International Women’s Day demo
“Women united, will never be defeated” was one of the slogans we chanted today as over 1000 women marched on the Million Women Rise demo.
It was cold, grey and rainy but the atmosphere was vibrant, dynamic, loud and good humoured. Lots of banners (including TUs) and placards, both DIY and professional.
We marched from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square for the rally. It was good to see so many women coming together and working day on a momentous day like International Women’s Day….
Solidarity, unity and sisterhood was the order of the day. Until the rally where all those vital ingredients dissolved. Why? Well, a T&G/Unite member was gagged from speaking at the rally. Why? Because in her speech (she sent it to the organisers beforehand) she had mentioned Ipswich and decriminalising prostitution. And the fact she submitted her speech before the rally shows how controlling the organisers are. It was the “decriminalising prostitution” that got her gagged. All the woman had proposed in her speech that there should be a discussion around discriminalising prostitution. Organisations like IUSW, Global Women’s Strike, Safety First Coalition and the English Collective of Prostitutes and other individuals, including myself, went to the organisers to complain. No real explanation was given why this TU woman couldn’t speak or who actually made the decision.
The theme of the day was women having a voice unfortunately it seems that some ideas are more equal than others. I was dismayed and actually very angry that this woman had been denied a platform. It is vital that there is an open debate around prostitution and decrimination where everyone can put their views. Not so today and to me those kind of decisions lead you down a very censorious road about acceptability. I thought today was a day for all women and it started so well then soured. And as one woman turned to me, “All women are equal except sex workers”.. Indeed.
I am hoping that IUSW, English Collective of Prostitutes, LRC, Safety First Coalition, Global Women’s Strike complain to the organisers and as I am a T&G/Unite member I too will be bringing this up.
There’s a very good letter in today’s Guardian from LRC/Left Women’s Network activist, Mary Partington.
More of the photos of today will be uploaded onto my Flickr account very soon (apols for the shameless plug….).
There’s also a good post at Blacks Looks about this.
No apologies needed, Louise. Lefty flickr groups are a vital part of our internet repertoire and help bring such events alive for those who cannot attend and the casual observer alike.
On a spotterly note were any left groups/formations (aside from the LRC) about?
Comment by a very public sociologist — 8 March, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
AVSP: I didn’t see any paper sellers actually. I saw SWP with a stall and AWLers leaflets in Trafalgar Square. But nothing before in Hyde Park.
Comment by Louise — 8 March, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
This gets me into quite a bit of trouble every time I mention it, but I’m completely baffled by this stuff about showing “solidarity” with prostitution (I refuse to use the term “sex worker”, as I think “sex slave” is closer to the truth). I don’t want to show solidarity with something as vile as prostitution - prostitutes, yes - because I want to wipe it off the face of the planet. As far as the analogy goes, prostitution should be treated like drugs: it should be decriminalised and those stuck in it should be helped out. What does it mean to show “solidarity” with the profession of prostitution? Should I also show “solidarity” with a crack addict?
Prostitution is not a job like any other. I believe it is closer to slavery than anything else. I’m for the decriminalisation of prostitution (but only as a strategy of getting to a better more progressive society), but we never seem to hear anything about a future in which women (or men) need not have to degrade themselves and sell their bodies for the fulfillment of others. I have nothing but contempt for those who use women in this way. Their desires, some of which are extremely base, are fulfilled by throwing money at desperate women. Am I being a prude or a reactionary in wanting to live in a world in which women don’t have to prostitute their bodies?
Yes, some prostitutes may well have chosen this life, but nearly all, I believe, have not. Should we not be talking not only about decriminalisation but a world without prostitution?As I always say, no girl ever says, “Mummy, when I grow up I want to be a prostitute, hooked on smack and beaten by a pimp.” OK, some don’t have pimps or addicted to drugs, but quite a number are, and that doesn’t take away the fact that we should be advocating policies that end prostitution.
Perhaps I’m being completely ignorant and “reactionary”. If I am, please explain why. I really am willing to be enlightened and educated. But my second thoughts on the matter are the same as my first: a society that does have or tolerate sex slavery.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 8 March, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
The point is Tawfiq is that the T&G/Unite woman wasn’t allowed to speak. That’s the issue at stake here. The fact you can articulate your views on the subject is fine, it is your right but the union activist wasn’t even allowed to put her point of view across.
That’s what I am arguing is that everyone can put their point of view across without the fear of being gagged and censored.
Comment by Louise — 8 March, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
Louise, I completely agree with you on that. Unfortunately, far too many trade unions are well known for their inability to tolerate free speech and anything a little bit “radical” (or what they consider “radical”, which wouldn’t be much actually). But that’s pretty predictable: T&G and Unite are not the Wobblies, which, incidentally, is I believe the only really useful way for the working class to organise. People should say whatever they want, and given that the unions have scuppered mention of Iraq at the Labour Party conferences, this is no surprise. I expect this kind of grunting behaviour by the unions.
But my issue was simply was that all she wanted to say? Was she going to go any further than decriminalising prostitution? I hear that said a lot, and I agree. But that seems to be as far as the policy gets. What about a world where there isn’t prostitution? Shouldn’t feminism be about that too, and decriminalisation as solely a strategy to get there? As far as a decent society goes that should be one of its hallmarks. In Homage to Catalonia Orwell writes very early on that almost the first thing that happened in revolutionary Spain was that prostitution was wiped out. I can’t remember if it was done vountarily or enforced, but I remember it distinctly because, as I’ve said, a society that has sex slavery is one that needs to take a very long look at itself.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 8 March, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
Perhaps you would have been better advised to call a Thousand Women Rise Demo. After all you might then have been able to claim a major advance if only you had gleaned one thousand and one particpants. As it is 1,000 women on a 1,000,000 demo merely exposes just deluded you are.
By the way the day is not called International Womens Day but International Working Womens Day! ‘Sisterhood’ is class collaboration.
Comment by Mike — 8 March, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
Since when do speakers submit their speeches for vetting? That’s an unwelcome innovation.
Comment by Liam — 8 March, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
Indeed Liam! That’s the first I have heard of this and is deeply worrying as it is controlling and there’s a total lack of freedom. It is tempting to send a sanitised speech and then rip it up when you are on stage then say, “They thought I was gonna say this but actually this is what I am going to say”…..
But they would probably turn the microphone off. If there is going to be another demo next year then this has to be sorted out as I don’t want to be a part of something that’s vets and gags people. It aint debate and it won’t take feminism or women’s liberation forward.
Comment by Louise — 8 March, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
Tawfiq, your description of prostitutes as “sex slaves” rather than “sex workers” is excellent. Prostitutes are victims, they need help; their “clients” should be jailed and criminalised.
And in that light, anyone who wants to call for prostitution to be “de-criminalised” without the wider context shouldn’t be allowed to use progressive platforms to make that call, any more than someone who wants to make racist comments should be tolerated.
Comment by Graham Day — 9 March, 2008 @ 12:48 am
Louise’s pix are er, actually rather good. I like Sepia and the self-portrait series.
And yes, yes, Mike, it’s Innnernashonal Working Women’s Day, an no, we won’t forget it in the future.
Comment by Red Maria — 9 March, 2008 @ 1:28 am
Graham: “And in that light, anyone who wants to call for prostitution to be “de-criminalised” without the wider context shouldn’t be allowed to use progressive platforms to make that call, any more than someone who wants to make racist comments should be tolerated.”
Graham, she wasn’t making that specific call for decriminalisation all she wanted to say that there should be a debate that includes decriminalisation
To equate views on decriminalisation to racist comments is insulting beyond belief. This is the reason WHY we should be having a debate that encompasses ALL the views around prostitution and that includes decriminalisation.
Comment by Louise — 9 March, 2008 @ 10:42 am
Red Maria: Thanks for the compliment regarding my pixs.
Comment by Louise — 9 March, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Y’know Louise perhaps we should concentrate more on working women proper and not on the lumpens. P’raps that is the ‘debate’ that socialists ought to be having?
Comment by Mike — 9 March, 2008 @ 10:46 am
For those interested in the issue of why decriminalising sex work is in the interests of women, and in particular, of sex workers themselves, last Monday was “Sex Workers’ Rights Day” and I made a couple of big posts about the issues last week. Here they are:
Bodies For Sale: Sports or Prostitution?
Sex Work Into - What Work?
For those like Graham Day who back the Swedish Model of criminalising, and imprisoning, those who buy sex, here are a couple of resources that may open your eyes, coming as they do from Swedish sex workers themselves:
Lies about sex work in Sweden - a blog written by a Swedish prostitute, she usually writes in Swedish but wrote this entry in English, to let the rest of the world know what’s really happening.
Sexworkers and Allies Network in Sweden
And, to prove that it really would have a positive effect on women’s lives, especially those in the sex industry, I leave you with the pioneering work of Wendy Leaver. I think the important thing to recognise about Detective Leaver’s approach is this: “I say to people, they provide a service. The service is for sale. Not the body.”
To bring this whole thing back on topic - you may or may not agree with my opinion, but it’s a valid and important topic for people interested in workers’ rights and in women’s rights. Stifling debate by silencing a speaker who wishes to suggest that the topic needs to be discussed, is quite clearly out of order.
Comment by SnowdropExplodes — 9 March, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Thanks SnowdropExplodes, and the links are much appreciated. I agree with what you say, I support decriminalisation and unionisation of sex work. As you say that is a valid argument and an argument that should be aired and not stifled. I mean, all this woman argued that there should be a debate that includes decriminalisation. What is so wrong with that? You debate ideas not censor them!
It reminded me of the arguments around porn and so many times women who held views contrary to pro-censorship were often silenced. My own views are anti-censorship but the fact that so many times those views weren’t allowed to be aired and again real debate with all the views being put forward were denied.
Again, some views, it seems, are “allowed” while others are gagged.
Thanks again SnowdropExplodes
Comment by Louise — 9 March, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Labour party feminists are victims and should by helped out of it, because they are too gormless to make decisions for themselves. They’re slaves to every sort of capitalist bastard - some of them even have to support killing 3 million Iraqis, and the genocide of Palestine. They should be helped into sex-work, where they could make a genuine contribution to society. As for the trade unions - 150 years ago Mallarme said ” Call them Mr and they’re happy”; these days they have an even lower consciousness - when did they last fight for anything? Any prostitute is worth the lot of these career bureacrat scabs.
Comment by Jock McTrousers — 9 March, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Mike # 21 ‘Y’know Louise perhaps we should concentrate more on working women proper and not on the lumpens. P’raps that is the ‘debate’ that socialists ought to be having?’
This has been the debate for a while - as if only card carrying members of the labour movement count.
If Socialists want to challenge bourgeios control of women’s lives through fertility, contraception, cultural limitations etc., then socialists need to have more than a workerist approach that much of the left remains so riddled with.
How do Socialist champion the cause of all oppressed women is the real question.
Comment by victor — 9 March, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
#25 Well said. ‘Our bodies- our lives’ says it all really.
Making sex work illegal further contributes to social oppression. Unionisation under conditions of complete decriminalisation with workers able to organise their own work and for the right to say no is much better.
Plus in mnay countries prostitution is in the absence of other work a major route ex-peasant women to become workers- and indeed sex workers have become organised in various countries to enforce condom use- a life and death issue after all- and organise better working conditions, including preventing coercion.
Mike’s dividing workers onto respectable and unrespectable is a key way by which oppression is reproduced.
Comment by Jason — 9 March, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
By the way on the subject of international women’s day I went to the Manchester City council event- stalls and workshops.
It was OK- some campaign stalls, a couple of interesting workshops on fairtrade and climate change. It was hardly setting the world alight though and nothing at all on reproductive rights as far as I could see (unless it was tucked away). There were a fair few stalls on anti-dpeortation and immigration rights though (immigration controls being a major way women are forced into slavery in Britain such as domestic slavery- e.g. visas being dependent on staying with abusive employers).
But there was absolutely nothing about the history of Intenrational Women’s Day- nothin on the Second International, nothing on its role in the Russian revolution, nothing evn on its origins in the American labour movement.
Indeed many of the stall holders knew nothing about its origin.
Comment by Jason — 9 March, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Interesting posts, Jason.
What is ironic is that it is capitalist development that both brings women into the workforce and increases urban prostitution.
Clearly socialists have to map out a political strategy, but based on the demands of the women’s movement.
Comment by victor — 9 March, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Just out of curiosity
Who was responsible for organising the Demo?
Whose idea was it to vet speeches?
Where a millions women expected to attend?
The organisation was nothing to do with the disgusting Labour Party and those spineless creatures formerly known as Trade Union leaders surely?
Perhaps you would be better off having your own demonstration/rally in which you can at least say what you want?
I think you should start a new weekly column to examine these dreadful dilemmas.
It could be called
What would Lenin, Trotsky, Luxembourg,
Zetkin,Dr Wall, Greens, Red Greens,Deep Greens,Dead Greens, Dead Red Greens, Green Red Dead Greens, McKinley,Dworkin,Clive,Blears,Brown,Blair
McConell,Rowbotham,Father Christmas,Tara, Superman, The Wombles,Clown Army,Wobblies,Paddington,
Do?
Fuck the Labour Party save the NHS
Comment by ANiN — 9 March, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
Gosh Jason how terribly old fashioned of me to ‘divide’ workers into what you call respectable and unrespectable. Jeez how naughty of me to employ sociological categories derived from the usage of Marx and Engels. How boorish of me to assume that my fellow socialists would be intelligent enough to realise that this use of the term lumpen did not signify moral outrage as to the occupation followed by prostitutes. And most of all how silly of me to make the assumption that due to their class position the lumpen proletariat cannot, contrary to tht of the proletariat proper, liberate humanity.
As for Victors dull bleating yes this is a debate that should be held by ‘card carrying’ workers and fuck the views of middle class asswipes. Frankly there is not enough ‘workerism’ on a revolutionary left that is all too dominated by members of the parasitic classes.
Comment by Mike — 9 March, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
SnowDropExplodes,
Many thanks for those links. The problem with this issue is that there does not seem to be any readily available information to form an opinion other than one’s own first reaction to it, which may or may not be correct and useful. That’s why it makes it all the more appalling for union goons to stop anyone talking about this.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 9 March, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
“That’s why it makes it all the more appalling for union goons to stop anyone talking about this”.
Tawfiq, just to clarify, they weren’t “union goons” stopping this T&G/Unite woman from speaking. The demo was organised by a variety of women’s orgs (including Women’s Resource Centre based in London).
I am not quite sure who is on the co-ordinating committee and made the decision to stop this woman from speaking. I will try and find out.
There was a strong TU contingence (more so than on any demo I have been on in ages!) on that demo, lots of union women activists from CWU, T&G and Unison (there coulda been others).
I will contact some of the orgs who complained about this woman being denied a voice and see what they will do.
Comment by Louise — 9 March, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
I accidentally browsed to the QVC shopping channel and was intrigued to see an advert announcing that they were celebrating International Womens Day. It turned out to be a whole day of cut-price cosmetics, anti-wrinkle creams, diamond jewelery etc. I wish I was making this up.
Comment by M — 9 March, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
#30 “Jeez how naughty of me to employ sociological categories derived from the usage of Marx and Engels. How boorish of me to assume that my fellow socialists would be intelligent enough to realise that this use of the term lumpen did not signify moral outrage as to the occupation followed by prostitutes. And most of all how silly of me to make the assumption that due to their class position the lumpen proletariat cannot, contrary to tht of the proletariat proper, liberate humanity.”
How silly of me not to realise that you can’t see how language changes over time and that the major meaning of lumpen today has different connotations from the classic Marxist sense.
Are prostitutes and sex workers necessarily lumpen-proletariat? If prostitutes organise in unions then there is no reason not to see them as part of the organised working class.
More importantly your use of Marxist terminology in an oh so clever way suggests no real solutions to very real problems.
How is supporting the unionisation and sel-organisation of prostitutes and other sex workers counterposed to supporting women’s liberation in general and working class self emancipation in general?
It isn’t.
Comment by Jason — 9 March, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
Good photos Louise.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 March, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
Tawfiq and Graham @ the point is that these women have a point of view, issues to raise and be discussed and they should have been given the platform to speak like everyone else. Its not about whether you support decriminalisation or not - the sex workers have a right to speak like everyone else and please keep morality out of it - it is subjective and has no place in progressive platforms! Tawfiq you mention “free speech” but you dont think sex workers have a right to speak on progressive platforms?
Comment by sokari — 9 March, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
Jason once as many as 1% of prostitutes are organised ito unions then and only then will you have a point. The fact of the matter is that prostitutes do not have employers and do not work for wages. How then will they bargain with the exploiting class for improvements in pay and conditions?
In the meantime the sad fact of life is that they will remain prey to the pimps, drug dealers and loan sharks who so often have their hooks in them. That is to say they remain part not of the proletariat proper but of the lumpen proletariat.
As for the suggestion that I counter-posed the organisation of prostitutes and other sex workers to womens liberation that is an invention on your part.
I repeat my point that socialists today should be more concerned with the organisation of low paid workers, more often than not women and young workers, than with the powerless victims of degenerate capitalist society. It is not the most oppressed, including prostitutes and sex workers, but the concentrated workers in the workplaces who have the potential power to smash bourgeois society.
Comment by Mike — 10 March, 2008 @ 12:20 am
I haven’t been following this debate, until I read it this morning.
It seems very odd.
There was a woman only demo, and a woman posts an article interesting article it.
Now clearly by the fact that it was a woman only demo, the view has been articulated that women want space to debate and protest without men. Yet the discussion here has been a bad temptered one between men arguing about what women should and shouldn’t do!
And although Mike is by far the worst, the debate with Jason is class reductionist on both sides. A very large number of disadvantaged women work in prostitution, and are usually completely without a voice. It is only adding to their disempowerment to dscuss whether or not they are “lumpen proletarians” or not. And I know that Jason means well on this, but to say: “Are prostitutes and sex workers necessarily lumpen-proletariat? If prostitutes organise in unions then there is no reason not to see them as part of the organised working class.”
This is really no better than MIke’s approach. In the 21st century Britain, the vast majority of people do not think in terms of whether they are or are not part of the organised working class - organised labour is not the only driver of social change; and it would be a big set back for oppressed women if they oriented themselves on the conservative, unimaginative and delusional far left.
There is an interesting question about why a woman only demonstartion excluded an important contribution to the debate from a woman trade unionist, as it seems they have themselves refused to provide an inclusive platform for women to speak.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 March, 2008 @ 10:07 am
Andy: welcome to the internet, hope you enjoy your stay.
Just be glad nobody took the mention of the SWP having a stall to start yet another discussion about them…
Comment by Martin Wisse — 10 March, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Sokari,
I don’t know where you’ve got the erroneous idea that any of these women should have been denied a platform. I specifically argued that they *should* be allowed to say whatever they like. I may find the policy advocated sort of incoherent but I want to hear the argument. After all, I don’t know enough about the issues. I have a gut reaction and an ideal vision of what should happen, but that may be wrong and I am willing, even demanding, to hear the arguments. It would certainly be peculiar for me to deny this right when I defend the right of *all* to free speech and incitement of hate but not violence.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 10 March, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
#30 “Yet the discussion here has been a bad temptered one between men arguing about what women should and shouldn’t do!”
I am actually arguing that we should be non-judgmental about the women (and indeed men) involved in sex work and prostitution.
I don’t see how having the state criminalise women- or men- for engaging in this sort of work takes us forward or how articualting this view in any sense is bad tempered.
Of course it would be good to hear from sex workers themselves- men or women- on this issue. However, certainly from accounts I’ve heard many people take part in this type of work- globally anyway- because of extreme poverty, for example women who migrate to cities.
Therefore organisation in unions and worker associations including the right to organsie over essentail and life saving health and saftey issues, including the right to say no and including demands for control of all aspects of work and life seem to be the way forward.
Being concerend with the most oppressed parts of society is not at all counter-posed to facilitating the organisation of the low-paid and other sections of the working class. Indeed it is the recognition of our common condition as workers, as human beings, struggling for freedom and equality that gives us the potential to remake society and fight for a world free of oppression, exploitation and poverty.
Comment by Jason — 11 March, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
Jason how would prostitudes “organsie over essentail and life saving health and saftey issues”? They do not have employers! Now please answer the points I made in post 29 above. That said I strongly suspect that you are unable to do so and for that matter note a deafening hush from this blogs feminists on the points I raised.
Comment by Mike — 11 March, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
Mike
It is my understanding that quite a few of the sex workers organised by the GMB - pole dancers for example - are self employed. Collective organisation for the self employed can be relevant, and precisely over such issues as negotiating health and safety and control over the working environment.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 March, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
35. ‘Mike’ you’re fast burying yourself in economism of the worst stripe.
The Bolsheviks seemed to have a certain, kind-hearted, softness toward those “without employers” way back when… the peasantry!
You know, self-employed, petit-bourgeois types with no chance of gaining the type of consciousness implicit in working on an assembly line…
Something to do with being “Tribunes of the people” if I’m not mistaken.
It is possible to do both you know?
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 11 March, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
It makes no sense for someone who is arguing on behalf of the right for men to pay to abuse and exploit the bodies of women to be given a platform at a march protesting male violence against women. Please try and use at least a little logic.
I know some socialists are in love with the idea of prostitution as labour, but having your body penetrated by five or ten strange men every day is not like any other labour on this planet and it’s the reason why so many prostituted women are left with terrible scars, both mental and physical for years after they manage to escape the life (that is if they do escape, prostitution being one of the most dangerous jobs there is). Supporting men’s self-given right to do this means you are working against women and our interests.
And for all the talk of silencing it’s funny to hear that the English Collective of Prostitutes actually took their own sound system to the event and tried to use it to disrupt the speeches. Some more information at Comment Is Free at the Guardian:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/cath_elliott/2008/03/what_sisterhood.html
As for men talking about the rights and wrongs of how women should approach this issue, why don’t you instead turn your attentions to the male exploiters whose use and abuse of women and children in prostitution destroys so many lives? Surely you don’t support them.
Comment by dictamus — 12 March, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
38. ‘a’, You’re post set me thinking, thanks. You’re call to be suspicious of groups and organisations that “stand for” diffent layers in society is spot on. I have no idea as to the history, structure or financing of the ECP - and if anyone does they should post - but banning them from speaking seems wrong-footed to me. What is *definitely* wrong was the ban on a speech by a trade unionist who wanted to raise the issue for debate.
No socialist, I have ever met, is “in favour” of prostitution.
The call for ‘legalisation’ comes from an instinctive reaction to how parts of the state; the cops, courts, “social” services, and even healthcare facilities make life *worse* for those whose lives are already on a thread.
There have already been some links to how “decriminalising” attitudes (not laws) among special units of Toronto’s police are allowing them access to those who simply had zero voice before.
*But* along with calls to removing the legal stigma there must also - and socialists are at the forefront of this - and not all feminists are, be concerted campaigns to shift wealth toward the poorest and most vulnerable. More decent jobs, better education, better healthcare (including greater services toward addicts) is the fight. And that’s the way out. And I agree, everyone wants out!
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 12 March, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
The ‘woman’ Lousie you refer to is Teresa MacKay, who was up till this year Secretary of Ipswich Trades Council. As she is now a full-timer for T&G/Unite she had handed over her post to a younger comrade.
The views Teresa wanted to express were those which came from the intense discussion that arose around the Ipswich murders. The Trades Council was involved in the Reclaim the Night March held (and organised essentially by two young women) during the events. Our Resolution on Decrimilising Prostituion was passed by the Trades Councils’ AGM and now stands as policy in accord with TUC views.
Teresa, unlike some of the speakers, has spent her life as an orgniser for the trade union movement. She is highly respected.
Comment by Andrew Coates — 13 March, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
Andy it is true that some sex workers are organised in the union movement but precious few in proportion to the totality of this odious trade. Or are you like some here in favour of the ‘right’ of men to use womens bodies if only the women are ‘organised’?
And yes Keith the Bolsheviks did organise the petty bourgeois peasants, though not terribly well given that most followed the SRs. But prostitutes are not petty bourgeois and are confined to the margins of society as has always been the fate of the lumpen proletariat. My point is that given their marginality and the dramatic reduction in levels of class organisation in the last generation that it is far more important to pay attention to those masses of young workers, disproportionately female, in unorganised workplaces than to atomised victims of a decadant society.
If, as Keith suggests, my views are ‘economism’ I would suggest we need more economism and less of the absurd political fantasies that have characterised the activities of the far left these last ten years. I cite the SLP, SA, SSP and Respect as examples.
Comment by Mike — 13 March, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Mike - you should not assume that all sex workers are prostitutes.
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 March, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
#42 Yeah, sorry Andrew, I didn’t know Teresa’s name when I was writing the post.
On the issue that she wasn’t allowed to speak, will Ipswich Trades Council be taking this up with Million Women Rise?
Comment by Louise — 13 March, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
‘a’ - You’re running together two completely seperate arguments it seems to me.
The call to decriminalise prostitution is not identical to calling for more prostitutes. It is based on the overwhelming evidence that prostitutes’ lives are put at greater risk by the consequences of the current law - in terms of them being more isolated, more fearful, and having thereby having even less chance of getting out.
And ‘a’, what’s the evidence that the ECP are sinister?
Mike, you’ve skipped the main point about being “tribunes” - I’m completely uninterested in identifying the contradictory class location of a brothel. Counterposing the obvious (organising in TUs) with the odious fails to impress. You would do better to clarify your stance on the issue: decriminalisation and the right of unions to raise it. That would be more helpful.
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 13 March, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
Well, this is the ECP website. Includes Safety First Coalition info.
http://www.allwomencount.net/EWC%20Sex%20Workers/SexWorkIndex.htm
International Union of Sex Workers
http://www.iusw.org/
Comment by Louise — 13 March, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
For the record I’m in favour of decriminalisation and the right of all workers and self employed to join trades unions. But placing an emphasis on sex workers in the current climate is a sure sign not that the socialists doing so are tribunes of the people but rather that they are lacking contact with the class as it is. Only a strong workers movement can protect those weakst in the meantime we need to organise those best able to fight and win.
Comment by Mike — 13 March, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
So Mike,
Are you opposed to the GMB’s effort at organising sex workers?
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 March, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
‘a’ You’re putting words into my mouth.
At no point have I advocated “relabelling” as a path to alleviating real problems. Decriminalisation, creates a climate (if the police then don’t turn to other laws - which is only likely too) where more women will be able to get to the services (that only socialists comsistently campaign for) that will get them out.
Let’s blue-sky for a moment and imagine that the NHS is chock full of empty rehab centres, clinics and beds. Do you think access to those is made easier or harder by having to walk in with a criminal record or the risk of being hauled up in court, or having your own kids put at risk?
No one here is *against*, “…more places in rehab, improved access to legal drugs, safe houses and refuges, help to move on to new accomodation and training, benefits or work etc…” what many socialists and trade unionists recognise is that access to these, and the campaigns for them, for prostitutes, is made ten times harder while the law stands as is.
If your argument is with the ECP, then I’ll agree, a lot of their propaganda skips over the moral and political issues of why prostitution exists in the first place (but it seems that most of them take opposition to its existence for granted).
But let’s drop the notion that socialists, in some way believe, that selling your body, in today’s society, is equivalent to working at a McDonalds.
If it can be shown that women who have been killed were actively opposed to the minimum demands of the ECP then, yes of course, they shouldn’t use their names. But *listing* the names is entirely different. To show how many women are killed is perfectly appropriate, in the same way that the British Medical Association did in it’s January paper calling for decriminalisation.
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 13 March, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
Mike, saying, “…Only a strong workers movement can protect those weakst in the meantime we need to organise those best able to fight and win…”
[my emphasis]
…is a recipe for weakening the workers movement. Counterposing propaganda, debates and real campaigns (like the GMB’s) to a focus on “those best able to fight” - and good luck on getting consensus as to who they are - is the path toward, perhaps not necessarily ‘economism’, but certainly abstention.
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 13 March, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
The Swedish model of prostitution reform recognises that prostituted women are the victims of economic inequality and coercion (at least), and therefore decriminalises the selling of sex while criminalising the buying. It recognises that prostitution exists because of demand; if no men wanted to buy prostituted women, there would be no prostitution.
In countries that have decriminalised prostitution, the use of prostituted women has become normalised and legitimised and the demand has increased, causing the legal and illegal sex industry to expand, with demand being met through trafficking and coercion, including of children. In the Netherlands the sex industry now accounts for 5 percent of their economy and the sex industry has expanded 25% (see 10 Reasons For Not Legalising Prostitution, available here: http://action.web.ca/home/catw/readingroom.shtml?x=32972 from the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, which also has its Survivors of Prostitution and Trafficking Manifesto here: http://action.web.ca/home/catw/readingroom.shtml?x=82636)
Decriminalising the sex industry allows pimps to disappear and reinvent themselves as entrepreneurs. Pimps in the UK target children as young as 11 (see Coalition for the Removal of Pimping http://www.crop1.org.uk/), it is impossible to pretend that child prostitution and adult prostitution are unconnected, they both exist because of male demand.
Prostituted women working in legal brothels are not really safer; once prostitution becomes work like any other, the inherent abuse becomes invisible. Submitting to sexual assault in return for money can never be work like any other (and that is what it is, prostituted women are not having the sex they would be having anyway, just with the extra bonus of money. Saying a desperate need for money - to fund a drug addiction, because of the fear of violence from a pimp/brothel keeper - equals freely given consent is like saying a desperate need to not have your throat cut by a knife wielding rapist equals freely given consent). Research from Nevada shows women in legal brothels suffer post-traumatic stress disorder (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender).
The English Collective of Prostitutes do not speak for the majority of prostituted women, and they have never been honest about how many of their members have actually been prostitutes. They speak for the interests of the sex industry, which is to legitimize, expand, and make more money.
Comment by kaliwolf — 15 March, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
It’s the need of globalization to move fit, young workers around the planet that creates the demand for prostitution. That and the enormous profits. Perhaps the Government should put something in the water. (This is not the case in Ipswich, but for more generalised prostitution.)
Comment by Sue R — 15 March, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
I find this argument completely nonsensical. I have never come across anyone or any organisation that has argued for prostituted women to be criminalised, in fact it’s always been the very opposite that women should not be criminalised but users of prostituted women should be! For Theresa Mackay to point out the dangers that prostituted women face and then argue for it to be recognised as a job like any other is offensive. What other job has violence and rape in the job description??? So where do pimps feature in Theresa Mackay’s argument? Prostituted women have a right to be unionised what about pimps then? The cynic in me thinks that this is yet another way to use marginalised women. We need to stop making excuses for the behaviour of men who think it is their right to buy another human being.
Comment by She-Ra — 25 March, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
Ankara detention terrorism
2008.03.25
Ten people have been detained in Ankara on the pretext that they had carried photos of “members of illegal terror organisations“ on International Women’s Day, on March 8.
These are the names of people known to have been detained in house raids on the morning of March 25:
Ebru Gurler,
Erdinc Eroglu,
Bunyamin Kenes (Egitim-Sen member) – (note: a trade union for education workers),
Ismail Cengiz Mumcu,
Sahan Uyanik,
Alev Sahin (assistant branch secretary of Ankara Architect’s Chamber and responsible official for SMGM (note: expansion uncertain, may be an architectural association)
Meliha Kulu,
Tuncer Gumus,
Gultac Eylul (Turk Telekom worker)
and Ezgi … whose surname we do not know.
Those who were detained have been taken to the Ankara Struggle Against Terror department.
Comment by devrimci selamlar — 25 March, 2008 @ 3:12 pm