By Christian Vega, Sex Worker, Secretary of Victorian branch of the Australian
Sex Party
Such has been the fate of the Australian Sex Party in the
aftermath of the 2012 Melbourne by-election. Having been denied a win
that was thought to be in the bag, the Victorian Greens have been indignant and
rather than take time for some critical self reflection, the party and its
supporters has sought to blame everyone else for their loss, targeting the
younger and much smaller Sex Party in particular.
Megan Tyler, anti-sex
industry colleague of senior Greens member, Kathleen Maltzahn, has joined the
tirade (Political party or
lobby group? The dark side of the Australian Sex Party,
31/07/2012).
From the headline it’s clear her position, she doesn’t much like
the Australian Sex Party. It’s a strange question to ask: Political Party or Lobby Group? Could this question not be asked
of any political party? To support the interests of a part of the community-
isn’t that what all political parties do? Perhaps she thinks we are somehow
different...
 |
| One of the Sex Party Campaign pamphlets |
Well that’s sort of true. Identified as best practice for
human rights throughout the world by international
public health bodies as well as Australian sex
workers themselves, decriminalisation of the sex industry is a worthy enough goal
that the Sex Party would, of course, adopt it as policy.
Supported by evidence, upholding human rights, promoting civil liberties, good
health outcomes and social justice, I am proud to be a member of a party that
would make such a stand. The centre of the Sex Party’s very being though? Now that is a stretch. The decriminalisation of sex work is no doubt
an important policy, but to call it the centre? Hmm. Perhaps if one is obsessed with the sex
industry one may fail to notice the range of other policy areas that have
shaped the Sex Party’s identity- Anti-Censorship, Equality and
Anti-discrimination, Drug Law Reform- hall marks of our civil liberty platform
that were around much earlier than our sex work policy.
Tyler portrays decriminalisation of sex work as “basically end the criminalisation of all
forms of prostitution and make them free from any special government
intervention,” and “legalisation means regulation and the sex
industry would rather have free rein to boost its profits.”
This is a fallacy anti-sex work lobbyists often use: to equate
decriminalisation with deregulation when the two are entirely different.
To clarify- decriminalisation is the removal of criminal codes related to sex
work. This does not mean that all activities under the label of sex work
are allowed to happen; advocates for decriminalisation are not asking for the
sex industry to operate “free rein.” Decriminalisation
is not an attempt to legitimise crime; child sexual exploitation and rape would
remain illegal under the current criminal code.
It is an approach that seeks to clarify the distinction between acts
that are clearly unacceptable and those that are legitimate. It is a system
that has been introduced into New Zealand and more recently in Canada; the
outcomes of adopting such an approach are clearly outlined in
research: greater enablement of sex workers to exercise choices that
make them less vulnerable, greater empowerment of sex workers to seek justice
in instances of violence and other crimes , the number of sex workers remained
stable and in the case of some street sex working sectors- had actually
reduced. Tyler and her ilk (those that
have built a career that hinges on the perception that all sex workers are
victims) must ignore this legitimacy in order for their position to hold.
 |
| UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for the decriminalisation of sex work since 2008 |
Tyler claims, “Patten
helped make the real aims of the party quite clear in the lead-up to the
election when she claimed that the ASP didn’t attempt a preference deal with
the Greens because of concerns about an “anti-sex feminist element” in the
party.”
That is an interpretation built on an inaccuracy. Firstly, the Sex Party did attempt to contact
the Greens to talk preferences, as written in the Herald Sun and
acknowledged by at least one Greens volunteer, “maybe [it’s] the
Greens fault for not picking up the phone.” While it’s our concern
that the anti-sex feminist compulsions may have prevented the Greens from engaging
with us- and ultimately contributing to their defeat- it hardly defines the
“aims of the party.”
Again, Tyler’s attempt to be coy is rather feeble “The “anti-sex” slur was most likely just a
veiled reference to Kathleen Maltzahn, who served as a Greens local councillor
in Yarra and stood as a Greens candidate in the 2010 Victorian state election.”
Even Maltzahn’s Wikipedia page
doesn’t beat around the bush: “The Australian Sex Party have accused her of
being an "anti-sex campaigner” and preferenced Labor ahead of the Greens
in the election for the seat of Melbourne on July 21 2012 which caused The
Greens narrow loss." The tensions between the Sex Party and Kathleen
Maltzahn first began to influence the political relationship between the two
parties during the state election in 2010.
During a radio interview on Joy 94.9, Maltzahn declared her preferences-
even though they had yet to be finalised.
Perhaps it should have been expected but the supposed feminist had
preferenced the only other female candidate last- perhaps it was because of
that candidate’s status as a sex worker, perhaps it was because she was the Sex
Party’s candidate. Either way, Maltzahn-
and by extension, the Greens- had sent a signal that they were not interested
in working with us.
Tyler continues to sing her colleague’s praises, “Maltzahn is also a prominent
anti-trafficking campaigner and founder of Project Respect... Part of its
vision is given as “a world where there is no longer demand for prostitution.”
Now, why wouldn’t a sex industry lobby group be happy with that?”
 |
| Supporters of sex workers protest against Maltzahn, 2011 |
What Tyler fails to mention is that sex workers themselves
reject the position of Project Respect.
To quote the Scarlet
Alliance, the Australian Sex Workers Association, “It
was reported in a May 2004 Lateline interview that Project Respect, a Victorian
NGO, had called for the re-criminalisation of the sex industry as a way of
addressing what the Government refers to as the trafficking of women for the purpose
of sexual servitude. These and other anti-sex work views have had a harmful
impact on sex workers in Australia. However the anti-sex work lobby has been
increasingly using the issue of trafficking to hide their broader agenda of
making all sex work illegal.” Organisations such as Project Respect and Tyler’s
CATWA are part of the ‘Rescue Industry’, a whole sector of NGOs who gain their
funding through the portrayal of sex work as victimising and exploitative.
Their positions often hijack supportive and harm reduction based responses for
moralistic/abolitionist ones. The
Australian Sex Party believes that front line workers in the industry must be
listened to in order to implement policy that is both informed and would
support their human rights. It’s clear
that Tyler does not agree.
 |
| The Sex Party's Robbie Swan |
“That the commercial
interests of the sex industry might occasionally clash with the pursuit of
civil liberties, or other important things – like say, gender equality – is
apparently unthinkable.” Yet another tired strategy used by
anti-sex work moralists, positioning civil liberties against gender equality-
as if the two are somehow incompatible. Tyler
fails to recognise the efforts made by the Sex Party regarding gender equality,
it is party policy to promote greater inclusion of women in government, to
strengthen current equal opportunity legislation and fight discrimination where
it currently exists.
Tyler
Claims, “The Australian discussion around
the sex industry exists largely in a bubble where liberal notions of choice
reign supreme.” If only this were true.
Unfortunately, in the state of Victoria, the law is pretty clear (Sex Work Act 1994,
Section 17 subsection 3): “A person must not publish or cause to
be published a statement which is intended or likely to induce a person to seek
employment as a sex worker; or in a brothel or with an escort agency or any
other business that provides sex work services” In addition to prohibiting
businesses from advertising for workers, this law also prohibits the
distribution of information about working in the sex industry. This means that the information that would
help people make an informed choice about working (or even not working) in the
sex industry is not currently available. For many of us, sex work is a choice
but clearly it is not the dominant ideal, to claim that this notion “reigns
supreme” is more than just a little exaggerated.
Tyler
writes: “This creates an unusual climate
where it is thought that, to be progressive, you must be sympathetic to an
industry that principally relies on the buying and selling of women.”
Placing aside the rancid and disparaging characterisation that sex work is the “selling
of women” (as opposed to the consensual trade of services provided by workers
of all genders sexes and sexualities), what’s so unusually progressive about
supporting people whose rights are being trounced every day? This is another
attempt to conflate supporters of sex worker rights with proponents of
exploitation, if you want to see similar examples of this one only needs to
look back to a time when support for gay rights was touted as promoting
paedophilia.
“Elsewhere in the world, however,
socialists, social democrats and other social progressives are moving towards
understanding prostitution as a form of violence and as a barrier to women’s
equality. In terms of legislation, this is epitomised by the Nordic Model,
which criminalises the buying of sexual services, but decriminalises selling” Tyler
is speaking about legislation that was adopted in Sweden. By saying “social progressives” I’m wondering
if she is referring to writers of not only this policy, but the policy of sterilisation of
transgender people seeking gender reassignment surgery, the
forced
sterilisation of people with a disability and the zero tolerance
approach to drug use. Yeah, real
progressive...
 |
| Swedish academic, Petra Ostregren opposes the Swedish Model |
“Earlier this year, for instance, the
Kirby Institute at UNSW released a report on the sex industry in New South
Wales, which claimed that the difference between the Nordic Model and full
criminalisation (often favoured by conservative political regimes) may be
“largely illusory”.” At this point of her piece, Tyler reveals much about the
approach one must take in order to stand in a tenuous position as she
does. Clearly, one has to ignore a
highly respected academic body has conducted evidence based peer reviewed
research in order to commit to a position that oppresses sex workers. This “pre-scientific” approach is often
adopted by sex work prohibitionist and is well documented.
“It also trotted out the tired claim that
criminalising the buying of sexual services automatically positions “sex
workers as victims”.” Actually, the most significant portrayers of “sex workers as
victims” were the policy writers to first put together Tyler’s beloved ‘Nordic
Model’. This re-emerges the Swedish
government’s evaluation of the abolition of sex work: “[Sex
workers] describe themselves as having chosen to prostitute themselves and
don’t see themselves as being involuntarily exposed to anything. Even if it’s not forbidden to sell sex, they
feel hunted by the police. They feel as
if they’ve been declared incapable of managing their own affairs in that their
actions are tolerated, but their will and choices are not respected. Further, they believe it is possible to
distinguish between voluntary and forced prostitution… (These) negative effects
of the ban that they describe can almost be regarded as positive when viewed
from the perspective that the aim of the law is to combat prostitution.” So basically the Swedish model says that sex
workers’ sense of stigma, being hunted down and lack of respect are good things,
a means to an end. And Tyler wonders why
such a framework is derided in Australia.
“Assertions such as these continue to
fuel an odd situation in Australia. If, when talking about prostitution, you
raise issues of exploitation or structural inequality – traditionally hallmarks
of Marxist analyses – you get accused of being a right-wing moralist.” No
Tyler, no one is calling you a moralist because of your views on equality and
human rights, we call you a moralist because you are not willing to apply these
to sex workers. The policies she
advocates for are demonstrably harmful towards women, she would rather see us
without rights, without protection in an ineffective effort to stamp us out,
regardless of the cost.
“But perhaps this
constant bias shouldn’t be surprising in a country where the sex industry not
only has its own political party but has also managed to con a bunch of
academics, among others, into voting for it.”
Let’s look at what is clear- there are two sides of the debate-
pro-sex work and anti-sex work.
 |
| Fiona Patten, Speaking at a rally for sex worker rights earlier this year |
On the other hand, the
Victorian Greens have not been as transparent.
When Kathleen Maltzahn was pressed on radio during the 2010 state election
campaign about her party’s stance on sex work she denied her party had any,
despite her party’s website clearly stating it will “end the
criminalisation of consensual adult sex work.”
Perhaps this omission was an innocent oversight or perhaps it indicates an
awareness of the tension within the Greens, that such moralistic conservatism
is best covered up- after all it did just cost them valuable support that could
have secured them a win in the Melbourne by-election. So what’s it going to be Victorian Greens-
Are you pro- or anti- sex workers?
No comments:
Post a Comment