bedfellows’: underage, coerced, pimped, trafficked, poverty stricken women and girls.
Also, neither Harriet Harman nor the war caused prostitution – that was generated by male demand for exploited women and girls. Men are not ‘forced’ to rape or otherwise abuse the impoverished. Therefore, men/ johns are the dynamic force behind prostitution.
Same goes for the rape of children ,[paedophilia] priests/ men/ johns whatever.
To clarify – my comment was addressed to Laura Schwartz. Mr Paterson is – according to penny red’s blog – the new spokesperson for the IUSW. Using his own name.
Peter Schevt. Why don’t you campaign against paeophilia in the religious industry then? I am not a state appointed campaigner, I do this in my spare time. And I campaign against a lot of abuse of women and children – like the Jersey children’s home scandal. The fact that one group is being abused, doesn’t negate the abuse of another group. Because two wrongs don’t make a right.
And FWIW, the women I know personally who have been sex workers, became sex workers as a result of childhood sexual abuse. As do a hell of a lot of sex workers. And most start doing ‘sex work’ when they are well under the age of consent. It IS bloody child abuse.
Ok, I’m late too the party, but I’d like to respond to Laura Schwartz’ comments:
“Cath does rule out the whole of the IUSW on the basis of one single member being an escort and an agency manager at the same time.”
It’s not just one, there is also “Dannii – Escort, Agency proprietor, IUSW member” who has commented on the APL blog (http://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/what-are-we-reclaiming-for/)
So who knows how many more there are, and since Catherine Stephens has been recruiting for membership on Punternet, we don’t really know what the actual make up of the IUSW is.
“I don’t think that singling out the IUSW for special attention […]”
Sure, if you thing being fucked is no different to picking strawberries, we don’t need to look too carefully.
The sex industry, by the very nature of the ‘work’ involved is more open to abuse and exploitation. Why should we trust lobbyists who have a vested interest in the expansion and deregulation of the industry? Why should we believe that the sex industry is so benign that there is no conflict of interest between the workers and the bosses? Why should we trust the IUSW when they only offer a white-washed image of the sex industry?