[SWAF-Potluck] Problem with the Nordic Model

Wed Apr 2 14:23:37 PDT 2014

Hi Will,
I appreciate what you've said, thank you.

I don't think there was an academic way to consensus with the letter in particular. Kate was always open to amending the letter. She took the lead on writing something on behalf of academics to mirror what was done in Europe.  If people wanted major changes they could contact her and she would make the changes. I think most were wanting to take the opportunity to show support for decrim and agreed in principle to the arguments in the letter.  Everyone had the choice of whether to suggest changes, to sign on or not. That's my understanding. If anyone had major issues they could abstain and maybe devise some other ways to address the MP's.  There was such a diversity of people who signed on that there is no way possible that everyone would agree to all things equally. I agreed with most of the content and will choose other battle fields to address the issues that don't sit well.

Andy,
As for building careers, I built mine on my blood. The sex workers who I know and who I have lost drive me. I don't have to sign any letter or engage in any activity that I don't want to. I've paid the high price of integrity more than you will ever know. I've challenged academics, police, the state, and made more 'career-ending' statements in the last 18 years than the average bear...and I'm still here. I'm not afraid of poverty...I know it well.  I'm not afraid to stand up for what I believe in or admit when I've done wrong. So do your worst.
raven

From: SWAF-Potluck [mailto:swaf-potluck-bounces at lists.resist.ca] On Behalf Of w.jc.pritchard
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 1:01 PM
To: Sex Workers and Friends Potluck mailing list
Subject: Re: [SWAF-Potluck] Problem with the Nordic Model

Hi Raven,
As someone who is familiar with your personal history, I am proud that you have become an academic! And I appreciate that you brought this up with the list. Those who move from more direct knowledge of the industry to a more empirical relationship rarely acknowledge the resulting changes to the perspectives and interests that influence their decision-making. So well done and thanks.

I'm surprised to learn that the letter you refer to was the result of a consensus process. I totally missed this - likely because I don't know much about academic consensus-building. It was circulated to me early on with the original names only and seemed like a done deal. Can you share a little more about any opportunities you and the other academics who signed it may have had to address your concerns? (I won't ask which points you were uncomforatble with since that would undermine the consensus you reached.)
I will never forget the hilarious and gross "intersectional experience" you related at the potluck at Olivia's! You had us gagging and in stitches with laughter!
Ciao Bella!
~Will

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Bowen, Raven <raven1 at mail.ubc.ca<mailto:raven1 at mail.ubc.ca>> wrote:
Thanks for sharing Andy.  Opinions on this issue of the effects of criminalization vary tremendously and are based in the intersectional experiences of race, class, gender, age, power, biographies, and a number of other elements that influence decision-making, choice and opportunity.  Everyone is positioned differently and academics are only sharing empirical knowledge that, as you know, is based in sampling strategy, research questions and methodologies.

I am someone with diverse knowledge of the industry far beyond empirical ways of knowing. Those who know me are aware of my personal history so I'm not going to share it here.  I'm proud to be part of the 300 academics who signed onto this letter. I agree in principal with the content, save for a few points of contention. You may know that consensus-building can be quite challenging when engaging in activities with hundreds of people. We did our best, but no one can please everyone.

Be well,
raven

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Sorfleet [mailto:a.sorfleet at gmail.com<mailto:a.sorfleet at gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Ki Bournes
Cc: Bowen, Raven; Sex Workers and Friends Potluck mailing list
Subject: Re: [SWAF-Potluck] Problem with the Nordic Model

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
_______________________________________________
SWAF-Potluck mailing list
SWAF-Potluck at lists.resist.ca<mailto:SWAF-Potluck at lists.resist.ca>
https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swaf-potluck

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/swaf-potluck/attachments/20140402/88adf685/attachment-0001.html>