[SWAF-Potluck] Problem with the Nordic Model

Wed Apr 2 16:17:18 PDT 2014

i completely disagree, the communication law had a terrible impact which i myself not only experienced but witnessed as well.
the evidence i speak of is sex workers experience. if you do not believe that evidence, you are denying sex workers voices.
blaming these academics who are bringing forth those voices or stating they are making money off sex worker's backs is completely unjust. yes, they make money for working....who doesn't?
i think we should be grateful for their commitment to our rights and safety and their commitment to ethics in research in that they do bring our voices, unedited, to the mainstream.
the evidence does very much detail how the communicating law had a devastating effect on the safety of our community. the voices of sex workers describe how this has happened and how it affects our safety....
so respectfully, the evidence does say it. the evidence does prove it. unless you consider the voices of sex working people to not be proof enough...
susie

> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 15:00:16 -0700
> Subject: Re: [SWAF-Potluck] Problem with the Nordic Model
> From: a.sorfleet at gmail.com
> To: susan.1968 at hotmail.com
> CC: raven1 at mail.ubc.ca; swaf-potluck at lists.resist.ca
> 
> Susan,
> 
> I totally agree that there are many reasons why as sex workers we have
> trouble negotiating sometimes. You listed some of the most likely
> reason -- its harder to make money, you're dope-sick. I am not trying
> to say that don't make poor choices for reasons I don't fully
> understand. And I definitely have made such choices myself. Like
> working after leaving the bar drunk for example, in my youth.
> 
> What I am saying, is that the statement implies that the reason I have
> not been able to negotiate is because there is a communicating law.
> The evidence you speak of cannot prove that. And what's more, I feel
> it lets the real perps off the hook, when it is the violent people
> posing as clients who are to blame for assaults and murders -- not the
> victims' inability to negotiate.
> 
> I apologize if I have offended you. And same goes for Raven.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, susan davis <susan.1968 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > so, i have to interject here...this is empirical...completely
> > empirical...and these researchers are representing hundreds of sex workers
> > who took part in these projects...and representing them correctly/
> > truthfully in my opinion. i have been on many advisory boards for research
> > through the years....
> >
> > i do not think its useful to undermine the voices of sex workers because we
> > personally do not relate to those experiences.
> >
> > to say that its easy to refuse a client or unsafe service does not reflect
> > the experiences of all sex workers. many sex workers report its harder and
> > harder to refuse unsafe sexual services for example like bbbj....if you
> > don't do it, its harder to make money....that applies across the
> > board...indoor/outdoor.....
> >
> > also, if you are dope sick and need money, its harder again to refuse unsafe
> > services or services a worker might not normally provide.
> >
> > while i understand that people may not understand the choices of others, we
> > also should not try to erase those experiences.
> >
> > especially for workers who have not worked in a long time and who may not
> > understand the current context of the experiences being expressed.
> >
> > as a current worker and a person who was aware of many of the researchers
> > work while it was happening and can say with confidence that the letter does
> > represent the experiences of canadian sex workers.
> >
> > especially the communicating law. people do jump in without screening,
> > especially when cold and/ or dope sick....or if they feel the police are
> > conducting a sweep....
> >
> > i sometimes have a hard time hearing the experiences of other sex workers
> > which conflict with my own observations/ experiences.
> >
> > i especially have a hard time with discussions of sexual abuse of youth and
> > numbers of sex workers who experience it....but some workers do experience
> > it. so how do we talk about it..?
> >
> > we have to believe each other, no one else ever does.
> >
> > these researchers have represented their work and the people who took part
> > in the most ethical way possible.
> >
> > i for one appreciate that they have taken this step towards forcing
> > inclusion of evidence based data in any decisions or actions moving forward.
> >
> > love susie
> >
> >
> >
> >> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 13:01:18 -0700
> >> From: a.sorfleet at gmail.com
> >> To: raven1 at mail.ubc.ca
> >> CC: swaf-potluck at lists.resist.ca
> >
> >> Subject: Re: [SWAF-Potluck] Problem with the Nordic Model
> >>
> >> I think my point was that this was in fact, NOT "empirical" knowledge.
> >> It is conjecture and hypothesis. And, if these academics were truly in
> >> support of sex workers, they would not call us down in public in this
> >> way. I am not one who believes in making such incredible concessions
> >> in the name of "consensus." But of course, it doesn't benefit my
> >> career to do so, unlike some.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Bowen, Raven <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]
> >> > 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
> >> 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/20140402/6f3ce500/attachment-0001.html>