'Money, not traffickers,' lures migrant sex staff

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
susan davis
'Money, not traffickers,' lures migrant sex staff

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10876977

'Money, not traffickers,' lures migrant sex staff
By Lincoln Tan
5:30 AM Friday Apr 12, 2013

Migrant prostitutes here are not victims of people trafficking and many are in the sex trade for the money, research on migrant sex workers in New Zealand has found.

However, one in six are breaking immigration law by working in the sex industry and 5 per cent cannot refuse clients and do not have easy access to their passports.

The findings by researchers Kaitiaki Research and Evaluation will be released by the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective this morning at the "Prevent People Trafficking" conference.

The study found 86 per cent of migrant sex workers in New Zealand came from Asia, and more than a third travelled here because they knew someone who lived here.

More than 60 per cent travelled here alone, 44 per cent came as tourists and more than a quarter hold the student visa.

A total of 124 migrant sex workers were interviewed for the study, which was conducted predominantly in Auckland.

Foreign prostitutes

57%: On student, work or visitor visa
86%: From Asia
26%: Came to New Zealand "to study"
35%: Knew someone living here
76%: Did sex work to pay household bills
5%: Could not refuse clients and did not have access to their passports

Source: Research on migrant sex workers in New Zealand

susan davis

i wonder if any abolitionists will respond to this study....

waittheysaidwhat

I'm a bit late, but I'll respond. Without taking a stand in the abolitionist/decriminalizing debate, though.

 

The part you left out of the article is:

 

"While the report's findings in respect to working conditions was positive, there were a number of concerns raised, including that 5 per cent of those interviewed stated their workplace did not allow them to refuse clients and that 5 per cent did not have easy access to their passports," Mr Elms said. "Unfortunately the survey did not clarify what was meant by not having easy access and so it is difficult to draw any conclusions based on this one factor alone."

The US State Department last year named New Zealand as a "source country" for sex trafficking of underaged forced labour, and said a small number of girls and boys were trafficked domestically as street prostitutes.

It said foreign women from China and Southeast Asia were recruited to become prostitutes and may be at risk of coercive practices.

AUT University researcher Danae Anderson said she was aware of cases where sex workers have had their passports taken by their employer.

"They were told they will be reported to immigration if they complained about their conditions," she said.

 

 

Also, I'm not really understanding how the statistics you posted about being on student visas or being Asian prove that there is no trafficking... Maybe you can explain it for me?

Jacob Two-Two

Anyone can be abused by an employer, especially if they came from another country to do a job. The question is, what resources are available to protect workers who are victimised in this way? For sex workers, hardly any. The only way to give them those resources is to bring the work out of the shadows and under regular labour laws.

susan davis

i only posted part of the article because that's babble policy. we're not allowed to repost an entire article without permission from the author.

it does not aim to prove there is NO trafficking, it proves that trafficking is not prolific as some would have us believe. yes it happens, no one is denying that. but 90% are NOT trafficked, the number is actually much smaller.

does this mean trafficking doesn't matter? no. it absolutly matters. but broad actions taken against all sex workers and targeting migrant sex workers as all being in need of rescue enables police violence against sex workers and displaces us when businesses are closed.....

so, the link was inended for people to read the whole article and i simply copied one section. take from the numbers and information contained in the article what you will.

many people try to say that "trafficking" increased in new zealand post decrim. i am trying demonstrate that it did not and that many migrant workers are simply trying to better their lives and so choose sex work as a way to support themselves and their families back home as is demonstrated by the facts in the article and as we have been told by migrant sex workers themselves.

being an illigal worker in a country carries inherent risk. not just for sex workers but construction workers, farm workers and domestic workers as was demonstrated by the trafficking case being heard in vancouver involving a woman whose passport was taken, was not allowed out,etc while working as a housekeeper for a rich couple in west vancouver.

targeting the sex industry as the only place trafficking occurs or conflating all sex work with human trafficking does nothing to support the safety of migrant workers, it just harms people working in the sex industry. so say the WHO, UNHIV/ AIDS and GAATW who are the leading authority on human tragfficking on the planet.

susan davis

here's a snip it from an article describing raids and the lack of any trafficking victims being present in the businesses....

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country.

The failure has been disclosed by a Guardian investigation which also suggests that the scale of and nature of sex trafficking into the UK has been exaggerated by politicians and media.

Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all.

While some prosecutions have been made, the Guardian investigation suggests the number of people who have been brought into the UK and forced against their will into prostitution is much smaller than claimed; and that the problem of trafficking is one of a cluster of factors which expose sex workers to coercion and exploitation.

Acting on the distorted information, the government has produced a bill, now moving through its final parliamentary phase, which itself has provoked an outcry from sex workers who complain that, instead of protecting them, it will expose them to extra danger.

susan davis

here's another one, follow the link for the full article;

http://www.irinnews.org/report/98689/analysis-sex-workers-bear-brunt-of-war-on-trafficking

“It's about seeing through the marketing of anti-prostitution agendas as anti-trafficking strategy,” Julie Ham, an associate of the Bangkok-based Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW), told IRIN.

“During negotiations of the UN Trafficking Protocol [to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children], states rejected including prostitution as a form of trafficking. Equating sex work with exploitation ignores that… and stalls anti-trafficking efforts.”

An example of this “marketing”, activists say, are “end-demand” programmes worldwide designed to punish people who pay for sex work, which have been criticized as an ineffective way to fight trafficking that has also harmed sex workers’ rights.

“`End demand’ initiatives are often either the product of punitive laws criminalizing sex work, or the approach used by those wishing to see punitive laws introduced. These laws do not reduce the scale of sex work, but they do make sex workers more vulnerable,” according to the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).

“The promotion of `end demand for prostitution' approaches as a strategy to counter trafficking is a clear example of this. When you break it down, it isn't about stopping trafficking so much as stopping sex work and packaging that idea in a more socially acceptable guise,” said Ham.

UNAIDS recommends “the strategic focus from reduction of demand for sex work to reduction of demand for unprotected paid sex” through empowerment of sex workers, which has been shown to reduce HIV risk for them and their clients.

susan davis

  

here's a report from empower thailand; it also describes the concerns shared by sex workers all over the world.

 http://www.empowerfoundation.org/sexy_file/Hit%20and%20Run%20%20RATSW%20Eng%20online.pdf

What we found: …………. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The impact of the Thai Suppression of Human Trafficking Act BE 2551 (2008),associated policies and practices on the human rights of sex workers in Thailand.

Our research did not set out to measure, prove or disprove the existence of human trafficking within the sex industry in Thailand. There is already a plethora of wildly contradictory reports on the subject. More significantly, as the leading sex worker organization working on the ground for the past 30 years, we already were well aware that human trafficking has been steadily disappearing from the sex industry in Thailand over the last 15 years.

Instead we set out to measure the impact of anti trafficking law and practices on the human rights of women who are accused of being trafficked and other women who are not trafficked, but severely affected by anti-trafficking measures.

The old days of all young girls forced to work in locked brothels are past. That is very old fashioned thinking. All we have now is a few teenagers who are where they should not be.

Anti HumanTrafficking Division 4

We have now reached a point in history where there are more women in the Thai sex industry who are being abused by anti-trafficking practices than there are women being exploited by traffickers.

It is recognized internationally that anti-trafficking law, policy and practice should adhere to core human rights principles and at the very least do no harm to victims or others who might be caught up in trafficking interventions.

Despite this principle our research has shown that since the enactment of the Thai Suppression of Human Trafficking Act BE 2551, July 2008, dozens of the fundamental human rights to women are violated by its implementation. These violations have been perpetrated by both State and non-state actors against migrant sex workers, as well as women who were classified as victims of trafficking. Our findings revealed that these violations are embedded in the interpretations or practices of 10 sections of the Suppression of Human Trafficking Act, they occur regularly and are nationwide.

There is also abuse by omission where certain human rights protections and entitlements that are stipulated under the Suppression of Human Trafficking Act are not being met by either State or NGO agencies. Furthermore some elements of anti – trafficking practice in Thailand are in breach of other national laws, such as the Witness Protection Act 2003 and various protections in the Thai Penal Code.

 

waittheysaidwhat

I definitely agree that any anti-trafficking policies should not infringe on the rights of sex workers or women in general. For sure. 

 

I was pointing out the major flaws with the article you first posted. I read it carefully, and all I could see was that it said "Migrant prostitutes here are not victims of people trafficking" but then posted unrelated statistics, like how 60% travelled alone, and 86% are Asian. It may not be the best article to use as a supporting argument.

 

I don't think I will get into the rest of the discussion about trafficking and how it relates to end demand programs here and now. I'm a bit uncomfortable with what appears to be eagerness to deny the extent of the trafficking problem in order to fight end demand ideology.

 

You posted some useful links here that I have read, and I will take that information along with the other research I have done about how serious and wide-spread human trafficking is. Thanks!

quizzical

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Anyone can be abused by an employer, especially if they came from another country to do a job. The question is, what resources are available to protect workers who are victimised in this way? For sex workers, hardly any. The only way to give them those resources is to bring the work out of the shadows and under regular labour laws.

uh.... theres lots of links  in threads on this showing decrim or legalization doesn't stop or lessen trafficking at all. trafficking has INCREASED in every country where it's legal. and there's info showing there's been no change in working conditions for those now legal other than prices have hit rock bottom 'cause of the influx of both trafficked women and women seeking a better life and not finding one. and this is where it was done to allegedly to help "women" from being exploited and abused

insisting labour laws will help in the face of huge amounts of info to the contrary is pretty strange to me. canada is not somehow going to be "special" and have it work here. we already have trafficked women and girls for pete's sake.

if prostitution is illegal then there's no question as to whether women and girls are being trafficked or not, the way there is when it is and no one bothers to check.

 

Bacchus

Prostitution is in fact legal in canada.

 

What makes it dangerous is that soliciitation in public is illegal, as is having anyone help you do it in a residence (even if its just protection) or having more than one of you in a place.

 

We would have to make prostitution illegal first which will never happen

So what does that leave?

quizzical

ya i know it's 'legal' and john's and pimps 'illegal'.  does treating me like i don't know anything even though you know i do make you feel better?

 

Bacchus

Well when you talk like you don't, what am I to assume?

 

And johns are not illegal either actually, just soliciting in public by john or prostitute

 

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

i wonder if any abolitionists will respond to this study....

 

And here I was thinking you didn't want to hear from us!  Now that I understand that I am welcome in the Sex Worker Forum I will happily participate.

As far as I know progressives/unions are against unrestricted migration because it undermines current workers by driving down wages.  We don't blame the migrants themselves as they are usually poor. We blame the people who hire or facilitate them.  We want to shut down the businesses, make it unprofitable to hire illegal workers so they won't be incentivized to come to Canada in the first place. This is similar to the opposition to temporary worker programs. The principle is not restricted to the sex industry. Uncontrolled migration is a neoliberal wet-dream.

This is not to be confused with being anti-immigrant or anti-refugee.  Rather, we need to be fair to immigrants who line up to come to Canada and to refugees fleeing persecution.

"In it for the money" means they are economic migrants not refugees. 

onlinediscountanvils

Pondering wrote:
As far as I know progressives/unions are against unrestricted migration because it undermines current workers by driving down wages.

That's not true of most progressives that I've known and organized with.

No One Is Illegal - Vancouver:

In light of the unfettered freedom afforded to capital and armies across otherwise fortified borders, people should be free to move whether due to persecution, poverty, or simply in order to flourish with dignity. People also have the inherent right to return to the lands of which they have been unjustly dispossessed.

 

Pondering wrote:
Uncontrolled migration is a neoliberal wet-dream.

I guess their ever-tightening restrictions on refugees and migrants are just an elaborate ruse? Actually, the neoliberal dream is to allow capital to move freely across borders, while keeping populations trapped within. It's harder to exploit people if they can't be compelled to accept the worst pay and working conditions simply because of where they happened to be born.

susan davis

i understand this and as a person whose wages have been undermined and whose jobs are being stolen, i agree that unfetered migration is a problem...

that said, the GAATW report that sex workers who are working illegally in foreign countires and who are caught in "rescue raids", then are jailed and then deported are sometimes thorwn in prison immdiately upon arrival in their home country; here's an example...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/world/asia/for-prostitutes-in-china-jail-with-no-recourse.html?src=recg

or are sometimes executed . read here http://www.gaatw.org/

this presents a difficult question. do we oppose undermining of our wages and loss of jobs in spite of knowing what happens to some migrants who are deported?

as an advocate, i cannot ignore the things endured by this community of workers. in vancouver a series of raids caused them ti go further underground. they would not call police for fear of deportation, forced labour and possible execution. a series or robberies commited by a group of cowards ended with the murder of a security guy who was defending the lives of the women who were working there. 3 members of that community were murdered that year.

this is the cost of viewing these issues through the "canadian jobs lense" and of raid and rescue approaches.

i wish we could have a way fro them to work legally. this way we could ensure they have access to resources and supports should they need them.

it struck me that the scandanavian approaches- because there isn't simply 1 model used by all- are all quite centered on preventing migrants from coming into their countires.

with countires disappearing beneath the oceans as a result of global warming, i feel we should be opening up our borders more, not closing them. its hard to see the tightening border protocols when so many are simply seeking to start a new life in canada. how easy is it to go through the legal channels if you are poor, have no computer access and live in a third world nation?

how can we discuss canadian jobs and wages when so many are suffering? i feel the impact of it. i am poor. but i can't understand comprimising compassion and goodwill will help humanity in the long run. shouldn't we reach out and try to help as many as possible?

just a little sunday morning reflection...

susie

Pondering

onlinediscountanvils wrote:
I guess their ever-tightening restrictions on refugees and migrants are just an elaborate ruse? Actually, the neoliberal dream is to allow capital to move freely across borders, while keeping populations trapped within. It's harder to exploit people if they can't be compelled to accept the worst pay and working conditions simply because of where they happened to be born.

That philosophy is anarchist not progressive socialist/union.  The only reason restrictions are tightening on the temporary worker program is because of the outcry over the 200 mandarin speaking miners. Canadian miners were given the shaft and they objected. Neoliberals don't want refugees because they are a drain on the system. Neoliberals do want migrant labor coming in because they depress wages and can be easily exploited.  The sex industry is no exception.

The presence of thousands of brothels and hundreds of thousands of prostitutes has heightened competition and pushed prices down steeply in the German sex trade. One tourist from Florida, who visits the country three times annually to pay for cheap sex, compares the scene to a discount supermarket: “Germany is like Aldi for prostitutes,” he says.

Read more: Germany Has Become the Cut-Rate Prostitution Capital of the World | TIME.comhttp://business.time.com/2013/06/18/germany-has-become-the-cut-rate-prostitution-capital-of-the-world/#ixzz2nt43cU4n

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html

 The brothel specialized in flat-rate sex. For €100 ($129), a customer could have sex for as long and as often as he wanted.

Or how about this?

Pasted from <http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533-2.html>

When the Pussy Club opened near Stuttgart in 2009, the management advertised the club as follows: "Sex with all women as long as you want, as often as you want and the way you want. Sex. Anal sex. Oral sex without a condom. Three-ways. Group sex. Gang bangs." The price: €70 during the day and €100 in the evening.

According to the police, about 1,700 customers took advantage of the offer on the opening weekend. Buses arrived from far away and local newspapers reported that up to 700 men stood in line outside the brothel. Afterwards, customers wrote in Internet chat rooms about the supposedly unsatisfactory service, complaining that the women were no longer as fit for use after a few hours.

I do not want Canada to be the kind of country in which women are treated like that.

susan davis

all you can do is quote the same new articles over and over. its not an arguement pondering. unless you believe everything in the media is true....

9 supreme court justices do not agree with you.

canada had legalization already, just like germany. it failed we want DECRIM!! and have it for now. its not LEGALIZATION.....as you keep saying...i am unsure if you do it on purpose to frustrate me or just are slow getting it....DECRIM...not LEGALIZATION...

nordic model is legalization...legalizing sellers...criminalizing buyers....

i am enjoying your renewed attacks on everything i write however. its really depressing. i really am feeling the bite of your hatred. hope that makes you happy. i am completely exhausted from the circle you take this in every time....twisting the facts, using misleading data, confusing the issue....

clearly you would like to see me give in...submit to your ideas....morality....ideology...." i give in!! i repent!! i am ready to be punished for my choices!! i am greatful for my toilette scrubbing job!! thankyou for showing me what a horrible person i have been!"

it won't happen but i have to say, i am drained by your constant nit picking. its really hard on me.

oh well, who cares right? as long as you can spout your rhetoric and crush the dreams of sex workers in the fight to abolish us...

i wonder how much time i have spent dealing with this kind of crap on babble.....don't worry about it...you keep on going...the blind faithful...ugh....

 

onlinediscountanvils

Pondering wrote:
onlinediscountanvils wrote:
I guess their ever-tightening restrictions on refugees and migrants are just an elaborate ruse? Actually, the neoliberal dream is to allow capital to move freely across borders, while keeping populations trapped within. It's harder to exploit people if they can't be compelled to accept the worst pay and working conditions simply because of where they happened to be born.

That philosophy is anarchist not progressive socialist/union.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Anarchism is a branch within socialism, and has a deep, ongoing history with unions and labour.

 

Pondering wrote:
The only reason restrictions are tightening on the temporary worker program is because of the outcry over the 200 mandarin speaking miners.

Canada's attack on migrants certainly didn't begin with the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. And it's not just a Canadian phenomenon. Crackdowns on migrants are a hallmark of neoliberal goverments all around the world.

 

Pondering wrote:
Neoliberals do want migrant labor coming in because they depress wages and can be easily exploited.

I thought you said "uncontrolled migration". Migrants aren't inherently exploitable. They're only made exploitable by the ways the laws are set up. Neoliberals don't want free movement of people across borders. They only want the people who they can exploit.

Pondering

Canada has a population of about 35 million.  Bangladesh, which is one of the countries that will be hit hardest by global warming is about 150 million people, China, 1.3 Billion.  Even Mexico has 120 million people.  Our population is miniscule compared to the millions that would love to come to Canada.

The problem with just being kind and letting migrants stay is that it encourages people smuggling. Boatloads of people die trying to escape the countries they are in. If we say "set foot in Canada and you can stay" we would be completely outnumbered in no time and boatloads would still be sinking off our shores. Canada would collapse.

Canada is generous in the number of immigrants and refugees we accept. There are 11 islands set to be underwater. http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10?op=1#ixzz2pbHy9NTl.  I would be happy to relocate entire island populations to Canada.

It's not fair to allow some people to sneak in ahead of the line when there are families that want reunification and immigrants who waited for years and refugees in camps and victims whose human rights have been breached.

susan davis wrote:
how easy is it to go through the legal channels if you are poor, have no computer access and live in a third world nation?

The migrants that make it here have to be rich enough to buy plane tickets or hire smugglers. They use their life savings to get here but that brings us right back to the same problem. We can't let people stay on the basis of who manages to defeat our border controls because that just encourages more to come.  China is a communist country. Everyone who steps out of line is abused. Between sex workers and persecuted political activists I'd rather give asylum to the activists or people being persecuted due to race or sexual orientation, something they can't change.

susan davis wrote:
this presents a difficult question. do we oppose undermining of our wages and loss of jobs in spite of knowing what happens to some migrants who are deported?

That is why they are allowed to make refugee applications. If they are choosing to break the laws of their respective countries after they return it is not Canada's responsibility.

susan davis wrote:
i wish we could have a way fro them to work legally.

There is a way. It's called immigration and refugee applications.

susan davis wrote:
it struck me that the scandanavian approaches- because there isn't simply 1 model used by all- are all quite centered on preventing migrants from coming into their countires.

Countries don't want to be overrun with desperate foreign women willing (or wanting) to work as prostitutes. Legalization encourages illegal migrants and smugglers beyond what police can control.  That is what happened in Amsterdam and everywhere else that legalizes. So yes, the laws are intended to discourage illegal migration.

susan davis wrote:
i feel the impact of it. i am poor.

So much for sex work as a solution to poverty.

susan davis wrote:
 but i can't understand comprimising compassion and goodwill will help humanity in the long run. shouldn't we reach out and try to help as many as possible?

Yes we should, and we do. Encouraging people to risk their lives to reach Canadian soil is not showing compassion or good will or helping humanity in the long run. Having intelligent controlled immigration and refugee policies is being compassionate and helping humanity in the long run. Becoming another China might help some individuals but it would make the world a more backward place. No social democracy can survive uncontrolled immigration.  We can't give everyone who lands on our shores the right to immigrate if we want to survive as a country.  I do feel terrible for the women caught up in raids that just came here for a better life. Just not enough to give others the motivation to risk their lives on decrepit boats to play a Canadian citizenship lottery.

When we know individuals our natural instinct as human beings is to try to help them. Unfortunately sometimes helping individuals harms groups of people, who are also individuals even if we don't know them personally.

P.S.

susan davis wrote:
how can we discuss canadian jobs and wages when so many are suffering?

I hoped someone else would tackle this question as I am sure other people could do a better job of explaining it than I would. I also think this is straying wildly off topic, but the question should certainly be addressed.

Pondering

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Anarchism is a branch within socialism, and has a deep, ongoing history with unions and labour.

..................

Canada's attack on migrants certainly didn't begin with the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. And it's not just a Canadian phenomenon. Crackdowns on migrants are a hallmark of neoliberal goverments all around the world.

I thought you said "uncontrolled migration". Migrants aren't inherently exploitable. They're only made exploitable by the ways the laws are set up. Neoliberals don't want free movement of people across borders. They only want the people who they can exploit

I have only a shallow understanding of all these various theories. I learned anarchism from Occupy. They didn't run like unions. Not even a tiny bit.

The Temporary Worker Program isn't an attack on migrants. It invites them in but doesn't track them leaving so if they choose to they can stay and become cheap labor.

Unlimited migration means no social programs.

Pondering

No, quotes are not arguments, they are used to build arguments. I certainly don't believe everything in the media is true,  even less so on message boards. That is why we have to use critical thinking skills and use our judgement to decide what we do and don't find plausible. For example, I don't find you very plausible.

susan davis wrote:
9 supreme court justices do not agree with you. 
Catchy but not true. I agree with the judges. The laws were poorly written and out-dated. Now they will be replaced.
susan davis wrote:
i am unsure if you do it on purpose to frustrate me or just are slow getting it....DECRIM...not LEGALIZATION...

Everyone doesn't have to agree with your silly definitions of decriminalization and legalization. It's six of one half dozen of the other.  Once something is decriminalized it becomes legal, hence, it is legalized.

susan davis wrote:
i am enjoying your renewed attacks on everything i write however. its really depressing.   

I started threads that you responded to so you are the one attacking everything I write and me directly.  In other threads you denigrated abolitionists which gives me the right of defense. If you don't like it, don't attack me or what I write.

susan davis wrote:
i really am feeling the bite of your hatred. hope that makes you happy.

I don't hate you susan so the bite of hatred you are feeling is your own, unless you are just being dramatic.

susan davis wrote:
i am completely exhausted from the circle you take this in every time....twisting the facts, using misleading data, confusing the issue....

I haven't done any of those things.  I would much prefer to isolate a single argument in a single thread.  That way when someone's argument isn't standing up they can't just change the subject to confuse the issue creating the circular motion you mentioned. I haven't used any misleading data or twisted any facts either. If I had you could point out specific examples which we could then discuss, but no doubt you would soon change the subject before it could be resolved. "Confusing the issue" is your modus operandi.

susan davis wrote:
clearly you would like to see me give in...submit to your ideas....morality....ideology....

That will never happen. We have different interests. I want to protect women from violence and degradation. You want to grow the sex industry. I don't think we are going to agree on much of anything.

susan davis wrote:
..." i give in!! i repent!! i am ready to be punished for my choices!!

Not my thing, tell Terri-Jean Bedford.

susan davis wrote:
i am greatful for my toilette scrubbing job!!  

I'm sorry that sex work and toilette scrubbing are your only two choices.  Maybe you should save some of the big bucks you are making from sex work for job-retraining next year.

susan davis wrote:
  thankyou for showing me what a horrible person i have been!"

I'm sorry you have been a horrible person. That must be very hard to live with. You can learn to be nicer.

susan davis wrote:
 but i have to say, i am drained by your constant nit picking. its really hard on me.

Awwwwwwww, sorry I'm not willing to sacrifice the lives of women to make you feel better.

susan davis wrote:
as long as you can spout your rhetoric and crush the dreams of sex workers in the fight to abolish us...

In this battle it is better not to use rhetoric but rather to present the information as clearly and factually as possible in order to defeat your rhetoric which is mainly constructed from emotional and inflammatory speeches as well as trying to piggyback off of gay and abortion rights as though a job compares to those issues. 

susan davis wrote:
i wonder how much time i have spent dealing with this kind of crap on babble.....don't worry about it...you keep on going...the blind faithful...ugh....

I am the one dealing with your crap and you are trying to blind people with your "woe is me" victim routine to keep them faithful.  If a thread gets too informative you have a temper tantrum to distract attention. It's very transparent.

susan davis

whatever pondering. you can be blind to my experiences , you can deny all you want. i pay my rent with sex work. i didnt say it was a key to the golden city...wtf...i can't even read your posts anymore. you disected this one as well, line by line....you ahve to be one of the rudest and most condesending people i've met in a while....

and i am not a victm, i am simply stating the emotional physical toll that abolitonist rhetoric circles take on me...i've been working at this for 10 years....as a sex worker for 28 years,,,,do you not hear yourselves...abolitionists i mean...what the hell...

thanks fer showin up

susan davis

also, i liked how any refugee or migrant who is NOT a sex worker is welcome....i thought you were worried about the trafficking victims...the asian sex workers....what should i think about your double speak...? your total 180 on these issues...? first you want to save the migrant sex workers who must be trafficked and now you want anyone but them allowed into the country? how do you reconcile the ridiculous things you are saying....

i am at a loss...as i said...its extremely depressing and totally emotionally draining to deal with blindly faithful zealots.....where's your facts?

eh" you state it as if you have any...you don't...show me one fact by a non debunked researcher...not a news paper article.....what...? nothing...?

shocker

MegB

Okay Pondering, you've managd to offend just about everyone here, on a variety of levels and on numerous issues. You are no longer welcome to post in this forum.

fortunate

Does everyone know about the legal status farm workers in BC?   I'm curious because a lot of things are assumed about foreign speaking sex workers, either with legal status (to work) or not, but i am not seeing a direct example of actual exploitive employer/employee relationship that exist in other fields.

 

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/18015849.html

 

 

fortunate

Another interesting story, this one about teens in sex work in New York City.   

This is an OLD story, 2011, and yet I rarely see anyone acknowledging this research when talking about at risk youth child sex workers lured and girls lured into the sex trade.  Mostly because it contradicts everything abolitionists want you to believe about sex work.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-11-02/news/commercial-sexual-exploitation-o...

 

Lost Boys: New Research Demolishes the Stereotype of the Underage Sex Worker

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the only agency that keeps track of how many children the legal system rescues from pimps nationwide. The count, which began in June 2003, now exceeds 1,600 as of April of this year, according to the FBI's Innocence Lost website — an average of about 200 each year.

........

[Initially] there were a lot of people enthusiastic in Washington that we found such a large number," he recounts. "Then they look more closely at my findings. And they see, well, it wasn't 300 kids under the yoke of some pimp, in fact, it was half boys, and only 10 percent of all of the kids were being pimped. And [then] it was a very different reception."

 

..........

Nearly half of the kids — about 45 percent— were boys.

• Only 10 percent were involved with a "market facilitator" (e.g., a pimp).

• About 45 percent got into the "business" through friends.

• More than 90 percent were U.S.-born (56 percent were New York City natives).

• On average, they started hooking at age 15.

• Most serviced men — preferably white and wealthy.

• Most deals were struck on the street.

• Almost 70 percent of the kids said they'd sought assistance at a youth-service agency at least once.

• Nearly all of the youths — 95 percent — said they exchanged sex for money because it was the surest way to support themselves.

In other words, the typical kid who is commercially exploited for sex in New York City is not a tween girl, has not been sold into sexual slavery and is not held captive by a pimp.

Nearly all the boys and girls involved in the city's sex trade are going it alone.

......................

 

To calculate their population estimate, the John Jay team first culled the interview subjects who didn't fit the study's criteria but had been included for the potential referrals they could generate. The next step was to tally the number of times the remaining 249 subjects had been arrested for prostitution and compare that to the total number of juvenile prostitution arrests in state law-enforcement records. Using a mathematical algorithm often employed in biological and social-science studies, Curtis and his crew were able to estimate that 3,946 youths were hooking in New York.

David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, calls the New York study significant, in that it "makes the big [national] numbers that people put out — like a million kids, or 500,000 kids — unlikely."

 

........

 

 

 

 

 

onlinediscountanvils

Quote:
Uncontrolled migration is a neoliberal wet-dream.

[url=http://www.solidarityacrossborders.org/en/solidarity-city/solidarity-cit... work, migration and anti-trafficking: an interview with Nandita Sharma[/url]

The key issue is to understand why, over the last decade, national governments around the world have been pushed to pass anti-trafficking legislation. There is increased migration in the world today, largely resulting from practices of dispossession and displacement through political and economic crises and war. And yet, alongside increased migration, most states – especially in the so-called “First World” – have implemented restrictive policies that prevent more and more people from entering these states legally. The result is that most people who enter these states are considered to have “illegal” status.

Anti-trafficking legislation is used to target so-called “illegal migration.” Instead of placing the blame for migrants’ vulnerability on the restrictive immigration policies of national states that force people into a condition of illegality, it blames those who are actually facilitating their movement across borders. In today’s world, where it is increasingly difficult to enter First World states legally, it is also next to impossible to enter without someone’s help. It’s impossible to simply get on a plane, get on a boat, get into a car, or walk across the border, without some kind of official identity papers. It’s very difficult to get forged visas or forged passports, and to cross without someone helping you across that border. For many of the world’s migrants, the urgent need is assistance with their movement. Anti-trafficking legislation criminalizes people who facilitate migrants’ entry into national states. I think this is the underlying agenda behind anti-trafficking legislation. It offers ideological cover to target both the migrants themselves and the people who facilitate their movement. In this way, anti-trafficking legislation strengthens border policing.

 

I think that we need to take our cue from sex workers themselves. Sex worker organizations are very clear on the steps needed to ensure safe, dignified, decent working conditions for women in the sex industry. At the top of the list is decriminalization. The anti-trafficking agenda moves in exactly the opposite direction. It actually further criminalizes sex work by targeting those people, especially in the case of migrants, who are facilitating women’s entry into sex work. Basically, there is a fundamental disagreement between those who want to end sex work and those who want to make sex work safer for women. The fundamental disagreement is whether or not women have the right to engage in sex work. Most people in the anti-trafficking camp believe that there is no way that women can ever engage in sex work without being fundamentally exploited. I disagree with that, as do most sex workers’ organizations. Most of them point out that sex work can be made safer, can be made more dignified – and the way to do that is to stop demonizing those who are engaged in it. Along with decriminalizing sex work, we can support union organizing within the sex industry. This is exactly what some sex workers’ organizations in India, Bangladesh, San Francisco, and elsewhere have attempted. We need to understand sex work as one of the options available to women in a capitalist economy. We need to work, and sex work is a viable option for many women.

Ultimately, if we want to end the exploitation of women, we need to challenge capitalism, which is the basis for all of our exploitation. Whether we’re working in the sex industry, a restaurant, or in a university, we’re being exploited by those who are benefitting from our labour. So, if we want to end exploitation, we don’t give more power to the state to criminalize workers, we give more power to workers to end their exploitation. Of course, being a university professor is not demonized like sex work is. So we also need a major attitude adjustment. Feminists have long been demanding freedom for women, including control over their own bodies and sexuality. Supporting women in the sex industry and recognizing them as part of the broader collective of workers is part of this struggle.

mark_alfred

fortunate wrote:

Does everyone know about the legal status farm workers in BC?   I'm curious because a lot of things are assumed about foreign speaking sex workers, either with legal status (to work) or not, but i am not seeing a direct example of actual exploitive employer/employee relationship that exist in other fields.

 

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/18015849.html

There might be some information here:

http://www.justicia4migrantworkers.org/bc/index.htm

I haven't had much contact with the justice for migrant workers group, but I did go to see a human rights trial concerning Ned Livingston Peart in Toronto and attend a rally.  

The justice for migrant workers is a great group.  I met Chris Ramsaroop, who is a volunteer with the organization.  Great guy.

Bärlüer

Great quote/interview, onlinediscountanvils. Essential reading IMO.

Brachina

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Anyone can be abused by an employer, especially if they came from another country to do a job. The question is, what resources are available to protect workers who are victimised in this way? For sex workers, hardly any. The only way to give them those resources is to bring the work out of the shadows and under regular labour laws.

 

 This comment reminds me of of the Temporary Firgien workers program in Canada.

 

 The people of NZ need to help that 5% of course, but 5% of sex workers is not the epidemic that the Rescue Industry makes it out to be.

 

quizzical

sex work doesn't equal control over one's body or sexuality. it's a lie.

susan davis

what does that have to do with the topic being discussed here quizzical? that is your opinion. for some of us it does equal control over our bodies and sexuality.

this kind of poke at our lives is why i know you simply don't like sex workers and want to somehow punish us for way we live. 

 

quizzical

susan i'm sorry i should've quoted what i was responding to and  i see you could've thought it was a poke. it wasn't. i was responding to the second to last sentence below.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Quote:
Uncontrolled migration is a neoliberal wet-dream.

[url=http://www.solidarityacrossborders.org/en/solidarity-city/solidarity-cit... work, migration and anti-trafficking: an interview with Nandita Sharma[/url]

Feminists have long been demanding freedom for women, including control over their own bodies and sexuality. Supporting women in the sex industry and recognizing them as part of the broader collective of workers is part of this struggle.

fortunate

quizzical wrote:

susan i'm sorry i should've quoted what i was responding to and  i see you could've thought it was a poke. it wasn't. i was responding to the second to last sentence below.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Quote:
Uncontrolled migration is a neoliberal wet-dream.

[url=http://www.solidarityacrossborders.org/en/solidarity-city/solidarity-cit... work, migration and anti-trafficking: an interview with Nandita Sharma[/url]

Feminists have long been demanding freedom for women, including control over their own bodies and sexuality. Supporting women in the sex industry and recognizing them as part of the broader collective of workers is part of this struggle.

 

 

And on that note, this http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/feminist-current/2014/01/woman-hating-an...  caught my eye today on the main page of rabble.   

 

Just a blog that sums up the topic this way:

 

Glosswitch coined the term "misogofeminists" to describe "women (and allies) whose primary form of feminist activism is trashing other women." And along those lines I'd like to point out what should be obvious, but seems not to be these days: if your "activism" consists primarily of witch hunts and concerted, vicious efforts to silence women, you are doing misogyny, not feminism.

quizzical

ya...I read the blog post this morning and realized I had felt viciously silenced at times during the debate on this!

fortunate

quizzical wrote:

ya...I read the blog post this morning and realized I had felt viciously silenced at times during the debate on this!

 

 

oh, the irony.....   

quizzical

no...not really people should take the log out of their own eye before they start pointing at others......

fortunate

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Quote:
Uncontrolled migration is a neoliberal wet-dream.

[url=http://www.solidarityacrossborders.org/en/solidarity-city/solidarity-cit... work, migration and anti-trafficking: an interview with Nandita Sharma[/url]

The key issue is to understand why, over the last decade, national governments around the world have been pushed to pass anti-trafficking legislation. There is increased migration in the world today, largely resulting from practices of dispossession and displacement through political and economic crises and war. And yet, alongside increased migration, most states – especially in the so-called “First World” – have implemented restrictive policies that prevent more and more people from entering these states legally. The result is that most people who enter these states are considered to have “illegal” status.

Anti-trafficking legislation is used to target so-called “illegal migration.” Instead of placing the blame for migrants’ vulnerability on the restrictive immigration policies of national states that force people into a condition of illegality, it blames those who are actually facilitating their movement across borders. In today’s world, where it is increasingly difficult to enter First World states legally, it is also next to impossible to enter without someone’s help. It’s impossible to simply get on a plane, get on a boat, get into a car, or walk across the border, without some kind of official identity papers. It’s very difficult to get forged visas or forged passports, and to cross without someone helping you across that border. For many of the world’s migrants, the urgent need is assistance with their movement. Anti-trafficking legislation criminalizes people who facilitate migrants’ entry into national states. I think this is the underlying agenda behind anti-trafficking legislation. It offers ideological cover to target both the migrants themselves and the people who facilitate their movement. In this way, anti-trafficking legislation strengthens border policing.

 

I think that we need to take our cue from sex workers themselves. Sex worker organizations are very clear on the steps needed to ensure safe, dignified, decent working conditions for women in the sex industry. At the top of the list is decriminalization. The anti-trafficking agenda moves in exactly the opposite direction. It actually further criminalizes sex work by targeting those people, especially in the case of migrants, who are facilitating women’s entry into sex work. Basically, there is a fundamental disagreement between those who want to end sex work and those who want to make sex work safer for women. The fundamental disagreement is whether or not women have the right to engage in sex work. Most people in the anti-trafficking camp believe that there is no way that women can ever engage in sex work without being fundamentally exploited. I disagree with that, as do most sex workers’ organizations. Most of them point out that sex work can be made safer, can be made more dignified – and the way to do that is to stop demonizing those who are engaged in it. Along with decriminalizing sex work, we can support union organizing within the sex industry. This is exactly what some sex workers’ organizations in India, Bangladesh, San Francisco, and elsewhere have attempted. We need to understand sex work as one of the options available to women in a capitalist economy. We need to work, and sex work is a viable option for many women.

Ultimately, if we want to end the exploitation of women, we need to challenge capitalism, which is the basis for all of our exploitation. Whether we’re working in the sex industry, a restaurant, or in a university, we’re being exploited by those who are benefitting from our labour. So, if we want to end exploitation, we don’t give more power to the state to criminalize workers, we give more power to workers to end their exploitation. Of course, being a university professor is not demonized like sex work is. So we also need a major attitude adjustment. Feminists have long been demanding freedom for women, including control over their own bodies and sexuality. Supporting women in the sex industry and recognizing them as part of the broader collective of workers is part of this struggle.

 

 

 

I think an on topic comment here might be that the majority, if not all, of the foreign sex workers coming to Canada are here for a short time only.  3 month to 6 month, the duration of their return flight ticket, the duration of a typical student or work visa.   They go home for a month, more, or never come back.   These are not normally people who come over, get a job in some other type of underground industry, and never go home again.    Mostly they are here to make a lot of money (compared to doing anything else, including sex work, in Asia), to send money home, to invest in a business or buy a house, or whatever.   They are rarely the same category of someone trying to live and work and remain in Canada forever.   

 

Plus because they are working, albeit illegally, they are not a burden on Canadian tax payers (unless they get caught and get deported.  They are rarely charged with anything, unless they are in the management position, just sent home).  

 

This has a pretty good summation of what's out there.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_sex_work     A lot of the problems associated with migrant workers is that even in countries where prostitution is legal and regulated, they still do not provide work visas for foreign sex workers.   The sex workers enter the country anyway, and then work illegally.  This puts them in a more vulnerable position, as compared to their legal counterparts.   this would be true of any industry and any worker of course.   

quizzical
fortunate

 

Already been debunked, link posted elsewhere from an actual group that actually studies and reports on stuff like trafficking.   

 

http://www.gaatw.org/publications/WhatstheCostofaRumour.11.15.2011.pdf

 

Oh, and GAATW, btw, is The Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW) is an Alliance of  more than 100 non-governmental organisations from Africa, Asia, Europe, LAC and North America. The GAATW Secretariat is based in Bangkok, Thailand and co-ordinates the activities of the Alliance, collects and disseeminates information, advocates on behalf of the Alliance at regional and international levels.

 

I guarantee you there will not be one story after this event that will support the claims and hysteria that comes before the event.   

 

Feel free to send the link to katie, it was written and intended for  

Audiences that are interested in anti-trafficking issues:• Media• Government representatives• General public• Local officials, city planners• Law enforcement• Civil society, including anti-trafficking organisations and sex workers rights organisationsSporting_Events_

What their research concluded:

LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE

• Trafficking is not the same thing as sex work. There is a difference between womentrafficked into prostitution and sex workers who migrate to other countries for work.

• Prostitution abolitionists have argued that large groups of men at sporting events result inincreased demand for commercial sex, and that this demand is supposedly met through trafficking women. Anti-trafficking organisations, sex workers rights organisations and other stakeholders have strongly refuted this claim

.• There is a very wide discrepancy between claims that are made prior to large sportingevents and the actual number of trafficking cases found. There is no evidence that large sporting events cause an increase in trafficking for prostitution.

 

 

fortunate

My issue with this kind of hysterical claims, that law enforcement is so busy chopping down the trees, they are missing the birds in the nests.   There are people who are unwilling, coerced, underage, etc.   But this one size fits all massive approach means that valuable time is spent hassling the willing workers, takes away time that should be used investigating others.   There are usually big red flags in advertising that only the most obtuse could miss, as a signal for who LE should be looking into first.

 

Ottawa police spent several days and 16 officers to investigate 29 sex workers, and a half a dozen spas.    There were no underage workers found, no coerced or forced workers found, the youngest they interrogated was 19!   They saw no evidence of anything illegal (other than providing incalls) and they used 4 male police officers for each visit to the single female alone who had to open the door and let them in, all a huge waste of resources and time for her to say, I'm fine, go away, you just cost me $$ by pretending to be a client, and now wasting my time.   

One was actually threatened because she refused to agree to let them look behind closed doors (closet, bedroom) and asked for them to show their badges and provide a business card for her to contact their superiors (also refused, they wrote a number on a piece of paper, no name)

They chose to see sex workers who advertised in a way and posted on forums in a way that clearly showed they were working for a long time, were of age (age 19 and up, after all), and were obviously not ESL, foreigners.   They chose not to visit any ads that indicated foreign born background, advertised age of 19 or 18, which is usually a sign of underagers,  hours of 24/7 (which is usually a sign of coercion or some sort of duress, even financial), and ignore the ads where there was no other online presence or advertising, or website, or any degree of professional marketing expertise.     

Of course they didn't find anything in Ottawa, they weren't hardly trying.   Even in other cities, all combined, they managed to find one 15 year old, and one 18 year old (legal age btw) but the police claim she was being forced, even tho she denied it, i assume because she had a boyfriend on site.     This was in over 2 dozen different cities across Canada, and this was specifically an initiative about trafficking.    

A conspiracy theorist would say that Ottawa police deliberately chose to find sex workers of that sort in order to prove that the laws overturned by the SCC were not necessary because the majority of sex workers are of age and willing, and the other laws available are more than adequate to deal with the exceptions.   

onlinediscountanvils

fortunate wrote:

Already been debunked, link posted elsewhere from an actual group that actually studies and reports on stuff like trafficking.

">http://www.gaatw.org/publications/WhatstheCostofaRumour.11.15.2011.pdf[/...

 

Yeah, seriously. This story is like a bad penny that keeps turning up.

[url=http://www.thewire.com/culture/2014/01/super-bowl-sex-trafficking-story-... Super Bowl Sex-Trafficking Story That Just Won't Die[/url]

Quote:
Stop us if you've heard this one before. Because you probably have. The same story was written about the Super Bowl host city in 2011 and again 2010 and again 2009 ... and again before basically every Super Bowl in living memory. (The Super Bowl has even been called the single largest human trafficking incident in the United States.) Every city that hosts the NFL title game goes through this, but there's one problem with the narrative. It isn't exactly true.

In 2012, The Houston Press's Peter Kotz thoroughly tore apart that story, explaining that law enforcement officials in the cities where past Super Bowls occurred never actually saw increases in prostitution busts or the number of trafficked prostitutes, even despite increased efforts to catch johns, pimps, and traffickers. "We didn't see a huge influx in prostitutes coming into Tampa. The arrests were not a lot higher. They were almost the same," a Tampa police spokeswoman said in 2009, and a police spokesperson in Phoenix said in 2008 that there was nothing out of the ordinary: "We may have had certain precincts that were going gangbusters looking for prostitutes, but they were picking up your everyday street prostitutes," and not foreign women "imported" for the event.

Further, the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW) — which has a vested interest in promoting this topic — said in a report that there's no correlation between sporting events and a rise in prostitution. "There is no evidence that large sporting events cause an increase in trafficking for prostitution," the organization concluded. They also included this table which looked at the world's biggest sporting events, and the lack of evidence to back what they essentially say is a "myth."

The history of those events make this year's claims of trafficking even harder to believe and bring up questions of the gullibility of the media. The "Super Bowl = prostitutes" story begins to look more and more like a lazy journalistic trope or an urban legend. Or more cynically, a cheap attempt by some local politician using the Super Bowl media blitz to score points by standing up to the menace of sex work.

fortunate

The Peter Kotz stories are funny and revealing.   There is a bunch of them here.

 

http://sextraffickingfacts.wordpress.com/

 

From a January 27, 2011 story, this one was funny

 

The alarm bells reached peak decibel in November, when Dallas Police Sergeant Louis Felini told the The Dallas Morning News that between 50,000 and 100,000 prostitutes could descend on the metroplex for the Super Bowl. The call to outrage had sounded.

His estimate was astonishing. At the higher figure, it meant that every man, woman and child holding a ticket would have their own personal hooker, from the vice presidential wing of FedEx to Little Timmy from Green Bay

 

 

One extremely important comment is here:

 

That’s because human trafficking, as defined by the government, isn’t solely about sex. It’s usually about forced labor. Think of the Chinese man made to work in a kitchen to reimburse a snakehead’s smuggling fee. Or the Mexican kid forced to toil on a Kansas farm.

By the time anyone realized all that money was flowing for naught, no one was brave enough to tighten the spigot. In Washington, it’s far better to waste millions than give the appearance you don’t care about kids.

Steve Wagner knows this. He worked for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, serving as director of the Human Trafficking Program under Bush. He threw millions of dollars at community groups to aid victims. Yet as he told the Washington Postin 2007, “Those funds were wasted….They were available to help victims. There weren’t any victims.

fortunate

There is another interesting article about trafficking and India/Nepal which refers to a number that was used in 1986, and has been repeated ever since, unchanged, and yet there seems to be no basis or research or source for that number.  5 to 10 thousand per year Nepali girls brought to India, they claim, an estimated 40,000 to 200,000 working in brothels across India.   His point in the article is "if media reports are to believed, there would be no young girls left in Nepal".   Those figures, 5-10 thousand, and 40 to 200 thousand have remained unchanged since first presented in 1986.  You'd think there would be something different at some point, either that or someone is not actually getting new data.    And if they are not getting new data, then how can they claim to know what the stats and numbers really are?    

 

I just spent a few hours with google, reading all sorts of articles, sites, research, etc, and other that seeing the number repeated in numerous articles, no one can seem to provide the source of the number.  The number I am referring to is the 400,000 sex workers who are apparently in Germany every day.     A statistical analysis of sex trafficking from around 2006 was the best reference I could find to someone finding and using real numbers, which actually happened to be 150,000.    There isn't anything else to suggest that 400,000 is a realistic fact based figure.    I challenge anyone to find me that source, an actual account of sex workers.   

 

And keep in mind the entire population of Germany is just over 80 million, and that the largest city Berlin, which arguably has the most brothels and sex workers, still only has 3.5 milliion people, men, women, children, and sex workers.     

fortunate

My personal favourite, tho, one I've known about for a couple of years is this one from the UK

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exag...

Two academics from the University of North London, Liz Kelly and Linda Regan, tried to estimate the number of women who had been trafficked in the UK during the calendar year 1998, an exercise which they honestly described as "problematic".

.........

At the very least, they guessed, there could be another 71 trafficked women who had been missed by police, which would double the total, to 142. At the most, they suggested, the true total might be 20 times higher, at 1,420.

....

During the following years, the subject attracted the attention of religious groups, particularly the Salvation Army and an umbrella group of evangelicals called Churches Alert to Sex Trafficking Across Europe (Chaste). Chaste explicitly campaigned for an end to all prostitution and, quoting their commitment to the principles of the Kingdom of God, they were enlisted as specialist advisers to the police.

Chaste took the work of Kelly and Regan, brought the estimate forward by two years, stripped out all the caution, headed for the maximum end of the range and declared : "An estimated 1,420 women were trafficked into the UK in 2000 for the purposes of constrained prostitution."

........

Three years after the Kelly/Regan work was published, in 2003, a second team of researchers was commissioned by the Home Office to tackle the same area. They, too, were forced to make a set of highly speculative assumptions: that every single foreign woman in the "walk-up" flats in Soho had been smuggled into the country and forced to work as a prostitute; that the same was true of 75% of foreign women in other flats around the UK and of 10% of foreign women working for escort agencies. Crunching these percentages into estimates of the number of foreign women in the various forms of sex work, they came up with an estimate of 3,812 women working against their will in the UK sex trade.

.........The researchers ringed this figure with warnings. The data, they said, was "very poor" and quantifying the subject was "extremely difficult". Their final estimate was "very approximate", "subject to a very large margin of error" and "should be treated with great caution" and the figure of 3,812 "should be regarded as an upper bound".

.........

In March 2007, it produced the UK Action Plan on Human Trafficking and casually reproduced the figure of 4,000 without any of the researchers' cautions.

.......

 In a debate in the Commons in November 2007, MacShane announced that "according to Home Office estimates, 25,000 sex slaves currently work in the massage parlours and brothels of Britain."

There is simply no Home Office source for that figure, although it has been reproduced repeatedly in media stories.

Two months later, in another Commons debate, MacShane used the same figure, but this time he attributed it to the Daily Mirror, which had indeed run a story in October 2005 with the headline "25,000 Sex Slaves on the Streets of Britain." However, the newspaper had offered no evidence at all to support the figure. On the contrary, the body of its story used a much lower figure, of between 2,000 and 6,000 brought in each year, and attributed this to unnamed Home Office officials, even though the Home Office has never produced any research which could justify it.

MacShane was not deterred.

"I used to work for the Daily Mirror, so I trust the report," he said.

........

 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry...

 

The United Kingdom’s (Great Britain) biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country.

 

Nick Davis of the Guardian newspaper writes:

Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all.

By Nick Davies – The Guardian News, Tuesday October 20, 2009