it's not to late to email your MP (link in this thread) or join us in Westminster tomorrow!

There is also a national decrim strategy after the protest so DM me if you want the details of that

xx

I can see us going backwards to newspaper ads and brothels. Much as I don’t like Adultwork, they helped women go independent.

I don’t think much will affect the outcome with what actually happens in Parliament today but I think it’s important to be involved to show that we do infact care about our livelihood and there might be more of us than people realised. Also more importantly possibly speaking for those who can’t make it or are quite marginalised who don’t have the support and online platforms are the only way they can advertise safely. Looking forward to hearing from NUM and I think it’s going to be quite positive. Look forward to maybe seeing you guys there too (without realising it  ).

So they want us to go back to the streets then? Or working for pimps in the saunas?

 

I listened to this brief broadcast.
Champion says that, according to a particular source (whose name I have forgotten), online advertising platforms for sex workers fuel sex trafficking. 
She also affirmed her commitment to having the buying of sex criminalised.
Her justification for her stance on prostitution (or rather, what she sees as prostitution) is her experience of sex trafficking victims in her 5 years as an MP.
She cited the case of one lady (who I will call Miss X), for instance, who, according to her, has been engaged with prostitution most of her life (including her pre-adult life) and has over 200 prostitution-related convictions.  Miss X has complained that not one man, in contrast, who has been involved with her prostitution has been subject to a criminal conviction.

*** 

Personally, I take away from Champion's views that, as many of us have already deduced, she believes that ALL prostitutes are victims of trafficking.  To her, then, the logical conclusion from this view is that prostitution IS sex trafficking; there is no such thing as a consenting, autonomously-engaged seller of sex.  I don't think she has even attempted to test the truth in this (by seeking contact with prostitutes rather than with victims of sexual exploitation, to be exact).  Champion's ignorant and biased views should not be used as a basis for any legislation relating to prostitution, then, I say.  (This does not mean that they won't be, I am aware).

Late last night, I rushed the following response and emailed it to my local MP directly:

***

I understand that a proposal to close down online advertising platforms for sex workers, led by Sarah Champion MP in alliance with the APPGP, is due to be debated in Parliament tomorrow (Wednesday 4th July 2018).  I write to you to request you to convey the following views in the debate.

1.  As far as I am aware, Sarah Champion's proposal stems from her commitment to the anti-sex trafficking cause.  Given that a) sex traffickers are, in general, unlikely to be advertising the services of their victims online (for obvious reasons), in my view, and that b) as far as I am aware, the vast majority of sex workers are consenting, autonomously-engaged prostitutes (like myself, for instance), I cannot see how the closing down of prostitution advertising websites can be justified.

2.  In keeping with 1, if sex-traffickers are indeed using online advertising platforms, then the relevant authorities should find it easy to catch them and prosecute them.  Prostitution advertising websites, then, are in fact vital tools in the fight against sexual slavery.  Closing such sites down will only drive sex traffickers who actually use them underground (along with autonomously-engaged prostitutes, I fear, as I explain in 3 below), making it much more difficult to catch them.

3.  Online advertising platforms are, in the vast majority of cases (as I understand it), a prostitute's lifeline.  Without www.adultwork.com (and other websites), many of us will lose our livelihood overnight which may drive a large number of us directly into the highly exploitative clutches of greedy, unscrupulous pimps and brothel-keepers*, the eradication of sexual exploitation being no less, contradictorily enough, the aim of the exercise.  In view of the obvious contradiction, as I see it, between the purpose of shutting down prostitution advertising websites and the potential consequences of this measure, once again, I personally deem this measure wholly unjustifiable.

4.  I am under the impression that exploited, voiceless workers are more likely to be found working in nail bars, car washes and in the cleaning industry, for instance, than in the sex industry.  There is no talk, naturally, of closing down online advertising platforms for the recruitment of nail technicians, car wash workers, and cleaners.  Neither should there be for online advertising platforms for sex workers, then, in my view (and to my mind, working excessive hours - in a physically demanding job - for significantly less than the minimum wage and living, consequently in squalor - and despair - is not far behind being forced to have sex to pay for someone else's living])

5.  Online advertising platforms often present feedback on customers from prostitutes which is one of our means of keeping ourselves safe.  Closing down these platforms, then, will, as you can see, close down this method of "self-defence", so to speak, for prostitutes, rendering us more vulnerable to harm.  Again, I fail to see how this can be justified.

6.  Consenting adults should have the right, freedom, and ease to buy and sell sex, in my opinion.  To try to undermine and obstruct this right is to treat adults like children in my view.  Once again, there is no justification whatsoever for this.

7.  The fact that another country has banned online advertising platforms for sex workers does not make it right to do so.  Many prostitutes based in the USA are suffering the consequences that I presented in 3, as far as I am aware.  Similarly, in the USA, capital punishment exists.  We are hardly going to follow that practice, I believe.

*There are some respectable, fair, and professional procurers, and they should be allowed, in my view, to fulfill their role in the sex industry with full legality.  Sadly, where procuring is concerned, such parties represent the minority of procurers.

Thank you for your attention.
Naomi Dixon

***

After listening to the broadcast of this morning of Sarah Champion MP, I used the link provided in this thread to re-email my local MP with the following message:

***

In a broadcast on Radio 4 this morning itself, Champion says that, according to a particular source (whose name I have forgotten), online advertising platforms for sex workers fuel sex trafficking.  She also affirmed her commitment to having the buying of sex criminalised.

Champion's justification for her stance on prostitution (or rather, what she sees as prostitution) is her experience of sex trafficking victims in her 5 years as an MP.  She cited the case of one lady (who I will call Miss X), for instance, who, according to her, has been engaged with prostitution most of her life (including her pre-adult life) and has over 200 prostitution-related criminal convictions.  Miss X has complained that not one man, in contrast, who has been involved with her prostitution (in whatever way) has been subject to a criminal conviction.

Personally, I take away from Champion's views that she believes that ALL prostitutes are victims of trafficking.  To her, then, the logical conclusion from this view is that prostitution IS sex trafficking; there is no such thing as a consenting, autonomously-engaged seller of sex.  I don't think she has even attempted to test the truth in this (by seeking contact with prostitutes rather than with victims of sexual exploitation, to be exact).  Moreover, Champion's views are at odds with the law itself (as it currently stands) which makes a clear distinction between prostitution and sex trafficking.  For one thing, prostitution is legal.  Sex trafficking, along with all other forms of slavery (as well as all attendant offences like kidnap, false imprisonment, GBH, and rape), in stark contrast, is not.

Champion's markedly ignorant and biased views should not be used as a basis for any legislation relating to prostitution, then, I say. 

In any event, if sex traffickers are using online trafficking platforms to advertise the services of their victims, this makes it easy for them to be caught and prosecuted, in my view.   Prostitution advertising websites, then, are, in fact, a vital tool in the fight against sexual slavery.  (Personally, I feel that only a small proportion of the adverts on www.adultwork.com and other sex worker advertising websites come from sex traffickers [for obvious reasons].  This means that closing down such websites will generally hurt not perpetrators of sexual exploitation but rather willing, autonomously-engaged prostitutes [of which I am one, as I say]).

For the reasons presented a) above, b) in my email to you from late last night, and c) in the message below (provided by Scotpep), I urge you to both understand (and advocate) that closing down online advertising platforms for sex workers is not the way to tackle sexual slavery.  Full decriminalisation of sex work is.

***

I then added the template message from Scotpep.

As others have said in this thread, our voices may well make no difference, but at least we will know that we tried.

This probably sounds a bit silly but I'm a bit confused with all of the politics! Hoping someone could help me understand?

If this debate has the outcome that it's agreed websites should be outlawed; does that mean the sites will be shut down tonight? Or are there more processes to get it through parliament? Just trying to work out if I need to make some emergency plans this afternoon to keep my safe clients if my profile is going to disappear suddenly and I can't vet clients properly. 

Sorry if this is a silly question, I've been trying to work out what's happening and I've read all of the articles I can find and I've found the link to watch the debate live but I'm still a bit muddled!