Thanks again, Catherine, for bringing facts and logic to this emotionally loaded issue.  Even though it's admittedly preliminary, I think the rapporteur's estimate should be taken very seriously. 

And, yes, Amanda, I think this would be a tough sell in the U.S.  Some police departments in the US have, in fact, tried focusing on the customers.  I haven't researched this, but my impression is that this idea generally ran into a lot of opposition, especially after a few prominent male politicians got caught.

The swedish model still supposes that all prostitution is somehow violence directed against a woman.  This is far from the typical case.  We all agree that human trafficking is terrible.  Human trafficking can be violent and likely in most cases it is.  Prostitution is not human trafficking it is a means by which criminal elements obtain future prostitutes.  It is however, not prostitution.  Sometimes prostitutes are abused.  Sometimes spouses are abused. 

The swedish in my opinion is just another way to perpetuate the bullshit argument that prostitution somehow makes the seller a victim.  NO.. the seller is a victim if they are a slave.  the seller is a victim if they are abused.  The seller is not a victim i what they sell is sex.

At least in teh swedish system women can report violence against them without fear of the police.  I doubt that the swedish model would do anythign to decrees demand for prostitutes here because men already go to jail, loose thier cars, and get labeled sex offenders and they are still buying.  If you take away the penalty for the women you still have the same penallty for the man (It can't get much worse cause, lets face it about the only thing worse than being jailed, loosing your wealth, car, family, and dignity is being dead[maybe that can be better]).  So nothing would change except that the women could report abuse. 

What needs to change is our attitudes toward this subject. 

THERE ARE PROSTITUTES THAT ARE HAPPY & TRUELY ENJOY THIER WORK(either for the compensation or some other thrill). 

THERE ARE PROSTITUTES THAT HATE THIER JOBS BUT DO IT CAUSE ITS TEH BEST JOB THEY ARE AWARE THAT TEHY CAN DO.... THATS LIKE THE GUY THAT CLEANS PORTA POTTIES.  DO YOU THINK HE/SHE LOVES HIS JOB? NO BUT IT'S THE BEST JOB HE/SHE IS AWARE THAT THEY CAN DO FOR THE MONEY THEY NEED TO LIVE."

THERE ARE SOME PROSTITUTES THAT ARE VICTIMS Of SLAVEY, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, AND PHYSICAL ABUSE.. JUST AS THERE ARE MANY OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT PROSTITUTES THAT ARE ALSO VICTIMS OF THESE THINGS.

SO DO YOU THINK THAT PROSTITUTION ITSELF IS WRONG OR THE THINGS YOU CLAIM GO WITH IT? 

Amanda, in face of no better option than prostituting yourself what would be your next best option?  Don't you think the women that don't want to be prostitutes but need the money for whatever reason have teh right to do what they need to then be faced with doing something worse than prostitution?

My 'Al Gore' approach to the truth must have been a little too ... inconvenient.  Nice segway.  As for discussing the Swedish Model, I might just leave that to the academics and those who have a vested interest in discussing any model at all.

Sorry, Ishe, once again I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  Are you saying that no legislation, no policy, and no analysis of the effects of laws and policies can contribute anything?  Sure, everyone has choices.  Fact is, government tries, with varying degrees of success, to influence a lot of those choices.  So I say again, does anyone know what laws and policies do reduce trafficking, and with what adverse effects?

I'm saying that no law will make someone take personal responsibility (the ability to respond).  There is a model called "the Duluth Model" coming out of Western Australia for men committed to changing how they express their emotions.  I'm not that computer literate to be able to link it here, it might be Googled, I don't know.  Again, that is a choice men make.  It won't be compelled by law or influenced by any government.

On the supply side, I'd imagine you would all know my views by now.  Were women to CHOOSE not to placate, then men would have to find other (maybe more productive) ways to "own their sexual charge".  Again, that's a choice women make.  It won't be compelled by law or influenced by any government.

Laws and government regs can only pick up the "collateral damage".

Correction :
Again, that's a choice prostitutes can make (while trafficked women and children cannot).

While I was out shopping synchronicity was at work again!  I saw a man, maybe in his late 30's, wearing a T-shirt that said "I'm mean because you're stupid".  What emotional age would you say that statement came from?  That's the excuse many abusers make for violent action.  And a man who abuses prostitutes (of any class) isn't doing that because he has an inordinate respect for their intelligence.  He's doing it because they are an object of scorn.

Catherine, I get what you're saying.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I hear it:
*Because society has such a low opinion of prostitutes, we are stigmatised more by society than by our clients.  We want society to change.*

This is what I'm saying.  Prostitutes have chosen a dangerous career path, dangerous for reasons which I won't go over again.  I've posted a great number of convoluted reasons already.  Society may or may not see it that way, most people don't even care one way or the other.  Most men, however, will see it that way consciously or unconsciously.  My general point is that the law/policy/model whatever can't stop you from making your choices.  More importantly how society views prostitution has diddly squat to do with the actual abuses inflicted on prostitutes or the rise in people being trafficked for this work.

Another way of looking at it is the "Mohammed and the mountain" model. 
Should the mountain go to Mohammed? - should society help keep prostitutes safe from their chosen career
OR
Should Mohammed go to the mountain? - should prostitutes help society by giving up their career, freeing resources to eradicate something far worse

The Native American democracy was people led by wisdom.  Our modern democracy is people restricted by laws.

Ishe, your model carries the implicit assumption that prostitution is bad under any circumstances and that prostitutes are, therefore, harming society and inviting harm to themselves.

I think this is exactly what Catherine was contradicting.  How about "should society keep prostitutes safe IN their chosen career"?   I.e., the woman doesn't surrender her rights to safety and respectful treatment by choosing that line of business. 

Also, I am not sure I'd describe Native American government before the white people came as "democracy led by wisdom."  Different tribes had different structures of government, ranging from the Hopis' strong emphasis on consensus (if a dispute couldn't be resolved, the minority moved out and started another community) to the rather warlike and nomadic Plains tribes.  (The alliance that won at Little Bighorn was unusual both in the number of different tribes that cooperated and, not coincidentally, the high quality of their leadership.) 

Did the Native American tribes have prostitution?  We don't hear much about it if they did.  But they did have slavery and human trafficking, in many cases, and women generally had inferior status to men in many ways.  "Government of laws and not of men" was an improvement when it was introduced.  Be careful what you wish for, Ishe.

Crikey Doug, you do like your distractions.  They make me work pretty hard.  In "Notes on Virginia" inserted into the 1787 edition, Thomas Jefferson wrote concerning Native Americans :
*Their only controls are their manners, and moral sense of right and wrong ... crimes are very rare among them.   Insomuch that it were made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the civilized Europeans, submits man to greater evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last.*
You can reead the whole thing at www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6nations/EoL/chp8.html  Granted that was a long time ago, but the point is, it worked once.

As for my model, haven't all the statistics and papers tabled on this blog that we've laboriously poured over determined that the activity of prostitution invites harm to those involved in it?  It might not be bad under any circumstance, but it's not good under every circumstance either.

I tried the link myself and it didn't work.  You'll have to click SEARCH on the homepage and type in Chapter 8.

There was a period in Australia this last century (and it probably happened in every Western country) where the answer to just about every human problem was "Hell, let's all just go on STRIKE!"   Some call it embargo, others just down tools.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm looking down the thin edge of the wedge here and seeing that the only people who CAN do something about human trafficking for sex work (maybe not for picking oranges) are prostitutes themselves.

I'd share Thomas Jefferson's choice, especially considering the condition of European governments in 1787, but those aren't the only two alternatives.  Besides, he was comparing Europe to the Native American tribes in and around Virginia, which were among the more stable and developed ones. 

Indeed, prostitution is not always good -- nolo contendere there.  Neither is religion, but we're not proposing banning that because of the harm it sometimes causes.  I don't see the logical connection you appear to consider pretty evident.

And I absolutely, positively don't see the logic behind "the only people who can do something about human trafficking for sex work are the prostitutes themselves."  If you substitute "picking cotton" for "sex work" and "field laborers" for "prostitutes" (keeping in mind tha some of the field workers were free and doing it voluntarily), you'd have a fine recipe for maintaining Negro slavery in the US for another hundred years.  The way to stop human trafficking is to intervene to stop human trafficking, regardless of where the trafficked are headed, no?

Doug, I'm going to skip your first two paragraphs if you don't mind, and respond to your last as best I can.  I did make an exclusion for cotton and orange pickers if I remember rightly.  So unless there's a Swedish model for cotton pickers, I'll just concentrate on sex work and prostitutes. 

If we are all concerned about Ending Human Trafficking, this cause, and what we attempt to reach some consensus on -

This is how prostitutes can respond if they choose to believe they DON'T have any personal power (as victims)- I need society to view my profession differently.  I need the full protection of the law.  Where are my human rights and the policies that will allow me to function? 

This is how prostitutes can respond if they choose to believe they DO have personal power (the ONLY ones with the power directly related to THIS cause) - To End Human Trafficking, I choose to collaborate in a worldwide effort among my peers (consensual prostitutes) to "down tools" from this date to that date, so that the law can function at optimum within that period to crack down on trafficked prostitutes. 

If I hadn't made a variation of that second choice, more permanently, then I would still be dealing with a child/man partner today.  I mention this to establish the commonality between women, and the micro/macro similarity.  I just ran out of excuses not to make that choice.

One response is inwardly contracting through fear, the other outwardly expanding with grace and largess. 

I should clarify that the example of choice for action is just one example.  If prostitutes chose to be more visible, maybe they could march on a given day, and then we can all join in.  Or they can set up an internal sex industry Neighborhood Watch or Safety House set up.  Any number of things that will turn the focus towards trafficked victims.

What I'm starting to understand here is the cultural differences we operate under.  That must be why I see the prostitutes as having the stakeholder leverage that ordinary people don't have.  You and I, Doug, can't withhold our services, they can.  Whether or not prostitutes identify personally with trafficking, they have the greatest influence over it's proliferation simply by having the same end product.  If they were a company, they could sue the traffickers for offering a counterfeit.  The only way I see they could help drive traffickers out is to stop offering services and allow the law to work effectively in that vacuum.  You and I marching in solidarity with prostitutes might have worked in the 60's, but it won't help them see their personal power today.

Waiting for the Government to formulate a policy that will keep everyone happy is tying everyone in knots.  You're asking the Government to be Houdini and remove the straightjacket.  Maybe putting it in terms of company warfare might help bridge the gap in understandiing.

“This is how prostitutes can respond if they choose to believe they DON'T have any personal power (as victims)- I need society to view my profession differently.  I need the full protection of the law.  Where are my human rights and the policies that will allow me to function?”
“This is how prostitutes can respond if they choose to believe they DO have personal power (the ONLY ones with the power directly related to THIS cause) - To End Human Trafficking, I choose to collaborate in a worldwide effort among my peers (consensual prostitutes) to "down tools" from this date to that date, so that the law can function at optimum within that period to crack down on trafficked prostitutes.”
“The only way I see they could help drive traffickers out is to stop offering services and allow the law to work effectively in that vacuum.”

OK, Ishe, do I have this right – the _only_ way that women who sell sex can show they have power is

- not to campaign for the same human rights and protection of the law as _everyone_ else_,

- not to undertake the range of actions that sites like change.org promote – letter writing, lobbying, media outreach, awareness raising – like _everyone_ else_,

- not present solutions which include us, in the way that is now customary for black people, women, people with disabilities, LGBT, and other discriminated and marginalised groups to be included

- not advocate responsible consumerism, presented as the solution to almost _every other industry_ in which trafficked labour is used, e.g., fairtrade (and there’s huge evidence that this works - in Turkey, in the first six months of operation, a well-publicised hotline for reporting fears about trafficking (in any field: hotel and catering, domestic service, agriculture, etc.) received three quarters of its tip offs from sex workers’ clients; in Italy clients play an integral part in the reporting process and in a recent court case here one of the women was able to give evidence, leading to successful conviction of a trafficking gang was a result of a client paying £20,000 of her debt and freeing her from slavery; there’ve been several examples of this sort of behaviour from clients)
 
- not draw attention to the fact that if we were not arrested for coming forward, we ourselves, the most likely to see evidence of trafficking in the sex industry, would more be able to report anxieties about trafficking

no, the _only way_ that women who sell sex can show they have power is to put our knickers back on and walk away, because that way law enforcement don’t have to try to tell the difference between different women selling sex (for example, listening to what we say) but can relax knowing that everyone in the sex industry is a victim of trafficking?

_That’s_ your solution?

My corporate model must have worked I guess, but I don't know if I can keep it up. 

Here's the Government - the country's in a mess, in fact the whole world's in a mess.  High on the priority list might be the economy, followed maybe by global warming.  Trafficking might be somewhere tucked away in the too hard basket along with prostitution legislation.

Here's the law - probably a culture of it's own I couldn't begin to describe from where I am.  I'll take a guess and say they're just doing their job and they'll let the courts sort it out, that's if anyone has the inclination to press charges.  The streets are getting tougher and the guidelines blurrier.  What's a little mistake now and then.

Here's the prostitution industry - A two-tiered community of a small echelon of consensual workers who like their work, some bulky mid range of consensual workers who wished they were on an island, and a growing base of trafficked workers who don't know where the hell they are.  We've done the figures here somewhere.  All of them don't have a support network and because of the economy are unlikely to get funding for any in future.  They're on their own in a risky business.

If I were a prostitute,  I'd put my knickers back on and walk away and I'd stop in at the police station and tell them I was doing it.  If I had it in me (energy and resources), I would get a group of ex-prostitutes together and lobby for funding for a centre to help trafficked prostitutes, because no-one knows the business like I do.   And I'd still do all the things you listed in your post, if that's what I did before.

That's my solution.

OK, now I think we have the question clearly stated.  I'm with Catherine on this.

The problem with the "down tools" action is that it has to be something nearly every non-trafficked worker in the industry does at the same time.  Even where prostitution is legal, sex workers generally don't have unions, much less one really strong, coordinated union.  Owners of brothels and services, even those in which work is truly voluntary, tend to oppose the workers' organizing and punish anyone who tries to move in that direction.  It won't work, Ishe!

In the case of "till death us do part", yes maybe I shouldn't have taken that statement literally.   The subject of this original post was "Bullshit excuses for inaction".

If we were all sitting around at a summit on this and not blogging, hands up who could act right now?

I'm retiring now. 

Finally though, if we need more crisis in our particular arena of influence before we act personally and reinvent that arena, then reading the Commencement Speech on the Education cause might be helpful.

“I haven't seen anything on sex workers reporting trafficking, but it would be nice if it happened.”

In the US, as being convicted of prostitution results in a mandatory prison sentence of minimum 3 months. This acts as a considerable disincentive to report.

In the UK, there have been cases where brothel owners have alerted police to suspicions of trafficking: cases where those suspicions have been proven correct, where victims have been rescued, traffickers arrested – and the police have then returned to the source of their information, to arrest, prosecute, imprison and confiscate their assets. This acts as a considerable disincentive to report.

“When I go to the library, I find books on trafficking, and books on sex workers' rights, but I've never seen books on sex workers' rights that also address trafficking”
There aren’t many books on sex workers’ rights, period. But, off the top of my head, one that addresses issues on migration is Sex at the Margins: Migration, Labour Markets and the Rescue Industry by Laura Agustín, who brings together a wide range of evidence based research in that book and on her blog
http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/

The NSWP mobility section has resources on this
http://www.nswp.org/
as does
http://sexworkeurope.org/
particularly the manifesto and declaration.

After reading about "The Swedish Model" am I to believe that all sex workers are women? Are there no male sex workers in Sweden? In the US we have men who seek men for sexual favors and they can easily be found on Craigslist. Why does this story focus only on women?

What will the Swedes do to men who have consensual sex with other men for monetary gain? Are these men "trafficked"? I guess I'm the only one who sees the flaw in the Swedish Model and this blogger's view of human trafficking.

"And what about the right not to be a sex worker in the first place if that's what you want?"

Freedom to choose whether or not to engage in sex is fundamental: it's one of the most basic human rights. Everyone - not just people in the sex industry - should have freedom to choose and respect for those choices, including the absolute right to say no.

*Freedom to choose whether or not to engage in sex is fundamental, it's one of the most basic human rights.  Everyone - not just people in the sex industry - should have freedom to choose and respect for those choices, including the absolute right to say no.*

Freedom to choose is not fundamental to trafficked women and children.  Children especially don't have independence of thought, they look to adults to guide them.  Neither do they have the absolute right to say no.  Even our friend Doug posted above  *Owners of brothels and services, even those in which work is truly voluntary (?), tend to oppose the workers organizing and punish anyone who tries to move in that direction.*  So the right to say "no" is greatly overshadowed by the coercion to say "yes" in the commercialization of "human relations". 

If you were one of those rare individuals in this industry who has choice whether or not to comply, and still agree to be part of this negative "economic cycle" (in other words, support it by paying/receiving money within it), then respect for that choice would be somewhat thin on the ground I would imagine. 

Somewhere in this world, there must be grown-ups?

The sad truth is that trafficking now colours the whole prostitution industry whether or not sex workers identity with it.
Stay in denial if it serves self interest.
Missy Higgins did her bit writing a song about it called "Sugar Cane". 

I just googled the lyrics to this and found another "Sugar Cane" by Joey Styles.  Check them both out.  It just about sums up the difference between the thinking and the unthinking aspect of human creativity.

I love that Sweden has turned prostitution on its ear. "It is legal to sell your body, but it is illegal to buy a person's body."

Let's face it: when a woman sells her body, she is giving control of her person to the buyer. In a very real sense that person "owns" her. So whether a person buys a person's body and has control over it-for ten minutes or for a lifetime, it is SLAVERY.

This has nothing to do with whether or not a woman WANTS to choose that lifestyle or if a woman is kidnapped and forced into it. It's not a part of the equation. It's about the john, the buyer, the trafficker. What they do is WRONG and when caught, should be brought to justice.

I think the Swedish model could work in the U.S. It could work anywhere. The issue is whether the government and the police will enforce the new laws that would come with the Swedish model. Come on, it shouldn't matter that our country is diverse. Our country was founded on a basic right, that each person has been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We should do all we can to punish those who want to ignore these rights.

I don't see how a woman who consents to have sex with a man for money gives up control of her body any more than one who does it for love.  Part of the definition of "slavery" as I understand it is that you can't leave, which implies that it lasts a lot longer than ten minutes.

Once again, as Catherine repeatedly pointed out, if two people choose to have sex as part of an arrangement in which one pays the other, and if there truly are no secondary victims, how are anyone's rights being violated?  In that case, isn't it, in fact, a violation of these two people's rights if the government prohibits the arrangement?

I write about my support for the legalization of prostitution on my Blog: 

http://www.arionshome.com/social-activism/prostitution/

I defintely would appreciate any comments.