Tuesday, 30 October 2012

Conference Against Human Trafficking - why YOU should be very angry.

Let me begin this blog post by saying that the statements I attribute to various speakers at the CAHT are not verbatim. It is very difficult to pose a question, contemplate the answer whilst paying attention to the speaker and write it down simultaneously.

When N and I volunteered to attend the conference, we knew it would be difficult. We knew we would be the only two sex workers' advocates there, and we knew that both Trish Godman and Rhoda Grant would be speaking at the event. Regular readers will need no introduction to those two.

First to speak was Trish Godman and she began by saying that the movement to ban the purchase of prostitution should not be deterred by the lack of statistics, in fact she said, "we don't need numbers just now". Further, she said that the "Belle" ideology is all a myth, there is no such thing as a happy sex worker. The Belle 'myth' is wheeled out by those of us in favour of decriminalisation to strengthen our position and has no place in reality.

Godman went on to say that really, it is the buyer of sex who has all of the choice and in fact she went so far as to say that she would advocate a public list of all 'punters' to include their names and car registration numbers. The survivors of the sex trade, she said, deserve to have their voices heard.

So to the Q & A session thereafter. I challenged Godman by saying, "it's not just my clients who have a choice, I have a choice and I choose to work in the sex industry. I too deserve to have my voice heard and further, I have the right to earn a living and support my family".

Her reply is something I will never forget. She said, "of course you have a voice, you're here now and we're listening to you aren't we ? You also have a choice and if you continue with that choice in the event that this law comes into place then you will be running a risk as you will be breaking the law". She chose to ignore the last part of my question.

So, not only was Godman dismissive, she was factually incorrect, and I had no opportunity to rectify her statement as the next question was being posed.

Next to speak was Jenny Marra, who was her usual lovely and sensible self. She spoke about Kenny MacAskill's suggestion regarding the introduction of an aggravated charge on trafficking, because people trafficking is already an offence. I should also point out that Jenny was the only one of the politicians to approach both N and I and extend her hand to welcome us to the conference.

Jenny spoke further about arming the front line forces to be able to better deal with trafficking, such as police, the health services etc. and went on to say that she would be visiting the training to ensure that it would be implemented effectively. Having met Jenny before at a cross party group on trafficking I knew that she would be level headed and refreshing as a speaker and she certainly was.

Following on from the first two speakers we were separated into smaller discussion groups, and when I looked at my group I could have fled. It was comprised of many much older Soroptimists and - Jan MacLeod. Jan comes from the Women's Support Project and suffice to say that when she and I met it was very much a case of - "we meet at last". Yes, there have been times when we have clashed in the past and I'm sure that there will be times in the future too, but to disappoint you all, I have to tell you, Jan is a lovely person. She's witty, warm and engaging and as she said herself, we may not agree on the legislative piece but we are very much on the same page when it comes to other aspects of women's welfare. In fact, we spoke about the possibility of an outreach service in Glasgow which would involve visiting the working flats rather than police knocking on the door because the ladies therein would be far more likely to speak to another sex worker. And I didn't just say all of that because Jan admitted she reads my blog, honest.

The Soroptomists were a very pleasant surprise. They were open and willing to listen when I told them that as an industry we are very self regulating and that we would look to report anything untoward as a policy. Overall I was very encouraged by the group discussion and we took time out for lunch. Great raspberry cheesecake.

Next to speak was Gunilla Edberg, a feminist lawyer and a former Special Advisor to the Swedish Government. Edberg said that it was time to break the silence in relation to the real perpetrators, the clients. Prostitution she said, is a crime of violence and as women in prostitution, we are not afforded the option to go to the police.

Further, she said that by following the buyers, the organisers will be found and that the only people who are usually opposed to criminalisation are the buyers. The part which stood out was when she said that we must not buy into the stereotype of the "lonely client". These are not men in search of companionship, rather they are "sexually experienced" individuals who know exactly what they are doing in terms of exploiting and repeatedly violating sex workers. She finished by saying that prostitution is akin to indignity and a loss of integrity.

Of most interest to me was the next speaker, Rhoda Grant. In fact, we first met in the ladies "restroom", and I extended my hand and a smile.

"Rhoda ? Delighted to meet you at last. I'm Laura Lee."

"I'm aware of who you are and your work".

Right, stage set then. To her credit she did shake my hand and smile too.

When she began speaking, her tone and delivery were very different to that of Godman. She was quietly spoken, flat and monotonous and I found it difficult to stay focused at times. I was soon jolted out of my stupor in spectacular fashion. To a shocked "oooh" from the audience Grant declared, "studies have shown that 75% of women enter the industry as children".

Come Q & A, I challenged her."No-one will deny that the notion of 75% of new entrants being children is horrific. However, the statistic you are quoting is from a study conducted in 2004 by Melrose, which was based on 47 street sex workers. Since we know that only about 10% of all sex work takes place on street, then those figures as presented are inadmissable".

Her face was a picture of dark thunderous anger.

Here, in my own words, is Grant's (visibly flustered) reply - "I CAN rely on that study because there are very few others done".

N and I were aghast, and speechless.

As someone who obviously also (begrudgingly) reads my blog, she went on to say - "I'd also like to say that the notion of using disability as an excuse is offensive and appalling".

So there we have it. To highlight the perfectly natural desires of disabled persons when it comes to paid sex is offensive. To my disabled clients, take a bow. You are little more than an excuse.

Get ANGRY. Anger and action are what will stop the success of this preposterous abolition attempt.

LL xx


  1. Ha! An excellent overview of the day, Laura. <3

  2. Cheers ! Can't wait to read yours. <3

  3. I would find that type of conference extremely irritating. I guess there is only time for exchange of a few sound bites, rather than a solid, back and forth debate of the issues in a controlled environment. Unfortunately, when people are talking nonsense, it does take time to dismantle their arguements and this is rarely available. Keep it going. C&G.

    1. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to enter into a full and frank debate, as you say the opportunity to answer them back just wasn't there, more's the pity. Thanks for your comment :-)

  4. What is the research Rhoda Refers to. Have you a link. I have this reference to a Margaret Melrose paper on under age prostitutes, of which 75% started before 14. http://www.women.it/cyberarchive/files/melrose.htm

    To me the most important point was it was a study on underage prostitutes, those who had started before their 18th birthday. To use that statistic to say 75 percent of prostitutes start at under 14 is a lie.

    This lie can be used to totally discredit Rhoda. Why would anyone believe her, and her plans on prostitution when they can see how disingenuous she is.

    What was Margaret Melroses's solution to underage prostitution, it was look at eradicating poverty and funding social services. Who does Margaret blame for people entering prostitution at an early age, New Labour and their policies on minimum wage, housing allowances, and on social services.

    Were there mention of pimps in the article, no. Research in the US showed that 10% of underage sex workers had pimps, 90% didn't. So I don't belive Gunnilla when she says following the clients will lead to the organisers. Lets also face it the police know who run the agencies and brothels already.

    So Trish Godman showed her true colours, by stating that you will be breaking the law. So she is not there to rescue you, but to punish you, by depriving you of your clients and locking you up in prison. I thought this proposed legislation was only about depriving you of your earnings.

  5. Rhoda has discredited herself, in spectacular fashion. She didn't need our help ;-)

  6. A Former Sex Worker31 October 2012 at 13:56

    No wonder she was nice to you in the loo, cos you both have Melrose wrong, even after all of the above is applied:

    "In fact, approximately two-thirds of participants had become involved before they were sixteen and of these, three-quarters (24) actually became involved when they were 14 or younger."

    *peering sternly over bifocals*

    ONE HUNDRED LINES EACH please ladies:

    3/4 of 2/3 = 1/2

    1/2 = 50%

    (Ah, well, I suppose when a lass cannae do basic arithmetic she hasnae much choice but become a floozy - or an MP? Sad, but there ye are...at last it keeps them off the dole.)

    Funny how they always gloss over the question:
    "How will I earn the money to keep my family" isn't it?

    I used ask a much harsher question:
    "What do you *think* happens to people when you take away their means of survival"

    But that reality was probably too harsh and propelled them into the denial zone...because no-one could ever answer it...but "How will I earn the money to keep my family" seems a reasonable enough, everyday question to me...in fact, I would have thought a lot of people ask it, in many contexts, all the time...

    Let's put all else aside for a minute...nobody has the moral right to demand legislation to take away anybody's income, for ANY reason until they can answer that one, simple question.

    I often wonder what happened to the women affected by this act and, of course their families:

    They made it illegal for women to work in mines because it was bad for them, no-one bothered to ask whether trying to live without any money at all would be better for them. I always wonder what happened to them, and their children. I doubt if it was anything good. 180 years later nobody seems to have bothered to document it, or answer the question:
    "How will I earn the money to keep my family"

    ...but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and NO WAY can any civilised society justify subjecting women to the danger and indignity of working in the mines (particularly if they insist on taking most of their clothes off, which was perhaps the most significant issue)...can you?

    But there is always one:

    Or two:

    Le plus qui ce change, le plus qui c'est la meme chose...

  7. Thanks for your comments. Oh, and arithmetic was never my strong point, it's right up there with my cookery skills ;-)

    We didn't have the papers to hand and had all of thirty seconds to think too. Add to that, I actually didn't think she would have the audacity to wheel out Melrose and try and pass it off as representative of the entire industry. I nearly fell off my perch.

    If she was nice to me in the loo, it's because she's a nice person, and I'm not going to take that away from her. But she's still wrong, and determined to abolish prostitution. Of that I'm certain.

  8. A Former Sex Worker1 November 2012 at 11:01

    People have to start getting that Melrose comment right, and in the forefront of their minds too. It's the worse example of "tell a lie long enough and it will become the truth" I ever saw.

    It has become "tell a lie long enough and your adversaries will forget to debunk it and argue with it instead". :o)

    As far as I can gather, there are no stats, anywhere in the world that genuinely claim 75% of sex workers began aged less than 14.

    Oh, and while we are on that subject, shouldn't somebody be asking why we have a society where EVEN ONE SINGLE young teen is desperate enough for the meas of survival to resort to selling sex?

    ...and yet...I cannot find anyone asking that question anywhere...

    It is too easy to find a "bogeyman" to blame it on, but, as Melrose also, clearly shows, there is seldom, if ever a "bogeymen" in the mix...unless you count below subsistence youth welfare and social services that are often far from "fit for purpose". I wonder what would happen to the few young people Melrose did talk to, if you took their income away?

    They can't all be let join hands and roll backwards off the Erskine bridge...the voters wouldn't like it.

    Rhoda Grant's "nice" is the unkindest cut of all..it's a way to say:
    "Look at me, I am a nice considerate person, with good manners, but what happens to you and your family does not qualify for my nice concern or even interest"

    She'll not get away with that if I ever come face to face with her.

  9. And neither should she but one of the hardest parts of any debate is to maintain your composure, it's a MUST do.

    Besides, you and I will be side by side at a similar event very soon methinks ;-)

  10. Is there an online petition or something concrete we can do to support you against the abolitionist MSPs?

  11. Absolutely. If you visit the Scot-PEP website there is a step by step guide as to how you can help. Thank you :-)


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.