[SWAF-Potluck] Problem with the Nordic Model

[Matthew Taylor]

Hey all,

I find the academic open letter very well written, presented and based on
evidence - based research that captures common experiences/challenges/harms
of many sex workers (if not all) who are impacted by past, present and
potentially future legislation. It is a powerful pro-decrim statement with
300+ worthy signatures and it is my recommendation to our BOD that we sign
on in principle asap.

Keep up the great work people ;)

Matthew



On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Joyce Arthur <jharthur at shaw.ca> wrote:

> I agree with Susie, the academic open letter reflects the evidence
> obtained from sex workers themselves for the most part.  I thought the open
> letter was excellent and powerful, and gives a much-needed boost to the
> overall campaign. The sex worker movement needs all the allies and
> supporters it can get at this critical time - especially when it's still so
> difficult to get those in power to listen to sex workers.
>
>
>
> Btw, Katrina Pacey of Pivot Legal Society has served DTES sex worker
> clients for many years and her whole Supreme Court presentation was based
> on the harms of the communicating law and how it prevented proper
> screening. The main example she gave was that sex workers need time to look
> at the bad date sheet that they pull out from their pocket or purse, but
> she also has often said it leads sex workers to jump into cars too quickly.
> She didn't make this stuff up, she got it directly from years of talking to
> street sex workers.
>
>
>
> Joyce
>
>
>
> *From:* SWAF-Potluck [mailto:swaf-potluck-bounces at lists.resist.ca] *On
> Behalf Of *susan davis
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 02, 2014 4:17 PM
> *To:* Andy Sorfleet
> *Cc:* Sex Workers and Friends Potluck mailing list
>
> *Subject:* Re: [SWAF-Potluck] Problem with the Nordic Model
>
>
>
> 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<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
>
> _______________________________________________
> SWAF-Potluck mailing list
> SWAF-Potluck at lists.resist.ca
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swaf-potluck
>
>


-- 
*H*ow *U* *S*urvive *T*his *L*ife *E*veryday!

Matthew Taylor
Program Manager
HUSTLE
Health Initiative for Men
#310 - 1033 Davie Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6E 1M7
P: 604-488-1001
ext 231
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/swaf-potluck/attachments/20140403/847f8b8e/attachment-0001.html>