Long break

I have had a long break due to circumstances beyond my controll. However I will begin posting again soon.

Unsafe sex fine is a legal first

Unsafe sex fine is a legal first
13 July 2005

A Christchurch man who put a prostitute's life at risk by deliberately taking off his condom has become the first in New Zealand to be prosecuted under a new unsafe-sex law.


Daniel James Morgan, 48, said he knew the prostitute would not have consented to him taking the condom off so he did it without her knowledge.

Christchurch District Court Judge John Bisphan fined Morgan $400 and ordered him to pay $130 costs. Morgan had pleaded guilty to the charge, which became law as part of the 2003 Prostitution Reform Act.

Outside court, the prostitute involved applauded the first conviction in New Zealand under the Act but said she will still have to wait another six weeks before knowing if the incident had given her HIV.

"It feels like a death sentence. I still don't know whether it will be one or not," she said.

"I've gone through a lot of gruelling tests. I've got children and I've looked after myself for so many years, practising safe sex for most of my life. How dare he take that away from me."

Anna Reed, regional co-ordinator for the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, said previously most sex workers "wouldn't have been brave enough" to make a complaint with the police. However, the prosecution, conviction, and fine yesterday would act as a wake-up call.

AdvertisementAdvertisement"There's always been the odd person who thought they could get away with this (unsafe sex) but we hope this sends a good strong message out there," she said.

Detective Rachel Jefferies said it was thought the charge was the first to be brought under the Act.

From http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3343362a11,00.html

Much has been written this week about the influence of the radical feminist - apart from the truth: that she set the women's movement back 20 years, says Havana Marking

Friday April 15, 2005
The Guardian

"Just for the record," said Andrea Dworkin, in 1997, "I do wash my hair - actually it's rather soft and it's rather curly." It was a touching moment on Radio 4's Woman's Hour when Dworkin managed to laugh off the personal insults she constantly received. It was an example of how brave and maligned she had been in her life and how her appearance had been shockingly used against her time and time again.

But there was a much more important moment when Jenni Murray asked yesterday what Dworkin had actually achieved in her life. It was acknowledged that while pornography was on the increase, at least we could discuss it now. But what no one said, and what no one wrote in Dworkin's obituaries, was this: Dworkin's true legacy has been that far too many young women today would rather be bitten by a rabid dog than be considered a feminist.
"Since the 1970s," said this paper's obituary, "Dworkin symbolised women's war against sexual violence." Rape, paedophilia and domestic abuse needed, and obviously still need, to be hounded out of our society. How brilliant that there was someone willing to stand up and talk about it - to say to the world: "This has happened to me, and it happens to a lot of women and it has got to stop." But Dworkin's radical writing and hugely controversial - practically melodramatic - ideas not only pushed the argument as far as it could go, but pushed it off the cliff of credibility.

Dworkin achieved fame for her stance against pornography. As the film editor of Scarlet magazine (Britain's sex mag for women) and a self-proclaimed lover of porn, one could imagine that I was dead against everything she had to say on this matter. But that's not true. Elements of her arguments are tenable, and I agree that the makers of porn should have a legal incentive to create pornography that does not abuse. People should not be able to incite violence towards women, in the same way that people are not allowed to incite racial hatred.

But the problem with Dworkin's attitude to porn sums up everything that can now be held against her. Her definition of porn and what is considered harmful is hugely misleading. In Pornography: Men Possessing Women, Dworkin used the word pornography knowing that it was different from society's understanding of the term. It was not just sex between adults recorded to inspire erotic and sexually arousing feelings; it was any sex act that involved degradation of women in a sexual context. "Pornography is a celebration of rape and injury to women ... " and by her definition, it was.

The deliberate blurring of these definitions is Dworkin's fundamental error and led ultimately to her malignment and the ease with which (male-led) society was able to demonise her. But it got her good headlines at first and if you court such controversy you play a very dangerous game. Dangerous not only for yourself, but for the women you claim to represent.

Dworkin redefined sex workers as helpless, passive victims - whereas before they were viewed as fallen, evil women. Linda Marchiano (Lovelace), famous for her role in Deep Throat, the seminal 70s porn film, was her cause célèbre. This young and pretty star had been coerced into making the film by her abusive husband Chuck Traynor. Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon helped her bring a civil rights suit in 1984.

But as Ana Lopes, founder of the British Sex Workers Union and a committed feminist, explains: "That has not changed the conditions under which women perform sex work. It has done nothing to improve their lives. On the contrary, they [radical feminists] have been a huge barrier to sex workers' empowerment and self-organisation. Sex workers need the support of advocates and allies in order to gather enough resources to stand up for their rights successfully. The women's movement is one of the most obvious allies - but if feminists are busy protesting against prostitution and pornography as a concept, it is clear that sex workers cannot count on their help."

The radical feminist view of the late 20th century is so similar to the moral Victorian view of the 19th century. It is, as Natasha Walter writes in her book The New Feminism, "an alarmist cocktail of horror and fury, with little interest in finding pragmatic ways to reduce women's abuse". A perfect example is the objection to tolerance zones for street walkers. Radicals tend to froth at the mouth at evidence that well-lit safety zones reduce the risk of attack. They would never allow anything that might facilitate prostitution full stop, regardless of how many lives you could improve in the short term.

When young women put on the Dworkin x-ray specs for a moment, they see female victims everywhere - not just in the sex industry. Women who like porn, any women who has been seduced by a man, women in the gym, women who wear make up ... and any of us who do not see the penis as a "symbol of terror" must have been brainwashed by misogynist culture. "We ingested it as children whole, had its values and consciousness imprinted on our minds as cultural absolutes," Dworkin wrote in Woman Hating in 1974.

But when a woman is portrayed as a victim, even when she is not, and certainly does not feel like one, you not only insult her but you alienate her as well. The idea that a sexually active and interested woman is merely fulfilling man's fantasy, and there to serve him, is outrageous. Again to quote Walter: "Unless [we] acknowledge the confidence and pride women have often felt within hetero sexual culture ... [we] run the risk of reducing women's potential power."

Heterosexual culture, like pornography, is not a bad thing in itself. Dworkin might not have actually said "all men are rapists" but she did have the slogan Dead Men Don't Rape above her desk. Blanket and extreme arguments help no one.

And now, back to the rabid dog scenario. Feminism today is practically taboo again. When you mention the word, pretty eyes widen in horror. "But I actually like men," my friends still say, "and I want to be seduced." Women of all classes don't want to be associated with a movement defined by the likes of Andrea Dworkin, and sadly that is what the movement - something once so beautiful and extraordinary - has been allowed to become.

There have been numerous feminists - Walter, Erica Jong, Naomi Wolf - with alternative views; feminists who see beyond sex as the primary motivation, feminists who are more interested in female poverty, and feminists who want to create an articulate dialogue with men, but they are often overlooked by the mainstream. Perhaps this is a male-dominated cultural move, and the myth of Dworkin is perpetuated by those with something to lose, but she made it so easy for them. And she didn't complain as the hijacking took place.

But many women do want an alternative. More crucially, women need an alternative. Recent statistics showed that rape convictions are down to 5.6% of all rapes reported. This is worse today than ever before, having fallen from 32% in 1977. Currently, emergency services receive a call every minute of every day about domestic violence. There are headline cases every week about women sacked for being "too old and too ugly" to do their job, or receiving a great deal less than their male counterparts. We should be out on the streets protesting, but how can you rally the troops when the very notion of female solidarity sends a man-hating spirit of fear down the spines of all the women you know.

We need a real, modern, intellectual and rebranded feminism. But first of all we need a new name. I've seen T-shirts saying "I'm a feminine feminist", or people declaring themselves to be "pro-porn feminists", or, even better, a "muffragette". But really we need something that takes us out of the battle of the sexes, that turns this into a basic human rights issue. We need to be equalists or equalitarians. I haven't found the perfect word yet, but I'm working on it.


From The Guardian http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,1460563,00.html

Fleeing their war-torn homes, Iraqi girls are selling their bodies in Syria to support their families.

By Joshua E. S. Phillips
June 24, 2005

DAMASCUS, Syria -- You might not even notice the Manara nightclub if it weren't for the gradual flow of cars leading right to it. Just behind the Mosque of President Hafez Assad, the club's parking lot is crammed with cars, many bearing plates from neighboring gulf states. Inside, disco lights pierce the smoky air. Patrons pack the seats as they sip beer and lazily gaze at the dance floor. They watch teenage girls dressed in snug, revealing clothes awkwardly shuffling to thumping Arabic music. Many girls wear stilettos so steep they can barely walk. Some dance in pairs, often tightly pressed together, fingers entwined. Most seem bored and some, noticeably, are uneasy.

Male customers summon waitstaff to inquire about the availability and age of select girls. A Syrian journalist and I, posing as patrons, consult the staff ourselves. Farah, a 15-year-old, is brought to our table, dressed in camouflage pants and heavy makeup.

Farah sits, swings her long dark hair, shakes hands all around, then pointedly asks, "Who am I speaking to?" I'm taken aback by her businesslike tone and point to the Syrian reporter. Farah pleasantly chats with him, negotiating how much time she'll share, and if a "next step" will be taken. Farah locks eyes with the waiter, nods, and a bottle of champagne is brought to our table. "That'll be 7,000 Syrian pounds," says the waiter. That's $140. The champagne signals the beginning of the process. Conversation is next, and "anything else" will cost more.

As we empty our bottle of champagne, Farah tells us her story. Like most of the girls at the Manara disco, she is an Iraqi, a Sunni from Fallujah, one of Iraq's most war-torn areas. She got married in the United Arab Emirates, divorced four months afterward, and found work at the disco through a cousin. She says she's working "just to make some money for my family," who also now live in Syria. Farah says she's the family's breadwinner.

The story of a Sunni girl from Fallujah selling herself in a Damascus nightclub represents startling new fallout from the Iraq war, one human rights organizations and experts are only beginning to address. An increasing number of young Iraqi women and girls who fled Iraq during the turmoil are turning to prostitution in Syria, although there are no reliable statistics on how many girls are involved. That might partly explain why so little reporting has been done on the topic. For journalists and human rights workers, securing contact with Iraqi sex workers in Syria is difficult and dangerous because the topic is taboo...


Continued at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/24/prostitutes/index.html

SPEAKING FREELY
Korean sex trade 'victims' strike for rights
By Sealing Cheng
[Dec 22, 2004]

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

South Korean sex workers have been on a hunger strike in front of the National Assembly building, protesting the new new anti-prostitution law for more than one and a half months. On October 7 and November 1, more than 2,000 sex workers took to the streets of Seoul in protest. Braving the stigma of prostitution with only sunglasses and masks, female sex workers have been making the strongest public statement ever in Korea against threats to their livelihood and well-being - and those of their families. But no one is listening. Their hunger strike began on November 2.

The South Korean government implemented a new law to "eradicate prostitution" in September. Both the Ministry of Gender Equality and key women's organizations claim the new law advances women's rights. So why are female sex workers going on a hunger strike and taking to the streets to protest the law? And why won't the ministry or women's organizations meet with the strikers? (Hunger strikes usually are carried out in relays, so that no single woman goes without food or water for what now would be 50 days.)

The Sex Trade Prevention Act, at first glance, looks like a welcome departure from the old law that penalized all women in prostitution as "fallen women". It offers protection for "victims" and penalizes all involvement in the sex trade. While clients, brothel owners, and pimps can get jail sentences and fines, "victims" are entitled to shelter, health services, vocational training, and even alternative-business start-up funds. This all sounds good.

What could be so wrong with the new law that those whom it intends to protect are protesting so vehemently against it? What could they possibly object to?

They object to the loss of their livelihoods. They object to police crackdowns that are forcing them to work clandestinely, exposing them to great danger, and threatening their well-being and that of their families (sex workers have families too). They object to being arrested along with clients, brothel owners and pimps. For the sex workers, the new law is in effect an instrument of harassment.

The law protects only women who want to leave the sex trade but penalizes those who want to stay. Only "victims" who have been coerced into the sex trade are eligible for services. Yet those who cannot prove their victimhood, such as independent sex workers, could be charged with violating the law, and penalized.

The underlying assumption of the law, therefore, is wrong. Not all women in the sex trade are "victims" who want to be rescued from the brothels. That they want to be free from exploitation and abuse does not mean that they want to be out of a job. Instead, this law is subjecting them to violence (through police harassment) by assuming that women could be forced out of prostitution.

The principles of human rights demand that governments do no harm to a person and take extra care to promote the rights of people who are already marginalized.

South Korean sex workers are now publicly demanding what other workers take for granted: their right to a livelihood. Their constitutional right as citizens to pursue happiness with dignity and worth as human beings. And with that, the recognition of sex work as a legitimate form of work.

To the sex workers, the current attempts of the government and women's organizations to eradicate prostitution are in effect destroying their lives. Their public petition eloquently declares:
We feel only forsaken by the good-for-show policy of the Ministry of Gender Equality that has no correspondence with our realities. Those who are wealthy and in lack of nothing seem not even interested in how difficult and urgent our immediate realities are. They are drowned in their own illusion, thinking that they are helping us but in effect they have pushed us to this cold and bleak place.
Why are the Korean government and women's organizations ignoring the voices of the sex workers? Why the rush to eradicate prostitution after years of tolerance of this illegal trade?

The South Korean government has been under relentless pressure from the United States to demonstrate its commitment to combat trafficking in women and girls. As part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) passed in 2000, the US State Department publishes the yearly Trafficking in Persons Report to monitor world efforts to combat trafficking. In 2001, it identified South Korea along with other lowest-ranking countries such as Sudan and Myanmar. This represented a huge international embarrassment to the South Korean government, which has taken pride as a regional leader in democracy. (Persistent violations can carry sanctions by the US.)

The South Korean government thus set out to prove its anti-trafficking commitments. While "trafficking" refers to the use of force, fraud, and deception in exploiting labor in all sectors, the US administration of President George W Bush has implemented its anti-trafficking policy with a preoccupation with prostitution.

In this context, a momentous shift from tolerance to "zero-tolerance" in the Korean government's approach to prostitution followed, with a big push from women's organizations.

The fervor of women's organizations to eradicate prostitution is rooted in the conviction that prostitution is the key issue to women's subordination in South Korea. They believe that prostitution is a form of male violence against women, and that no woman engages in prostitution voluntarily. For well over a month, the hunger strike and mass protests clearly have disproved this last point - that no one does it voluntarily.

Women in sex work do experience violence and discrimination, but this is because they are marginalized and denied the rights that everyone should enjoy. Two fires in 2000 and 2002 killed 20 sex workers who had been locked inside their workplaces by their employers. These tragedies should never have been allowed to happen. But it would be a mistake to extrapolate from these bad experiences to imply that all sex work is violence.

The most visible sex workers are often the hardest hit by state persecution in times of a moral panic against prostitution. The thousands of protesting sex workers come from red-light districts all over South Korea, the chief targets of police raids and arrests.

Yet it is no news that some teenage girls, university students, and housewives have engaged in the exchange of sex for material rewards, a phenomenon exclusive neither to prostitution nor to Korea. The bold suggestion in their petition, therefore, is a protest not only against their persecution but also their stigmatization: "Do you not think that strategic marriages among the families of large corporations (chaebol) are prostitution?"

Exploitation is a problem faced by all women, not just prostitutes, and it needs to be tackled at its roots - in the family, the workplace and schools; class inequalities and restrictive ideas about sexuality also need to be addressed, among other issues. Women's subordination and their impeded access to valuable resources are entrenched in these social institutions. Prostitution is only an expression, not the cause, of such inequalities.

An effective intervention must be based on sincere interactions with the very women whom law enforcement and women's organizations are trying to assist. Those who have good intentions must realize that dealing with violence in the sex trade does not mean eradicating prostitution. Prostitution is not identical to violence or sex trafficking.

Korean sex workers have refused to be "victims" by speaking up. If the new law genuinely aims at promoting these women's rights, then neither the Korean government nor women's organizations can afford to ignore their voices.

Seling Chang is a Rockefeller post-doctoral fellow in the Program for the Study of Sexuality, Gender, Health, and Human Rights at Columbia University, New York. She is an anthropologist who has been researching on prostitution-related issues in Korea since 1998.

(Copyright 2004 Seling Chang.)

From http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FL22Dg01.html