I finally got the attention of a mainstream-type blog, an interesting one called Sociological Images: Seeing is Believing. This site shows all kinds of pictures and asks people to (sociologically) consider the assumptions they embody. I sent them the link to my recent post called Sex trafficking v Prostitution: How do we judge the evidence? because it gives a video that purports to show television-news audiences an instance of sex trafficking.
The video is actually hilarious and well worth a visit, as the intrepid girl reporter, all dressed up in safari gear, bravely watches prostitutes through binoculars, whispering her comments dramatically. But more important is the amazing LACK of evidence in the video itself, which just shows men and women in a field somewhere. As I say in the post, we might be seeing an outdoor brothel but we are given no evidence of trafficking because we don’t get to hear what any of the women say (or the men, for that matter).
I’ve been trying for some time to figure out how to question the evidence about victims and sex without participating in the impossible battle of statistics, where no one agrees about what the basic words mean in the first place. So it feels significant that Sociological Images gave the post a good spread, and called it Thinking Critically about Sex Trafficking, and it might be a good idea to visit the site and reinforce some of the message. The blog is one of a bunch of sociological ones clustered at Contexts.org, which means talking to folks who are often fairly clueless about the sex industry.
Laura Agustín
Filed under: Academia, trafficking | Tagged: sociology, trafficking |
Bound, Not Gagged 
Here is the reply I left on the Sociological Images blog:
In the first video, you have two individuals who are considered privileged in our society–a TV news reporter and a police officer–hiding in the bushes, spying on a group of people in a field with binoculars and cameras.
Ordinarily, engaging in this type of voyeurism can be considered illegal in some instances, and amoral in most instances. Granted, the people in the field were in a public place, but I think the spying on them with cameras overstepped boundaries, even in the age of YouTube.
But of course, since the people in the field were allegedly engaged in prostitution, our larger society assumes that these individuals’ right to privacy is forfeit, and if we want to film their activities, even for our own profit, we are entitled to do so.
And as Laura Augustin pointed out on another blog, the TV reporter was dressed in a safari-looking outfit, strongly suggesting that the people in the field are to be considered little more than animals–like monkeys or hyenas–going about their activities and mating rituals while humans watched.
And of course there is nothing the people in field can do about this violation, because they are most likely illegal immigrants with no rights or privileges, therefore they cannot sue or protest this voyeurism. And the TV reporter and police officer probably were well aware of this, and therefore felt they could do what they did with impunity.
One can argue that if people engage in public sex, their right to privacy is forfeit. But at the same time, the right to privacy would still apply when having that public sex broadcast on a TV news program. But when it comes to (alleged) prostitution, and by (alleged) illegal immigrants, then those rules fly out the window, and a TV reporter can have the vicarious and illicit thrill of being a Peeping Tom (and recording her adventures) without all the legal ramifications that would ensue under a different circumstance.
Thanks to Maxine and Susan for leaving comments at Sociological Images. The author of Feminist Law blog missed the point of the post and tried to prove that the situation showed in the video turned out to be horrible, genuine, etc. The point of my post was not to throw around endless media references but to query what we learn from a single example that claims to show evidence. I think Law Professor missed that point.
The law professor profits off the status quo…the criminalization of prostitution and migration.
What are sex worker activists doing to fight human trafficking? Can you write some specific goals and actions you’re taking to arrest pimps and traffickers? Sorry I’m not understanding sex worker activism beyond making prostitution out to be something that people choose and doesn’t hurt anybody and that *not ALL sex worker’s are kidnapped so stop trying to rescue us!!!!* mentality. I wonder sometimes if I should join sex worker activism but then I see what you say against people who try to point out what sucks about it……can you make a page on this site that states your position and what you are working on for sex workers besides “decriminalization” ?
Good grief, I had no idea such a kerfuffle ensued after that! The law professor is a case study of not paying attention to the only point that was significant for a ‘sociological images’ site, which was the lack of evidence in that particular video. Which happened to be a mainstream news source and therefore sank into the minds of millions. She might, for instance, say that THIS video doesn’t show evidence but OTHER videos did, and accuse me of limiting the research too much. But no, no attention to the original video at all. Beats me!
Cindy,
First thing sex worker activists have to do is fight the idea that just because you’re a sex worker you’re automatically trafficked. Once that is taken care of, changing the illegal status of prostitution will help sex workers fight trafficking. As it is, sex workers who know of real coercion aren’t going to approach the police since they’ll be the ones arrested and the ones who are in trouble likely won’t get helped.
The issue of “trafficking” has gotten way too much attention and the problems caused by the illegal status of prostitution gets no attention. Changing the laws first will allow a lot of other positive changes to happen.
Course, if you have a better idea, you’re welcome to share.
XX
Cindy
Immigration law and policy everywhere favour particular high-status, class-based jobs and professions and thereby *create* illegality and clandestinity – and therefore vulnerability to exploitation – for millions of people who don’t qualify. Amongst the millions of those with unauthorised immigration status, some sell sex. Not all of those want to stop doing it. Some do want to stop. Any solutions for so big a crowd of people have to be more subtle than wholescale victimisation and rescue. On a sex worker activist site, you find emphasis on decriminalisation – that’s the biggest problem they have to fight. Come to my site if you’re interested in the challenging complexity of the migration issues, which apply to more than sex workers.
Border Thinking http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin
Oops, I posted in the wrong topic last time as I educating ‘cindy’.
I’m enclosing a link to a recent article about perpetrators who rob and kidnap at gun point a massage parlor worker. The article is another example of how the media debases this crime because of the industry it took place in. But I’ve not had success in posting that included links in the past.
http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_11347294%3Fsource%3Drss
Video released of San Rafael robbery, kidnapping
Lesson for ‘cindy’; ‘pimps and traffickers’ aren’t focus for sex industry rights activist because they are not the biggest threat to sex industry workers’ health and safety. It’s the criminalization of prostitution that makes us targets for perpetrators like this in the first place and the resulting discrimination demonstrated in the reporting of this crime by the media outlet which only serves to negate equal protection under the law by using the 100 years worth of negative stigma to justify this violence. Watch how these perpetrators won’t be held accountable for their crimes. If they’re caught, they’ll be plea bargained and won’t be doing any time for kidnapping because of who they kidnapped.
Watch how the business it’s self becomes a target to for closure by the police instead, putting worker at more risk because they will have one less option for working.
What’s the most hideous about this story is that the media outlet takes money from this business for advertising. The workers who are robbed pay the advertising to this media outlet and then are defamed by the same media outlet in the same story reporting how they are victims of violence!
Over you head, ‘cindy’?
Cindy,
Advocating for the decriminalization of prostitution is a way to fight human trafficking. Criminalization encourages trafficking and an example of this involves the sex workers who are being trafficked into jail. The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws mirrors human trafficking. Like with trafficking, the use of deception is often used to gain control in the enforcement of anti-prostitution laws, such as when vice cops trick sex workers into thinking they’re clients and then arrest these workers. Also, sex workers are being forcibly arrested and forced to live in jail cages under the criminalization of prostitution. If I’m opposed to traffickers using deception, force, and coercion against sex industry workers or anybody else, why should I support the criminal (in)justice system doing this to sex workers?
Furthermore, some sex workers are trying to flee persecution because of the criminalization of prostitution, which makes them more vulnerable to traffickers and exploitative conditions. The arrests of sex workers also wastes resources that could be used to fight actual human trafficking. Criminalizing prostitution under the guise of fighting trafficking gets in the way of finding effective solutions to stopping human trafficking. Decriminalizing prostitution would not decriminalize or promote human trafficking in the sex industry or any other industry. A report out of New Zealand (where prostitution is decriminalized) found no evidence to support the claim that decriminalizing prostitution promotes human trafficking.
Cindy wrote:
“I wonder sometimes if I should join sex worker activism but then I see what you say against people who try to point out what sucks about it……”
Correction: We’re not against people who point out what sucks about sex work and we haven’t all had wonderful experiences in the sex industry. Some sex worker advocates have reported experiencing violence and being unable to report it to the police out of fear of incriminating themselves, or having the police treat them like they are the criminals and not persuing the perpetrators. This does suck. We’re not against people who point out what sucks about the industry, but what we are against is the promotion laws and policies that harm sex workers and are resulting in sex workers being arrested and fined or forced to live in jail cages.
>>“I wonder sometimes if I should join sex worker activism but then I see what you say against people who try to point out what sucks about it…>>
Cindy, a few years ago I had a similar choice. Whether or not to join sex worker activism. I came from the “anti” side and have never been shy about the things that suck in the sex industry. I have never met a more inclusive, warm and committed group of activists in my life as those in the sex worker rights movement. The sex worker rights movement is an an oppression movement. One need look no farther than International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers to see the movement’s commitment to addressing things that suck in the sex industry. Like violence against sex workers as one. No one is advocating the sex industry is right for everyone. There are many in the sex industry that truly shouldn’t be, many who don’t want to be. No one is opposing services to help those that want to leave, no one is opposing anything that frees those who are not in the sex industry by choice. When people opposed to sex worker rights activism have problems isn’t when they try to point out what sucks, it is when they advocate blanket ending to the sex industry. Or when they advocate eliminating rights and choices for many in an effort to free a few. Social change and ending oppression can’t be just a trade off to rescue a few and the cost of many. Much of the criticism of SAGE, of many anti’s is the sell out TVPRA based funding which goes unilaterally to only anti based orgs,
SAGE like many others chose to prioritize their funding over the lives and rights of the majority. The chose to take the role of the greedy corporation dressing up their greed as socially beneficial to all.
Susan and I are still going on that other blog and she’s made such a great point in response to the idea that criminalizing clients will stop them from paying for it by stating the obvious fact which is that it’s already criminalized to buy sex and it hasn’t stopped the act of buying sex. So much for the haters’ theory of ‘ending the demand’. What a scam the war on the whore profiteers are running with that bit.
FYI, one of the haters is saying :Ok then, putting aside the question of how much ‘choice’ the women really had about being there, and whether or not they were under-age (since we can’t prove anything definitively, and it will only have us arguing in circles), how would having a deregulated system of prostitution actually help those specific women?
Feminist Law Professor ended up writing about it on her own blog and others have linked to her. Kristof just published a horrendous video of a victim on his New York Times blog, so it’s a bad time to be talking about evidence. Very instructive to see how the conversation was taken far away from the original point.
Laura,
I read Kristoff’s article about that. While I don’t want to disparage this person if she really went through this type of horror, her story seems contradictory.
First she said she was tortured with electric shocks so as not to mar her beauty, and then she said she was in a coffin of biting ants, which would definitely mar someone’s physical appearance. Yet when you bring up this contradiction, you are the equivalent of a “holocaust denier” in some people’s eyes.
And then there is the part where she is kidnapped from Vietnam to Cambodia. This is more plausible than the other story, but why would someone go through the expense of kidnapping anyone and bring them to Cambodia when impoverished Cambodian women would gladly sell their virginity to a white man for much cheaper than many places?
I can’t find the link to the story, but go to the NY Times and search Kristoff and Somaly Mann.
If Kristoff is interested in writing about the sex industry in Cambodia, I suggest that he also write about how sex workers have been arrested and subsequently gang raped, robbed, and beaten by police and guards in a Cambodian detention center under U.S. imposed anti-prostitution legislation. At least three sex workers have died in police custody due to being denied needed medical care.
Remember the story a few years back about the guy who rescued some gal in Asia from the some brothel and gets her through hair dressing school and everything and then she goes back to ho-n.
>>how would having a deregulated system of prostitution actually help those specific women?>>
I have a question for those with this question. How many under age, trafficked or slave workers do we run into in legal and non marginalized occupations? If we are working in a call center, on a plane, in a retail job, for instance and we suspect that our co worker is forced, underage, an illegally trafficked slave, what can we do? Umm, report it to the police, report it to deparmtent of labor, to human resources and there is reasonable expectation that the actual crimes will be addressed. Meaning the coercion, minor, trafficking etc. The problem isn’t solved by banning an occupation because abuses happen in it. We don’t close a call center because someone may be trafficked into it. We don’t take away the rights of the workers or criminalize the customers of an airline because someone may coerce a flight attendant or passenger to smuggle drugs……. Yet where there is sex work, the immediate answer of so many is to live in this absurd world believing we can make it all go away through blanket legislation.
If sex work was not illegal, if sex workers had the same rights as others, if it weren’t marginalized, if all weren’t portrayed as either criminals or trafficking victims we could actually focus on the real world.
Again, as a former trafficking victim,,,, I was afraid of the police. Afraid of society not believing, not understanding, afraid of the justice system. And none of those fears were ever allayed by reality. Reality was I had every reason to be afraid of them. I woudn’t and didn’t report criminal actions against me or others because the police, the justice system and society don’t see prostitutes as someone to help.
Why is it so many academics and feminists can’t see the obvious? Predators play on isolation. The actual traffickers, the actual rapists, know that sex work is illegal and that as such anyone that is a prostitute for a variety of reasons that are enforced by criminalization are easy targets. When I as a trafficking victim saw myself as a criminal, which was certainly enforced and reenforced by the trafficker/pimp, I wasn’t going to go to the police for help. One of the first things one is taught by a predator is the many reasons why you can’t get help. And the predator knows how sex workers are oppressed by laws, by society, by discrimination, marginalization, by poverty,,,,,,,,,,, He knows that just as damn well as some college educated professor that happened to study oppression in her undergrad women’s studies class. There is also this assumption by many who study and advocate anti ideology that they by virtue of their studies and feminism are the only ones who understand oppression.
Coercion, trafficking, underage prostitution,,,,,,,,,those are already illegal yet they are still happening. Casting the wide net of criminalizing consenting adults to save those that are neither, that thought process has been tried for a long time and hasn’t worked. Fighting those evils by expending hordes of resources and energy opposing sex worker rights initiatives for consenting adult sex work sure as hell hasn’t and isn’t going to work in saving the actual victims or bringing the actual criminals to justice.
On the question; “how would having a deregulated system of prostitution actually help those specific women?”
I am providing links to the long history of corruption of the San Diego County since it was the scene of the bad media reporting. Corruption of the law enforcement and public officials who create and direct public policy will end under decriminalization. Under decrim, workers won’t have to be afraid of the police or the public. Under decrim, the competing interests of the police, public officials and predators ( often all the same people), will end and equal protection under the law will be the only mandate to pursue. For undocumented workers, local sanctuary city ordinances are used to keep those arrested for prostitution from being deported until we can change the policy and practices at the boarder crossings. People have to be able to tell the truth without fear of retaliation. And right now, people are more afraid of the police and the public than individuals who use force fraud and coercion to assault and steel from us. That’s why there’s been very few convictions for trafficking in relation to the arrests for prostitution, both of workers and clients. Current policies dictates the arrests of the wrong people for the wrong reason and the violence the haters say they care so much able goes unabated. And that’s because the haters don’t really care about the violence we sustain, and being put out of work and having limited work options is a form of violence. The haters’ real agenda is keep men from paying for sexual pleasure.
This story has been going on for years.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080604-9999-1m4cityhall.html
There is a direct relationship between restricting sex locally indoors and sex in the bushes.
http://www.northcountytimes.com/articles/2007/05/05/news/californian/4_02_425_4_07.txt
http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/50263
@ Susan
“First she said she was tortured with electric shocks so as not to mar her beauty, and then she said she was in a coffin of biting ants, which would definitely mar someone’s physical appearance. Yet when you bring up this contradiction, you are the equivalent of a “holocaust denier” in some people’s eyes.”
When I read this I had to cover my mouth in disgust. I’ve heard this goes on here on this website, but didn’t believe it until now. The delusional and bizarre thinking here about the decrim of prostitution in the US and trafficked children is unfortunate.
I guarantee if you, Susan, were put in a wood coffin with biting ants, you’d see things clearer. I’m sure Sina Vann is happy to learn a over-priced, sex addicted prostitute living in the lap of luxury in the United States thinks her story seems contradictory.
@ sexworkeradvocate
“Advocating for the decriminalization of prostitution is a way to fight human trafficking.”
It’s a way. Out of about a million ways. I’m sure Kristoff is appreciative of your suggestion, by the way.
Why don’t the more deluded of your group get on a plane and do your own investigation instead of sitting around poking holes in everyone else’s work?
Or, at least stick to protecting prostitutes and leave people like Sina Vann alone and out of your ridiculous cross fire.
Gagged wrote:
“Why don’t the more deluded of your group get on a plane and do your own investigation instead of sitting around poking holes in everyone else’s work?”
First of all, we’re not in Kristoff’s position, so the N.Y. Times isn’t paying to send us around the world Why not put your money where your mouth (or keyboard) is and pay to fund our research so we can do the research you’re asking about? Or, why not fight to end the funding restrictions (such as the gag order in the TVPRA) that block us from being able to get funding to conduct the research you’re asking about? Also, some of us do conduct research and for some of us, our experiences are our research.
“Yet when you bring up this contradiction, you are the equivalent of a “holocaust denier” in some people’s eyes.”
Well that’s because you are the equivalent … it’s not a mistake.
It is the equivalent, however, of one saying that the below never happened. That it is a skewed sensational piece of journalistic junk:
“Police nabbed her in a raid and charged her with publicly soliciting sex, fining her nearly two dollars. Then, Chanta claims, the arresting officers gang raped and beat her for six days in detention.
Bruises covered her body, but none of her assailants were brought to court, she said.
The Cambodian government began prosecuting a new “Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation” in February after years of pressure from the United States to clamp down on sex trafficking.
Since then, authorities have conducted brothel raids and street sweeps, but rights groups complain the new law has in many ways worsened the exploitation of women.
“The law allows police of all levels to arrest and punish sex workers,” said Naly Pilorge, director of local human rights group Licadho.
“The sex workers are arrested to police stations and rehabilitation centres and then they are abused.”
For me to deny any part of this story would be ridiculous to you wouldn’t it? Yes, it would.
Follow this link and you’ll find Long Pross who is waiting for a glass eye. Perhaps Kristof is off on her story, as well.
If Sina Vann truly went through horrible stuff like that, then I do have sympathy for her, and I’m glad she is out of that situation, and sincerely hope that whoever did it to her never sees the light of day again.
That said, it’s a contradiction to say that electric shocks are applied to girls in order not to mar their beauty, which does make a twisted amount of sense, and then to say that biting ants are also applied, which definitely WOULD scar someone’s body. There are a few people besides myself who have noticed this contradiction, and Nick Kristoff should have noticed it himself.
Perhaps Sina Vann and Somaly Mann are trying to do their best to get people to pay attention to the global human trafficking phenomenon, but when you exaggerate for effect, you are ultimately doing a disservice to the very cause you are championing.
And as for the police arresting Cambodian sex workers, well of course that never happened. There is clearly no such thing as police brutality, is there?
Here are some pictures of ant bites. They definitely scar someone’s physical appearance:
http://tinyurl.com/a43weh
Gagged,
There certainly is history of anti trafficking self identified radical feminist activists questioning, invalidating, mocking among other things of survivors of torture, trafficking etc, in the sex industry when the survivor is deemed on the wrong side of the political fence. I can certainly point out a number of examples.
Those experiencing torture in the sex industry and those who have survived it do not benefit in any way from first world bloggers that link their suffering to unrelated labor rights activists and a labor rights movement.
>>I’m sure Sina Vann is happy to learn a over-priced, sex addicted prostitute living in the lap of luxury in the United States thinks her story seems contradictory.>>
Gagged,,, I don’t imagine Sina Vann is getting a whole lot of constructive life changes from your angry posts on a blog either. I realize there are a lot of anti trafficking activists that believe they are on the front line of the war against torture by virtue of angry posts on sex worker rights blogs,,,, but Sina Vann and the many other victims have way too many other issues to deal with than going to blogs of chosen enemies and tossing some angry barbs. You may truly want to help trafficking victims Gagged, but if you feel posting here is some epic battle against the evil you are passionate about fighting,,,, you may want to refocus as Sina Vann probably has other ways she could use your help far more than throwing shit at Susan or sexworkeradvocate
May I just observe that all this has gone very far from what my original post was about: just asking us to consider what we see in a single, particular video. All the ideological racket has nothing to do with that, because responsible people on any side of the question are capable of discussing the idea of evidence.
I have been in the field talking with thousands of migrating people since 1992. I have met plenty of victims, I have visited shelters for victims of trafficking, I do not argue about the existence of abuse.
Once a social problem has been identified, it is common for people with no experience of it to jump on a bandwagon in which everything is seen as Right or Wrong. Reductionist, simplified, generalising stories and ideas become rampant. That’s what has happened here, to the point that we cannot even discuss one small instance of a story. I think people need to learn to read.
Laura Agustín
That’s true, Laura.
We were talking about the video over at Sociological Images, but then the Opposition came in and started being really sarcastic and and changing the subject.
May I offer a suggestion? A really powerful way for you to present your case might be to slice out the parts of the video where it only shows the people in the field, and then present that, and ask people what they think they are looking at. And then present the video in it entirety. It would surprise people who’ve never seen this video before.
Also, if you do this, you would need to silence the reporter’s and the policeman’s voices in the shorter film showing only the people in the field.
@Susan
“Perhaps Sina Vann and Somaly Mann are trying to do their best to get people to pay attention to the global human trafficking phenomenon, but when you exaggerate for effect, you are ultimately doing a disservice to the very cause you are championing.”
This is by far the saddest I’ve read here. There are so many, like Cindy, who are on the fence about decrim. So many sex workers who feel this attitude comes from a place of fear delusion. If you would stick to protecting prostitutes and stop denying slaves to further decrim, you would have more supporters and more funding than you could ever use in a lifetime.
Wake up.
>>If you would stick to protecting prostitutes and stop denying slaves to further decrim, you would have more supporters and more funding than you could ever use in a lifetime.>>
Decrim doesn’t create more slaves. What am I missing here? Criminalization especially in the current status quo creates far more victims than it can possibly reduce. Predators exploit by criminalizing and criminalization. Status quo and the opposition to decrim being in power are predators wet dream. Besides trafficking, coercion, underage prostitution, etc, are all illegal right now yet the problems continue to worsen. Taking away rights from adult consenting sex workers isn’t ever going to harm predators, traffickers, rapists,
As for funding. Funding isn’t open because of politics and a misleading feminist/anti trafficking/bush administration alliance that is very poorly regarded throughout most of the world. And essentially gagged, if I understand correctly, you are a proponent of further oppression where it comes to funding. Essentially think like the Bush/FEminist/TVPRA/Neocon thought process or funding will never open up. You make that seem like a positive. In other words, denying funding to those in need until others are forced into agreeing to the party line is fine? Funding can be there if you follow TVPRA/Alliance rules. Are we forgetting what the funding is for and who it is for? Why would people who profess caring about the oppressed state funding could be there but isn’t right now because it is being held up over political power and control issues? Are we forgetting who the funding helps and why those who need it care about the funding and not about the Beltway and feminist academic conferences.
Before you cast stones about privilege of others Gagged, perhaps you may want to consider the arrogance in your own processes.
@Laura
“because responsible people on any side of the question are capable of discussing the idea of evidence.”
Laura, what evidence do you have that the video does not include pimped young girls laying down in a field? What evidence do you have showing these terribly young Mexican girls are not trafficked? None. So what you are doing is taking a video lacking the evidence you need and laughing in the faces of children in a potentially deadly and dangerous situation.
The reporters are idiots crawling around on the ground? Who cares? You might find that “hilarious” but most people look beyond the “funny” reporting and see the potential truth in what is happening.
The real truth is you have no idea what’s happening in the video. Those girls could be in much worse condition than the video portrays and you have not one inch of evidence to prove otherwise. Now that is what I know to be irresponsible behavior. Very Irresponsible.
>>The real truth is you have no idea what’s happening in the video.>>
That is the whole damn point that Laura is making. We don’t have any idea of what’s happening in the video. We don’t hear their voices. Only the voices of the reporter and the policeman.
Not that Gagged will care because this video isn’t the abolitionist party line, nonetheless the best video I have ever seen on the harm of TVPRA and why the sex worker rights movement don’t just do the BOHICA thing for the funding
http://blip.tv/file/181155
@Jill
Firstly, I don’t understand why you mention the fact that decrim will not create more slaves. It doesn’t fit with the quote you posted from my comment and I never assumed that decrim would in any way create more slaves. Also, I brought up funding in response to sexworkeradvocate’s mention of not having the money to do your own research. Funding was never my point here. I can see now why you are left to chase your own tails. I can’t find much in any of the comments directed at me that has much to do with the points I’ve made. Perhaps the “flinging shit” comment?
Here’s to failing at having all the support and funding you need from your own peers. It’s better to keep your group small and, well, just odd.
Jill wrote:
***”Not that Gagged will care because this video isn’t the abolitionist party line”****
Wow.
hello susan, yes i know how it happened and how it always happens and i don’t blame you and others for taking up the challenge. it’s very instructive to see how education *doesn’t* work. the video doesn’t prove anything at all, in any direction, so one could ask what it is doing on a mainstream news programme, presented as evidence of something.
theoretically, and with ‘funding’, one could take the time to clip up the video. but that, too, would be manipulative, because the pictures taken only make sense in a context provided by authority figures – police, reporters. i don’t doubt that the local police have more information on that particular situation than they express in the video. one would have to go talk with them, too, to find out what they know and how. i have done this with police in london and utrecht, i am not the enemy of all police officers.
i’ll be looking out for more examples that people on any side call evidence and will let you know.
best, laura
>>Funding was never my point here.>>
One of these days, you’ll tell us what your point is.
Well there needs to be come research about the effect of media on the trafficking discourse specifically. Current practices by the croni capitalist corporate dominate media clearly supports the lack of evidence in this area, promotes the continued criminalization of prostitution, and lack of transparency with the funding. Lots has been written about the effects of capitalist corporate centered media on the lack of responsibility in disseminating information to the public. When the priorities are profits not integrity, well….it plays a roll in what’s reported and how it’s reported and how the public perceives the information and the finally and more importantly, how it impacts public policy.
I believe that close scrutiny of how this topic has been treated in the media will show specific instances of planned coordinated coverage to move ‘trafficking’ legislation in an effort to be continue to oppress prostitution and our right to work.
If we ever want to move our agenda, we have to get a hold of media. We need some obama sized infomercials.
Which is one of the reasons I believe that sex worker rights activist have to get some education around, what workers’ rights are, training in how to articulate that message and plan media campaigns to cover of our issues. And of course, we’ll need to get some training in how to fund such projects.
It will take more than blogging.
“Which is one of the reasons I believe that sex worker rights activist have to get some education around, what workers’ rights are, training in how to articulate that message and plan media campaigns to cover of our issues. And of course, we’ll need to get some training in how to fund such projects.
It will take more than blogging.”
Here’s to dovetailing interests, Maxine.
@Susan who wrote:
“One of these days, you’ll tell us what your point is.”
Do you need me to cut and paste my points again? I’ll let you catch up on your own. Somehow I think you’re the only one that missed it here. Susan, your eyes are so glazed over and your mind is shut down. It’s almost like speaking to a robot.
Well, if you all do get gov. funding, some of you will need new outfits for your next gathering. Here let me help:
With that I will get out of your comment box ladies.
>>With that I will get out of your comment box ladies.>>
Please do, Gagged.
That photo looks like the one that melissa farley held up at public hearing in San Francisco to bar operation of an online porn.
FYI, I’ve been wearing the same pair of tennis shoes for the last 2 years. Maybe I ought to bronze them to action off for funding as government funding isn’t an option for sex worker rights activist or activist of any kind in America and any good haters worth their salt would already know that..
Susan I must be a robot too, I agree with you………..
Maxine, the correct way to dress to help the oppressed and trafficking victims is of course to dress like a researcher
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=melissa+farley&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2
Or Emily Harris who could be Farley’s sister
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/692979.jpg%3Fv%3D1%26c%3DViewImages%26k%3D2%26d%3D17A4AD9FDB9CF19332EFD823EFD41CFD2E0148F27CBFD5F8284831B75F48EF45&imgrefurl=http://www.jamd.com/image/g/692979&usg=__Naknsr15NnY6Lfhg3PRL7c3g6QQ=&h=354&w=219&sz=14&hl=en&start=9&tbnid=9Tim-a3OlXVqaM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=75&prev=/images%3Fq%3Demily%2Bharris%2Bsla%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
Gagged seems to have pre-empted what we have found out about Long Pros and her glass eye- and yes he was off.
In a publication put out earlier this year Long Pross is pictured and it says she is in one of Somaly’s centres as a prevention case, meaning she was at risk of trafficking but never trafficked. Her eye was taken out after botched surgery and it says she was taken to the hospital by her mother.
In the interview video in Khmer she says her mother kicked her in the eye- in translation this is changed and really skews the meaning. And no the word she uses for mother doesn’t translate to anything like Mama-san, pimp, or brothel owner or trafficker.
Somaly is well known in Cambodia for her huge contradictions and also for her lies- such as her daughter being kidnapped by traffickers.
Her ex husband, the real and actual founder of Afesip says their children were never harmed or threatened.
Andrew Hunter
apnsw
Cambodia
Ahhhhhhhhhh . . . . . thanks for confirming my suspicions, Andrew.
Uh-huh
@Andrew
“In a publication put out earlier this year Long Pross is pictured and it says she is in one of Somaly’s centres as a prevention case, meaning she was at risk of trafficking but never trafficked. Her eye was taken out after botched surgery and it says she was taken to the hospital by her mother.”
Publication? Do you have a link, Andrew? Or can you scan this publication and link it here? If this is the case, human trafficking is a serious issue. I really look forward to your posting this publication.
@Susan
I’m still very confused how you can take one article regarding a willing sex worker being arrested and beaten to be completely true and free of sensationalism and anther on stolen sex slaves to be completely fictitious. Do you really think anyone, even if they ride the short bus can’t see through this one-sidedness?
Do you actually believe the media has magically created human trafficking just to make your life miserable by standing in the way of decriminalization of prostitution? Sounds like a narcissistic slant on your “epic” war against The Man.
I suppose you also believe the media created “Global Warming?” Because that’s what I heard from the Bush posse.
Gagged, get off this website. Your opinions don’t matter to us when you come here and start recommending that we wear Klan-suits.
You should be thankful that there is a no-censorship policy here, unlike those other blogs I can mention.
Gagged wrote:
“I’m still very confused how you can take one article regarding a willing sex worker being arrested and beaten to be completely true and free of sensationalism and anther on stolen sex slaves to be completely fictitious.”
To Gagged:
Susan never said the story about sex slaves was ficticious and she acknowedged that it could be true. She just pointed out what she perceived to be contradictions in the story. Also, the photo you posted of the Klan outfit was morbid and has nothing to do with sex workers’ rights advocacy. That doesn’t speak very favorably of you and may give us a hint as to who you are, so you should be careful about what types of hints you drop us if you wish to maintain anonymity.
Furthermore, Cambodian sex worker rights activists have written a letter protesting the law enforcement abuses against sex workers under U.S. imposed legislation and there was a documentary produced about this. There were also sex worker demostrations against this. These abuses received very little media coverage, probably because reporters such as Kristof who are in a position where they could report on this are so busy praising U.S. policies toward trafficking that they overlook or refuse to acknowedge how these policies are resulting in major human rights violations. My point is that it’s not just one article which addressed this abuse. Lastly, in response to your comments about the the Bush posse, please note that the Bush posse supports the criminalization of prostitution and the use of trafficking policies to promote oppressive laws that are more focused on persecuting sex workers than stopping human trafficking, so you probably have more in common with the Bush posse than we do.
“Gagged, get off this website.”
Aww, feeling a little out of control? Yeah, you don’t have any control over me whatsoever Susan so deal with it.
Do you mean in the ways you are thankful for the no-censorship policies Kristof and the others have, allowing you leave comments all over the Internet stating that human trafficking doesn’t exist and all media pertaining to is fictitious?
You can mention other blogs? Really? IP addresses are helpful that way. Personally, I have a “no hide like a little frightened bitch policy”. Please mention away. We can really get off topic and mention all kinds of websites, can’t we?
Still waiting on Andrew as many of us will find this elusive publication regarding Long Pross being a liar incredibly helpful regarding the war on the criminalization of prostitution and human trafficking.
Gagged is out of her depth. There is now plenty of evidence coming from Cambodia, from reporters, NGOs and sex workers, that the US-forced anti-trafficking law is not having the salutary effect campaigners imagine. The law was badly written and has effects such as these two stories both from Cambodia:
http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/us-anti-sex-trafficking-law-causes-police-violence-in-cambodia
http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/cambodia-ladyboy-rescue-effort-goes-wrong
No one is arguing that some people have had terrible experiences. The issue is how outsiders propose to ‘help’ without knowing what they are doing.
I’ll ask Andrew for the citation to the other version of the terrible eye story.
“may give us a hint as to who you are, so you should be careful about what types of hints you drop us if you wish to maintain anonymity.”
No need for the threats. My anonymity was shot the first time I posted – so you don’t have to pretend to be collecting hints. If I wanted to stay anonymous I’d have been more careful with IP adresses. So sex worker advocates are going to “out” a sex worker? This just gets better and better.
SWA writes:
“Furthermore, Cambodian sex worker rights activists have written a letter protesting the law enforcement abuses against sex workers under U.S. imposed legislation and there was a documentary produced about this. There were also sex worker demonstrations against this. These abuses received very little media coverage, probably because reporters such as Kristof who are in a position where they could report on this are so busy praising U.S. policies toward trafficking that they overlook or refuse to acknowledge how these policies are resulting in major human rights violations. My point is that it’s not just one article which addressed this abuse.”
I understand and I agree. My position is that all media is sensational even on the topic of human trafficking. It doesn’t mean human trafficking doesn’t exist or that Long Pross deserves this kind of treatment.
I’m not going to apologize for saying that someone who tells Andrew Hunter “thank you for confirming my suspicions”, would look pretty good in a clan suit.
What’s more “morbid”, the clan suit or a child being raped repeatedly and left with one eye and having someone call her story bogus?
Long Pros is in the book Traffik, by Norman Jean Roy, pubiished by Powerhouse books. Proceeds to Somaly Mam Foundation.
As I said, in it she is described as a protection case. Protection cases are girls who haven’t been trafficked but were deemed at risk of trafficking….
Something’s wrong here- same girl, two very different stories- but both coming from Somaly Mam and her organisation Afesip.
Hilary needs better researchers than Kristof.
@gagged,
Several members of the community have expressed concern that your comments are attacking, not in the spirit of conversation and understanding. Our blog is not here to serve the needs of those who want to have hostile debates with sex workers.
If you wish to continue to comment at Bound, not Gagged, please focus on the issues at hand, and not personal attacks on members of our community.
Melissa
Co-moderator
Bound, not Gagged
One of the most vocal TVPRA supporters is Donna Hughes, who is also a noted opponent to the sex worker rights movement. About the Bush Posse Gagged…
Donna Hughes of the New Abolitonist movement
https://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/hughes200601260824.asp
Donna Hughes interviewed by Katheryn Lopez states
“opez: How important has the president been in this fight?
Hughes: President Bush has been the crucial factor. He has created a political climate in which all of us, from local activists to high-ranking political appointees, could do this work. Mainstream feminists like to say he’s anti-woman, but by supporting the abolitionist work against the global sex trade, he has done more for women and girls than any one other president I can think of. And he seems to have done it because it’s the right thing to do, not because of pressure or favoritism. The new law and policy will literally initiate change for millions of women and girls around the world. Years from now, when the anti-Bush hysteria has died away, I believe he will be recognized as a true advocate for women’s freedom and human rights. “
So Gagged. when anti trafficking, anti prostitution rad fem type Nikki Craft builds an entire website attempting to deny the experiences of a trafficking victim, the “abolitionist movement” goes silent or goes so far as to endorse it………. I guess it depends on who the survivor of torture in trafficking is………
@Andrew
I was under the impression Traffik was a book of photographs void of specific life stories. I will read it. I fully understand what a protection case is and I agree that there is something very wrong here.
@Jill
Not sure exactly what your question is, but perhaps if you build an entire website with enough proof and research to debunk the Long Pross & Co myth, you could get the attention you are looking for?
I don’t whine a whole lot about prostitutes not getting enough attention and the trafficked girls getting global recognition. I focus on a resolution. And, I don’t think about Donna Hughes and I certainly don’t waste a nickel of head space on Nikki Craft.
I’ll read the book.
My question Gagged is whether or not you feel it is acceptable for victim/survivors of torture in trafficking to have their experiences called delusions, lies, mocked, etc, if those making the unfounded accusations are the self identified new abolitionists.
I personally am not looking for any attention Gagged. Just not a big fan of abolitionist activists focusing energy arguing sex worker rights activists and perspectives when there are actual predators out there that are going unnoticed. The sex worker rights movement is as opposed to human trafficking as the self identified abolitionists movement, just as we oppose rape, coercion, discrimination, violence. It’s a disgraceful absurdity that abolitionists focus so much bandwidth on opposing the sex worker rights movement when there are human traffickers, are rapists, are predators out there. Priorities Gagged.
If I want attention I don’t discredit survivors to get it and never have. There is zero documentation of me questioning any survivor. Ever.
My point wasn’t whether or not you cared about Hughes but to point out that many of your political perspective are avid fans of the “Bush Posse” to use your term.
Nikki Craft is a predator of survivors among other things. Perhaps she is someone you should care about.
Public service announcement:
In defense of Gagged, I believe people may be confusing her with someone else.
But I also believe that Gagged is confusing Susan with another Susan she knows.
Just so you know, Gagged, that isn’t her. And sexworkeradvocate was clearly confusing you with a prohibitionist, probably one who has posted here numerous times and has been banned each time for personal attacks, but keeps popping up under new aliases. That’s what she meant by “outing”.
I also know that Gagged is not a prohibitionist, and as she said above, she is (or was) a sex worker herself. I know Gagged, and she very much cares about the plight of people in sex work who are not here by choice, and has volunteered in the past for an org that helps children.
Back to you folks.
One more thing: JIll posted about being a trafficking victim, and she once posted a link to her story here. Once she was free from her captor, she joined the prohibitionists to try to help others escape such a fate. However, after some time with the prohibitionists, she began to feel that they were more concerned about furthering their “altruistic” careers than actually listening to or helping the victims/survivors. She began to feel like a dog-and-pony show that was carted out to tell her story and then rolled backstage when she was done, never allowed to pontificate on her own experiences.
When she began questioning the inconsistencies of the prohibitionists’ agenda, she was treated as an enemy. When her own organization, STORM, began to take a more harm-reduction and rights-based approach, she was effectively ostracised from the anti-prostitution movement. I am not sure at what point it happened, but somewhere along this timeline, one of the prohibitionists created a website dedicated solely to discrediting Jill and her horrific experiences.
Eventually she found and joined the sex worker rights movement, which further villifies her to the prohibitionists.
“But I also believe that Gagged is confusing Susan with another Susan she knows.
Just so you know, Gagged, that isn’t her.”
I only know one person who has left comments under the alias “Susan” and I met “her” on this post. I definitely do not have my Susans confused.
I know who swoplv is, as well, and she’s right, I’m not a prohibitionist. I thought that was obvious.
So what’s up Las Vegas? Your friends are sort of pissing me off.
Thank you for the clarification SWOPLV. You’re right I did make the assumption this was the same prohibitionist blogger that has come on to this blog many times with vitriol. You are also right that I am effected by my own conflicts and past with prohibitionists and I let that get into my judgment and make a poor assumption as to the identity.
It is a shitty assumption to assume anyone is that awful prohibitionist troll that has been here so many times. Thus Gagged, my sincere apology for making a poor assumption about your identity based on my own experiences rather than reading more closely.
Peace
j
“My anonymity was shot the first time I posted – so you don’t have to pretend to be collecting hints. If I wanted to stay anonymous I’d have been more careful with IP adresses. So sex worker advocates are going to “out” a sex worker? This just gets better and better.”
None of us outed you, Gagged, so your comment was unjustified.
Jill, there’s no need to apologize because Gagged’s posts do make her seem like a certain prohitionist who I will not name, especially the picture of the Klan outfit. It might not be this person and I respect people’s privacy, but I don’t respect trolling. With Gagged’s behavior on this board and the way she is falsly accusing Susan of denying human trafficking just because Susan brought up contradictions in an article, people are justified in having concerns about her. If she were constructively addressing the issues, that would be one thing, but for her to come on here and start posting pictures of Klan outfits (not quite sure what constructive purpose that serves) and making false claims about our community to villify us, that’s going way overboard.
Gagged wrote:
“If you would stick to protecting prostitutes and stop denying slaves to further decrim, you would have more supporters and more funding than you could ever use in a lifetime.”
Not necessarily. We’re blocked from getting funding under the TVPRA and USAIDS unless we sign a pledge supporting the criminalization of prostitution, which I refuse to do. I refuse to support any laws that harm sex workers and are resulting in sex workers being forced into jail cages.
Gagged also wrote:
“Also, I brought up funding in response to sexworkeradvocate’s mention of not having the money to do your own research. Funding was never my point here.”
How was funding not your point when you suggested that we get on planes and do our own investigations? Plane tickets aren’t free and neither are our living expenses when we do investigations. This probably wasn’t even on you radar.
Gagged, if what you say is true, then this is a hell of an assumption to make about someone:
Furthermore, this statement would make no sense if you didn’t imagine you knew her:
———————
Well, it wasn’t obvious. Typically the only folks who come here to attack us are the prohibitionist types. The general public won’t attack, they will simply ask questions, and occasionally get mean. But those who regularly attack are the prohibitionists. As such, when you came here and started posting attacks, people naturally presumed you were a prohibitionist.
I think you may have pissed them off first:
Gagged, it is the abolitionist stance that if you question anyone’s story who claims to have been trafficked, then you are denying that trafficking exists. It is also the abolitionist stance that if you champion sex worker rights, you are also denying that trafficking exists.
It is the abolitionist practice to use stories like this in order to promote the agenda that “all” sex workers are “slaves” that need to be liberated. And they also promote the idea that if a woman is happy with her sex work job, then she is suffering from the “Stockholm Syndrome”. And if sex workers become famous like Tracy Quan or Carol Queen or Belle Du Jour, then they are classified as “pimps” or the “pro-pimp lobby”.
Do you see how dangerous this is? They are trying to deny the agency and legitimacy of a whole class of women.
And the word “abolitionist” is actually their word for themselves. The accurate word is the one Las Vegas used above:
Prohibitionist.
The prohibitionists like to style themselves after those in the 19th century who wanted to abolish chattel slavery, but they are actually more like those who banned alcohol in the 1920s, or those people who think the “War on Drugs” is actually working.
It’s important to address that none of us are denying the existence of slavery. I can’t speak for everybody, but here is my stance: I think it is important to take slavery seriously rather than using it as a tool to justify repressive policies that harm sex workers and make sex workers more vulnerable to slave-like conditions, which unfortunately is happening. I’m not accusing Gagged of personally doing this, but there are people who are using the issue of slavery to promote anti-prostitution laws that shift the focus away from stopping and preventing actual slavery and toward arresting, prosecuting, and deporting sex workers. As a recent report by Urban Justice pointed out, trafficked people are also being persecuted under supposedly anti-prostitution legislation. So, some of the same people who are claiming to be protecting trafficked people are promoting laws in which such people are being persecuted. I don’t have all the answers, but there must be a better way to fight slavery and we can start by no longer wasting resources to persecute sex workers under the guise of fighting trafficking.
sexworkeradvocate wrote:
Gagged wrote:
“If you would stick to protecting prostitutes and stop denying slaves to further decrim, you would have more supporters and more funding than you could ever use in a lifetime.”
Not necessarily. We’re blocked from getting funding under the TVPRA and USAIDS unless we sign a pledge supporting the criminalization of prostitution, which I refuse to do. I refuse to support any laws that harm sex workers and are resulting in sex workers being forced into jail cages.
Gagged also wrote:
“Also, I brought up funding in response to sexworkeradvocate’s mention of not having the money to do your own research. Funding was never my point here.”
How was funding not your point when you suggested that we get on planes and do our own investigations? Plane tickets aren’t free and neither are our living expenses when we do investigations. This probably wasn’t even on you radar.”
I’m not sure if you’re not comprehending or if you’re not reading. I said funding from our peers not the government. I think I had to clarify that two or three times. But you keep repeating yourself forcing me to do the same. You also commented that I wrote that I was outed. I never wrote that I was outed, I wrote that I knew I’d lost my anonymity. You mentioned my anonymity here twice, how else would you like me to respond? It would have been impossible for me to remain anonymous here … unless I wanted to. Not much fails to make it on my radar, sexworkeradvocate.
“I don’t have all the answers, but there must be a better way to fight slavery and we can start by no longer wasting resources to persecute sex workers under the guise of fighting trafficking.”
I completely understand this and I realize many prostitutes are caught in the crossfire and that the law is not working. I wouldn’t use it as an excuse to throw Long Pross out in the middle of the same crossfire, however. I do believe two wrongs fail to make a right. I realize it seems more complicated and dramatic, but it really isn’t.
@swoplv
“Gagged, if what you say is true, then this is a hell of an assumption to make about someone:
I’m sure Sina Vann is happy to learn a over-priced, sex addicted prostitute living in the lap of luxury in the United States thinks her story seems contradictory.”
LOL! You are right swoplv, I should assume I am the only over-sexed, over-paid prostitute living in America, the lap of luxury. 🙂 Obviously, this is someone we must both know that you know I know? The dramatics and theatrics are turning this into somewhat of a circus. I care as much about Susan as I’m sure she cares about me.
I’m still working on acquiring Traffik and reading about Long Pross having more than one life story. It seems very hard to believe that Kristof would write up nonsense with a book out last month that states the opposite. In some people’s eyes he’s a full fledged superstar. Why would he fuck so seriously with his reputation? This is all very current. I will comment as soon as I read the book and compare everything else written about her and Sina Vann.
These were the only comments I was able to scan over and respond to this morning.
Traffick is a book of photos- mostly of sex workers in bars in Phnom Penh- and the children of sex workers. But this doesn’t appear to be the case unless you read the fine print on the last few pages that gives a short description of each photo. And the introduction saying it is a book of photos of trfficking victims and sex slaves really makes it more likely to assume that’s the case. I know lots of the women in this book- from Martini Bar in Phnom Penh, and as it says in the very small print way at the back most have been working willingly as sex workers…
But putting pics of their children in, and insinuating they are sex slaves is a step too far…. And unethical.
Anyway, here is what it says about Long Pros (In Khmer her name is spelled with a consonant that’s closest English equivalent would be bp- so it can be translated as Pros or Bros.
p44 BROS LONG, 17 years old, Svay Rieng Province. Long’s eye was wounded in 2005
when a pimp kicked her face. When her eye became dangerously infected, her mother brought
her to the Takeo hospital, where doctors removed her infected eye, leaving her disfigured and
self-conscious. AFESIP brought Long into its care as a prevention case on December 28, 2005.
Today, she is learning the textile trade and resides at the AFESIP Tom Dy Center, outside of Phnom Penh
Andrew Hunter wrote:
“In the interview video in Khmer she says her mother kicked her in the eye- in translation this is changed and really skews the meaning. And no the word she uses for mother doesn’t translate to anything like Mama-san, pimp, or brothel owner or trafficker.”
“p44 BROS LONG, 17 years old, Svay Rieng Province. Long’s eye was wounded in 2005
when a pimp kicked her face.”
And here we have it … Long Pross: lost in translation.
It says in the fine print that the photos are of willing sex worker’s children?
I rest my case.
I think I’ll go celebrate Martin Luther King Day? Susan? Must be lots of fun stuff to do in New York on MLK Day! Have fun!
This has proved to be a phenomenal waste of time.
>>This has proved to be a phenomenal waste of time.>>
Gagged, perhaps there is a message in that. Your message is lost in the presentation. Perhaps it’s more productive to not come in so hot?
Questions: was the ‘pimp’ ever charged with assault? Made to pay compensation. You know like how all the state laws give ‘trafficked victims’ a legal standing to file civil lawsuits to recoup lost or stolen wages?
gagged, on January 19th, 2009 at 12:55 pm Said:
Andrew Hunter wrote:
“In the interview video in Khmer she says her mother kicked her in the eye- in translation this is changed and really skews the meaning. And no the word she uses for mother doesn’t translate to anything like Mama-san, pimp, or brothel owner or trafficker.”
“p44 BROS LONG, 17 years old, Svay Rieng Province. Long’s eye was wounded in 2005
when a pimp kicked her face.”
And here we have it … Long Pross: lost in translation.
It says in the fine print that the photos are of willing sex worker’s children?
I rest my case.
Maxinesays; Kristoff has made his position clear, so creating more media to support his position is called propaganda.
>>>I care as much about Susan as I’m sure she cares about me.>>>
It’s not that I hate you, Gagged. It’s just that I and others here don’t appreciate the Klan-suit reference. Which I think you should apologize for.
Yeah, i re-read the context of the klan suit reference and it’s really quite inappropriate. Even metaphorically, it doesn’t really work.
I mean, we’re the one’s who are being targeted for violence by the law enforcement and their prison industrial complex support groups, non profits like SAGE. They are the one’s who gone to great lengths to hide what they’re doing, their funding, policies and procedures and avoiding being accountable by not turning over their ‘outcomes’. They’re the oppressors. Not us.
And I’d go so far as to say their international counterparts, like IJM, World Hope and various other Christian evangelicals share a (not so extreme but still) racist outlook in their quest to save black and brown women and girls and convert them to Jesus
They are using horrific real life experiences of people to further their own political ideals and careers. They do a huge media blitz with horrific accounts of human suffering then say to society you can help end this suffering by opposing harm reduction, by opposing sex workers unionizing, even to the point of making the case that closing Hooters will save the Hooters girls from being like the torture victim. The prohibitionists will put up a blog with accounts of torture than use that blog as documentation of their expertise and portray themselves as both experts and great, brave warriors against misogyny by trolling sex worker rights boards, by repressing rights of sex workers and saying look at my war against trafficking.
I have a serious dose of skepticism for the prohibitionist activists that feel the most important method of rescuing trafficking victims is by opposing sex worker rights.
If they want to work to end trafficking. Great. If they want to create awareness about the suffering in trafficking, the rape and violence that happen, great. But stay on task. No trafficking victim is helped by denying consenting sex workers rights, no trafficking victim is helped with resources expended waging a blog war against sex workers. Trafficking victims sure as hell aren’t helped by arresting sex workers.