…..in so many ways.
Here’s the piece I’m referring to.
So let’s start from the top:
The sex workers rights movement and the establishment of a GMB recognised sex workers union is a new radicalism neither the left nor the right truly understand.
Wrong. There’s nothing new about the sex workers rights movement. If Douglas knew his history he’d know that a UK prostitutes’ pressure group was formed as far back as 1975. Provisionally entitled TUP (Trade Union of Prostitutes) it later became known as ‘Prostitutes United for Social and Sexual Integration’ or PUSSI for short, and was affiliated to COYOTE in the US. As Jeremy Sandford details in his book ‘Prostitutes,’ the stated aims of the organisation included:
1. Changes in law surrounding prostitutes so as to give them a better deal in Britain.
2. Establishment of a professional code to ensure a fairer deal for clients.
3. Solidarity with those at the power end of the profession who suffer most at the hands of the exploiters and are vulnerable to harassment by law officers. (Sandford. Prostitutes. Abacus revised edition 1977)
In fact PUSSI wasn’t that much different from today’s IUSW. It had three types of membership “First it is for prostitutes themselves, both male and female.We hope also to attract as many associate members as possible…These people we hope will lend their relevant skills in the service of the campaign. Interested Parties, will be anyone who sympathises with the cause and would like to attend some of its meetings and social functions.” And it had as its ultimate goal the decriminalisation of prostitution.
PUSSI was later replaced by PLAN – ‘Prostitution Laws are Nonsense,’ and its leader Helen Buckingham, together with Selma James of the Wages for Housework Campaign, then went on to form the English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP).
Fox goes on to say:
It is sex worker politics based on an awakening awareness of an injustice not based on class or gender or political allegiance
With its insistence on accepting into membership agency owners like Fox himself, punters, and anyone else with an interest in the sex industry such as academics and young kewl 3rd wave feminists, I think it’s safe to say there’s little if any politics involved: it’s simply a vested interest group intent on preserving the industry for its own ends.
Fox:
One has to ask of the labour movement why the consensual labour of a worker should be subject to criminal law simply because that worker has chosen a form of labour which some are squeamish about. The recent TUC decision for example to support this Labour government’s proposals to criminalise the clients of sex workers although not unexpected from a TUC so traditionally supportive of the labour party and especially one presently in so much trouble is hardly indicative of worker solidarity. It does however illustrate the changing character of the once radical left when it has assumed the mantle of the establishment.
To the first part I’d direct Fox to the piece I wrote about the TUC Women’s Conference debate on prostitution, specifically to the text of motion 40, the motion that got passed:
Conference demands that campaigning begins to…
iii) criminalise men’s purchase of sex rather than its sale
One has to ask why Fox and other defenders of the sex industry persist time and time again in trotting out the lie that those of us who are opposed to prostitution a) want to see women in the industry criminalised, and b) that our opposition to sex work is based on some kind of squeamishness. Perhaps it’s just easier for them to dismiss their opponents by painting us as delicate Victorian prudes rather than thinking about what really motivates us, but it’s lazy stereotyping and ultimately does nothing to move the debate forward.
As for the part about the labour movement and worker solidarity: as sarahcl points out at Autonomous Radical Feminists, for the labour movement to embrace the IUSW and all the other sex industry front organisations, it would have to accept the control of others’ sexuality as ‘work like any other’, and it would have to embrace escort agency owners, brothel managers, lap dancing entrepreneurs and pimps as comrades. I doubt I’ll be speaking out of turn if I say it’ll be a cold day in hell before that happens. And of course there’s another long-standing trade union tradition that Fox appears to have overlooked, that of standing up for the exploited and the oppressed, and of standing against those who would exploit and oppress others: it’s in this tradition that the TUC Women’s Conference rejected calls to support decriminalisation, and it was absolutely right to do so.
And “assumed the mantle of the establishment” my arse! There’s nothing more establishment than a middle-aged man defending his right to buy, sell, use and abuse women’s bodies. I’d suggest Douglas looks a bit closer to home before he starts throwing that charge around at others.
Fox:
The IUSW was established by enlightened individuals in the days when feminists truly fought for a woman’s right to express her sexuality as she chose
Prostitution has nothing to do with a woman expressing her sexuality, and everything to do with men assuming that they have some kind of god given right to control women’s sexuality. The monetary exchange removes any freedom of expression; it turns the act of sex into a commercial transaction and a woman’s body into a commodity. The prostitute doesn’t get to express her own sexual wishes or desires, it’s the buyer who’s in control and whose wants must be satisfied.
Now our duty is to re light that flame of liberalism which once changed our society by releasing men and women from the constraints enforced by a repressive patriarchy. We have to protect those hard won freedoms from being snatched away by the latest oppressor; the Labour movement itself.
I’m sure the irony of reading a male escort agency owner making pronouncements about the iniquities of repressive patriarchy escapes no one. It would be funny if it wasn’t so bloody woeful.
Sex work is a reflection of our society
Sadly I’m forced to agree. But do you know what would be truly radical, nay revolutionary, Douglas? Working to change that society, so that sex work, trafficking, and all other forms of exploitation are no longer considered a reflection of society but an aberration.
The IUSW/GMB branch accepts and promotes membership to all who make a living in the sex industry. Managements, prostitutes, maids, drivers, photographers, web site designers, the list is endless; we are all too varying degrees persecuted and criminalised and therefore all are equally dependent on each other. The union could not call itself a sex worker union if it denied entry to anyone who is persecuted or stigmatised for working in our industry.
As I said at the beginning of the piece, this is completely ridiculous, and sums up for many precisely why and how the IUSW has no place in the labour movement. A union cannot claim to represent workers if it has managers and industry owners not only in membership but occupying senior union posts. And as has been asked before in these debates, how on earth can workers expect improved pay and conditions when the people negotiating on their behalf are their bosses? It makes a travesty of the whole thing, and the GMB should be ashamed of itself for allowing this nonsense to continue.
Fox:
Abolitionists present sex workers in tragic terms of oppressed victims labouring under the tyranny of abusive managements as though sex workers were toiling in a recreation of some Dickensian mill where women and children are forced into servitude by evil bosses, not realising that they have become the tyrannical ones with their oppressive unjust legislation. The reality is that often in sex work it is hard to tell who the worker is and who the employer
Tell that to the women in your employ Douglas, the ones who complained to the press when you and your partner John Docherty decided to give them away for free as monthly competition prizes. I suspect they got the message loud and clear then as to who were the workers and who were the employers.
Escort agents are employed by escorts to do a particular job, Brothel owners are paid by brothel workers to provide a comfortable and safe environment in which to work. Independents employ maids and drivers and all in the industry employ a variety of people to provide support roles that make the work possible and safe.
It’s like one big happy family. Sweet.
Our duty in the IUSW is in the face of this adversity to mobilise our diverse and transient constituency and give sex workers a voice that is strong, effective and more importantly reflective of the real needs and concerns of an industry that today strives against injustice for the recognition it deserves.
The sex industry is a multi-billion pound industry with ties to organised crime both at home and abroad. The needs and concerns of that industry are in direct conflict with the needs and concerns of exploited, vulnerable, prostituted women. It is those women who are most in need of a union; unfortunately, the IUSW by virtue of its broad-based approach to membership reflects the needs and concerns of the industry, not the women working in it.
The recent opening of a new bank account and the creation of a new constitution is an exciting development that allows greater participation in the sex worker human rights campaign by a larger constituency. It can attract donations and participation from everyone including members of the public who are concerned about the abuses directed toward sex workers by an increasingly hostile government.
And it can also attract donations from the sex industry itself. As Douglas said himself on the CT Escorts forum: “Just think what we could have done with more money in our coffers to campaign as effectively as we should. If only our industry would only give us the money to do so.”
Only those who work in the industry truly understand how debilitating the stigma associated with sex work can be. Is this attitude surprising however when our enemies focus on the minority (even the government figures accept this) of trafficked women. The media profile is fixated with street girls who are a tiny proportion of sex workers but whose image prevails.
Because the harms done to those women far outweigh any benefits the industry gives to you and your ilk Douglas. I’m sure you’d be a lot more comfortable about the work you do if they could just be ignored and treated like they don’t exist, but unfortunately for you that’s not going to happen. Unfortunately for you and your industry, those of us who oppose you will keep shining a light in the dark places, where the drug addictions, the violence, and and the degradations continue, and we’ll keep exposing you every time you try to cover it up. And shame on you Douglas for dismissing the most vulnerable, and the most in need of your support, in such a callous way. Those two sentences alone tell us all we need to know about your so-called human rights concerns.
As we grow in numbers the IUSW has not only to embrace and nourish its association with the union movement but it also has to broaden its objectives and appeal to the natural sense of injustice instinctive in the British psyche. This is our new challenge and ultimately it is vital for the future success of our campaign. We have to walk a path that is non political but based solidly in the human rights tradition.
As long as those human rights don’t include the rights of trafficked women and street prostitutes obviously.
Our legacy is to be judged as a union of the disenfranchised who achieved justice. This is why the IUSW is so important.
No, the legacy of the IUSW, if we allow it, is to be judged as the union that brought the trade union movement into disrepute by enabling abusers and exploiters to appropriate the voices of the already dispossessed. That’s why exposing the IUSW for what it is is so important.
(Incidentally, it was good to see Douglas Fox and the role of escort agency owners in the IUSW getting a mention in Private Eye magazine a couple of issues ago. Unfortunately I inadvertently threw my copy in the recycling, and the article isn’t available in the online version, so I’m unable to reproduce it here.)
Too Much To Say For Myself 
A fantastic and thought-through response. Well done! “Sex-positive” feminism has a lot to answer for.
On a slightly more childish note (but one that I simply can’t repress): You totally owned Douglas Fox! And that makes me very happy indeed. He is a misogynistic, hypocritical arsehole.
Thanks for writing this response to his words. You did it most eloquently. 🙂
– Chronic Thinker
(I stumbled across this post in my Tag Surfer, because we share the “prostitution” tag in the things we’ve written today.)
I see no reason at all why the IUSW should not be entirely free to choose for itself whom it accepts as members. It is in any case their job to decide, not that of the feminist movement, the British Legion or anyone else.
It is only by accepting members from all sectors of the sex industry that constructive debate and a fair deal for everyone involved becomes possible.
I was particularly disgusted by the way in which the Report Stage and Third Reading of the Policing and Crime Bill, which contains the clauses on prostitution, were hustled through the Commons on 19th May (before Jacqui Smith gets the sack) with nowhere near enough time for adequate debate. An amendment to allow extra time had already been defeated by the Labour majority.
The current Parliament has become so utterly trashed that it no longer has the integrity to be forming the law of the land at all this side of a general election.
One of the best ways of stopping this odious bill in its tracks would be to campaign for an early election, a prospect which now looks increasingly acievable in view of the current groundswell of public opinion.
PS – Sorry to hear your MP will be leaving , Cath.
Working to change that society, so that sex work, trafficking, and all other forms of exploitation are no longer considered a reflection of society but an aberration.
That’s the crux of the issue, isn’t it? Some people want society to change just enough to benefit themselves and others want society to change to benefit every single one of us. Douglas Fox couldn’t make more clear which camp he resides in.
According to Cath Elliot’s feminism..its a woman’s right to sell it and get paid well for it..but its morally wrong as well as criminal for a man to buy what is being sold ahem ethically.
Jeez..I get it now.
Only lesbians should be allowed to procure the services of prostitutes.
O……………..k
Ramiie, I’m sure it’s been explained to you plenty of times before, and that you do understand it really, but the point of criminalising demand is to show that prostitution – as an entity, an industry and an institution – is not ok, with out treating the prostitute women involved themselves as criminals. The ultimate aim is abolition of prostitution, without persecuting prostitute women themselves. (so it obviously goes without saying that viable alternatives to prostitution have to be made available.)
Cath, thanks for linking to the ARF blog!
GMB policy is that membership is open to people at all levels of the workforce, including managerial, auxiliary and support staff*.
That’s one of the reasons the IUSW and the GMB branch are open to everyone who works in the sex industry and adult entertainment – a really diverse group. More important than our differences are the things which bring us together. We all live with stigma. We all experience social exclusion. We all face vulnerability. Many of us are criminalised. The GMB offers union representation to enable us to organise and demand the same rights as those taken for granted by workers in other industries.
The primary difficulty we face is not our work itself, but the conditions in which we work. Criminalisation forms an integral part in creating those conditions – decriminalisation would provide us with the freedom to decide how to work – independently, in co-operatives or for other people.
Selling sexual services is legal, but street prostitution, brothel keeping and controlling for gain are criminalised. Street-based sex workers are made more vulnerable by the criminalisation of their work and clients. Under current law, if two sex workers share premises, the person whose name is on the lease can be prosecuted as a brothel keeper. If someone arranges appointments and negotiates fees on behalf of a sex worker, they can be convicted of controlling for gain, regardless of whether they are honest and fair or exploitative and coercive. Our legal definition of trafficking is so loose that anyone knowingly giving a sex worker a lift to work, even if they are not being paid to do so, is potentially at risk of prosecution.
It makes no sense to campaign for decriminalisation but exclude from that campaign the very people who are most at risk of prosecution. People who work in the sex industry can tell the difference between those offering safe, fair and honest working conditions and those who coerce, exploit and abuse us.
So working in solidarity we resist attempts to divide us: we campaign for everyone in the sex industry to have the same human, civil and labour rights as other citizens, the same protection of the law as other citizens and for our inclusion in decisions which will affect our rights and safety.
We welcome as members all who choose to join us in the campaign for our rights, freedom and safety.
* If conflicts of interest arise within the IUSW/GMB branch, as with other branches, these are dealt with on a case by case basis.
The International Union of Sex Workers:
For our human, civil and labour rights. For our inclusion and decriminalisation.
For freedom to choose and respect for those choices, including the absolute right to say no.
For the full protection of the law. For everyone in the sex industry.
ONLY RIGHTS WILL STOP THE WRONGS.
Hi Cath, long time no see. Missed you, as have the victimised sex workers (well, they didn’t actually miss you, just the beautiful violins that always start up in the background when you write about them).
The sooner everyone stops trying to criminalise each other, the sooner we can start to do something realistic, like reduce violence and STI risks, ensure all are over 18 and nobody is coerced, take as many out of the street environment as possible, address drug addictions and yes, maybe even offer those who want routes out of prostitution.
But first of all, we have to know where prostitutes are. And that sure as hell ain’t gonna happen until the Home Office is safely under lock and key.
Yes Catherine, that’s what we’re really forgetting about here, what about the poor, marginalised, stigmatised PIMPS!
Sarah, what part of
“For our human, civil and labour rights. For our inclusion and decriminalisation.
For freedom to choose and respect for those choices, including the absolute right to say no.
For the full protection of the law.
For everyone in the sex industry.”
is unclear to you?
Gulfstream5
Neither do I, but I do see a reason why they then shouldn’t be trying to ingratiate themselves into the labour and trade union movement and I do see a reason why the GMB should have ditched them a long time ago. They’re not a union, they’re a trade association/lobby group, just like the Lap Dancing Association.
sarahcl – my pleasure, and great blog 🙂
Catherine
As is most unions’. However, as was pointed out on the previous thread re the IUSW, that’s because what managers and workers have in common in those situations is that they share an employment relationship with an employer in the course of which their union negotiates their pay and conditions . That’s not the case with brothel and escort agency owners, who don’t share an employment relationship with escorts and other workers, because they are in fact the employer.
And what employment relationship do punters and other interested parties share with women working in the sex industry? What right has a punter to join a so-called trade union and take part in meetings and decision making about employment and other issues that have fuck all to do with him?
stephenpaterson
Awww, I didn’t know you cared.
So how many more IUSW apologists are going to show up? I take it someone sent an alert out?
“So how many more IUSW apologists are going to show up?”
Cath, we’re really not apologetic at all. That’s part of the problem you have with us, I think – you support sex workers if we present as victims (and, no doubt about it, there are real victims in the sex industry) , and will, within certain limits, allow sex workers to testify about their personal experience (but only the ones you agree count when they do that) but when we stand up for ourselves, claim agency, and power, analyse the causes of our oppression and demand the same rights as other people – for everyone in the industry, whether by choice, circumstance or coercion – you clearly, really don’t like that.
Catherine No, what I don’t like is shit like this:
http:// britishpunter. blogspot.com/ (Warning link NSFW)
Why the hell are you letting punters and pimps into your organisation? Does it not embarrass you that these are the people who get to determine your policies and your priorities?
And I’m prepared to listen to any sex worker testify about their personal experience, the problem with the IUSW is it’s impossible to know who’s actually a sex worker and who’s a pimp or a punter.
Cath
Surely if the IUSW were in breach of either the GMB or TUC rules, as you suggest, they would already have been called to account?
Still, at least we’ve got one thing in common – both our football teams got relegated this season! 🙂
Ciao!
If, and I say if I had a football team (which I don’t), it would be Exeter City not Norwich.
I think the Private Eye mention might have had something to do with one of your commenters alerting them Cath (no it wasn’t me).
Douglas. If somebody is ‘expressing their sexuality’ you wouldn’t need to pay them would you? think about it……
Only in your dreams Ramiie, I’m afraid.
Oh dear I have upset Cath Elliot. Worth writing the article 🙂
Once again….SOOOOO dull having repeat myself. My partner runs an agency of self employed escorts who employ him….You should really speak to them rather than speaking at them which sadly is the attitude people like your self adopt. If you did speak to them you would be speaking to intelligent women who are quite capable of making decisions about their lives. Including making the decision to be escorts which is a career which pays them well and allows them to have the life style they wish. You may not like their choice but that is neither their problem or mine but rather yours.
There is no point arguing with you or you ilk because the voices of those who disagree are of course wrong, pimps, oppressed blah blah blah.
What angers me so much about you and those who support you is that you use the victims of abuse to pursue an agenda that is not based on liberty or freedom or any real concern for sex workers but rather a narrow bigoted ideology.
I am a sex worker and I fight for sex workers to have the same rights as you, the same choices as you and to do their work free from stigma and with recourse to the law rather than living in fear of the law. Those who are exploited in any industry including the sex industry are not helped by criminalisation but by the granting of rights. RIGHTS, human and civil are the answer not bigoted and ignorant intolerance and lies.
Douglas
Douglas
No, I’m not upset Douglas, don’t flatter yourself. (and it’s 2 t’s on Elliott btw)
Douglas
And what nauseates me about you Douglas is that you use the victims of abuse to pursue an agenda that’s all about lining your own pockets.
I think what really struck me most about your article, which I didn’t get around to mentioning in the piece, is the way in which it’s practically an advertisement/recruitment piece aimed at getting more people to work in the sex industry. At least the ECP, who I have even less regard for than I do the IUSW (and that’s saying something) make a pretence that they’re interested in helping women escape, that one of their main concerns is the poverty that drives some women into the sex trade. In your article, and in your posts, you seem to be trying to sell it as some fantastic, liberating career choice.
What’s up, CT Escorts running short of girls now that Cameron’s decided to leave? (And did she leave or was she pushed? Can you actually sack someone who’s self-employed?)
Cath
Aarrr, I be barn in Dev’n meself, m’dear!
its a pity that those who want to persecute sex workers(female sex workers in particular) don’t put as much energy into improving the conviction rate for rape which is just 6%.
its a pity that those who want to persecute sex workers(female sex workers in particular) don’t put as much energy into improving the conviction rate for rape which is just 6%.
That’ll be rapists and the patriarchal judicatory system that we need to tackle then, which is what we are doing. However, should it really be a women’s responsibility to stop rape or ‘improve the conviction rate’? Surely that’s down to men – who make up the vast majority of rapists and who also run the legal systems.
Maybe we should run this gem of wisdom past all oppressed and marginalised groups – that they are really just not trying hard enough/ aiming high enough. Simple isn‘t?
its a pity that those who want to persecute sex workers
Nope, that’ll be the Johns we want persecuted.
Who said anyone was sacked. The girls employ my service, not the other way around. You can’t sack someone you don’t employ but I can choose to disassociate or choose to refuse to represent someone based on their actions towards me, my family and my home.
Is that enough information for you !!
The girls employ my service, not the other way around.
Hopefully, you mean ‘women’?
Yes, like the Cheeky Girls, The Golden Girls, Girls Aloud they don’t have the same ring about them as The Cheeky Women and The Golden Women and Women Aloud so there’s no need to be picky. I’ll give Cyndi Lauper a ring and tell her that Women just wanna have fun would be more technically correct for you whilst I am on
Us women can be ‘picky’ all we want ‘K? in how we want to be addressed. Clue: grown women are not ‘girls’ – and as I’m not an advocate of the right-wing, status-quo media industry’s patriarchal narrative portraying women as ineffectual infants; I get to say that.
Get that – boy?
Once again….SOOOOO dull having repeat myself. My partner runs an agency of self employed escorts who employ him….You should really speak to them rather than speaking at them which sadly is the attitude people like your self adopt. If you did speak to them you would be speaking to intelligent women who are quite capable of making decisions about their lives. Including making the decision to be escorts which is a career which pays them well and allows them to have the life style they wish. You may not like their choice but that is neither their problem or mine but rather yours.
Yes, I’d be more than happy to speak to you providing you are also willing to listen. Sadly, I’m doubting that you are willing to do that and instead will believe your views are right. Your apparent and obvious disregard for escorts/sexworkers/whatever making an informed choice I find somewhat insulting. However, its ‘water off a ducks back’. Although its clear you believe every (or a high percentage) of sex workers are victims – you couldn’t be more wrong. You have a pre-conceived idea of what makes a ‘sex worker’ – a vision of the poor low self -esteem victim, most likely ‘working’ to escape poverty and deprivation. Its laughable, really it is – That is NOT how it is. It couldn’t be further from reality! Are sex workers ‘feeding a habit’? Having never taken anything stronger than a paracetamol, I can honestly say no!
I completely agree the woman who are illegally trafficked and forced to work NEED protection. I respect anyone who is campaigning for this. Guess what? Difficult as it may be to believe Douglas is singing from the same song sheet.
This isn’t black and white – theres a massive expanse of grey in the middle. However, it seems you are hell bent on tarring each sex worker with the ‘label’ you have chosen to give them. A little hypocritical don’t you think? Surely making you guilty of everything you, without just cause, you accuse Douglas Fox of. Your claims on the running of his partners business are as farcical as your claims on every sex worker in the country being a poor, raped and abused victim.
Perhaps one should look at the bigger picture instead of staying within the box that centres around nothing more than YOUR opinion. Opinions are fine, however just because someones differs dramatically from your own it DOES NOT make it any less valid 🙂 Maybe you could benefit from the seeking the opinion of those with personal experience rather than base everything on figures (which can easily be disputed) It would make for a more balanced discussion. As for the title ‘wrong again’, says who? Whats wrong to you, could be right to a million others and vice versa 🙂
:o)
(please note YOU refers to the OP not the quoted item from Douglas Fox)
Maybe you could benefit from the seeking the opinion of those with personal experience rather than base everything on figures (which can easily be disputed)
What, you mean like some of the feminists who read/ comment on this blog and who remain anti-prostitution advocates?
Michelle I’ve never denied that some women choose to work in the sex industry, just as I’ve never tried to claim that all sex workers are victims of abuse/drug addiction or whatever: I’m fully aware of the grey “expanse in the middle.” But nice straw woman you’ve built yourself there, I hope you didn’t waste too much energy on it.
For the benefit of the hard of understanding, and at the risk of sounding repetitive, I’ll reiterate what I said in the OP: the harms done to the women who don’t arrive in the industry through choice, but who are there through coercion, abuse, violence etc, far outweigh any benefits the industry gives to others.
Sparks Don’t be daft, Douglas et al don’t want to hear about or from former sex workers who are now anti-prostitution advocates! Don’t ya know, the anti’s problem is they just made the wrong career choice….
dear sparkle m
if you read what i said instead of allowing your predjudice to get in the way,
the govt are the ones who are persecuting sex workers(especially female sex workers) surely they should be doing more to improve the conviction rate for rape which is just 6%,
speaking of rapists, owen oyston(a convicted rapist )donated £10,000 to the labour party at a fund raising event 2 years ago
i suppose if you give money to the labour party,your sins are forgiven
Cath attempts to use the membership policy of the GMB sex workers’ branch, which complies with national GMB policy, as a way to argue against people in the sex industry self-organising to improve conditions for everyone.
We see that the primary difficulty we face is not our work itself but the conditions in which we work. A group of workers organising to improve the conditions of their work is a union. This includes both conditions in the workplace, and in society as a whole – the stigma and social exclusion many of us experience.
We see how legal status and social stigma combine to increase our vulnerability and enable abuse and exploitation within our industry.
The abuses we suffer are used to argue for the eradication of our work, by those, like Cath, who dismiss the voices of sex workers that contradict their ideological positions.
What I want to see, what the IUSW wants to see, is a society that enables, not excludes, sex workers when we speak out, in all our diversity. Real solutions to problems associated with the sex industry cannot be found while we go unheeded.
Policies that solve problems are based in reality, not on ideology, assumption and stereotypes.
was jesus crucified for being a punter?
controversial blog suggests so
http://punterpride.blogspot.com/
Douglas Fox.
Sex worker and human rights activist.
Whatever happened to his ‘Amnesty’ qualification? Could it be they had a little word with him?
He also left out the ‘pimp’ part.
Gregory
“Cath attempts to use the membership policy of the GMB sex workers’ branch, which complies with national GMB policy, as a way to argue against people in the sex industry self-organising to improve conditions for everyone.”
The GMB email porn filter zaps everything Dougie writes, I tested it.
I was bored one day and banged in his articles to random recipients, they all got zapped as ‘porn’.
“The abuses we suffer are used to argue for the eradication of our work, by those, like Cath, who dismiss the voices of sex workers that contradict their ideological positions.”
This blog thread is about a pimp, who isn’t very popular with his former Amnesty friends.
:o)
Amnesty New Zealand and Amnesty Ireland want to know why AIUK let Douglas Fox join.
Gregory
Dear Dignity
The problem with my church, is that we allowed people like Douglas Fox, to become members of religious orders, that was the big mistake for which we are guilty as charged.
When it comes to being forced to do sex for nothing, as in given away as a ‘prize’, by an Amnesty pimp such as Douglas Fox, where is Colm O’Gorman, the Executive Director of Amnesty International in Ireland?
Gregory Carlin, IATC, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT11 8NX 02890 963164
Channel 4 News – May 20, 2009
By Jon Snow Jon Snow talks to Colm O’Gorman, the Executive Director of Amnesty International in Ireland, who was a victim of sexual abuse perpetrated by a …
‘The Catholic church failed me. I despised myself and lost all … Telegraph.co.uk
Victory for victim who once sued the Vatican Sydney Morning Herald
Breaching the wall of silence Fermanagh Herald
But can I make it clear – folks, you are admitting that your ‘agency’ provides self employed workers who provide sexual services and that you are profiting from the provision of said services?
Now what would that be exactly? Legally speaking.
Oh and if you’re so interested in worker’s rights – why not employ folks properly, instead of trying the old ‘self employed’ schtick so beloved of lap dancing clubs?
– Answers consisting of the difference between employment and self employment will be treated as the bullshit they are. I do know the difference. And I’m sure you could actually find a way to employ peeps if you were THAT caring. And give them proper employment rights.
I think you’ll find the labour party did give Owen Oyston’s money back though Peter.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-accepted-funds-from-convicted-rapist-457237.html
Oh and re rapists: it’s quite common for rapists to offer their victims money after a rape – bit of a punter/rapist cross over going on you reckon?
Like this dude.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1079546/Rape-victim-finally-closure-25-years-attacked-accused-lying-cover-extra-marital-affair.html
I mean do you think maybe it’s possible Peter, that if men see women as a commodity they can buy, like a can of baked beans, it’s just a short step from there to rape?
Oh dear trying to have a sensible debate (which is hard enough with the irrational who peddle a morally corrupt and failed ideology of hate) and the simply insane turn up (Hi Gregory and your various pseudonyms).
I am still a member of Amnesty and will be writing soon about Amnesty and certain people in Amnesty so keep your eyes peeled.
Now watch this thread degenerate into the usual name calling and look every one is a paedophile that does not agree with me….Oh dear LOL. Still it keeps the criminally insane off the streets :).
Douglas
Douglas
Pot? Kettle?
Douglas “Now watch this thread degenerate into the usual name calling”
While you call folks: “irrational”, “morally corrupt”, “failed ideology of hate”, “simply insane” and “criminally insane”
It sounds as though your criterion for “sensible debate” involves positioning yourself as exempt.
Oh dear trying to have a sensible debate (which is hard enough with the irrational who peddle a morally corrupt and failed ideology of hate) and the simply insane turn up (Hi Gregory and your various pseudonyms).
I am still a member of Amnesty and will be writing soon about Amnesty and certain people in Amnesty so keep your eyes peeled.
Now watch this thread degenerate into the usual name calling and look every one is a paedophile that does not agree with me….Oh dear LOL. Still it keeps the criminally insane off the streets
Care to cite actual examples that back up these statements?
Or to address any of the actual points that have been actually made?
Thought not.
If you’re complaining about ad hominem attacks, it’s as well not to do that by indulging in them yourself.
Yes, Douglas Fox has got it wrong. And so has Cath Elliot. Or at least, they’re both insistent on telling only one side of a very complex story.
History is important. But it’s also prone to revision, as the endless exchange on sex workers’ rights in the blogosphere of late amply demonstrates.
To claim that the sex workers’ rights movement has nothing to do with the injustices of gender or class is absurd. The sex industry is full of class and gender exploitation, as well as racism and other forms of oppression. In this sense you’re both right – the industry reflects wider society.
So we can agree that the industry can be exploitative. The disagreement is about what to do to combat the exploitation and who should lead the changes. Fox seems to think anyone involved in the industry, regardless of their level of power and privilege, has that right. Elliot seems to believe it’s all women who identify as feminist and recognize the oppression of other women. I say it’s people, the vast majority of them women, working in the sex industry as workers.
But even then things get complicated, which is why sex workers’ rights activism is difficult enough without competing claims to who has the right to speak for whom. Recognizing the exploitation in the sex industry is not to say that everyone who works in the sex industry experiences the same kinds of exploitation, or that all sex workers experience sex work as primarily oppressive.
And that’s the problem with Elliot and some other feminists who claim to ‘stand up for the exploited and the oppressed’. This statement implies that sex workers are voiceless and incapable of standing up for themselves. That may be true of some sex workers; many others may choose not to speak publicly for themselves, and others do speak for out for themselves. Douglas Fox does not represent anyone other than himself, so why spend so much time focussing on one unrepresentative voice when there are lots of female sex workers and former sex workers out there who will talk about their experiences, including exploitation and violence, but also (and here also Elliot gets it wrong) the pleasure some experience doing sex work?
On the issue of trade unions, two points:
First, the TUC motion to support the criminalization of demand for prostitution was put forward by the Women’s Committee of the UCU, the academic union of which I am a member and which represents middle-class professionals, most of whom have little if any experience as workers in the sex industry. Middle- class professionals like academics and journalists have no more right to speak for ‘the exploited and the oppressed’ in the sex industry than do clients, ‘pimps’ or brothel owners.
Second, it’s no secret that the IUSW membership policy is controversial, including among members. It’s a shame that the union’s ongoing internal problems are distracting attention from the much more urgent issue of fighting for sex workers’ rights and against criminalization.
Carrie, congratulations on an excellent observation. Certainly I do speak as one person and therefore my opinions are obviously my personal views. I am however a male sex worker and therefore do speak I believe as far as anyone can for those male and trans sex workers who’s voice is ignored but who will be and are affected by criminalising consensual adult sexual behaviour. My partner also runs an agency and for ten years female escorts have been my friends and companions and so I feel because I am an escort myself and work with other escorts that I can represent at least an opinion on how they feel as workers and how they object to the distorted characterisation of them as people and workers given by people like Cath Elliott.
The argument to me seems to be how best to protect those who are genuinely exploited and trafficked and abused. All evidence suggests that criminalising any sector of society will result in alienation and abuse and will therefore attract criminals who will exploit that situation.
One could argue that middle class escorts and middle class journalists have no real idea of what life is like for those at the bottom of the heap as it were but like it or not it is those opposing camps who are best abled to defend their opinions and lobby for change. I personally wish that more voices of street sex workers etc did speak out but as we all know our political system is incapable of truly giving those voices the recognition they need.
And so the debate is this ridiculous split that really does little credit to either side and diminishes debate.
It would be good if this could be changed because caring for those who do not have a voice is not a preserve of the middy class even if they think it is.
Douglas
What’s a Tory like Douglas doing singing the praises of trade unions anyway? Enquiring minds want to know.
I can’t believe the suckers at the GMB are allowing themselves to be used like this. Trade unionists are supposed to be able to tell the difference between workers and employers whose business is selling women to pay for their townhouses in Gosforth.
|I am still a member of Amnesty and will be writing soon about Amnesty and certain people in Amnesty so keep your eyes peeled.”
I was working with Amnesty long before you were a pimp. I had to do the court cases after they left town. Word is, that you are not going to do any more podium things for them.
Are they dumping you?
Gregory
“Care to cite actual examples that back up these statements? ”
His Amnesty period is over, is what I am hearing.
Gregory
I meant Douglas Fox actually with the examples. But anyways:
I am however a male sex worker and therefore do speak I believe as far as anyone can for those male and trans sex workers who’s voice is ignored but who will be and are affected by criminalising consensual adult sexual behaviour.
So does male = trans now then? And is it impossible for males or trans people to be exploited?
“sparklematrix // May 22, 2009 at 10:08 pm
The girls employ my service, not the other way around. Hopefully, you mean ‘women’?”
Well when you are in the youngest girl on the books business, one can only ask.
Gregory
‘Douglas’s attitude to the cover story seemed to be one of weary exasperation. Of course they’re going to have sex, his expression said, but if we talked honestly about it I might be busted for immoral earnings and the police would have to waste time pushing working girls back on to the street. John’s denial, though, was much more interesting: an odd hybrid of legalistic game-playing and genuine psychological resistance to the notion that he was selling sex. It wasn’t that he didn’t know perfectly well what was going on (otherwise why squirm so uncomfortably about the headmaster who rang up requesting the youngest escort on the books to dress up as a schoolgirl?)’
“I completely agree the woman who are illegally trafficked and forced to work NEED protection. I respect anyone who is campaigning for this. Guess what? Difficult as it may be to believe Douglas is singing from the same song sheet.”
I’m a Gosforth person, I’ve been connected to the area for twenty years and I know all about Dougie boy.
So, that’s rubbish, Douglas tells anybody who will listen that the phenomena of trafficking is a moralist hoax.
“Sir: I am a sex worker and a sex manager. I run an agency and I work as a male escort and have done so for ten years. I have met hundreds of clients and represented hundreds of sex workers. I have never come across anyone who was coerced or trafficked.”
There you go
Gregory
dear polly styrene
why is it that you hate female sex workers so much that you want to persecute them?
is it simply because they are female and you believe women should’nt sell sex?
You haven’t answered my question Peter. What a surprise
“men should not exploit women”
“Why do you hate women?”
Arrange the following to form a well known phrase or saying
sequitur non
But just to remind you Peter, the question was:
I mean do you think maybe it’s possible Peter, that if men see women as a commodity they can buy, like a can of baked beans, it’s just a short step from there to rape?
Catherine Stephens (above) describes herself as a ‘sex worker organiser’ on her Guardian profile. (Or did, it’s been a while since I checked.) What does that involve?
Catherine Stephens (above) describes herself as a ’sex worker organiser’ on her Guardian profile. (Or did, it’s been a while since I checked.) What does that involve?
It means that she is a sex worker who listens to sex workers and facilitates those thousands of sex workers who feel intimidated or stigmatised or too criminalised to speak.
Perhaps you who hate sex workers so much should take advice from Cath Stevens and simply listen.
As a student and as a child I was told to listen and learn .it is such a shame so many refuse to do that these days.
Douglas
She “facilitates” them jo22. Duh!
It means that she is a sex worker who listens to sex workers and facilitates those thousands of sex workers who feel intimidated or stigmatised or too criminalised to speak.
So has the membership of the IUSW suddenly gone up then? Because it wasn’t thousands last time I checked…..
I hope everyone noticed that the “controversial blog” that peter schevt links to has a grand total of one post – dated March.
“could pontious pilate (who ordered the crucifiction) have been a swedish official and thus opposed to the idea of paid sex.”
(Commenter Barry says: “why would pp be swedish? i don’t think anyone knows where he was born.”)
🙂
*snort* but I think he was a Roman (according to google anyway). And it was all arranged by God. Doh!
You can be controversial with only one post anyway Maria, you’re such a cynic. Although those of us who *do* have controversial blogs tend not to boast. Or desperately seek readers.
“There are no followers yet.
Be the first!”
Awwww……
Kudos to you Maria for even clicking on the link, I didn’t dare.
“controversial blogs” scare me 🙂
Ah, but to be controversial, surely you have to have an actual readership. You can’t find yourself controversial. That would be mad. How would you ever get anything done? (That lone commenter Barry was merely confused, not controversed. ). I even googled for links to “punterpride” to find out where the controversy might be happening, but nothing doing.
Cath, I went to that “britishpunter” blog you linked to too – now that was squicky, being inside that guy’s head. Am highly amused that he calls himself “elrond” though. Elvish pretensions.
You can’t find yourself controversial. That would be mad.
You may have a point.
“As a student and as a child I was told to listen and learn .it is such a shame so many refuse to do that these days.”
And where did it get you?
You are a pimp and I seriously doubt if Amnesty will be looking forward to any more of your resolutions.
I can tell you this for nothing, there is no way Amnesty New Zealand, are going to be the expert consulting group, for a pro-prostitution agenda within Amnesty UK.
I don’t see medals and plaudits for you at Amnesty, did they write to you to ask that you drop the ‘Amnesty activist’ part of your IUSW gig?
I don’t think they are very happy with you Douglas.
Or so I’m told.
Gregory
I hate pimps. I really don’t care if they are also sex workers at the same time. If anything, a sex worker should know what kind of suffering they’re putting others through by ‘organising’ them. Some former sex workers would never dream of putting someone else through it. But I guess some people just like money.