Samstag, 15. Januar 2011
Montag, 20. Dezember 2010
Violent language of anti-sex work groups
Am 17. Dezember war der internationale Tag zur Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Sexarbeiter/innen. Hier ein Artikel den ich bei Feministing zum Thema gefunden habe:
Written by Calum Bennachie & Jan Marie
When most people discuss violence against sex workers, they talk about the physical violence that they perceive sex workers are exposed to by clients, by authorities, and by others. However, violence takes many forms, and what is often omitted from discussions of violence against sex workers is the verbal violence of anti-sex work groups. The language they use reflects not merely a dislike of sex work, but a hatred of sex workers, especially those who act contrary to what Ronald Weitzer calls the ‘oppression paradigm’ these abolitionist groups have adopted. Their language has several severe consequences, one of which is that it actively encourages violence against sex workers.
Abolitionists often use a language of war, and their hatred towards sex workers, which does not show remorse, can almost be tasted. For example, it could be argued that their descriptions of sex workers’ vaginas are more women-hating than those in any mainstream pornography. Statements such as these make a major contribution to both popular and theoretical academic representations of sex work. They receive much attention and wide acceptance, which impacts on the lives of sex workers in relation to stigma, stereotypes, media representation, funding and implementation of interventions, and the construction of government policy. If everything they say is true, then obviously the sex industry is bad and all people who try to close it down are good. Within this belief system, it makes sense that those who support the industry should be punished and sex workers should be rescued out or punished for staying in.
This Is What They Say
The sex industry:
* Is ‘an institution of male violence and racial and economic privilege’ that objectifies and keeps women in their place to fulfill male desires.
* Is a ‘symptom’ of all that is wrong with masculinities.
* Forces and traffics sex workers, especially migrant sex workers.
Commercial sex:
* Is ‘rape that’s paid for’.
Sex workers:
* Enjoy rape and domination and accept pain and humiliation to get rewards and avoid further abuse.
* Are predators who contribute to rape, battery, and violence against women and children.
* Are misled about the concept of having choice because they are victims of the system of male domination and individual males within that.
* Have permanent emotional scarring and other ongoing consequences such as changed appearance.
* Have vaginas that are receptacles to be masturbated into and are filthy with semen and lubricant.
Harmful Consequences
There are five main consequences of this discourse of hate. First, sex workers who are confronted with these opinions are likely to doubt their self-worth and their self-agency, and may put themselves in the position of victim, thus making it more likely they will become victims of violence. When subjected to violence, they are less likely to make complaints about it.
Secondly, the discourse encourages hatred of sex workers, clients and all who support sex workers in any way. All cultures have approved objects of hatred. Often this hatred takes aim at whole classes of people. Speech denigrating particular groups has been described as a ‘psychic tax on those least able to pay’. As an example, it has been shown that negative comments about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) communities contribute to increases in physical and verbal violence against homosexual and transgender people. This can be extended to sex workers as well.
Thirdly, conflating sex work with trafficking and violence against women has affected the funding of sex worker groups. For example, PEPFAR (the US government AIDS fund) will not fund organisations that support sex workers or promote the decriminalisation of sex work. As a result, this has led to groups that supply sex workers with condoms, or support the rights of sex workers, not receiving funds, thus endangering the lives of sex workers and putting them at risk of HIV infection. This policy also reinforces stereotypes, stigma, and discrimination against sex workers.
Fourthly, male, gay, transgender and gender-fluid sex workers are made invisible. The violence against these groups is ignored, and rarely appears in any of the papers they produce. In fact, male sex workers rarely appear in any of their publications, perhaps, because they assume male sex workers to be gay men. For example, Sheila Jeffreys calls gay men the cause of women’s subjugation, while male-to-female transgendered sex workers are referred to as ‘self-mutilating men’. Perhaps they count even less as human?
Finally, and cumulatively, the discourse actively encourages violence against sex workers. The way something is defined can make a huge difference in how it is perceived and how it is interacted with. When one understands a group of people as ‘other’, different, dirty, filthy, stupid or malevolently manipulative, then one can support or condone the violence that occurs. Whether this is forced rescue, forced health checks, taking children away from their parents, or rape and murder.
Paying the Psychic Tax
Although anti-sex work authors claim to condemn violence against sex workers, through their choice of words and phrases they actively promote and encourage acts, which, in some cases, may lead to the abuse and death of sex workers. On the one hand they say they support and care for women, on the other they depict these women in such a way that violence can be justified. Taken together, the consequences of this verbal violence by abolitionist groups makes a major contribution to the abuse of sex workers globally, who are paying the ‘psychic tax’. These people are no different from the client who does not want to pay, the corrupt police officer who rapes, or the members of the public who throw bottles and rotten eggs at street workers. In fact they are worse, because they justify their violence as an act of caring. (Anm. von Sina: Mit diesem Teil stimme ich nicht überein, ich denke es gibt durchaus Personen die aufrichtig um das Wohlergehen von Sexarbeiterinnen besorgt sind und gar nicht erkennen, wie sehr ihre Äusserungen schaden. Ihnen kann man nur vorwerfen, sich über dieses komplexe Thema nicht umfassend informiert zu haben.)
We must challenge them, their language, and their publications at every opportunity, reveal their language of hate for what it is, and counter them with evidence-based facts that prove their claims to be false.
Written by Calum Bennachie & Jan Marie
When most people discuss violence against sex workers, they talk about the physical violence that they perceive sex workers are exposed to by clients, by authorities, and by others. However, violence takes many forms, and what is often omitted from discussions of violence against sex workers is the verbal violence of anti-sex work groups. The language they use reflects not merely a dislike of sex work, but a hatred of sex workers, especially those who act contrary to what Ronald Weitzer calls the ‘oppression paradigm’ these abolitionist groups have adopted. Their language has several severe consequences, one of which is that it actively encourages violence against sex workers.
Abolitionists often use a language of war, and their hatred towards sex workers, which does not show remorse, can almost be tasted. For example, it could be argued that their descriptions of sex workers’ vaginas are more women-hating than those in any mainstream pornography. Statements such as these make a major contribution to both popular and theoretical academic representations of sex work. They receive much attention and wide acceptance, which impacts on the lives of sex workers in relation to stigma, stereotypes, media representation, funding and implementation of interventions, and the construction of government policy. If everything they say is true, then obviously the sex industry is bad and all people who try to close it down are good. Within this belief system, it makes sense that those who support the industry should be punished and sex workers should be rescued out or punished for staying in.
This Is What They Say
The sex industry:
* Is ‘an institution of male violence and racial and economic privilege’ that objectifies and keeps women in their place to fulfill male desires.
* Is a ‘symptom’ of all that is wrong with masculinities.
* Forces and traffics sex workers, especially migrant sex workers.
Commercial sex:
* Is ‘rape that’s paid for’.
Sex workers:
* Enjoy rape and domination and accept pain and humiliation to get rewards and avoid further abuse.
* Are predators who contribute to rape, battery, and violence against women and children.
* Are misled about the concept of having choice because they are victims of the system of male domination and individual males within that.
* Have permanent emotional scarring and other ongoing consequences such as changed appearance.
* Have vaginas that are receptacles to be masturbated into and are filthy with semen and lubricant.
Harmful Consequences
There are five main consequences of this discourse of hate. First, sex workers who are confronted with these opinions are likely to doubt their self-worth and their self-agency, and may put themselves in the position of victim, thus making it more likely they will become victims of violence. When subjected to violence, they are less likely to make complaints about it.
Secondly, the discourse encourages hatred of sex workers, clients and all who support sex workers in any way. All cultures have approved objects of hatred. Often this hatred takes aim at whole classes of people. Speech denigrating particular groups has been described as a ‘psychic tax on those least able to pay’. As an example, it has been shown that negative comments about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) communities contribute to increases in physical and verbal violence against homosexual and transgender people. This can be extended to sex workers as well.
Thirdly, conflating sex work with trafficking and violence against women has affected the funding of sex worker groups. For example, PEPFAR (the US government AIDS fund) will not fund organisations that support sex workers or promote the decriminalisation of sex work. As a result, this has led to groups that supply sex workers with condoms, or support the rights of sex workers, not receiving funds, thus endangering the lives of sex workers and putting them at risk of HIV infection. This policy also reinforces stereotypes, stigma, and discrimination against sex workers.
Fourthly, male, gay, transgender and gender-fluid sex workers are made invisible. The violence against these groups is ignored, and rarely appears in any of the papers they produce. In fact, male sex workers rarely appear in any of their publications, perhaps, because they assume male sex workers to be gay men. For example, Sheila Jeffreys calls gay men the cause of women’s subjugation, while male-to-female transgendered sex workers are referred to as ‘self-mutilating men’. Perhaps they count even less as human?
Finally, and cumulatively, the discourse actively encourages violence against sex workers. The way something is defined can make a huge difference in how it is perceived and how it is interacted with. When one understands a group of people as ‘other’, different, dirty, filthy, stupid or malevolently manipulative, then one can support or condone the violence that occurs. Whether this is forced rescue, forced health checks, taking children away from their parents, or rape and murder.
Paying the Psychic Tax
Although anti-sex work authors claim to condemn violence against sex workers, through their choice of words and phrases they actively promote and encourage acts, which, in some cases, may lead to the abuse and death of sex workers. On the one hand they say they support and care for women, on the other they depict these women in such a way that violence can be justified. Taken together, the consequences of this verbal violence by abolitionist groups makes a major contribution to the abuse of sex workers globally, who are paying the ‘psychic tax’. These people are no different from the client who does not want to pay, the corrupt police officer who rapes, or the members of the public who throw bottles and rotten eggs at street workers. In fact they are worse, because they justify their violence as an act of caring. (Anm. von Sina: Mit diesem Teil stimme ich nicht überein, ich denke es gibt durchaus Personen die aufrichtig um das Wohlergehen von Sexarbeiterinnen besorgt sind und gar nicht erkennen, wie sehr ihre Äusserungen schaden. Ihnen kann man nur vorwerfen, sich über dieses komplexe Thema nicht umfassend informiert zu haben.)
We must challenge them, their language, and their publications at every opportunity, reveal their language of hate for what it is, and counter them with evidence-based facts that prove their claims to be false.
Mittwoch, 17. November 2010
Frauenzimmer
Eine sehr ehrliche und realistische Doku über drei Sexarbeiterinnen im mittleren Alter.
http://213.143.123.132/sw/frauenzimmer.flv
http://213.143.123.132/sw/frauenzimmer.flv
Mittwoch, 3. November 2010
Sonntag, 17. Oktober 2010
Montag, 4. Oktober 2010
Keine Werbung
Dieser Blog dient NICHT der Kundenanwerbung. Wenn man den Blog auch nur überfliegt, sollte das ziemlich offensichtlich sein. Ich habe hier weder Fotos von mir, noch irgendwelche Hinweise zu Buchungen. Anfragen diesbezüglich werden abgelehnt. Ich verdiene kein Geld mit dieser Seite. Dieser Blog dient dazu, meine Sichtweise über verschiedene Themen kundzutun, interessanten Austausch mit Lesern zu haben und zu zeigen, dass Sexarbeiterinnen Menschen sind, die durchaus für sich selbst sprechen können. An die Leute welche behaupten ich würde irgendwelche Foren als Werbeplattform für meine kommerzielle Escort-Seite missbrauchen, wenn ich meinen Blog in meinem Profil verlinke: Ihr seid doof.
Sonntag, 5. September 2010
Youtube Kommentare
by xkcd
Wie wahr, wie wahr...oh Scheisse, ich bin ja auch eine von denen! *imbodenversink*
Freitag, 3. September 2010
How to respect Sex Workers...
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/09/02/how-to-respect-sex-workers/
Most women have strong feelings about the sex industry, be they for or against. (And many, of course, remain undecided.) When dealing with such an emotionally volatile topic, it’s easy to inadvertently silence or even insult sex workers themselves. (As a participant in sex worker activism for the past four years, I’ve seen that in action and on the page.) There’s a way to debate commercial sex while respecting the industry’s laborers. Here are some suggestions:
1) Don’t diminish or mock sex workers’ agency. When discussing a person coerced or forced into sex work, a sensitive recognition of the violation they’ve suffered is definitely in order. However, it’s important to let individuals themselves make this distinction, rather than automatically assigning them a label that indicates lack of agency. For instance, referring to all sex workers as “prostituted” or “used” can be violating in and of itself if the person identifies their work as a free choice.
Similarly, language implying that sex workers are defiled or disgusting will quickly alienate them—for instance, calling porn an “institution that systematically uses the bodies of subordinate groups as sheer sexual objects at best, and open toilets at worst,” as this Ms. blog comment does. Even abused workers don’t want the public analogizing them to waste receptacles.
There’s a way to recognize the indignities wrought upon another human being without furthering those indignities. For example, insisting that every paid act of sex is rape, regardless of how the person being paid labels it, implies that her failure to label it rape is a personal failure. No sex worker deserves to be demonized for asserting the nature of her own experiences.
2) Don’t assume your problems with the sex industry are the industry’s only problems. Some of the most time-honored criticisms of the sex industry—it solidifies patriarchy or commodifies female sexuality—are significant considerations. But they may not be top concerns among sex workers themselves, who are usually more interested in avoiding harassment or abuse at the hands of law enforcement, finding the safest possible workplace and earning a livelihood. As sex worker and artist Sadie Lune has said, “Stop punishing me just because you may not be able to imagine being me.”
3) Use language with care. Some escorts might refer to themselves as “whores” or call their friends “hookers,” but sex workers don’t trust someone outside the industry employs those words. “Sex worker” was conceived as a judgment-neutral term and is usually a safe bet if you’re unsure of what phrase would be most respectful. Some anti-industry pundits object to it on the grounds that it “legitimizes” prostitution, stripping or performing in porn. But it’s important not to use your complaints about the industry as personal attacks on everyone within it. The workers in question are “legitimate” human beings, and any framework that doesn’t recognize that needs reconfiguring.
4) Educate yourself. If you’re going to be vocal about a matter that affects countless people around the globe, inform yourself about it. Visit the websites and blogs of sex workers, activists and allies, not just here in the U.S. but abroad as well. (Sex-workers movements are active in India, Argentina, Taiwan and Sweden, to name only a few. Some resources are linked below.) Take into account the direct voices of sex workers and not just of theorists or politicians. If you see a statistic cited, check the source and examine the ways in which data was gathered. Be critical and compassionate in equal measures. Even if you take issue with the type of work they do, you’ll be sure not to trample on a sex worker’s dignity in the process.
By Monica Shores
Most women have strong feelings about the sex industry, be they for or against. (And many, of course, remain undecided.) When dealing with such an emotionally volatile topic, it’s easy to inadvertently silence or even insult sex workers themselves. (As a participant in sex worker activism for the past four years, I’ve seen that in action and on the page.) There’s a way to debate commercial sex while respecting the industry’s laborers. Here are some suggestions:
1) Don’t diminish or mock sex workers’ agency. When discussing a person coerced or forced into sex work, a sensitive recognition of the violation they’ve suffered is definitely in order. However, it’s important to let individuals themselves make this distinction, rather than automatically assigning them a label that indicates lack of agency. For instance, referring to all sex workers as “prostituted” or “used” can be violating in and of itself if the person identifies their work as a free choice.
Similarly, language implying that sex workers are defiled or disgusting will quickly alienate them—for instance, calling porn an “institution that systematically uses the bodies of subordinate groups as sheer sexual objects at best, and open toilets at worst,” as this Ms. blog comment does. Even abused workers don’t want the public analogizing them to waste receptacles.
There’s a way to recognize the indignities wrought upon another human being without furthering those indignities. For example, insisting that every paid act of sex is rape, regardless of how the person being paid labels it, implies that her failure to label it rape is a personal failure. No sex worker deserves to be demonized for asserting the nature of her own experiences.
2) Don’t assume your problems with the sex industry are the industry’s only problems. Some of the most time-honored criticisms of the sex industry—it solidifies patriarchy or commodifies female sexuality—are significant considerations. But they may not be top concerns among sex workers themselves, who are usually more interested in avoiding harassment or abuse at the hands of law enforcement, finding the safest possible workplace and earning a livelihood. As sex worker and artist Sadie Lune has said, “Stop punishing me just because you may not be able to imagine being me.”
3) Use language with care. Some escorts might refer to themselves as “whores” or call their friends “hookers,” but sex workers don’t trust someone outside the industry employs those words. “Sex worker” was conceived as a judgment-neutral term and is usually a safe bet if you’re unsure of what phrase would be most respectful. Some anti-industry pundits object to it on the grounds that it “legitimizes” prostitution, stripping or performing in porn. But it’s important not to use your complaints about the industry as personal attacks on everyone within it. The workers in question are “legitimate” human beings, and any framework that doesn’t recognize that needs reconfiguring.
4) Educate yourself. If you’re going to be vocal about a matter that affects countless people around the globe, inform yourself about it. Visit the websites and blogs of sex workers, activists and allies, not just here in the U.S. but abroad as well. (Sex-workers movements are active in India, Argentina, Taiwan and Sweden, to name only a few. Some resources are linked below.) Take into account the direct voices of sex workers and not just of theorists or politicians. If you see a statistic cited, check the source and examine the ways in which data was gathered. Be critical and compassionate in equal measures. Even if you take issue with the type of work they do, you’ll be sure not to trample on a sex worker’s dignity in the process.
By Monica Shores
Montag, 23. August 2010
Anti- Menschenhandel- Massnahmen gone wrong
Aus dem Blog "an Anthology of English Pros":
Great Gratuitous UK Prosecutions: the Florina Felia case
by stephenpaterson on August 17, 2010
LIKE many court cases pondered over in this blog, that of Florina Ionela Felia results in more questions than answers. Florina is a 28-year-old Romanian woman whose home in Station Road, Hayes, was gate crashed by police last June.
The Uxbridge Gazette’s report of the ensuing court case informs us that this followed “a tip-off from a member of the public, who believed there were prostitutes working there against their will.”
There were indeed sex workers present – four of them including Florina. All of them, it seems, were migrants, as Florina found herself acting as interpreter for the police (who we shall assume for the purpose of this post can speak enough English to at least get by).
All of this raises the first question: would the “member of the public” have bothered raising the matter if the women were not foreign; did they jump to the conclusion they may be trafficked merely because they were migrants; or did they just have something against foreigners?
And the second: why didn’t the police ascertain whether or not the women were under age or coerced and, if not, leave them alone?
Harrow Crown Court was told that Florina “shared the house and the expenses with the other girls, none of whom were prosecuted.”
She, however, found herself charged with “assisting in the management of a brothel” (maximum penalty, seven years). Not actually managing it (which for some strange reason known only to the Home Office carries precisely the same penalty), but assisting in its management. Assisting whom, one asks?
Jack Griffin’s court report then becomes slightly vague. He writes:
The extent to which the three women at the flat were being coerced into prostitution was brought into question during the trial hearing, and Judge Arran was sympathetic to Felea’s case.
Which, unless Judge Arran is not very good at judging, suggests evidence of coercion was pretty thin on the ground if it existed at all. It would have been nice if they had turned up to testify, but we can’t have everything.
In any case, Florina Felia had not been charged with forcing anyone into prostitution, with controlling for gain, or indeed anything malicious in relation to her colleagues. Basically, she was charged with helping run the place, but there appears to be nothing indicating that she did anything other than muck in with the rest when there was housework to be done.
If she was the only one capable of speaking English, however, it follows that she would have to take the bookings and generally deal with the outside world on a day to day basis by default. Even so, her own English, the case suggests, was far from perfect, as she required an interpreter for the court proceedings.
She denied the charge of assisting in the management of a brothel, but admitted “permitting her premises….to be used as a brothel,” so the prosecution withdrew the assisting charge.
Assuming the sex workers rented or leased the property, and hers was the name on the lease or in the rent book, this is likely to be a charge under Section 35 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, with a possible three months imprisonment and/or a hundred pound fine for a first offence.
Happily, Judge Arran seemed about as unimpressed with the Crown Prosecution Service as I am on this one, and let her off with a 12 month conditional discharge, which is about as much contempt for a prosecution as a judge can reasonably display in public. She left the dock in tears.
That, however, will not be the end of the matter. Under that particular section, their landlord will either have to evict them or face the possibility of being legally deemed a party to any subsequent similar offence. Most landlords choose the former.
So…
What have we started out with here? Ostensibly, a concerned person worrying that some young women may need rescuing, and asking the police to make enquiries. What was needed? A visit, with a properly qualified translator in tow, to discover whether this was indeed the case. If not, job done.
What did we get? Police raid the place, discover only one woman with whom they can communicate. She tries to help them talk to the others. They arrest her.
First, she is held in custody (this is where taxpayers’ costs really do start, folks). Nobody seems to ask at this point what becomes of three foreign sex workers in Station Road, Hayes, who speak little or no English. Presumably the police have to get around to finding an interpreter. Quite what trafficking or other inquiries are made and for how long, we know not, but no charges have materialised.
Florina was later granted highly conditional bail, involving being electronically tagged; an 8pm-8am curfew; daily reporting to the local cop shop; and having her ID card confiscated while awaiting trial.
Another question: what did this cost and would any of these have been imposed if she and the other women weren’t foreign?
So now what happens? Four foreign sex workers are presumably about to find themselves on the streets in Hayes, the streets being, of course, the most vulnerable environment for sex workers, with only one of them being able to speak a little English.
Cost to the tax payer equals:
* Cost of original police processing and raid
* Cost of keeping Florina in custody and transport costs to/ from court etc
* Electronic tagging & other bail admin costs
* Police inquiry costs
* Crown Prosecution Service costs
* Legal aid for Florina
* Interpreter’s fee at court
* Normal Court admin costs
* Costs resulting from establishing and contacting landlord re conviction
…and no doubt others I haven’t thought of.
And what have we achieved? We appear to have taken four migrant women and put them into a far greater state of danger than they were before, whilst giving one a criminal record and reducing her to tears.
Yep, folks, it’s another product of our beloved UK Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. With Government departments like this, who needs Al-Kaeda?
Great Gratuitous UK Prosecutions: the Florina Felia case
by stephenpaterson on August 17, 2010
LIKE many court cases pondered over in this blog, that of Florina Ionela Felia results in more questions than answers. Florina is a 28-year-old Romanian woman whose home in Station Road, Hayes, was gate crashed by police last June.
The Uxbridge Gazette’s report of the ensuing court case informs us that this followed “a tip-off from a member of the public, who believed there were prostitutes working there against their will.”
There were indeed sex workers present – four of them including Florina. All of them, it seems, were migrants, as Florina found herself acting as interpreter for the police (who we shall assume for the purpose of this post can speak enough English to at least get by).
All of this raises the first question: would the “member of the public” have bothered raising the matter if the women were not foreign; did they jump to the conclusion they may be trafficked merely because they were migrants; or did they just have something against foreigners?
And the second: why didn’t the police ascertain whether or not the women were under age or coerced and, if not, leave them alone?
Harrow Crown Court was told that Florina “shared the house and the expenses with the other girls, none of whom were prosecuted.”
She, however, found herself charged with “assisting in the management of a brothel” (maximum penalty, seven years). Not actually managing it (which for some strange reason known only to the Home Office carries precisely the same penalty), but assisting in its management. Assisting whom, one asks?
Jack Griffin’s court report then becomes slightly vague. He writes:
The extent to which the three women at the flat were being coerced into prostitution was brought into question during the trial hearing, and Judge Arran was sympathetic to Felea’s case.
Which, unless Judge Arran is not very good at judging, suggests evidence of coercion was pretty thin on the ground if it existed at all. It would have been nice if they had turned up to testify, but we can’t have everything.
In any case, Florina Felia had not been charged with forcing anyone into prostitution, with controlling for gain, or indeed anything malicious in relation to her colleagues. Basically, she was charged with helping run the place, but there appears to be nothing indicating that she did anything other than muck in with the rest when there was housework to be done.
If she was the only one capable of speaking English, however, it follows that she would have to take the bookings and generally deal with the outside world on a day to day basis by default. Even so, her own English, the case suggests, was far from perfect, as she required an interpreter for the court proceedings.
She denied the charge of assisting in the management of a brothel, but admitted “permitting her premises….to be used as a brothel,” so the prosecution withdrew the assisting charge.
Assuming the sex workers rented or leased the property, and hers was the name on the lease or in the rent book, this is likely to be a charge under Section 35 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, with a possible three months imprisonment and/or a hundred pound fine for a first offence.
Happily, Judge Arran seemed about as unimpressed with the Crown Prosecution Service as I am on this one, and let her off with a 12 month conditional discharge, which is about as much contempt for a prosecution as a judge can reasonably display in public. She left the dock in tears.
That, however, will not be the end of the matter. Under that particular section, their landlord will either have to evict them or face the possibility of being legally deemed a party to any subsequent similar offence. Most landlords choose the former.
So…
What have we started out with here? Ostensibly, a concerned person worrying that some young women may need rescuing, and asking the police to make enquiries. What was needed? A visit, with a properly qualified translator in tow, to discover whether this was indeed the case. If not, job done.
What did we get? Police raid the place, discover only one woman with whom they can communicate. She tries to help them talk to the others. They arrest her.
First, she is held in custody (this is where taxpayers’ costs really do start, folks). Nobody seems to ask at this point what becomes of three foreign sex workers in Station Road, Hayes, who speak little or no English. Presumably the police have to get around to finding an interpreter. Quite what trafficking or other inquiries are made and for how long, we know not, but no charges have materialised.
Florina was later granted highly conditional bail, involving being electronically tagged; an 8pm-8am curfew; daily reporting to the local cop shop; and having her ID card confiscated while awaiting trial.
Another question: what did this cost and would any of these have been imposed if she and the other women weren’t foreign?
So now what happens? Four foreign sex workers are presumably about to find themselves on the streets in Hayes, the streets being, of course, the most vulnerable environment for sex workers, with only one of them being able to speak a little English.
Cost to the tax payer equals:
* Cost of original police processing and raid
* Cost of keeping Florina in custody and transport costs to/ from court etc
* Electronic tagging & other bail admin costs
* Police inquiry costs
* Crown Prosecution Service costs
* Legal aid for Florina
* Interpreter’s fee at court
* Normal Court admin costs
* Costs resulting from establishing and contacting landlord re conviction
…and no doubt others I haven’t thought of.
And what have we achieved? We appear to have taken four migrant women and put them into a far greater state of danger than they were before, whilst giving one a criminal record and reducing her to tears.
Yep, folks, it’s another product of our beloved UK Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. With Government departments like this, who needs Al-Kaeda?
Donnerstag, 12. August 2010
Montag, 5. Juli 2010
Evaluation des schwedischen Modells
Die Resultate einer Studie über die Auswirkungen der Kriminalisierung von Kunden von Sexarbeiterinnen sind veröffentlicht worden: Das partielle Verbot der Prostitution sei wirksam, um Prostitution zu bekämpfen. (Englische Zusammenfassung in Punkt 5)
Dieses Ergebnis würde endlich Gewissheit schaffen, wenn man mithilfe von seriösen Forschungen dazu gelangt wäre. Eine objektive Untersuchung kann jedoch schon aufgrund der Formulierung des Auftrages der Regierung an die Forscher stark angezweifelt werden: Der Ausgangspunkt für die Forschungen soll sein, dass Sexkauf weiterhin verboten sein soll. Das Resultat der Studie wurde also schon von Anfang an festgelegt, nämlich dass das Verbot erfolgreich sei. Dies widerspricht einem der wichtigsten Grundsätze der wissenschaftlichen Forschung.
Es wurde keine Methodologie genannt, bloss ein schwammiges "zahlreiche Forschungsmethoden wurden verwendet". Dafür würde ich bei einer wissenschaftlichen Hausarbeit vermutlich eine ungenügend kriegen.
Sexarbeiterinnen wurden dieses mal tatsächlich auch über ihre Erfahrung befragt, sogar ganze 14 Personen! Das nenn ich eine repräsentative Umfrage. Sogar bei meiner Maturaarbeit galt die Richtlinie, man solle bei Umfragen mindestens 30 Leute hinzuziehen. Dass man an Mittelschüler für eine kleine Arbeit höhere Anforderungen als an ein gesamtstaatliches Projekt stellt ist schon merkwürdig.
Der Fragebogen ist im Bericht nicht zugänglich, allerdings haben angeblich viele Sexarbeiterinnen es abgelehnt ihn auszufüllen, da die Fragen beleidigend gewesen seien. Ich habe Rose Alliance angefragt ob sie ihn mir schicken können, da sie ihn ursprünglich hochgeladen hatten. Da bin ich mal gespannt. Im Bericht steht auch noch, "in der Prostitution ausgebeutete Frauen" (als Synonym für Sexarbeiterinnen als ganzes, und nicht für tatsächlich ausgebeutete) hätten sowieso keine Ahnung von ihrer eigenen Situation. Da wundert es nicht, dass man sich keine Mühe gemacht hat mehr Personen zu befragen.
Immerhin geben die Autoren zu, dass die Forschungsergebnisse nicht eindeutig sind und deshalb mit Vorsicht zu interpretieren sind. Gleich danach wird jedoch gesagt, dass man GLAUBT doch ganz zuverlässig ableiten zu können, dass das Verbot erfolgreich ist.
Schlussendlich kann man aus dieser Studie wohl weder positives noch negatives ableiten.
Weitere Kritikpunkte
Dieses Ergebnis würde endlich Gewissheit schaffen, wenn man mithilfe von seriösen Forschungen dazu gelangt wäre. Eine objektive Untersuchung kann jedoch schon aufgrund der Formulierung des Auftrages der Regierung an die Forscher stark angezweifelt werden: Der Ausgangspunkt für die Forschungen soll sein, dass Sexkauf weiterhin verboten sein soll. Das Resultat der Studie wurde also schon von Anfang an festgelegt, nämlich dass das Verbot erfolgreich sei. Dies widerspricht einem der wichtigsten Grundsätze der wissenschaftlichen Forschung.
Es wurde keine Methodologie genannt, bloss ein schwammiges "zahlreiche Forschungsmethoden wurden verwendet". Dafür würde ich bei einer wissenschaftlichen Hausarbeit vermutlich eine ungenügend kriegen.
Sexarbeiterinnen wurden dieses mal tatsächlich auch über ihre Erfahrung befragt, sogar ganze 14 Personen! Das nenn ich eine repräsentative Umfrage. Sogar bei meiner Maturaarbeit galt die Richtlinie, man solle bei Umfragen mindestens 30 Leute hinzuziehen. Dass man an Mittelschüler für eine kleine Arbeit höhere Anforderungen als an ein gesamtstaatliches Projekt stellt ist schon merkwürdig.
Der Fragebogen ist im Bericht nicht zugänglich, allerdings haben angeblich viele Sexarbeiterinnen es abgelehnt ihn auszufüllen, da die Fragen beleidigend gewesen seien. Ich habe Rose Alliance angefragt ob sie ihn mir schicken können, da sie ihn ursprünglich hochgeladen hatten. Da bin ich mal gespannt. Im Bericht steht auch noch, "in der Prostitution ausgebeutete Frauen" (als Synonym für Sexarbeiterinnen als ganzes, und nicht für tatsächlich ausgebeutete) hätten sowieso keine Ahnung von ihrer eigenen Situation. Da wundert es nicht, dass man sich keine Mühe gemacht hat mehr Personen zu befragen.
Immerhin geben die Autoren zu, dass die Forschungsergebnisse nicht eindeutig sind und deshalb mit Vorsicht zu interpretieren sind. Gleich danach wird jedoch gesagt, dass man GLAUBT doch ganz zuverlässig ableiten zu können, dass das Verbot erfolgreich ist.
Schlussendlich kann man aus dieser Studie wohl weder positives noch negatives ableiten.
Weitere Kritikpunkte
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)