Rhode Island: The next step
In writing our letter to the Rhode Island legislature in July of this year, we were forced to depart from our usual position of building and bridging communities by the political realities. Nor was it easy for us to explain to the politicians how the bills` supporters conflated and generalised information from one sector of a highly diversified activity without appearing to privilege the indoor market.
As it so happened, our decision to send a letter from the academic community was reasonably effective. Predictably we were attacked by the extreme right wing as perverts and pedophiles. We now need to move on to the planned second stage, a letter from the rest of the community involved in sex work, and also an opportunity for those who were unable to sign the first letter.
Elizabeth Wood and I have drafted a second letter (below). Please read it carefully, keeping in mind (i) the political realities in Rhode Island (solicitation, and hence the outdoor market, is illegal, and it is now intended to criminalise the act of sexual exchange, effectively making the indoor market illegal), (ii) the intent of the letter (to persuade local State politicians not to proceed with enacting the legislation), and (iii) that it comes from people in a position to understand sexual exchange and the effects of regulation. Do not sign it if you have already made a submission.
We welcome your comments, either here or by email to us, since we are not wedded to the exact text. If you decide to lend your name to this letter, please email us providing the following information;
Name, location
Profession if relevant and likely to carry weight as having credibility
Organisational affiliation if relevant
Eg.
Mary Smith, Providence, Rhode Island, Social Worker
John Brown, Social Justice Center, New York
Susan White, Sex Work Clinic, San Francisco
Michael Goodyear
Elizabeth Wood
TinyURL for this page: http://is.gd/2au8F
===============================================================================
As individuals who have either knowledge of or experience with sex workers and sex work and its regulation we wish to express our concerns about the consequences of the proposed legislation. Our intent is neither to condone nor condemn sex work but to express our concern regarding many of the public statements that have resulted from the introduction of these bills, which we believe to be not only untrue but also harmful to the people involved in such work.
Many of the statements made in support of the legislation are misleading. For instance they frequently generalize from studies on certain subpopulations of sex workers. Sex workers are a very diverse population. In particular descriptions of sex work frequently refer to a subset of outdoor workers referred to as 'survival sex workers' who have multiple health and social problems and are often studied in outreach centers, clinics and detention facilities where they form a convenient sample for researchers. These people often have chaotic lives, are effectively street people who sell sex in desperation, often for illegal substances, and should be considered from a policy perspective as people with addiction problems, not simply sex workers, the selling of sex often being incidental. Sex workers in this sector represent only a very small proportion of the total population of sex workers, and while the current legislation creates many problems for them, it is totally inappropriate to generalize any research findings from this group, or to make comments about the essential nature of sex work based on these studies.
We appreciate that part of the motive of the proponents and supporters of these bills is to protect sex workers, but the proposed measures will not provide any protection, but rather will inflict much personal and social harm. In addition, this legislation will place a large burden on law enforcement, and the criminal justice and correctional systems and divert resources away from more urgent needs. A number of the problems that outdoor workers face arise from social conditions that urgently require addressing, but reducing economic opportunity and increasing punitive policing can only make conditions worse. A number of studies have shown that it is the effect of unjust laws and the resulting stigma that create many of the problems that have concerned legislators, and make working conditions increasingly unsafe.
The burden of the proposed legislation will fall mainly on those in the indoor market. Despite what supporters of the bills have stated, there is little evidence to suggest that indoor workers pose any threats to social order, or constitute any harm that justifies placing them under the criminal law. Much of the justification of the proposed legislation comes from people who have campaigned against human trafficking – the forced migration of individuals against their will. Yet most researchers, experts and organizations concerned with combating trafficking are completely against criminalizing sex work because of a belief that this will make matters worse not better. The supporters of these bills represent a small but emotionally persuasive minority of opinion on the relationship between trafficking and sex work, relying heavily on rhetoric rather than fact, and do the campaign to combat trafficking a great disservice by deflecting attention away from the many other sectors that exploit trafficking victims, including domestic, factory and farm labor. Only in a transparent and legal environment can victims of trafficking be assisted and protected. Criminalization has always attracted organized crime and violence, lessons that were learned tragically from the prohibition of alcohol and the war on drugs.
Contrary to information provided to the Assembly, many studies on sex workers show no difference in stress levels or health from those employed in other personal service industries. Some studies have also focused on the role of sex workers in counseling, personal care of disadvantaged groups, such as the disabled, and in health promotion. The Government of New Zealand funded sex workers as partners to combat sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS, and similar arrangements have been made in other countries such as Australia. Similarly those countries that have changed their laws to remove sex work from the criminal law have not shown the harmful social effects predicted by opponents. The evidence for this includes the official investigations of the effects of the changes in the laws in the Netherlands and New Zealand, contrary to what legislators have been told by the bills' supporters. Sex workers are not asking to be rescued, they are asking for equal protection and working conditions under the law.
Rhode Island may be unique in its laws within the United States, but certainly is not unique on the world stage. If the arguments advanced about the harm of sex work in support of these bills were true, Rhode Island should have a much higher level of social problems than the rest of the United States. No evidence has been advanced to substantiate this, nor does evidence from the rest of the world support such claims.
We strongly advise the General Assembly to consider what are credibly established facts over emotion and rhetoric, and to examine the likely consequences of criminalizing a consensual sexual interaction between adults. These include wasteful use of public funds, increased danger for many women and men, especially those with limited economic opportunities, a misdirection of attention away from the realities of human trafficking and increased crime and violence. We urge you not to pursue a course of action that can benefit no one and that will create many new problems for the State of Rhode Island.
No benevolent criminalisation
A deeper investigation into the every day calm delivery of sexual services reveals a much different picture than that of emotional tabloid media reports about visible street prostitutes and police actions in red light areas.
Last but not least, the self expression of sex workers, partners, workplace facilitators, neigbours and their clients should be acknowledged.
Marc of Frankfurt,
admin www.sexworker.at
sex work information clearing house in the German language internet
20.000 visits per day
(Editor's note: Elizabeth edited this post for English language clarity. For questons about this contact Elizabeth)
Please add me as in support
Please add me as in support of your letter.
Michelle Bass - M.S.W. PhD (c)- University of Victoria, B.C. Canada
Thanks for drafting this
Thanks for drafting this great letter!!
Please add me in support
Adam j. Greteman,
Doctoral Student
please add me in support
Thank you Danielle, Kerwin, Adam, Sarah and Michelle....
Thank you all for such positive and quick responses to this letter!
Danielle, Kerwin, so good to see a couple of long lost friends pop up :) If you each want to sign the letter can you let me know if you want an affiliation listed?
Adam, Sarah, while we haven't met I'm glad to see your name here and same thing: if you'd like an affiliation listed can you please email and let me know?
Elizabeth - elizabeth [dot] wood [at] ncc [dot] edu
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Endorsements
Thanks to all the people endorsing this, but can you leave us some contact information so that we can verify your identity.
Please add me tooTara
Please add me too
Tara Hurley
Pawtucket, RI
Director "Happy Endings?"
Please add me in support
Carolyn Dinshaw
Professor of Social & Cultural Analysis and English
New York University
support from the IUSW
As an organisation of UK national and migrant sex workers, we see at first hand the damage caused by criminalisation and the misrepresentation of the role of trafficking in the sex industry. Sex workers deserve the same rights as other citizens, and violence against us is encouraged when legislation or stigma mean that we do not have the full protection of the law.
Policies that solve problems are based in reality and on all the evidence, not on assumption, stereotype and selective information.
We call upon the Rhode Island legislature to protect sex workers by allowing us to work legally.
I am a sex worker living in
I am a sex worker living in the UK. I will be happy to support your campaign against the criminalisation.
I am a sex worker in NYC, and
I am a sex worker in NYC, and a volunteer for $pread Magazine. I would like to support your letter and keep the decriminalized status of indoor sex work in Rhode Island a reality.
sex worker from montreal support decriminalization
I am a sex worker and volunteer for Stella, Montreal's sex worker group. I have witness the impact of criminalization on sex workers. Indoor sex work must stay decriminalized.
I have read a lot of research from some of the academics that signed the letter. These researchs reflect my work and the work of so many collegues, I admire what they are doing for our community.
Leila
Thank you all
Thanks Leila. You have no idea how much that means. For clarification, we are assuming that people who post supportive statements here are willing to let their names be added to this letter. If you do not want this, please write to us.
I am a Montreal sex worker too
Submitted by Robin Lee (not verified) on 21 August 2009 - 12:45am.
Should those of us outside RI lobby on this?
There's some interesting arguments I'm hearing on this. On one hand, Audacia Ray is arguing that out of state people reallly shouldn't be contacting RI legislators over this, since we're clearly not constituents, and our opinion doesn't matter to them. She councils financial and moral support for RI groups fighting this legislation, and I think that's something we can all agree with.
On the other hand, I'm also hearing that the RI assemply is being flooded with letters from Hughes supporters, probably mostly non-RI people, and that the national attention that current battle is getting is in many ways driving the rush to criminalization. If the latter is true, that would seem to council outsiders letting RI legislators know that keeping RI's current laws on prostitution as they are, and simply passing additional laws concerning human trafficking, is the more enlightened approach and one that makes their State more progressive and exemplary.
Any thoughts on what the role of non-Rhode Islanders should be in this fight?
Reply to non-RI support
Insofar, as the proposed RI legislation affects basic human rights, also the voices of people from outside RI and outside the USA should be heard. The planned ban on indoor sex-work (and the to be expected execution of this ban by the police, using e.g. undercover methods) affects section 1 of Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR): "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation." Thereby, the United Nations' Human Rights Committe under CCPR reaffirmed in General Comment 16 [32] that Article 17 protects the privacy of the home, whereby the term home is to be understood to indicate the place where a person resides or carries out his (or hers) usual occupation. Interferences need to be justified and they need to be lawful. Even if they are, relevant legislation must specify in detail the precise circumstances in which such interferences may be permitted. A decision to make use of such authorized interference must be made only by the authority designated under the law, and on a case-by-case basis. The proposed RI legislation gives rise to serious concerns that it will grant police a sweeping permission to intrude the privacy of women with unconventional life styles.Post new comment