Microsoft Word - leaving-prostitution-consultation-questionnaire.docx - mecha

Please enable JavaScript to view the full PDF

Consultation Response Questionnaire ‘Leaving Prostitution: a strategy for help and support’ September – October 2015 Responding to the Questionnaire The Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) is seeking your views on the draft Strategy, ‘Leaving Prostitution: a strategy for help and support’. Please use this questionnaire to tell us your views on the draft document. The consultation runs from 11 September 2015 and the closing date for comments is 23 October 2015. Responses received after this date will not be considered due to the tight legislative deadline. Please send your response or any other queries you may have to: Address: Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety Integrated Projects Unit Room D2.17 Castle Buildings Stormont Estate Belfast BT4 3SQ Email: [email protected] Telephone: 028 9052 2512 Please note that all responses will be treated as public and may be published on the DHSSPS websites. If you do not want your response to be used in this way, or if you would prefer for it to be used anonymously, please indicate this when responding (See Statement of Confidentiality and Access to Information Legislation below). Confidentiality and Access to Information Legislation Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with access to information legislation: these are chiefly the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice (section 45) with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this, it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information, we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the DHSSPS. For further information about confidentiality of responses please contact the Information Commissioner’s Office: Address: Northern Ireland Information Commissioner's Office 3rd Floor 14 Cromac Place Belfast BT7 2JB Telephone: 028 9027 8757 or 0303 123 1114 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ico.org.uk Please tick the box below if you want your response to be treated as anonymous. (NB: response details may still be shared under any future Freedom of Information requests.) I want my response to be treated as anonymous. Thank you for completing this questionnaire and providing input to this consultation. About You I am responding ... (please tick appropriate option) as a member of the public on behalf of an organisation other Former Sex Worker and Current Rights Activist (please specify) Please enter your details below: Name Gaye Dalton Job Title (if applicable) Organisation (if applicable) Address Leinster, Southern Ireland (Details withheld on advice of Information Commissioner. I am happy for my name to be published, I am very open with those I know about my status in this and proud of my involvement. But, as a vulnerable middle aged woman living alone in a rural area I cannot afford to have my whole world endangered by having my private address and phone numbers published by Stormont again. I am still under medical care after the last episode.) City/Town Postcode Email Address [email protected] Part 1 – Draft Strategy Question 1 – Scope Do you agree with the scope of the Strategy as detailed in Section 2(b)? Yes No (please tick one option only) If No, please explain why and let us know how you think this could be improved. Question 2 – Barriers Do you agree with the main barriers to exiting prostitution as described in Section 5 of the Strategy? Yes No (please tick one option only) If No, please explain why and let us know how you think these could be improved. I find the term “exiting” which is also used to denote euthanasia in other contexts, deeply disturbing and suggest it may have a far more demoralising semiotic effect than anyone supposes and should be abandoned for that reason. People become involved in selling sex for one reason and one reason only: They need the money and cannot obtain it any other way, the only difference is in the degree of desperation. For some it is a marked preference in adversity, for others it is a matter of life and death…and all shades in between. Where there is significant desperation the reasons are usually complex and compounded. The reasons suggested may sometimes be one aspect of that, but other groups, for example, dual carers and special needs mothers are far more significantly overrepresented than most of the groups suggested, single mothers unable to find suitable, affordable childcare to take up full time work or study may well be the largest group of all, and are, for some reason, not even alluded to, despite the fact that seeking to identify and address their needs would be of further benefit in the wider society. I am left wondering if competent women simply using sex work to cope against the odds are being determinedly ruled out as “not the right sort of helpless victim” even though they may be the most desperate to leave and the most damaged by lack of alternatives, even though they may well be the majority of sex workers. The main barrier to leaving sex work is that those selling sex out of sheer desperation are usually fully aware of the resources available within the system and either exhausted or found them of no use at all long ago. That is why they sell sex. They are not being awkward or obtuse, they checked properly and they really do not have a better alternative. To provide real solutions requires a far more open and creative approach than the “if we do not have a solution to your problems a problem for which we do have a solution will be allocated to you” standard that has usually already failed them and compounded the difficulties that cornered them into selling sex in the first place. Question 3 – Existing Services In Section 6 of the Strategy, do you agree that the key existing services available for those wanting to exit prostitution have been identified? Yes No (please tick one option only) If No, please explain why and let us know how you think these could be improved. (Also see response to Question 2) Though I have always advocated that services for those wishing to leave sex work be provided within the mainstream to avoid creating a “ghetto affect” the only basis for identifying appropriate key services should be the individual you are dealing with. (As a matter of interest not one of the services identified so far would have been of the slightest use to me when I was utterly desperate to leave sex work, and I am sure the same could be said for many others, for a variety of reasons) Question 4 – Programme of Assistance and Support (PAS) Do you agree with the proposal to deliver the Programme of Assistance and Support (PAS) as described in Section 7? Yes No (please tick one option only) If No, please explain why and let us know how you think this could be improved (within the confines of the severe restriction on resources). Firstly I have been appalled by the assumption that it is automatically best for each person to deal with someone of their own gender since it was first mooted in the assembly. The gender with which they are most comfortable is a matter that the individual should always be invited to decide for themselves! (I can assure you that at the time I left sex work I would have found it impossible to deal with another woman woman because of other issues in my life that I have overcome since.) I agree that the replication of existing services is unnecessary and would be wanton idiocy in the current economic climate. I have discovered that there are also some stellar people within existing services in Northern Ireland…BUT…some of the existing services to which it is proposed to refer sex workers have a history of actively lobbying against their stated best interests, misrepresenting them, silencing them, insulting and condescending to them. Sex workers are people of intelligence who do have (and are entitled to) their own opinions, ideologies and belief systems, in terms of which some of the existing services are considered unethical and viewed with justified, and very mutual, hostility and absolutely no confidence. It is neither reasonable nor viable to leave sex workers with no alternative but place their lives at the mercy of such a scenario, and worse again make resources to leave sex work dependent on endorsing attitudes and organisations they believe to be wrong, or who provide support from a standpoint of indoctrination in any ideology, whether religious or political (including, but not limited to, radical feminism and abolitionism). You may believe that “beggars cannot be choosers” but sex workers are *NOT* beggars, nor do they ever wish to be, they are sex workers and determined rejection of the role of “beggar” is often a significant factor in their choice to sell sex. Question 5 – Governance Are the proposals on future governance for the Strategy and the PAS, as described in Section 8, appropriate? Yes No (please tick one option only) If No, please explain why and let us know how you think these could be improved. The governance group and any evaluation it makes will be worthless unless it includes a number of sex workers currently working in Northern Ireland on equal terms. They are the only real stake holders in this. Part 2 – Equality Screening Introduction – Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires Departments to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation; between men and women generally; between persons with a disability and persons without; and between persons with dependants and persons without. Departments are also required to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of a different religious belief, political opinion or racial group. Question 6 – Adverse Impact Are the proposals set out in this consultation document likely to have an adverse impact on any of the nine equality groups identified under Section 75 of the NI Act 1998? Yes No (please tick one option only) If Yes, please state the group or groups and let us know why you think they would be adversely affected and how this could be reduced or alleviated in the proposals. I believe this will be a problem: *Departments are also required to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of a different religious belief, political opinion or racial group.* There are too many organisations coming forward to provide services for sex workers who hold diametrically opposed views on sex work to the vast majority of their proposed user group. This can only prove to be counterproductive and damaging in operation and must be examined fully. Bluntly, it is proposed to offer sex workers resources that are, in many cases, controlled by their longstanding adversaries and in any other context this would be perceived as a completely insane direction, particularly in the current economic climate where almost every penny handed to these organisations will serve no useful purpose at all as sex workers will never feel comfortable enough to deal with them nor would it be psychologically or emotionally healthy for them to attempt to do so. It would also be my personal feeling that the involvement of faith based organisations might well raise additional issues of inequality particular to Northern Ireland as faith is still so closely identified with the two communities. This is not a situation I understand well enough to comment upon but I feel it needs examined and discussed by those who do. Question 7 – Equality of Opportunity and Good Relations Are you aware of any indication or evidence (qualitative or quantitative) that the proposals set out in this consultation document may have an adverse impact on equality of opportunity or on good relations? Yes No (please tick one option only) If Yes, please explain why and let us know what you think should be added or removed to alleviate the adverse impact. The organisations that are in an adversarial relationship with the sex workers these measures are intended to serve must be excluded. Sex workers must be included as equal members of any relevant steering committees, and these must be current sex workers who are members of the target user group, not abolitionist “professional survivors” who will never be in a position to avail of the services and have little or no useful input to offer. Question 8 – Improved Equality of Opportunity and Good Relations Is there an opportunity to better promote equality of opportunity or good relations? Yes No (please tick one option only) If Yes, please give details as to how. I think the development of a regular conference aimed at building bridges and meeting and getting to know as many sex workers as possible as human beings on equal terms would go a very long way towards this goal. It will take a lot of time and work to establish enough trust for sex workers to feel comfortable and welcome to attend such a conference, but that is only a useful microcosm of the time and work it will take to establish support services that those who wish to leave sex work feel comfortable enough to avail of and derive genuine benefit from. Question 9 – Human Rights Are there any aspects of the policy where potential human rights violations may occur? Yes No (please tick one option only) If Yes, please give details. I believe the whole agenda has the potential to be a minefield of human rights violations. One of the most frightening aspects it that because of the stigma attached to sex work there are too many arguments to be made on the grounds of confidentiality against any monitoring of the use and allocation of resources, or even of how many, if any, sex workers are availing of the resources and what becomes of them and funding allocated to them. My fear is that unscrupulous organisations will abuse the concept of “rescuing fallen women” as access to a human “herd” (whether in reality or just on paper) that can be can be used, to deploy funding at will while evading audit or monitoring, with all the opportunities for exploitation and corruption that entails. I also feel that offering sex workers resources through the medium of unscrupulous adversaries who routinely undermine and dehumanise them, as well as actively lobbying against their declared wishes and stated best interests is a serious human rights violation in, and of, itself. Part 3 – Additional Comments Question 10 – Additional Comments Please use the space below to provide any additional comments you may have. It would be helpful if you reference which part of the document you are commenting on. If you refer to any other documents, please provide the title, author and if possible approximate date of publication. The use of terms like “prostitution” is highly offensive to amost all sex workers and they should never be used in this context. It costs nothing to set aside offensive terminology and may achieve much. This is not about political point scoring. The proposed services are mandated under law to serve the needs of sex workers, not the needs of abolitionist NGOs and a handful of professional “survivors of prostitution”, so that the only feelings of relevance are the feelings of sex workers. Of what use are services that begin from a perspective of using terminology that is perceived as insulting, degrading and oppressive by the potential user group? I would go so far as to suggest that any organisation or individual that insists upon the use of such terminology be excluded from service provision and all discussion of service provision. Grooming vulnerable people to internalise prejudice against themselves by the use of degrading terminology is not support, it is simple abuse. 15