sex workers voices .......

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
skdadl

How could it be legal? Presumably, Germany has sexual assault/rape laws. Coerced sex is assault. Employment agencies aren't and wouldn't be free to say to clients "Go and get yourself assaulted," and it is other laws having nothing to do with sex work that say so.

martin dufresne

One would be deluding oneself by dismissing as a hoax the possibility of being forced by a government employment agency to accept a job in prostitution. The original article - a solid analysis - published in anything but a "tabloid", or their standards are way higher than ours - makes it clear that this would be entirely possible and legal in countries where full decrimininalization is implemented.

Quote: "...since January 1, the legal landscape has changed: in accordance with the reasonableness / means testing requirements for unemployment benefits, it is theoretically possible that women could be referred to serious bordellos, not only to serve on their supporting staff, but also to work as prostitutes."

The incorrect information was that this had in fact already happened, but the possibility remains logical and real nonetheless. As the author puts it: "Legally, there is no minimum standard of reasonableness for job announcements. Employment agencies are imposing limits on themselves - for now."

ETA: Of course, people (mostly women and youths) are forced into prostitution all the time, it just hasn't been documented that they have so by a govt agency, yet.

 

martin dufresne

sarcasm alert/"Assault"? "Coercion"? What are you talking about? Are you forgetting women's consent, agency even...? /end of sarcasm

The government would simply tell women "We cannot go on giving out unemployment benefits because we see this legal, consensual job available that you can choose to accept."

 

skdadl

martin, you're not making sense. To consent to sex work, one has to consent. Susan Davis does, and makes clear with every post that that's what she's talking about.

 

No government can order anyone to consent -- consent cannot be ordered, by definition.

martin dufresne

The government would not be ordering anyone, just choosing who doesn't deserve benefits anymore, since there is a legal demand for "sexual services".

 

Caissa

This whole line of argument seems disingenuous to me, Martin.

Unionist

martin dufresne wrote:

The government would not be ordering anyone, just choosing who doesn't deserve benefits anymore, since there is a legal demand for "sexual services".

Does Canada deny you EI if you decline to join the forces and go kill people in Afghanistan (a "lawful" activity, supposedly)?

Your argument that prostitution is founded on and intensifies exploitation, inequality, and threat to women's safety - and not on freedom of choice - is stronger without this sidebar.

 

Caissa

Having collected EI benefits when they were UI benefits, I would suggest your argument is dystopian. I think Unionist is correct when he says this sidebar detracts from any argument you are trying to make.

martin dufresne

This whole line of argument seems disingenuous to me, Martin.

Suit yourself. But I have had many friends strong-armed into accepting horrible tasks by an employer who wanted to get rid of them (CN) or horrible jobs by the welfare system who wanted to strike them from their rolls. I see no reason why jobs in the sex industry would be treated different, once buying sex becomes entirely legal.

 

martin dufresne

Does Canada deny you EI if you decline to join the forces and go kill people in Afghanistan (a "lawful" activity, supposedly)?

Bad example. It CAN not only do so but also throw my sorry ass in jail via the draft whenever it chooses to reinstitute it.

I think class and race privilege gets in your eyes, folks...

 

Snert Snert's picture

Unionist didn't ask whether, in some far-fetched return to press gangs, the government *could*.  We have people applying for benefits right now.  Are they or are they not pressured to join the CF?  That's a Yes or No question.  I believe Unionist when he says No.  Do you say Yes, or do you also agree that this just doesn't happen?

martin dufresne

Snert, even Unionist can acknowledge that we were discussing what could happen.

Snert Snert's picture

I'll just take that as a no.

remind remind's picture

Oh that is TFF, considering the poor and disadvantaged are the ones who actually go into the military in the majority, because they have no other opportunities. So...much like prostitution, some white middle class people think it is a wonderful opportunity to give the poor and marginalized a leg up, they get to go into professions where the odds of them dying is pretty fucking significant, compared to most every other job.

Tough jobs but someone has to do them....I siuppose, if we want to keep the status quo patriarchy classist privilege alive.

Patriarchial classism makes for such wonderful analysis in the feminist forum..

 

 

skdadl

And the solution to class oppression is for white middle-class people to deny agency to the oppressed? I don't think so, remind.

 

Supporting workers' struggles means just that to me -- support. It doesn't mean leading, and it certainly doesn't mean supporting the extension of police powers in order to "protect" designated groups "for their own good." People free themselves. We should know that by now.

martin dufresne

Agreed. Both in Vancouver and Montreal, abolitionist coalitions are steered and led by the experiences of currently and formerly prostituted women.

skdadl

martin, I believe that and respect it. I believe and respect that we are talking about different groups of people here, more than two different groups, actually, which is one of the reasons this conversation has been difficult.

 

I thought that the occasion for all these conversations was the current court challenge, which I support as a feminist and a strong believer in the Charter. I recognize that decrim is not going to solve many other serious problems, criminal and political problems of inequality and exploitation, but I can't see that the specific laws that are making Susan's life dangerous (and insulting her in the process) are doing that either.

remind remind's picture

"deny agency"

Oh yes, I agree, we are denying them, those others, agency by not supporting their right, to be forced into the only "employment" opportunity they have.

 

"people free themselves"

Oh yes, I agree, there has never ever been an instance where freedom from oppression has occured, with any help from anyone else to achieve it.

In fact, I can clearly see that being an activist, on any front is a waste of time and resources, because activism for others has never helped anyone, ever.

susan davis

Infosaturated wrote:

I've been wondering about something Susan.  You have spoken about your desire to open a coop several times. As I understand it, you want it to be a cafe, maybe an art gallery too but also a brothel of sorts where street workers could bring their tricks and have a place to clean up.

You seem to be inferring that the laws as they stand are preventing you from doing this. Why not open it as a "body rub" shop plus cafe etc.?

Body rub shops, which are brothels, are open across Canada.

you are correct, laws are not standing in our way. but the budget of approximateoy $1,000,000.00 is....iam a sex worker.....i am not funded. the cafe and brothel are seperate enterprises andwill likely be in 2 differennt locations. although i would love it to all be in one place. it would the best if we could buy an old hotel and build our dreams in there.....

we have been denied funding for development of the cafe for the second time....and have never even attepmted to move thee brothel project forward......2 members of our coop have died since incorporation

martin dufresne

you are correct, laws are not standing in our way.

Well, you certainly did not convey this with everything you wrote deploring them these past months...

susan davis

i clearly stated before that a steam bath or body rub parlor would be our business model.....

what is your friggin point? i want my home to be decrimed?i did convey it i continue to convey it.....

although brothels are not legal we won public support for one cooperatively run space for workers on the street.....and?.....i do not have a million dollars.....

we work with police and believe by asking for equal treatment we could open our space and receive the same live and let live treatment as other such businesses receive.

respectfully, stop trying to bait me i am always open, honest and focused on my goals.....you try to make it seem like i am contradicting myself, i am not.

remind remind's picture

So susan, what you are looking for then is public money, to start a project geared only to meet men's, mainly white privileged men's, sexual pleasures?

As you have now stated, the laws, the way they stand now, are not a hinderance to your activities.

susan davis

martin dufresne wrote:

Agreed. Both in Vancouver and Montreal, abolitionist coalitions are steered and led by the experiences of currently and formerly prostituted women.

are you stating that active sex workers are a part of the abolition coalitions? are you not trying help them exit? are you allowing their harm to continue? what you stated makes no sense. ex workers, ok but current active sex workers?

oh wait, i see...it's guided by "the experiences" of.....so mostly guided by others.....interpreting what workers want and need....

susan davis

remind wrote:

So susan, what you are looking for then is public money, to start a project geared only to meet men's, mainly white privileged men's, sexual pleasures?

As you have now stated, the laws, the way they stand now, are not a hinderance to your activities.

round and round in circles we go.....you supported this idea at one point. you are so all over the map it's ridiculous

public money?are you kidding? we are trying to open a fucking cafe to provide alternative income sources for sex workers...clear enough? i would think everyone would support exiting opportunities..... i am not working on the brothel, clear?

we wanted to make the most vulnerable workers safe at work, panic buttons, a place to clean up after workeing, security....to stop them from being murdered.....clear enough?i am not working on it but we do have public support...clear?

you seedy interpretation and description of me catering to the "dirty evil men" is completely insulting. look outside in vancouver. it's cold and raining and will be for months. you would leave women in the street, in the pouring rain, at the mercy of the street. you make me sick. to have to shit, fuck, sleep and maybe die in the laneway.....do you only see the perverted little dream you have of our lives? impoverished people struggleing to survive are not catering to men...they are trying to live. and you would leave them in the cold.....

 

and exactly where did you gather statistics on sex consumers to make such a broad sweeping statement about their demographic? you have no clue about who our customers are.

remind remind's picture

Well IMV, if a current sex worker is telling someone, what they want and need to get them the hell out of it, I see no interpretation going on at all.

By listening to them, and trying to bring into effect what they are advocating for themselves as to what they need, one is helping them to exit.

Denying the voices of those who want out, is denying that there are those who want out, but have no way to do so.

 

susan davis

have i ever denied their voices? no i am working with street entrenched sex workers and am directed by them daily. i am their employee if you will....clear? how would you know if interpretation is going on, are these reports research ethic board reviewed? are these org's taking the time see the overall impacts that their actions have on workers? i guess you missed the part where are working on exiting opportunities and support people who would like to exit.....

susan davis

god you are rude....she does say it in post 19....still no link provided to support the claims either.

i do weep, every day.

martin dufresne

Susan Davis wrote, about Lee Lakeman, at the end of the "Dominant Culture, Feminism..." thread,

post #19 in this thread. you state 80% of indoor workers are trafficked and alude to all sex workers being survivors of abuse....

No, she did not, as anyone can verify. In a way, it's reassuring that Susan apparently has to systematically misquote her opponents.

In reponse to my own post, she wrote:

are you stating that active sex workers are a part of the abolition coalitions?

Yes.

are you not trying help them exit?

Yes, according to their own agenda.

are you allowing their harm to continue? what you stated makes no sense. ex workers, ok but current active sex workers?

Read it and weep: There are current active sex workers among abolitionists.


Unionist

skdadl wrote:

And the solution to class oppression is for white middle-class people to deny agency to the oppressed? I don't think so, remind.

 

Supporting workers' struggles means just that to me -- support. It doesn't mean leading, and it certainly doesn't mean supporting the extension of police powers in order to "protect" designated groups "for their own good." People free themselves. We should know that by now.

Yes.

remind remind's picture

Susan, I stated I was on the edge of deciding where to put my "yea". It is not being "all over the map".

And stop putting words in my mouth, I did not say it was "dirty evil men", you do your cause a great disservice by resorting to slander and smears.

Surely you are not trying to state that the preponderance of people utilizing front line sex workers, here in Canada, are not white males?

Plain common sense indicates otherwise, even if there were no statistics backing this up.

Please do see this post of mine.

After much thought, about all parameters, I do not believe legalizing  front line sex work, will get anyone off of the street.  In fact, it could well push more into the streets.

Society will not allow a publically endorsed job industry to happen that does not meet other workplace safety standards. Nor should it.

Frankly, the money required to set up an infrastructure soley to benefit men's sexual desires, would be better spent getting those out who want out, plus a myriad of other things. I mean just how important to society are men's sexual  and power desires?

You have already stated that the law is not blocking those who choose to do so, from doing so. So those who choose to do so, can carry on choosing to do so.

 

remind remind's picture

susan davis wrote:
have i ever denied their voices? no i am working with street entrenched sex workers and am directed by them daily.

Well that is interesting, given that you are trying to deny the voices of those who also work with street entrenched sex workers and who are directed by them also.

Quote:
i am their employee if you will....clear?

Even more so now, as it seems that if you have the "employee" position, they are paying you.

Quote:
how would you know if interpretation is going on, are these reports research ethic board reviewed?

Are you being ethics board reviewed?

Quote:
are these org's taking the time see the overall impacts that their actions have on workers?

Are you taking the time to see what your actions have on the overall impacts of ALL workers?

Quote:
i guess you missed the part where are working on exiting opportunities and support people who would like to exit.....

I guess you missed the part where Ms Baptie and Lee Lakewoord, plus many many others are working on exit strategies and  who support people who would like to exit, by the very same token, you are giving out.

Infosaturated

susan davis wrote:
.... it's cold and raining and will be for months. you would leave women in the street, in the pouring rain, at the mercy of the street. you make me sick. to have to shit, fuck, sleep and maybe die in the laneway.....you would leave them in the cold.....

Decriminalization does not cause a reduction in street work and has no bearing on you're opening a coop.

In Sweden, there has been a large reduction in street work.

Therefore, it would seem to be you that "would leave women in the street, in the pouring rain, at the mercy of the street. ... to have to shit, fuck, sleep and maybe die in the laneway.....you would leave them in the cold....."

That's not very nice Susan.

 

Infosaturated

double post

 

remind remind's picture

Unionist wrote:
skdadl wrote:
And the solution to class oppression is for white middle-class people to deny agency to the oppressed? I don't think so, remind.

 

Supporting workers' struggles means just that to me -- support. It doesn't mean leading, and it certainly doesn't mean supporting the extension of police powers in order to "protect" designated groups "for their own good." People free themselves. We should know that by now.

Yes.

Yes, I agree too, we privileged progressives, who have low job safety  risks, should be supportiing the poor, the marginalized and racialized, in "their" quest to entrench  themselves into the most high risk and shittiest job positions there are, because they do not want anything else other than to provide sexual services to the most privileged.

skdadl

Info @ 83, as I understand earlier posts of yours, the only change to our current laws that you would support would be decrim of solicitation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

If that's so, how would that one change actually change the situation that Susan has described so graphically above? How would it change it tonight? This winter? Over the next year?

 

 

Snert Snert's picture

Why don't the sex workers who feel they're being exploited, or who dislike being sex workers, quit?

For the record, I wouldn't normally suggest such a thing, knowing that many aren't going to have a better option.  But if abolitionists want to shut down sex work entirely, then I guess they must have some options, yes?  Surely the abolitionists have a plan for what sex workers are going to be doing to earn money the day the abolitionists' wet dream comes true, and white men start going to jail for trying to pay for sex.

So... whatever that thing is, why don't sex workers who don't want to be sex workers just go do that right now?  Why wait?

Edited to add:  y'know what totally fascinates me about these threads?  The so-called "pro-prostitution" crowd (I guess we're like "pro-abortion" supporters) keep suggesting the possibility of allowing sex workers by choice to do as they choose, and helping those who don't want to be sex workers. 

But that's not good enough.  No amount of support is good enough.  The only thing, evidently, that could possibly be good enough is for WHITE MEN TO GO TO JAIL.  And nobody has the courage to just stand up and say it.  That's why we need a "one size fits all" solution like total abolition.  To only help those who need help would risk the possibility that some man might still be able to pay for sex!  Nevermind if the sex worker is OK with it, because the abolitionists are seeing red over the mere thought!  What if he's smirking?!!!?!  What if he liked it!!!!

I'm throwing down.  I challenge an abolitionist to put their cards on the table.  You don't just want to help women, you want to punish men.  Admit it.  Let's get down to a real discussion.

remind remind's picture

Oh snert you are so cute, it hurts, as we all should know we live in a fair and equitable society, where there is equal opportunities for all, and the poor and marginalized/racialized do not exist.

How silly of us, not to realize, the truth of this.

And one just has to love sexist rhetoric such as "the day the abolitionists' wet dream comes true" in the feminist forum.

remind remind's picture

Snert wrote:

Why don't the sex workers who feel they're being exploited, or who dislike being sex workers, quit?

For the record, I wouldn't normally suggest such a thing, knowing that many aren't going to have a better option.  But if abolitionists want to shut down sex work entirely, then I guess they must have some options, yes?  Surely the abolitionists have a plan for what sex workers are going to be doing to earn money the day the abolitionists' wet dream comes true, and white men start going to jail for trying to pay for sex.

So... whatever that thing is, why don't sex workers who don't want to be sex workers just go do that right now?  Why wait?

Edited to add:  y'know what totally fascinates me about these threads?  The so-called "pro-prostitution" crowd (I guess we're like "pro-abortion" supporters) keep suggesting the possibility of allowing sex workers by choice to do as they choose, and helping those who don't want to be sex workers. 

But that's not good enough.  No amount of support is good enough.  The only thing, evidently, that could possibly be good enough is for WHITE MEN TO GO TO JAIL.  And nobody has the courage to just stand up and say it.  That's why we need a "one size fits all" solution like total abolition.  To only help those who need help would risk the possibility that some man might still be able to pay for sex!  Nevermind if the sex worker is OK with it, because the abolitionists are seeing red over the mere thought!  What if he's smirking?!!!?!  What if he liked it!!!!

I'm throwing down.  I challenge an abolitionist to put their cards on the table.  You don't just want to help women, you want to punish men.  Admit it.  Let's get down to a real discussion.

What a wonderful edit, as it shows what a fiucking asshat you are.

Keep up the good work. Always refreshing when someone indicates clearly what they are.

Snert Snert's picture

I wasn't really expecting any humble epiphanies.  But now I've named the game.

susan davis

Infosaturated wrote:

susan davis wrote:
.... it's cold and raining and will be for months. you would leave women in the street, in the pouring rain, at the mercy of the street. you make me sick. to have to shit, fuck, sleep and maybe die in the laneway.....you would leave them in the cold.....

Decriminalization does not cause a reduction in street work and has no bearing on you're opening a coop.

In Sweden, there has been a large reduction in street work.

Therefore, it would seem to be you that "would leave women in the street, in the pouring rain, at the mercy of the street. ... to have to shit, fuck, sleep and maybe die in the laneway.....you would leave them in the cold....."

That's not very nice Susan.

 

i can tell you from first hand experience, you are right...it's not very nice. but it's the truth and while people sit around talking about it people die. i am angry and sorry if it comes out in bad language but i will not apologize for my resolve to protect workers forced into these dangerous conditions by uninformed actions taken against us. my friends are dead. their names do not appear on any list because their bodies were found. or who died from disease or exposure, yes freezing to death in the laneway...we must work outside are forced to entertain clients in public view, have no where to wash ourselves between clients and our assaults and murders are unimportant and unsolved... businesses and residents throw things at us and we are an easy target.

i am desperate.we need action now. abolition is your right as a political opinion. but while we argue about the potential outcome of decrim and industry stability people die. all they workers in the DTES wanted was to be safe at work. after 500,000,000.00 being spent on the trial in the case of missing women, you would think we could respect their wishes. yes some want to exit sex work, yes some are at risk as a result of mental illness/trauma.we must do something immediately to stabilize their physical safety and connect them to resources they need. no NGO's are open at 3am....between 10am and 5pm....one women's only organization is open til 9 and a van delivering condoms until 6 am.....

maybe you think workers shouldn't get condoms either? i mean after all we are enabling them to cater to men....why can we give a condom and say yes, safety is good but can't give a place for the condom to be used in safety? here's your condom, sorry you were murdered while using it!!bizarre.....

susan davis

remind wrote:

susan davis wrote:
have i ever denied their voices? no i am working with street entrenched sex workers and am directed by them daily.

Well that is interesting, given that you are trying to deny the voices of those who also work with street entrenched sex workers and who are directed by them also.

Quote:
i am their employee if you will....clear?

Even more so now, as it seems that if you have the "employee" position, they are paying you.

Quote:
how would you know if interpretation is going on, are these reports research ethic board reviewed?

Are you being ethics board reviewed?

Quote:
are these org's taking the time see the overall impacts that their actions have on workers?

Are you taking the time to see what your actions have on the overall impacts of ALL workers?

Quote:
i guess you missed the part where are working on exiting opportunities and support people who would like to exit.....

I guess you missed the part where Ms Baptie and Lee Lakewoord, plus many many others are working on exit strategies and  who support people who would like to exit, by the very same token, you are giving out.

i missed nothing, where are the jobs and retraining programs? no where. one org works on exiting strategies in vancouver and it does not provide an opportunity to make money and it is not rape relief.

workers try to exit but are forced back in by poverty.please, show me all the great jobs created for sex workers by these groups? our coop was going to allow those opportunities in line with the great organization here actually trying to work on it. the funding has been cut though and as the recession continues well...

you give these organizations more credit than they deserve. they do not provide exiting programing, they provide a shelter bed and access to welfare.show me the sustainable approach to exiting employed by the groups during supporting exiting sex workers....it does not exist.

what does happen however is a revolving door effect, women are left facing extreme poverty living on welfare and end up back in the sex industry even though they wish to exit, are possibly hurt or assaulted or killed and end up back in the shelter bed....let the cycle continue!!!

remind remind's picture

Snert wrote:
I wasn't really expecting any humble epiphanies.  But now I've named the game.

What a complete and utter asshat you are, you have named sfa but your own twisted logic and sense of privilege and entitlement.

 

susan davis

i have stated before i am not paid but recently calculated my in kind contribution to this movement @$20 an hr=$360,000.00

yes, i am their employee, it a coop....owned by the members?

cooperative development and union development are not research, it is workers coming together to take over the design of our collective destinies. creating jobs and safety for people.....you've heard of this no?

research stating numbers like 80% of sex workers are abuse survivors however under canadian federal research policy must be scrutinized to ensure balanced outcomes by a research ethics review board.

remind remind's picture

susan davis wrote:
i missed nothing, where are the jobs and retraining programs? no where. one org works on exiting strategies in vancouver and it does not provide an opportunity to make money and it is not rape relief.

Oh so I see, advocating for livable guaranteed annual income, drug rehab access, funding for skills development, anti-racist policies, are not exit strategies.

But your coop is.

Quote:
you give these organizations more credit than they deserve.

No, I do not think so..

Quote:
what does happen however is a revolving door effect, women are left facing extreme poverty living on welfare and end up back in the sex industry even though they wish to exit, are possibly hurt or assaulted or killed and end up back in the shelter bed....let the cycle continue!!!

Your coop is not going to end the revolving door for those who want out, so I do not see why you are trashing those, whom you say are part of the revolving door.

What is going to end it, is public will driving humane social policies. It says much that people can force the government to keep their internet rights secure in a matter of hours, but cannot get the governments to do anything for the poor and mariginalized.

remind remind's picture

susan davis wrote:
research stating numbers like 80% of sex workers are abuse survivors however under canadian federal research policy must be scrutinized to ensure balanced outcomes by a research ethics review board.

Funny no one stated that

susan davis

no, lobbying or advocating for welfare reform,etc are not exiting programs, who is the asshat here?

exiting programs for sex workers are almost non existant, you claim these groups are supporting exiting sex workers? what is wrong with you?somekind of vendetta, gotta have last word

show me the jobs created for exiting sex workers.....i made my point. not answering your school yard bull anymore. meet me by the seesaw at recess.....

susan davis

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/feminism/dominant-culture-feminism-drowning-out-voices-sex-workers

martin cites research stating 80% of sex workers are abuse survivors in post number 40

 

what is funny about harms caused by misinformation.....

Infosaturated

Snert wrote:
I'm throwing down.  I challenge an abolitionist to put their cards on the table.  You don't just want to help women, you want to punish men.  Admit it.  Let's get down to a real discussion.

Lets do get down to a real discussion. That means listening to the arguments presented and dealing with them not throwing out strawdog arguments.  I do not want to punish men.  I happen to love men as a group though not each and every one of them.

We don't let migrants come here to work for 40$ a week and a place on someone's kitchen floor. They may think that is a great option compared to their current situation but in Canada we call that exploitative. The women currently working as prostitutes or sex workers are not the only ones to consider. We must also consider the possible rise in workers that would lead to greater numbers of women being forced into prostitution. If a majority of prostitutes are WOC then we must examine the racism inherent in large numbers of minority women being imported to serve the sexual desires of white men in ways that the majority of white women are unwilling to do.

If prostitutes were having sex willingly, for pleasure, they wouldn't require payment.  Not providing men with extra women to have sex with is not "punishing" men. It's called equality. A society where men and women have sex for the same reason, it feels good.

I've had a good weekend or two in my day and even with excellent lubricants there are limits. That's why prostitutes use numbing agents and various drugs to kill the pain.  A woman's body was not constructed to be used like that hour after hour, day after day, by an endless succession of men.

Finally, there are civilizations that did not have prostitution. Not all societies have a subclass of women that the men pass around for sexual pleasure.

Infosaturated

skdadl wrote:

Info @ 83, as I understand earlier posts of yours, the only change to our current laws that you would support would be decrim of solicitation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If that's so, how would that one change actually change the situation that Susan has described so graphically above? How would it change it tonight? This winter? Over the next year?

Full decriminalization would not change the situation Susan describes either so I don't feel that I have to come up with some utopian alternative. So far the only country to succeed in getting street workers off the streets is Sweden.

I don't want just decriminalization of soliciation, I want laws targeting johns and pimps to be strengthened.

Infosaturated

susan davis wrote:

i can tell you from first hand experience, you are right...it's not very nice. but it's the truth and while people sit around talking about it people die. i am angry and sorry if it comes out in bad language but i will not apologize for my resolve to protect workers forced into these dangerous conditions by uninformed actions taken against us. my friends are dead. their names do not appear on any list because their bodies were found. or who died from disease or exposure, yes freezing to death in the laneway...we must work outside are forced to entertain clients in public view, have no where to wash ourselves between clients and our assaults and murders are unimportant and unsolved... businesses and residents throw things at us and we are an easy target.

Then why won't you support solutions that will get these women off the street?  You are not protecting workers by blocking the only solution that has worked.

Until we follow Sweden's example women will continue dying and yet all you can think of is some coop idea that you don't have the money for.

The Sweden solution is the ONLY model that has successfully reduced street work.

Pages

Topic locked