Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Sex: My British Job. Channel 4

759 replies

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa · 23/09/2013 23:23

Anybody see this? It was just horrific. I really, really hope it reached the right audience: punters and their defenders. I doubt it, but I hope so Sad

OP posts:
SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 14/10/2013 23:32

Yeh yeh wino. Have you not twigged that we don't hold that report to be particularly, erm, accurate yet?

inwinoweritas · 14/10/2013 23:43

Sabrina (post Mon 14-Oct-13 22:03:08) “Prostitution increases following legalisation - that is an economic fact wino” Er-no actually. Careful surveys of the numbers in NZ pre and post decriminalization show no change in NZ. Similar results in NSW-and also the number of prostitutes in Western Australia (prostitution illegal) and in NSW (decriminalized) are the same-so whatever your economic theory says the actual results show there is no change

inwinoweritas · 14/10/2013 23:44

Sabrina
Have you not twigged that we don't hold that report to be particularly, erm, accurate yet?

Oh yes-as you have not read it you feel able to make that conclusion

YoniTime · 14/10/2013 23:44

I wish I could earn money by posting feministy things on the internets.

inwinoweritas · 14/10/2013 23:47

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 14/10/2013 23:50

Who says I haven't read it? One poster (back on the Invisible thread) said she wouldn't read it. You take that to mean none of us has?

Mind you- your posts are so mind-numbingly dull and not-to-the-point - I wouldn't blame people for not reading them.

But it's far easier for you to try to discredit individual posters on here (for not reading your links - quelle horreur!) than to actually address the many other posts on this thread that are not to do with the NZ study, eh??

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 14/10/2013 23:56

Oh, and just for the record - I'll trust the LSE over the NZ report on trafficking statistics, any day of the week. and so should you - as you well know.

inwinoweritas · 15/10/2013 00:13

Sabrina
The LSE report is a bit of a joke-but as you don't take my word for it-try these
On the Cho paper
www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/15/legal-prostitution-and-sex-trafficking-from-the-annals-of-bad-economic-research/
www.lauraagustin.com/irresponsible-use-of-trafficking-data-or-garbage-in-garbage-out

WhentheRed · 15/10/2013 01:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

inwinoweritas · 15/10/2013 08:37

Ah yes -the ad hominem attack-(play the man not the ball)-funny how this is used all the time by those who cannot or will not engage with the actual data.

The points made about the Cho paper are valid however. The Cho et al paper is trying to correlate trafficking figures vs the legal status in a whole bunch of countries-so it is vital that the figures are reliable and collected in a consistent way across counties. Unfortunately they are not (hence the Garbage in)

But maybe that is a bit too scientific-have you actually looked at the paper? (for those of you who have not seen it is is here Cho. The paper is full of impressive looking tables and correlations -which may look very scientific-but as we scientists say a picture is worth a thousand words

Take a gander at fig.1 (for those who cannot be bothered it is basically a plot of tracking vs legal status). There is a huge scatter of data points through which they have drawn a gently upsloping line (which is essentially the point they make-that there is a positive statistical correlation between trafficking figures -although as I pointed out they are Garbage) and the legal status.

When confronted with that spread of data the line could almost equally be horizontal (i.e. no correlation). In a real science paper no-one would get away presenting that as showing a correlation with that data spread in any respectable journal (and I know having edited a few) to make the claim that they have. But hey this is an economics journal so one can't expect better.

Will get around to the other points in a while but no time at the present

scallopsrgreat · 15/10/2013 10:12

inwino can you please stop with the patronising. It is unpleasant and unnecessary. You stated upthread you wanted debate, then start debating and engaging. Little digs like "maybe that is a bit too scientific" or "winding you lot up is payment enough" are not how people debate. Nor is it "scientific" which is apparently something you hold much store in.

And some empathy with those who are prostituted wouldn't go amiss, rather than talking about them as if they were pieces of meat. They are people, women, with feelings and worries and fears and families.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 15/10/2013 10:19

It's not an ad hominem attack, wino. You're claiming neutrality - we're saying your position is not neutral. It is politically biased, and you are using reports propped up by politically biased organisations to support your point.

But the LSE paper is unbiased - and admits it's limitations. Something which your reports cannot possibly claim. People like you, and old Tim are bound to attack it - it reaches some pretty damning conclusions on the effect of legalisation on the trafficking of women.

But - as you seem to be insistent that your political bias is ok -

What really happened in NZ following decriminalisation

It's Melissa Farley Grin

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 15/10/2013 10:30

wino, you're not winding me up either - just showing your true colours.

coldwinter · 15/10/2013 10:34

Thank you Sabrina for that link. I hadn't read all that before. My experience is that police officers are not in favour of decriminalisation. They see the realities.

WhentheRed · 15/10/2013 14:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GoshAnneGorilla · 15/10/2013 17:22

One point I would like to add.

In any social justice work, it is always the people at the bottom of the pile, with the least power that we focus on as they are the people facing the most injustice.

We don't look at the most privileged in a group and say " Oh they seem fine, no further work is needed."

So this (flawed) idea that as it's only those working on the streets that have major issues (this is untrue anyway, but), we should ignore them, as the rest are "fine" is completely invalid from a social justice and feminist perspective.

FloraFox · 15/10/2013 17:34

"The paper is full of impressive looking tables and correlations -which may look very scientific-but as we scientists say a picture is worth a thousand words"

The phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words" is used to demonstrate the value of the picture. I have never heard a scientist say that in an effort to devalue the picture or paper. A scientist would know this and not misuse the phrase in this way.

As we lawyers say, a thousand words paints a picture. In the case of your verbose posts wino it is a very dull and obfuscating picture.

FloraFox · 15/10/2013 17:35

Gosh that is a very excellent point.

SinisterSal · 15/10/2013 21:37

we scientists snort

inwinoweritas · 16/10/2013 13:33

When the red
To get to your questions, 07-Oct-13 23:51:58 which was to explain what I meant when I said in NZ the prostitutes have rights against exploitation and secondly Wed 09-Oct-13 01:01:06 -how would such rights help the women exploited in the film.

The act Legalizing prostitution in NZ (the Prostitution reform act 2003 The act means that prostitution is laid out in section 3-two of the stated purposes is (a) safeguard(s) the human rights of sex workers and protects them from exploitation (b) promotes the welfare and occupational health and safety of sex workers.

The human rights are the right to engage in sex work if they choose (so that is it is not illegal see article 7)-whereas in the UK while not technically illegal everything around sex work-such as advertising, working with another person (i.e. in a brothel)) soliciting makes sex work extremely difficult-so much so that in Canada sex workers took successful action in the Ontario court saying similar laws breached their human rights (Bedford v Canada-which said such restrictions were unconstitutional, this is currently under appeal in the Canadian Supreme Court).

They also have rights not to be coerced into sex work either in general or with a client who they don’t want to have sex with (sections 16 &17) and an explicit statement that a refusal to be a sex worker will not affect any rights (like unemployment benefit section 18).
The welfare and occupational health and safety are covered in sections 8.9 &10 which specifies that safe sex must be adhered to by brothels, individual sex works and clients and that sex workers are covered by the Health and Safety in Employment act 1992 Health and Safety act.

Both the Prostitution reform Act and the Health and Safety act provide for the inspection of brothels and entry by the Police (sections 24-29 of legalization legislation) to ensure that the conditions of the act are adhered to. There are provisions in the act to prevent anyone who does not have the appropriate immigration status from working in brothels (section 19). Brothel owners or managers must hold an operators certificate (sections 34-41).

Now as with all acts the problems arise in practice. For instance we know that in this country there are illegal immigrants working in agriculture, catering and in prostitution. We know that there are many places, restaurants, factories building sites where Health and safety regulations are not properly adhered to and that the inspectorates are usually underfunded for the tasks they are set. Experience in Australia (don’t know the situation in NZ but suspect it is the same) that there are illegal brothels and workers that evade the legislation-again this is usually as the inspectorates are underfunded (and sometimes corrupt-and this applies not just to prostitution, but things like planning consents, or being paid to ignore breaches of the law). There are also good and bad brothel operators .(a recent summary of the working of the act in practice was prepared by Parliamentary Library research service in NZ in July 2012 Parliamentary Research paper

As far as the brothel in film was concerned under NZ legislation it would be illegal unless the Manager had a certificate (since we don’t know her immigration of criminal status we don’t know if she would be even eligible-let alone if she could pass the character test). Whether illegal or not it could under NZ legislation be inspected by the Police or the Health and Safety , the same would apply here-but in NZ if the brothel were legal it would be routinely inspected-here as in NZ if illegal (and in UK all brothels are illegal) it would have to be raided.

In the brothel in the film the prostitutes had no rights-in NZ they have the right to refuse clients, and refuse to be forced by the owner to engage in sex work if they don’t wish it-no such rights here. However given the illegal immigrant status of some of the sex workers in the film it would be unlikely that they would move to get their rights enforced.
So in NZ those in well run legal brothels do have rights-those in hell-holes such as depicted in the film would be outside the law in both countries.

But how would such a brothel fare in Sweden? Probably no different from here or in NZ (as it would be most likely to be illegal in all these jurisdictions). But in Sweden the clients would be open to prosecution-which would deprive the workers of their income, push the poor illegals into greater poverty –is that really the satisfactory outcome?

WhentheRed · 16/10/2013 17:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WhentheRed · 16/10/2013 17:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

coldwinter · 16/10/2013 18:13

The police have publically said that this limited right of access to brothels, has made it much harder for them to tackle under children being prostituted, and trafficking.

inwinoweritas · 16/10/2013 20:54

When the red
The whole point of the legalization is that those working in prostitution have precisely the same rights as any other employee any workplace in NZ-there is no difference in their employment rights than any other citizen of that country. It is now a legal business like any other

This is discussed at length in the Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 Review of Act see section 10.

In reality however there have been some problems in workers taking action to get those rights enforced-often because they don't want the publicity that might ensue in suing for those rights because of the stigma that accompanies sex work

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 16/10/2013 21:04

What's the point of it then - if the prostitutes themselves won't avail themselves of their "rights"?

You won't fine that it's feminists like Melissa Farley that stigmatise prostitutes...

Swipe left for the next trending thread