I found out recently that the Scottish government refuses to fund any women's sector organisation unless they accept that prostitution is a form of violence. Organisations have to sign up to the Equally Safe strategy or they won't get any money. The Scottish government also refuse to use the term 'sex work'.
The theory that prostitution is a form of violence against women and girls comes from Radical Feminist ideology. They say that a woman can't truly consent to sex with a man in a patriarchal society. If you accept this ideology then prostitution is not only violence it is also rape but all forms of heterosexual sex are rape too. You can't just apply the theory to prostitution.
The Scottish government think that they are using an accepted intellectual theory but there is no intellectual justification for it. They don't explain where this theory comes from, people are just expected to accept it, even though it's not the genuine theory. That's quite disturbing. Also, I can't find out who in the government brought in this policy: I would like to know if they are Radical Feminists or Evangelical Christians.
The Scottish government are copying what socially conservative Americans have done. President Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy, also known as the 2001 Global Gag Rule. It banned NGOs from receiving funding if they are pro choice about abortion. Then in 2003 USAID stopped funding any group perceived to be encouraging sex work, including HIV outreach groups. A literacy class for Thai sex workers was denied funding.
In 2003 the Bush administration passed a Global AIDS bill that prohibits international agencies from receiving funds unless they explicitly sign an oath that they do not support or condone prostitution and that no funds will be going toward harm prevention among sex workers. See Running from the Rescuers: New U.S. Crusades Against Sex Trafficking and the Rhetoric of Abolition by Gretchen Soderlund.
It seems that the Scottish government is preparing itself to introduce the Nordic model into Scotland. That would be foolish because the official report into the effectiveness of the Nordic model in Northern Ireland shows that it has not reduced demand. There have been three reports into the effectiveness of the Nordic model in the Irish republic and none of them say there has been a reduction in demand.
I have been looking at books about women and violence. I looked at Enough: The Violence Against Women And How To End It by Harriet Johnson. As far as I can tell it has nothing to say about prostitution. It doesn't have an index but none of the chapter headings are about prostitution. It seems Harriet Johnson doesn't think prostitution is violence if it doesn't even get a mention.
I looked at Equal Power by Jo Swinson. She was the leader of the Liberal Democratic party. In Jo Swinson's book she writes about Sreypov Chan, who was 'sold into slavery in Cambodia as a seven-year-old girl'. "When she refused her first client, the pimp crushed up hot chilli peppers and pushed them into her vagina, then thrust a hot metal poker inside her." As an adult Srepoy Chan worked as an advocacy officer for the Somaly Mam Foundation.
Somaly Mam claimed to have been a sex slave and got others to make the same false claims. Long Pross and Meas Ratha were two of the girls who we know made false claims, and Sreypov Chan is another. Thomas Steinfatt has been looking into prostitution in Cambodia for a long time and has said that he has never encountered genuine instances of torture. Steinfatt has conducted research that shows coercion is not common.
So that's the fictional violence. What about the real violence against women in Cambodia? Sex workers are arrested by the police then held against their will in 'rescue' centres for months. Kept in poor conditions, there a near-total lack of psychological care for traumatized girls, an absence of meaningful job-training programs, and a blatant disregard for the young women’s privacy. One former worker said it was “like there was a revolving door for tourists and camera crews. It was like a zoo.”
American Evangelical organisations such as the International Justice Mission have conducted brothel raids in countries including Cambodia. The women they capture try to run away. IJM is funded by the American government. It would be good if the Biden administration stopped all funding to these organisations. It would help women more than the Scottish government refusing to fund good organisations such as Scot-Pep.
Jo Swinson learned about trafficking from Marie Claire magazine. Perhaps that is where Princess Eugenie learned about it too. She and one of her chums (Julia de Boinville) have teamed up to fight trafficking. It is clear that they support organisations such as the International Justice Mission and people like Nicholas Kristof. They are not doing good work helping women around the world, they are harming them. Instead of interviewing people like Kristof and the guy who made the Taken television series, they should interview people like Emily Kenway. At least they should read academics like Shelley Cavalieri and Gretchen Soderlund, who I have quoted below.
Below I have quoted from Between Victim and Agent: A Third-Way Feminist Account of Trafficking for Sex Work by Shelley Cavalieri.
In May 2003, law enforcement officers raided a brothel in Chiang Mai, the capital of the northern region of Thailand and the regional center for the many indigenous peoples or hill tribes that populate the surrounding mountains. They conducted this raid at the behest of a coalition of Thai non-governmental organizations and an American evangelical Christian organization [International Justice Mission]. The American organization, with funding from the U.S. government and in conjunction with the Thai non-governmental organizations, was dedicated to investigating and reporting brothels with children inside to the authorities, and tried to persuade the police to shut down such locales. The particular brothel raided in this story was a brothel like many others in the country, filled with ethnically Shan women from Burma. Most of the women were of the age of majority, but while accounts vary, some organizations asserted that there were teenagers working in the brothel as well. How these teenagers reached the brothel is unclear; the organizations claiming that teenage girls were there also asserted that the girls’ presence could not be voluntary due to their age and that the girls were victims of human trafficking.
The coalition of organizations effected what they termed a “rescue” of the women in the brothel because of the believed presence of children. What followed was a human rights debacle. Twenty-eight women and girls, most of whom were, by all accounts, adults, were involuntarily detained beyond the period of time that victims of trafficking may be confined under Thai law. They were not arrested or charged with crimes, but detained, according to the authorities, because they had been rescued from a situation of human trafficking. They were deprived of access to their belongings and saved earnings, which were locked inside the inaccessible brothel under police control; they never regained ownership of these possessions. After a lengthy period of time, the government deported many of these women to Burma. All of these actions, which the women experienced as both harmful and alienating, occurred under the guise of rescuing them from the brothel in which they worked.
According to social services workers who interviewed four women who escaped from the brothel as the police arrived, all of the women were ethnic Shan from Burma and were at least nineteen years of age at the time of the raid. Prior to immigrating to Thailand, their status as members of the Burmese Shan indigenous group rendered these women subject to summary detention and rape at any time at the hands of officers of the Burmese junta. Faced with the option of abuse by the authorities in a region of Burma overwhelmed by poverty, many Shan women chose, and continue to choose, to cross the mountains that demarcate the Thai-Burma border and move to a Thai city to work in a brothel. This choice has a certain logic, as forced labor, forced relocations, and food shortages remain an endemic problem in Burma. For many, work in a Thai brothel presented the opportunity to escape the repression of the Burmese junta and to send adequate money home in order to support families, educate children, and maintain households. From the perspective of these women, that they at times paid people to facilitate their passage to Thailand was merely incidental.
Further, the women who escaped the brothel prior to the raid claimed that they, like the women “rescued” in this particular scenario, and like many other Shan sex workers in Thailand, worked in the brothel of their own volition. According to these women, they were free to come and go as they liked; they were not subject to physical restraint in any way. They were not in debt bondage in the traditional sense of the phrase, although some did at times take pay advances from the brothel manager to travel home and back; they would repay such advances with a portion of their earnings over time, much like a loan against future paychecks that some workplaces offer in the United States. Yet from the perspective of the American evangelical organization doing this work, the women in the brothel, particularly the minors, needed to be rescued from the brothel. According to the IJM employee with whom I spoke during the summer following the raid, as all of the women had traveled across borders and left their communities to work in the sex industry, they qualified as exploited women in need of assistance, even when they personally denied that they experienced harm in the brothels. That they may have paid others to facilitate their migration was presented as further evidence of their exploitation.
Below I have quoted from Running from the Rescuers: New U.S. Crusades Against Sex Trafficking and the Rhetoric of Abolition by Gretchen Soderlund.
Journalist Maggie Jones’s interviews with safe house managers indicate that shelter escapes are commonplace in areas where anti-trafficking groups are currently targeting their efforts (2003). The manager of the Phnom Penh home that took in the 37 prostitutes after the Dateline initiated raids reported to Jones that at least 40 percent of the women and girls taken to his shelter escape and return to work in Svay Pak’s brothels. Indeed, six of the teens taken by MSNBC/IJM had run away from the home within a week of the televised busts. When Phil Marshall of the United Nations Project on Human Trafficking in Southeast Asia’s Mekong Region was asked by Jones what he thought of current rehabilitation strategies, he said he had “never seen an issue where there is less interest in hearing from those who are most affected by it” (Jones 2003,1). In 2003, Empower, a sex workers’ advocacy program, issued a report documenting a brothel raid in Chiang Mai, Thailand conducted by International Justice Mission in which several of the 28 arrested (or “rescued,” in abolitionist parlance) Burmese women escaped from a local institution in the first 24 hours. According to Empower, the raid—conducted ostensibly for humanitarian purposes—took on many of the same features as a criminal arrest:
As soon as they had their mobile phones returned [the] women contacted Empower. They are only permitted to use their phones for a short time each evening and must hide in the bathroom to take calls outside that time. They report that they have been subjected to continual interrogation and coercion by Trafcord [an anti-trafficking NGO formed in 2002 with U.S. financial support]. Women understand that if they continue to maintain that they want to remain in Thailand and return to work that they will be held in the Public Welfare Boys Home or [a] similar institution until they recant. Similarly, they understand that refusing to be witnesses against their “traffickers” will further delay their release. (Empower 2003)
By the end of the month, more than half of the women had escaped from the shelter. What does it mean that so-called sex slaves often thwart rescue attempts? Is it intellectually and ethically responsible to call every instance of a practice “slavery” when many women involved demonstratively reject the process of protection and rehabilitation, and when they escape from supposed rescuers who aim to force them out of a life of prostitution (“captivity”) and into a life of factory work or employment in the low-paying service sector (“freedom”)?
