Purchasing of sex will be criminalised (it appears) in the near future in Ireland

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

Are madams, for example, generally terrible? What about if collectives were set up? I'm not sure it has to be the case the employers would always be abusive.

Perhaps, in an ideal world, but, in the real world, prostitutes are treated badly and that would be difficult to change even if the Law changed.

_Beau_

Arfan wrote: »

Answered on page four!

Also I would like to read these studies please.

Why? Do you believe that the myth is true?

Look up the studies - there are plenty of them available online.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

the first thing that springs to my mind is that those who are being trafficked can go to the police without the threat of being prosecuted themselves.

That doesn't require the criminalising of the buyers.

Also, the extent of the trafficking problem and the statistics surrounding it now becomes relevant. As I said in the initial post, I recall a letter to a newspaper claiming an extremely high figure like 96% of people working as prostitutes were trafficked. Nobody wrote in challenging it possibly because it's such a taboo subject (that's why I didn't write in anyway) but I recall looking at other figures just before it and they weren't in that region.

As I said in my initial post, there seems to be a reluctance to accept that people could travel as economic migrants (I also doubt the statistics because I find it hard to believe so few Irish women do it). Many media discussions simply never make this point (that some foreign-born women working in prostitutes work here because the pay is better). It really shouldn't be that hard to accept.

However, if one wants to criminalises men, it helps to hype up the trafficking angle.

And then, from the workers' point of view, they probably get treated less harshly by the authorities if they claim they have been trafficked.

_Beau_

Arfan wrote: »

I did. You asked me to clarify and I responded by asking you to share your sources. You kept using this nameless "she" who I don't know and certainly can't verify.

If it's an unreasonable request just say so.

You're still avoiding the question.

I said 'she' to describe a prostitute in general. I don't know any women who work in the sex industry.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

That doesn't require the criminalising of the buyers.

Also, the extent of the trafficking problem and the statistics surrounding it is now becomes relevant. As I said in the initial post, I recall a letter to a newspaper claiming an extremely high figure like 96% of people working as prostitutes were trafficked. Nobody wrote in challenging it possibly because it's such a taboo subject (that's why I didn't write in anyway) but I recall looking at other figures just before it and they weren't in that region.

As I said in my initial post, there seems to be a reluctance to accept that people could travel as economic migrants (I also doubt the statistics because I find it hard to believe so few Irish women do it). Many media discussions simply never make this point (that some foreign-born women working in prostitutes work here because the pay is better). It really shouldn't be that hard to accept.

However, if one wants to criminalises men, it helps to hype up the trafficking angle.

And then, from the workers' point of view, they probably get treated less harshly by the authorities if they claim they have been trafficked.

That's all conjecture.

Is the Government proposing to criminalise clients?

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

iptba wrote:

That doesn't require the criminalising of the buyers.

Also, the extent of the trafficking problem and the statistics surrounding it is now becomes relevant. As I said in the initial post, I recall a letter to a newspaper claiming an extremely high figure like 96% of people working as prostitutes were trafficked. Nobody wrote in challenging it possibly because it's such a taboo subject (that's why I didn't write in anyway) but I recall looking at other figures just before it and they weren't in that region.

As I said in my initial post, there seems to be a reluctance to accept that people could travel as economic migrants (I also doubt the statistics because I find it hard to believe so few Irish women do it). Many media discussions simply never make this point (that some foreign-born women working in prostitutes work here because the pay is better). It really shouldn't be that hard to accept.

However, if one wants to criminalises men, it helps to hype up the trafficking angle.

And then, from the workers' point of view, they probably get treated less harshly by the authorities if they claim they have been trafficked.

That's all conjecture.

Found the letter:

The Irish Times - Tuesday, February 8, 2011

[..]

Madam – I wish to commend the groups involved in Ireland’s “Turn Off the Red Light” campaign for highlighting the pernicious and often invisible problem of sex trafficking. In Ireland, 1,000 prostituted woman are available for sexual exploitation each day, 97 per cent of which have been trafficked into Ireland.

Reminds me of the phrase I heard once: lies, damned lies and feminist statistics (I know, _Beau_ you are not responsible for these statistics so that point [lies, damned lies, etc] is not directed at you).

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

Why? Do you believe that the myth is true?

Look up the studies - there are plenty of them available online.

In the politics forum you're expected to back up you're claims with links to evidence. You've spoken about studies you've seen all through this thread yet haven't linked to a single one.

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

In the politics forum you're expected to back up you're claims with links to evidence. You've spoken about studies you've seen all through this thread yet haven't linked to a single one.

I know.

I'm withholding information until my question has been answered.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

Is the Government proposing to criminalise clients?

That looks like the direction of things to me from looking down the debate http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2011/10/12/00008.asp and other coverage, with a view of prostitutes as necessarily victims and also a desire to reduce the amount of prostitution.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

Found the letter:

Reminds me of the phrase I heard once: lies, damned lies and feminist statistics (I know, _Beau_ you are not responsible for these statistics so that point [lies, damned lies, etc] is not directed at you).

What you're proposing is conjecture, unless of course you can back it up.

Statistics proving that women move here from other countries to work in the sex industry because the pay is better. Figures proving that women falsely claim to have been trafficked so that the Law will go easy on them. Figures to prove your belief that more Irish women are employed within the industry here in Ireland.

Besides, who wrote that letter to The Irish Times?

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

What you're proposing is conjecture, unless of course you can back it up.

Statistics proving that women move here from other countries to work in the sex industry because the pay is better. Figures proving that women falsely claim to have been trafficked so that the Law will go easy on them. Figures to prove your belief that more Irish women are employed within the industry here in Ireland.

And it's conjecture to say that none of these happen (all migrant women working in the industry here are trafficked, no women have ever falsely claimed they were trafficked, groups might be picking the statistics that gives the biggest figure for trafficking, etc).

I might leave it till tomorrow to see if others have anything to say on the 97% figure, etc.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

That looks like the direction of things to me from looking down the debate http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2011/10/12/00008.asp and other coverage, with a view of prostitutes as necessarily victims and also a desire to reduce the amount of prostitution.

'there is clear evidence of children who have been trafficked in Ireland specifically for the purpose of prostitution, (Kelleher 2009; AHTU annual report 2010);

notes evidence from Sweden and Norway which shows that criminal sanctions for the purchase of sex are a proven deterrent to prostitution and consequently to trafficking (McLeod et al. 2008) (Claude 2010)

further notes that International Conventions repeatedly call for efficient measures to deter demand for prostitution, which is recognised as an efficient approach to reduce sex trafficking '



Don't you consider that valid?

Why are you arguing on the side of men, when clearly women and girls are the ones who are suffering because of this industry?

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

And it's conjecture to say that none of these happen.

The onus is upon you to prove what you're proposing. I'm not going to argue it because I don't have any figures on it.

I might leave it till tomorrow to see if others have anything to say on the 97% figure, etc.

Who suggested that the figure was 97% and why is that important?

Don't you realise that because it's illegal, it's probably difficult to ascertain an accurate figure?

timothybryce

_Beau_ wrote: »

'there is clear evidence of children who have been trafficked in Ireland specifically for the purpose of prostitution, (Kelleher 2009; AHTU annual report 2010);

notes evidence from Sweden and Norway which shows that criminal sanctions for the purchase of sex are a proven deterrent to prostitution and consequently to trafficking (McLeod et al. 2008) (Claude 2010)

further notes that International Conventions repeatedly call for efficient measures to deter demand for prostitution, which is recognised as an efficient approach to reduce sex trafficking '



Don't you consider that valid?

Why are you arguing on the side of men, when clearly women and girls are the ones who are suffering because of this industry?

Five sex-traffic court cases in 2010 and its possible none of these were foreign nationals.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/five-sextraffic-court-cases-in-2010-2859906.html

"DEPARTMENT of Justice figures on sex trafficking prosecutions by gardai for last year do not appear to suggest that there is major organised human trafficking in Ireland."

Ruhama are trying to link sex trafficking to prostitution because they find it morally offensive not because it's true.

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

I know.

I'm withholding information until my question has been answered.

If you want to make a claim from a study then back it up regardless of whether your question has been answered.

_Beau_

timothybryce wrote: »

Five sex-traffic court cases in 2010 and its possible none of these were foreign nationals.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/five-sextraffic-court-cases-in-2010-2859906.html

"DEPARTMENT of Justice figures on sex trafficking prosecutions by gardai for last year do not appear to suggest that there is major organised human trafficking in Ireland."

Ruhama are trying to link sex trafficking to prostitution because they find it morally offensive not because it's true.

Does it really matter whether those who are being exploited are Irish or foreign nationals?

timothybryce

_Beau_ wrote: »

Does it really matter whether those who are being exploited are Irish or foreign nationals?

Because Ruhama uses sex traffacking as a reason to ban prostitution.

If those other cases were not a result of sex traffacking then there would be no prosecutions for sex traffacking in Ireland in 2010.

"However, the Department's report did not reveal that both these cases referred to two Irish paedophiles and that the victims or intended victims were Irish children. The 10-year sentence was handed down in March last year to a Dublin man who took pornographic images of a two-year-old girl and a one-year-old boy, which he traded on the internet with other paedophiles. He was not named in order to protect the identity of the victims.

In the other case, former garda Kieran O'Halloran, with an address in Foxrock, Co Dublin, was sentenced to six years in jail in November for soliciting a 13-year-old girl, also Irish, for sex.

In the three other cases, brought under the 2008 Trafficking Act, suspended sentences were handed down, the report recorded. Details of these were not available and it was unclear if they involved foreigners or Irish citizens."

_Beau_

timothybryce wrote: »

Because Ruhama uses sex traffacking as a reason to ban prostitution.

Yes, I am aware of what you are claiming and my question still stands in regards to criminalising clients.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

Why are you arguing on the side of men, when clearly women and girls are the ones who are suffering because of this industry?

I suppose it comes down to the fact that I think men are landed with an addiction to sex, for want of a better wording. I wouldn't say this only I'm anonymous - it's not something one wants to admit to. In this context, I think it's a complicated area and not as simple as you, and some others, seem to make out, where the desire for sex is seen as a falling/similar and perhaps a perversion.

Generally we consider a priest's life as an unnatural one. However, not all men for one reason or another, may find themselves with access to "free" sex. So I think it's a complicated issue.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

I suppose it comes down to the fact that I think men are landed with an addiction to sex, for want of a better language. I wouldn't say this only I'm anonymous - it's not something one wants to admit to. In this context, I think it's a complicated area and not as simple as you, and some others, seem to make out.

Addiction in general is far from being simple, but, wilfully pursuing your addiction is not advisable.

I say that as a recovering alcoholic.

Also, women too (I've learned from documentaries) can be sex addicts so it's not accurate to assume that only 'men are landed with an addiction to sex'.

I also believe that using another human being as a blow up doll is unethical.

I quit drinking because it hurt the people around me and I can't sympathise with your addiction because it hurts other people nor would I consider it a valid argument to allow these women to be mistreated.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

Addiction in general is far from being simple, but, wilfully pursuing your addiction is not advisable.

So everyone should be celibate? That's not what happens - a lot of people consider a celibate life (e.g. in the priest) unnatural.

An alcohol addiction isn't quite the same thing. It's not unnatural to go without drink.

BTW, in case it wasn't clear, I was saying men generally (not just a few men) are landed with a sex addiction.

If some women are addicted to sex, they can probably more easily get it without paying (because men generally have the addiction). And a few women do use prostitutes.

So let me get this straight... The sex traffickers, who are already breaking very serious laws by trafficking in and holding a girl against her will and forcing her to be a prostitute: These lads are going to stop when prostitution becomes illegal?

Are you serious?

All criminalisation will do is drive the practice further underground and make the situation a whole lot worse! Do we ever learn anything in this country?

I have never used a prostitute, nor do I ever plan on using one, but criminalising prostitution will simply create a lot more problems that it will solve. And we should know this by now.

Arfan

This is my assertion.

_Beau_ states conjecture and opinion as fact and hasn't made a single verifiable claim in this thread.

These are my sources. Every single one is an unverifiable claim that has in no way been backed up. Indeed _Beau_ has displayed hostility toward requests for backing up of these assertions.

_Beau_ wrote:

these women are largely being mistreated and a culture of abuse has been created by those involved in this industry.

_Beau_ wrote:

For the most part, women do not want to service men, but, have been forced to do so because of a lack of choices

_Beau_ wrote:

The sex industry is an abusive industry and those who work in it are generally not treated well.

_Beau_ wrote:

I'm transferring data from surveys carried out in other countries. There is no evidence to suggest that sex workers are being treated any differently to those around the world.

_Beau_ wrote:

Statistically, it's more likely to be abusive than not abusive.

_Beau_ wrote:

The work itself is abusive and you don't seem to understand the dynamics involved that make it so.

_Beau_ wrote:

Cleaning and being used for sex are not the same thing, although both could be viewed as being degrading. The latter is far more damaging than the former.

_Beau_ wrote:

if you cannot understand the enormous difference between selling one's body and serving food, then I for one cannot explain it to you.

_Beau_ wrote:

The mistreatment of workers would likely remain, as a culture like that would be difficult to change,

_Beau_ wrote:

Prostitutes in the UK are paid £30 for half an hour. They get a percentage of that.

_Beau_ wrote:

Men generally don't rape because they're horny - they rape because they want to rape.

_Beau_ wrote:

Studies carried out on rapists.

_Beau_ wrote:

Look up the studies - there are plenty of them available online.

The following is not direct evidence but an admission by the poster that on one particular topic they do not have any supporting figures. I consider it character witness.

_Beau_ wrote:

The onus is upon you to prove what you're proposing. I'm not going to argue it because I don't have any figures on it.

Finally I will consider evidence that detracts from my claim.

_Beau_ wrote:

'there is clear evidence of children who have been trafficked in Ireland specifically for the purpose of prostitution, (Kelleher 2009; AHTU annual report 2010);

notes evidence from Sweden and Norway which shows that criminal sanctions for the purchase of sex are a proven deterrent to prostitution and consequently to trafficking (McLeod et al. 2008) (Claude 2010)

This quote includes some relevant sources including the AHTU report which reports 56 people trafficked for sexual exploitation in 2010. Of the 69 investigations in 2010 only 2 have resulted in convictions but another 35 are ongoing. A total of five criminal cases were brought(including the 2 from the investigations). Certainly this report is worth debate in detail as to what it says for the state of sex trafficking in Ireland.

However _Beau_ has done none of this. Not once has _Beau_ posted even the most cursory examination of the actual reports. The quote in question was clipped from a senator's speech without any linking to the reports. This implies to me that they were merely namechecked in a stray attempt to lend authority. I would posit this is further evidence supporting my assertion.

I welcome any counterpoints and hope we can continue this discussion with properly referenced statements of fact.

Dr Galen

I'd just remind everyone involved in this thread of the Politics Charter and how we do things around here.

If you are making assertions on a subject, and claiming it as fact, then you must back that up with an appropriate source. Simply stating a list of things that you believe to be the case is not enough, you have to show your reasoning as well. A bit like the Leaving Cert Maths tbh

Cheers

DrG

goose2005

_Beau_ wrote: »

Prostitutes in the UK are paid £30 for half an hour. They get a percentage of that. In all probability, women in Ireland are paid much the same. Where are you getting this €200 figure from?

A glance at any escort site will show you that it's €90-€120 for a half-hour, over €200 for an hour. Interviews that I've read show that prostitutes keep all of the money they earn, or at least most of it.

_Beau_ wrote: »

There is no risk of extortion - unless, of course, a man breaks the Law and that is the bottom line, just as there is no risk of my arm being bitten by a house owner's dog while breaking into it until I choose to break into that house.

One cannot wilfully break the Law and then claim to be a victim because one's criminal actions lead to further criminal behaviour being inflicted upon them.

One can break the law and claim to be a victim if the law is injust and illogical.

As for direct and indirect effects of adopting Sweden's laws - the first thing that springs to my mind is that those who are being trafficked can go to the police without the threat of being prosecuted themselves.

They can already do that.

Surely the protection of the women within the industry is what's important, not the protection of men from the possible outcome of using these women.

Prostitutes are best protected by bringing them out of hiding.

Alopex

goose2005 wrote: »

They can already do that.

Well I'd imagine if they're genuinely trafficked they can't, as they will be under threat in some way or another.

Criminalising the male buyer will do nothing to change that scenario of course.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

So everyone should be celibate?

What's wrong with masturbation?

An alcohol addiction isn't quite the same thing. It's not unnatural to go without drink.

Gaining control of your life, regardless of what it is that you're addicted to, requires maintaining a balance.

Using prostitutes is obviously not a positive route to take. You need to get help for your addiction. Fighting to keep prostitution legal would be like me fighting to keep bars open - it's a destructive mindset that will not help you to recover.

BTW, in case it wasn't clear, I was saying men generally (not just a few men) are landed with a sex addiction.

If some women are addicted to sex, they can probably more easily get it without paying (because men generally have the addiction). And a few women do use prostitutes.

Can you prove that?

_Beau_

Arfan wrote: »

I welcome any counterpoints and hope we can continue this discussion with properly referenced statements of fact.

I would welcome an answer to the question that you continually avoid.

I shall be glad to offer evidence to support all of my claims should you be respectful and answer, rather than ignore, what I repeatedly asked.

ETA: I'm being childish. I'll find information to support my views.

_Beau_

goose2005 wrote: »

A glance at any escort site will show you that it's €90-€120 for a half-hour, over €200 for an hour. Interviews that I've read show that prostitutes keep all of the money they earn, or at least most of it.

Do you have links?

One can break the law and claim to be a victim if the law is injust and illogical.

Can you explain why you believe that this law (if changed) would be unjust and illogical?

Prostitutes are best protected by bringing them out of hiding.

What has lead you to believe that?

_Beau_

Alopex wrote: »

Well I'd imagine if they're genuinely trafficked they can't, as they will be under threat in some way or another.

Criminalising the male buyer will do nothing to change that scenario of course.

Evidence from Sweden and Norway has shown that such a law deters clients from using prostitutes.