[SWAF-Potluck] Problem with the Nordic Model

[Andy Sorfleet]

Try to imagine for a moment standing on the street and negotiating sex
for pay with someone driving a car.

First, you can see the car driving around. You can see what colour,
make, and possibly model and year it is. Often you can see the licence
plate. The car drives around the block usually a few times -- unless
it's a regular meeting with a regular client.

You strut a bit, and eventually the car pulls over. You lean in the
window. Most often the passenger side. If there are police, the car
usually doesn't pull over, and you usually don't strut. You look busy,
perhaps fiddling with your phone or digging in your purse etc.

Once some basic terms are discussed, often no more than confirming
that you are working, you get into the car. Here you have a private
discussion negotiating such terms as price and act and location. If
the terms are unacceptable, you ask the driver to pull over and you
get out of the car. If the terms are agreeable, you drive to the
location and complete the transaction.

If the driver does not pull over and let you out of the car, what
would you do? If the driver insists on unprotected sex, and you are
not willing to provide it, what would you do?

Try to imagine how it feels to have your "allies" tell the government,
the Supreme Court, the police, the public, the media and the helping
professions that you and your colleagues get into cars without
screening clients and have unprotected sex against your will. And, the
reason you do these things is because you are afraid of getting
arrested for a summary charge of communicating.

This hypothetical premise entirely lacks authenticity. Perhaps, there
are other reasons why people's judgements might be impaired. It seems
there is a difference now between sex workers' discourse and "sex
workers' rights discourse."

Now imagine working alone from home meeting a client for the first
time in your doorway, who you agreed to meet with no more verification
of their identity than a gmail address.

Don't tell me that working the street and the laws against it prevent
you from screening your clients. I've worked the street, I know
better. At least on the street you have colleagues who share
information about which cars are great dates, and which ones to avoid.

The Supreme Court's statement says "if screening could have prevented
one woman from jumping into Pickton's car." "If". The error in trust
may not have been related to a lack of screening. Most murderers of
this sort are adept at luring their victims.

In solidarity,
Andy