Lone workers can work from home, in premises or be mobile workers.

Think small shop or office workers, people who work unsocial hours, taxi or public transport drivers, trades people, salespeople, estate agents, police officers, security guards, cleaners, nurses, social workers and other care workers… Many people engage in lone working.

Sex workers are frequently lone workers. In fact, in Ireland, whilst it is legal to sell sex, more than one person selling sex from the same premises is considered a ‘brothel’ and illegal, so sex workers are actually forced to be lone workers (or risk being prosecuted for brothel keeping).

We don’t believe Irish sex workers should have to work alone or face prosecution. However, as it stands, right or wrong, it is a reality that being a sex worker in Ireland will likely mean being a lone worker.

A person’s occupational group is the factor which is most strongly associated with the risk of assaults at work (Budd, 1999). However, working alone increases the vulnerability of workers (Chappell & Di Martino, 2000).

It is widely accepted that sex workers are at a high risk of violence.

Irish legislation providing for the health and safety of people in the workplace applies to all employers, employees and self-employed people. The Health and Safety Authority (HSA) is responsible for enforcing this and providing information to employers, employees and self-employed people. Their Violence at Work publication notes the vulnerability of lone workers. They also have special publications for certain occupational groups considered at high risk of violence in the workplace, like Prevention of Violence in Healthcare.

The HSA also manages Accident and Dangerous Occurrence Reporting (including violence at work). Employers or self-employed persons must notify the HSA of certain types of incidents, including injuries where a person requires treatment from a medical practitioner or cannot perform their normal work for more than 3 consecutive days as a result.

Irish employers have a duty to ensure their employees’ health and safety at work as far as is reasonably practicable, and employees also have duties to protect themselves. Pizza delivery people are one group of lone workers that can encounter violence, and in a commercial lone worker alarm product case study, we can read about how Domino’s Pizza is addressing the risks to their staff in the UK and Ireland. Self-employed lone workers don’t have an employer with responsibilities towards them, and thus are fully responsible for themselves.

Irish sex workers are invariably self-employed persons. Even those that do work for someone else are almost certainly going to be doing so on a contractual basis, rather than an employer-employee basis, and are thus still considered self-employed. Irish sex workers don’t have the option of being an employee and having an employer with legal responsibilities towards them, if this were a situation they’d consider desirable.

Numerous UK government websites provide information about lone working, including lone worker advice for businesses and health and safety guidance on lone working. Organisations representing high risk occupation groups also have their own lone working publications, like the Royal College of Nursing’s You’re Not Alone.

The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) website has 18 Work-Related Violence – Lone Worker Case Studies. They looked at a range of situations, from the self-employed to large multi-national companies, and concentrated on those occupational sectors which the British Crime Survey shows to have a higher risk of work-related violence.

Common key violence risks identified included alcohol and drug use by clients, certain geographical locations being more dangerous, late evening/early morning work, the nature of the job, client behaviour, travelling, visiting homes and carrying money or other valuables.

Consequences of violence (including verbal abuse) included stress, anxiety, fear and depression, long-term sick leave, self-blaming, low morale, loss of confidence, low productivity and physical harm and injury. Self-employed people could ultimately lose their livelihood.

(Sadly these consequences may sound all too familiar to Irish sex workers reading who frequently suffer abuse.)

Successful measures for preventing violence to lone workers included:
- Conducting a risk assessment for each worker
- Personal safety and violence prevention training
- Communication and sharing of information
- Liaison with the police
- Reporting of all incidents
- Alerts about potentially violent clients or other problems
- Use of mobile phones, other communication devices, personal alarms
- Work environment improvements like installing panic alarms or CCTV
- Doubling-up and sending two people to carry out a job

Organisations stated lone worker safety ideas came from their own staff and experience, as well as external organisations.

Irish sex workers reading some of these case studies could find themselves feeling distinctly jealous. Yes, these lone workers face risks, but the support they have in many cases is fantastic. Society doesn’t value and respect and support sex workers, and that is hurtful.

There are also numerous commercial products and services for lone workers. Many are high tech solutions that connect to special monitoring centres that can summons help to your location quickly if needed, or alert nominated persons if you don’t check-in or out as you are set up to. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust has a useful list and guide. Irish companies providing lone worker solutions with websites include Guardian24, People Safe, Halo Security and Safecom.

Commercial lone worker solutions are obviously not free, but they are worth knowing about all the same. We couldn’t find any lone workers solutions targeted at sex workers, but actually we think this technology might be of interest to many sex workers in the UK and Ireland.

NHS Poster

The poster to the right is from a company providing lone worker protection solutions to the NHS. It reads “WE WANT TO HELP. DON’T ABUSE US. Our staff carry devices that can monitor and record abusive behaviour. They can summon support services and the recordings may be used in court proceedings. STOP ABUSE OF NHS STAFF. Verbal or physical abuse of our staff could result in prosecution”. Sadly, a similar poster campaign discouraging abuse of sex workers in Ireland is almost unimaginable. It’s the opposite message that’s predominant in Ireland, the message that all sex workers are victims that can be abused.

It is legal to sell sex in Ireland and sex workers are expected to pay their taxes, but Irish sex workers do not enjoy support in Ireland.

Government funded organisations concerned with trying to ‘end prostitution’ dominate debate on sex work in Ireland. Their anti-sex work view, that all prostitution is inherently violence and nobody chooses to be a prostitute, leaves no room for discussions on the health and safety of those selling sex.

Discrimination against sex workers is the norm. Stop a person on the street in Ireland and ask them about the health and safety of sex workers and you’ll most likely get a bemused response… Sure sex workers are all victims of trafficking and drug addicts on street corners, beaten up and controlled by pimps aren’t they?

Imagine an Ireland where government funding could go to projects beyond just those on a mission to end sex work, organisations that could provide advice and training and support to sex workers, perhaps run a nationwide incident reporting and alerts scheme? Imagine a garda/police liaison officer specifically for sex workers, somewhere sex workers could turn, without fear of arrest? Imagine a society where sex workers were not seen as non-people that have to accept violence and abuse? Imagine the understanding of sex work that could be gained if we stopped excluding sex workers? Imagine there was a non-judgmental organisation that could offer sex workers help exiting sex work? These are radical ideas, but TOBL is here to bring you such radical ideas.

Big hello to all the lone workers out there. Sex workers are lone workers too, and like everyone else, sex workers would like to be safe.

It is of the greatest importance to us that sex workers are included in this public consultation. We plan to make our own submissions to the government and we also want to encourage as many sex workers as possible to do the same individually. We want to put the well-being of sex workers at the forefront of this debate, where it should be.

TOBL is now looking at how we can improve and grow as an association. As part of this, we took a quick look back at what we have achieved so far, and we thought we’d share this on our website:

- We have brought 10 sex workers together as a management committee to make important decisions for TOBL.

- We have drawn national media attention to sex workers’ rights in Ireland, starting with an article in the Irish Independent.

- We have built a membership of 250+ members including sex workers and non-sex workers.

- We have maintained a website – turnoffthebluelight.ie – with regular new articles on sex work in Ireland. In the last month we have had over 10,000 visits. Realtime Google Analytics chart to prove this below!

- We have maintained a Facebook page. At present we have 811 likes.

- We have maintained a Twitter account with 408 followers at present.

- We have written letters and emails to all TDs and Senators. We have also provided a facility for others to email TDs via our website.

- We have written to all organisations involved in Turn Off the Red Light (TORL) to make them aware of our concerns.

- We created a poster campaign to challenge the Irish public’s perception of sex workers. This was very successful and we have had great feedback on it from thousands of people from all across the world. The story was even picked up by BBC Brazil!

- We successfully took on search giant Google re AdWords discrimination against us, a David and Goliath story that was picked up by major news outlets in Canada and Ireland.

- We took part in events including Dublin Pride, SlutWalk London and the Dublin Women’s Mini Marathon.

- We made what we feel is a very important submission to the Department of Justice re Anonymity for sex worker victims of crime or witnesses of crime.

- We have met TDs and Senators and have been mentioned in Dáil and Seanad debates.

- We conducted important research into Brothel Keeping in Ireland, showing that most persons convicted of brothel keeping offences are not owners or managers of brothels but sex workers. This story was covered by the Irish Independent and Hotpress magazine.

- We have made sex worker and sex worker advocate friends all over the world and joined the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe (ICRSE).

- We have been mentioned in the national media on numerous occasions, in newspapers like the Irish Independent and the Irish Times and in many other Irish and International news and blog websites.

We would like to note that, at the same time as we have been working hard to establish the rights of sex workers in Ireland, so have others been doing so independently to us. The Sex Workers Alliance Ireland and Feminist Ire have done great work, as have many individuals, too many to mention, who have taken an interest, written and spoken out. Well done everyone, and thank you to everyone who has cared.

Trafficking is a global problem, driven by poverty, and all forms of trafficking are a gross violation of human rights. Many countries, including Ireland, have specific laws to deal with trafficking.

People are trafficked into various situations, but what we’d like to talk about today, is trafficking into the sex industry.

Sex trafficking and sex work are two very different things. Sex trafficking is the illegal trade of human beings for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation. Sex workers are persons who choose to engage in providing sexual services for money.

As former president of Ireland Mary Robinson said in 1999, when she was UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, it is important to “…ensure that well-intentioned anti-trafficking initiatives do not compound discrimination against female migrants or further endanger the precariously held rights of individuals working in prostitution.”

However, sadly sex work and sex trafficking are now completely conflated in Ireland. Anti-sex work organisations, who regard all prostitution as violence and therefore don’t see a great difference between sex trafficking and sex work, are successfully using trafficking as a smokescreen to gain support for their long held anti-sex work views. The lack of reliable statistics on trafficking does not help.

Many people support Turn Off the Red Light (TORL) because they think most persons selling sex in Ireland are trafficked. This is not the case, even according to Ruhama, the driving force behind TORL, who recently estimated trafficking at 10%, but TORL statements like “Very few women choose to willingly engage in prostitution” cause confusion.

Although we have not seen any convictions for trafficking in Ireland yet, and TORL claims regards trafficking are often very questionable, we too are concerned about sex trafficking. The sex industry is driven underground in Ireland and this environment enables criminality, including abuse, exploitation and trafficking. Many sex workers in Ireland are concerned about trafficking. Accusations that people choosing sex work do not care about people being trafficked are wholly untrue. Many Irish sex workers are very involved in supporting others in the sex industry, and want very much to help end abuse.

It is a shame that sex workers have been excluded from discussions on sex trafficking to date, as arguably those who work in the sex industry know best what is going on and are best placed to help. Likewise, those who buy sex would have very useful experience they could share here.

A key problem with the main organisations currently providing services to sex workers is that they have an approach to sex work, where they will only see it as violence, and by taking this stance they obviously alienate some persons in the sex industry. This leads to a situation where the main organisations providing services to sex workers themselves have a reduced idea what is going on in the sex industry.

Ruhama are very keen to point out that, whilst they are an “exiting” agency, the Women’s Health Project (WHP) covers “harm reduction”. However, whilst it is accepted that the WHP does provide harm reduction services, they appear to be anti-sex work too. Director of the WHP, Linda Latham, wrote a paper called “Harm Reduction is Not Enough; The case for a feminist Women’s Health Project” in 2006 and openly states she believes “prostitution is a form of violence against women”. The WHP also joined the National Women’s Council of Ireland which is well known for it’s hateful views on sex work.

We do not believe that sex work is inherently abusive. We believe people should be able to choose sex work and not be branded as victims against their will for doing so. However, we are equally willing to accept that selling sex is not a choice for some people. Despite claims to the contrary, we are not trying to promote a “happy hooker” image of the sex industry. We fully recognise that there are problems within the sex industry and we want to talk about these issues.

Trafficking is an issue where there is probably some agreement between TORL and TOBL. For example both TORL and TOBL have spoken out in support of the recent case in New York, where a trafficking survivor had her criminal record for prostitution wiped. We would also acknowledge that Ruhama has done some good work in regard to advocating for victims of sex trafficking.

However that is probably where agreement between TORL and TOBL ends. Confusing sex workers with trafficked persons erases the voices of sex workers and increases discrimination. The policies of suppression that anti-sex work organisations argue for drive the sex industry underground, worsen working conditions, and actually enable sex trafficking. TOBL is simply about the well-being of all persons in the sex industry, regardless of how they got there, not religion or morality.

Strong support was shown for the motion and the Government amendment was not carried without several Senators questioning the need for any further public debate. Senator Katherine Zappone said “…there has already been significant public debate on this issue.” Senator Fiach Mac Conghail said “The Government’s amendment seeks a “considered public debate”, but that is and has been happening since the start of the Turn off the Red Light campaign… It is an insult to imply, therefore, as the amendment does, that another considered public debate is needed…” Senator Averil Power said “…I do not accept there has not been public debate because, as I said, a range of organisations have been working on this issue quite publicly.” Senator Rónán Mullen started with a reference to St. Augustine, describing the Government’s position as a case of “Lord, make me chaste, but not yet.”

Of the 13 Senators and the Minister of State that spoke, only Senator Mary M. White stood up and questioned the Swedish Model and pointed out that there is another side of the argument which has not been heard yet. Amid gasps and interruptions from other Senators, she mentioned Turn Off the Blue Light (TOBL) and the emails TOBL had sent to all Senators appealing for sex workers to be included in discussions on sex work. However the Oireachtas transcript of the debate has incorrectly transcribed her as speaking of Turn Off the Red Light, a mistake the Irish Times has already copied.

Today the Irish Times reported that Senator Mary M. White is facing expulsion from the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party she belongs to, for refusing to vote for the motion calling for the criminalisation of people who pay for sex. Fianna Fáil supported the motion and voting against the party whip entails automatic expulsion from the party. It is not yet known what consequences Senator White will face for speaking up for sex workers, and if she will continue to support sex workers.

The last politician to publically speak out against the Turn Off the Red Light (TORL) agenda was TD Mick Wallace, who said in March that he believed the welfare of women working in the sex trade would be improved if the trade was not forced underground. Ruhama quickly hit back at him in the media and he promised to meet Ruhama and listen to their views. Ruhama have since been keen to publicise his attendence at political briefings they’ve held. TOBL wrote to Mr Wallace twice to try to engage with him, but he did not reply.

A second article in the Irish Times today reported that Senator Rónán Mullen said part of the Government amendment “could have been written by a pimp”. It is not clear whether he meant it was written like he imagines a pimp might write, or if he is actually alleging a pimp has infiltrated Government and is writing amendments. Dr. Paul Ryan of the Sex Workers Alliance Ireland (SWAI) recently wrote in the journal.ie that the consensus that the Swedish model will eradicate sex work in Ireland is so powerful “…that to question it one risks standing accused of being an apologist for pimps, brothel owners, criminality and the exploitation of women.” TOBL has already faced such allegations. In August the Sunday World published an article alleging that TOBL is run by a pimp. We complained directly to the Sunday World but got no reply. We have since formally complained to the Press Ombudsman.

TORL has huge political support in Ireland. Led by Ruhama and the Immigration Council of Ireland (ICI), the TORL coalition is made up predominantly of religious and women’s organisations. However, most disappointingly to us, several trade unions have also joined. The more support TORL gains, the more follows, like a great snowball effect. People buy into the groupthink and support TORL simply because so many others do that surely it must be the right thing to do?

TORL say they want to end prostitution and sex trafficking and ‘the solution’ is to criminalise the purchasers of sex. They cite some very questionable evidence to support their arguments, but unfortunately they are almost never questioned, and thus most people blindly support them. A new Irish blog, Feminist Ire, has written some excellent articles recently about the Swedish Model and the dodgy stats TORL is relying on and is a must read for those genuinely interested in sex work.

It might seem reasonable that “Nihil de nobis, sine nobis” (Nothing About Us Without Us) should apply here, that Ireland shouldn’t decide prostitution policy without the participation of the people affected by that policy, but so far sex workers have been excluded. We learnt during the Seanad debate that the Minister for Justice and Equality is expected to publish a report shortly re the September 2010 Department of Justice and Law Reform visit to Sweden. It is already known that this visit didn’t involve meeting with any organisation representing or advocating for sex workers, only supporters of the law. This is sadly typical of how things have been to date.

It is thought that none of the trade unions that have joined TORL considered any other position before doing so, though as none of these trade unions have ever replied to any of the letters TOBL has sent to them, this cannot be confirmed. It is especially hurtful that organisations of workers that have banded together to achieve better working conditions for themselves are opposing sex workers being able to do the same. In contrast, in the UK sex workers have the International Union of Sex Workers, part of GMB (Britain’s General Union), fighting for their rights.

The complete lack of understanding of the sex industry that the trade unions clearly have is also offensive. Eamon Devoy of the Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU) makes ridiculously uneducated speeches about sex work in Ireland, sometimes ending with a joke about how they, the electrical union, will do what they can to “turn off the red light”. This is not however a joke. Sex workers are human beings whose lives are impacted by prostitution laws. How dare people like Mr Devoy campaign for new prostitution laws without even attempting to understand the issues?

We have learnt from the Feminist Ire blog recently that virtually the entire global health sector supports the decriminalisation of sex work and granting sex workers occupational health and safety rights, including The World Health Organization, UNAIDS, the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, the UN Secretary General and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health. We also know that in the UK both the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Council support the decriminalisation of sex work for the benefit of the women and men involved. Yet in Ireland it seems the Irish Nurses & Midwives Organisation (INMO) and the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) joined TORL without even considering any other position?

The main opposition to sex worker rights being established in Ireland is Ruhama, the powerful religious anti-sex work organisation. Ruhama is a joint initiative of the Good Shepherd Sisters and Our Lady of Charity Sisters, who have been ‘caring’ for Ireland’s ‘fallen women’ since 1848 and 1853 respectively, predominantly in Magdalen Laundries until their last one was closed in 1996. The sex workers rights movement on the other hand only began in the mid 1970s, and only reached Ireland in 2009 with the establishment of SWAI. A more unfair advantage Ruhama has is the generous Government funding it receives which enables it to lobby the Government so successfully. No such funding is available for sex worker organisations.

Let’s hope the Government means it when it says there should be a considered public debate and that the voices of sex workers are to be heard in that debate. The huge discrimination against sex workers in Ireland makes it very hard for sex workers to speak up, and the Government will need to consider this also, and provide a safe way for sex workers to contribute without being exposed to intrusions of their privacy. It would be wonderful if ordinary sex workers from all over Ireland were invited to share their views and these views were then considered, and this would also be quite remarkable, given the almost total exclusion of sex workers in Irish society to date.

Private Members Business

“That Seanad Éireann:

Recognises that the trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation is a modern form of slavery and a form of human rights abuse.

Notes that the Irish sex industry – which is worth €250 million a year (CAB, January 2011) – is very damaging for the girls and women involved in prostitution.

Notes that internet audits consistently show that more than 1000 women are made available for paid sex on a daily basis all over Ireland and up to 97% of them are migrant women. (Kelleher 2009)

There is clear evidence of children who have been trafficked in Ireland specifically for the purpose of prostitution. (Kelleher 2009; AHTU annual report 2010)

Notes evidence from Sweden and Norway which shows that criminal sanctions for the purchase of sex are a proven a deterrent to prostitution and consequently to trafficking and also to organised crime. (Mc Leod et al. 2008) (Claude 2010).

Further notes that International Conventions repeatedly call for efficient measures to deter demand for prostitution, which is recognised as an efficient approach to reduce sex trafficking (Article 6, Council of Europe’s Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005; Article 9(5), UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish the Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children 2000)

Proposes that the Government develops effective and appropriate responses to deal with prostitution and trafficking for sexual exploitation. Therefore we call on the Government to introduce legislation criminalising the purchase of sex in Ireland in order to curb prostitution and trafficking for sexual exploitation.

The motion is due to be debated at 5pm. See www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/watchlisten to watch or listen to proceedings.

We have written to all Senators to let them know that, thus far, sex workers have been excluded from debates on sex work in Ireland, and ask them to recognise that sex workers need to be included in discussions.

Dear Senator,

We are writing to you with regard to the motion to criminalise the purchase of sex being debated in the Seanad at 5pm on 12th October 2011.

We are ‘Turn Off the Blue Light’ (TOBL), a small sex worker led association campaigning for the health, safety, human, civil and labour rights of sex workers.

Everybody wants to stop trafficking, abuse and exploitation within the sex industry, but we strongly believe that criminalising the purchase of sex is not the answer, and in fact would only serve to drive the sex industry further underground and make it more dangerous for everyone.

Support for persons who want to exit the sex industry is welcomed, but those who choose sex work want to be able to work safely, to be treated with respect, and to be able to engage with police and other services, not to be labelled as victims against their will and forced further into the shadows.

It has been illegal to buy sex from someone who has been trafficked since the Criminal Justice (Human Trafficking) Act 2008. As well as anti-trafficking laws, we also have laws prohibiting soliciting in a public place, operating brothels and organising prostitution. A new law criminalising the purchase of sex would only impact on adults privately paying other consenting adults for sex.

It is no surprise that the ‘Swedish Model’ of criminalising the purchasers of sex, whilst increasing funding to organisations helping sex workers to exit sex work, is being proposed by ‘Turn Off the Red Light’ (TORL), a coalition led by Ruhama, a government funded religious anti-sex work organisation.

It is however highly wrong that the government should even be considering bringing in new prostitution laws without sex workers having been given any opportunity to give their views.

We note that when the Department of Justice visited Sweden last year to look at the Swedish law, they didn’t meet with a single organisation representing or advocating for sex workers, only supporters of the law. Only the views of supporters of the Swedish Model are ever heard in Ireland.

Despite claims that the evidence from Sweden is that criminal sanctions for the purchase of sex are a proven deterrent to prostitution and trafficking, recent Swedish police statistics show that both prostitution and trafficking have actually been increasing in Sweden, (Slutredovisning, prostitution och människohandel (Final Report, Prostitution and Trafficking), February 2011).

Policies of suppression, whether focused on sex workers or their clients, have negative consequences for those who trade sex. Sex workers are less likely to engage with the Gardaí, further marginalised and excluded, and health initiatives find it harder to reach out to sex workers.

Criminalising clients would also make it considerably harder for the Gardaí to act against pimps, traffickers and those that abuse sex workers, as it deters clients from engaging with the Gardaí.

It would be a travesty at this time for Garda resources to be taken away from pimping and trafficking to instead focus on persecuting sex workers and their clients where there is no exploitation going on.

We appeal to Senators to please look beyond the moralistic agenda here, and consider the welfare of persons in the sex industry, and that sex workers must be included, not excluded, in this debate.

Turn Off the Blue Light
www.turnoffthebluelight.ie

Senator Maurice Cummins has tabled an amendment as follows:

1. To delete all words after ‘‘human rights abuse;’’ and substitute the following:
‘‘— deplores the sexual exploitation of any person, whether by financial means or otherwise, as an infringement of that person’s human dignity;
— abhors especially the trafficking of children for the purposes of prostitution;
— while recognising the difficulties inherent in reliably estimating the extent of sexual exploitation and trafficking, notes the various estimates that have been made in that regard;
— notes the extensive package of legislative, administrative and other measures undertaken over the past three years to prevent trafficking in human beings, protect the victims and prosecute the offenders;
— notes that the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 makes it an offence for a person to solicit or importune in a street or public place another person or persons for the purposes of prostitution and that under that provision those who seek sexual services for payment from another person commit a criminal offence;
— recognises the provision in the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 that makes it an offence to solicit or importune a trafficked person, in any place, for the purposes of prostitution;
— notes that Ireland’s legislation on human trafficking for sexual exploitation complies with EU, Council of Europe and other international instruments and that the penalties in this jurisdiction for human trafficking, including trafficking of men, women and children for the purposes of sexual exploitation, are severe;
— notes the legislative provisions regarding prostitution introduced in Sweden and Norway and considers that the operation of these provisions, and other measures taken in other jurisdictions, should inform policy in this area;
— in supporting all reasonable and effective measures to curb prostitution, recognises that criminalising the purchase of sex of itself within our legal framework raises complex issues which would have to be addressed, including the possible prosecution of individuals in circumstances in which a gift is given to a person with whom they had a sexual encounter;
— recognises that legislation alone is not effective in preventing prostitution;
— agrees that prior to Government making a definitive decision on whether legislation should be enacted reflecting legislation in Sweden and Norway there should be a considered public debate; and
— proposes that the Government, in co-operation with the non-governmental organisations which carry out such valuable work in this area, continues to develop effective responses to deal with prostitution and trafficking for sexual exploitation.’’.

We are ‘Turn Off the Blue Light’ (TOBL), a sex worker led association campaigning for the health, safety, human, civil and labour rights of sex workers.

We represent sex workers. Most sex workers in Ireland today work indoors, though there are also some outdoor sex workers. Although, for most, working in the sex industry is a choice, we recognise that sometimes persons are trafficked or otherwise coerced into the sex industry.

We welcome the special measures in place for victims of human trafficking, notably the entitlement of anonymity for victims of trafficking, similar to that in place for rape and sexual assault victims.

However, we believe ALL sex worker victims of crime or witnesses of crime should be entitled to anonymity, and we request that the Department of Justice considers this matter.

It is currently uniquely difficult for sex workers to engage with the criminal justice system.

The possibility of being identified as a sex worker in the media as a result of reporting a crime or being a witness in a court case is actively stopping many sex workers reporting crime.

There is huge discrimination against sex workers in society.

Being publicly identified as a sex worker can be extremely harmful to sex workers and their families.

Crime against sex workers is grossly under-reported at present, and in order to redress this, protection of anonymity for sex worker victims or witnesses of crime must be provided.

Unfortunately at this time there are criminals deliberately targeting sex workers, because they recognise the unique difficulties for sex workers in reporting crime, and subsequently view sex workers as ‘easy targets’ who are unlikely to report crime. Common crimes against sex workers include threats, harassment, assault, robbery and fraud.

It is good that the need for anonymity for victims of trafficking, rape and sexual assault has been recognised, but measures need to be put in place to enable sex workers to engage with the criminal justice system when they are a victim of crime or if they are a witness of crime.

We are happy to provide further information on request. We note that submissions to the White Paper on Crime Unit may be published, and as a result we have not included some information deemed sensitive.

As far as we are aware, the article in question is not currently available online, though according to Eamon Dillon on twitter this morning it will be on the Sunday World website tomorrow. If it is not, fear not, Ruhama will scan it in and make it available on their website.

We know that there are at least two different versions of this article, presumably as there are different editions of the Sunday World with slightly different content in them, but the full extent of the accusations made about TOBL within these articles is, to the best of our knowledge, as follows:

[1] The headline of the article is ‘Vice king’s bid to get his hookers legalised’, or alternatively ‘Sleaze to meet you’, and both versions of the article that we have seen name and picture a convicted brothel keeper and go on to claim that TOBL was set up and is backed by this individual.

[2] Referring to the recent article TOBL published about brothel keeping, it is alleged that TOBL ‘conveniently’ left a number of named convicted brothel keepers out of the research therein.

As we have always clearly stated, TOBL started out of discussions between a number of people on an escort website — a place where sex workers talk — in February 2011, and our association of independent sex workers was formed and took over the Turn Off the Blue Light campaign from that website on 23 March 2011. To go from this to saying TOBL was set up by a convicted brothel keeper and is backed by a convicted brothel keeper is perverse.

You can connect TOBL with the convicted brothel keeper at hand if you jump from TOBL to the escort website TOBL started out on, then a company linked with that website, then a person previously linked to that company. This is what has been done here for the purposes of attempting to discredit TOBL by associating it with a convicted brothel keeper.

It’s rather like a game of ‘5 clicks to Jesus’. If you haven’t heard of this game, it is played on Wikipedia, and based on the popular hypothesis — known as ‘six degrees of separation’ — holding that any two people in the world are separated by a chain of no more than six acquaintances. If you want to try it go to thewikigame.com/5-clicks-to-jesus and see if you can get from a random Wikipedia page selected for you to the Jesus Wikipedia page in 5 links or less.

If journalism is reduced to a game of ‘5 clicks to Jesus’ then TOBL can surely be linked to many people. Perhaps next week Eamon Dillon could hop from men who buy sex are bad people, to convicted rapist and suspected serial killer Larry Murphy is a bad person, to all men who buy sex are as dangerous as serial killers. Oh wait actually, somebody else already got that scoop.

We could probably have some fun playing ‘5 clicks to Jesus’ on Ruhama, but we have more integrity than to stoop to that level, which brings us to the second allegation made, the accusation that TOBL deliberately left a number of named convicted brothel keepers out of some recent research we conducted in order to draw false conclusions. We strongly refute this allegation.

Our recent article on brothel keeping looked at the criminal offence of brothel keeping , Central Statistics Office Ireland (CSO) crime statistics for this offence, and also included our own research into people convicted of brothel keeping offences. As clearly stated, we restricted our own research to cases where the year the offence would have been recorded was 2008 – 2011 (to 27 July).

Depending on the version of the Sunday World article you read, it is alleged that we ‘conveniently’ left 3 or 5 persons convicted of brothel keeping out of our research. These people were named as M.M., M.S., T.J.C., T.L. and C.O’L. (In line with our original article, we are only naming people by initial. The reason for this is that, as a sex worker organisation, not causing harm to sex workers is integral to us, and as most of the persons in the research were sex workers and being named in the public domain can cause harm to sex workers, we decided to only refer to all persons by initials.)

M.M., T.L. and C.O’L were all not included in our research as their offences were recorded prior to 2008.

T.J.C. was not included because the offence was recorded in Wales, not Ireland.

M.S. was included in our research.

A point that may cause confusion is that, sometimes, the year an offence is recorded and the year a conviction for that offence is obtained is not the same, due to the time it has taken for the case to go through the legal system. An offence of brothel keeping can be recorded one year, but a conviction may not be obtained until the following year or even years later. In compiling our research we found cases like this and decided to base our research on the year offences were recorded, both because we wanted to look at the most recent cases, and also because, to the best of our understanding and following communications with the CSO, this is how the CSO publishes it’s statistics.

The allegation that TOBL conveniently left some persons out of the research at hand is wholly untrue.

It is a shame that sex workers cannot speak up without being attacked like this by nasty bullies who are determined to try to stop sex workers having any voice.

It is no surprise to us that Ruhama are attacking us. Ruhama is a religious organisation, the founders and trustees of which are the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity and the Good Shepherd Sisters, two religious orders who have a very long history of causing harm to sex workers whilst outwardly claiming to be helping them. Of course sex workers speaking up for themselves upsets Ruhama.

Eamon Dillon is a tabloid journalist and a good ally of Ruhama’s. In 2009 Ruhama awarded Eamon Dillon the one and only ever ‘Ruhama Award in Journalism’ to thank him. There is a photo of Sister Gerardine Rowley of the Good Shepherd Sisters, who is Communications & Policy Manager for Ruhama, handing Eamon Dillon the award here.

The TORL campaign was launched on 2nd February 2011. A press release distributed by Ruhama that day said TORL is “Lobbying for reform of Ireland’s prostitution laws along the lines of legislation in Sweden which criminalises the buyers of sex and decriminalises those who sell sex.” Since then, persons and organisations involved in TORL have repeatedly stated that TORL is campaigning for those who sell sex to be decriminalised. A statement frequently used is the one that appears on the TORL leaflets, “In recognition of the vulnerability of those involved and exploited in prostitution this campaign is also calling for legislation that decriminalises the persons who are prostituted.”

However what TORL mean, when they say they are campaigning for persons who sell sex to be decriminalised, is very unclear.

Prostitution itself (the act of selling sex) is not illegal in Ireland, though various activities associated with it are illegal. TORL cannot mean that they are calling for the act of selling sex to be decriminalised, as it isn’t criminal currently, and you cannot decriminalise what is already legal.

In these circumstances, we wondered, do TORL actually mean that they are campaigning for some activity or activities associated with selling sex that are currently illegal to be decriminalised? That seems to us the most logical explanation. However it is unhelpful that TORL haven’t specified exactly what they mean, and it also makes us wonder, how serious are they, about the decriminalisation for those selling sex aspect of their campaign, if they aren’t even making themselves clear here?

We looked at the laws in Ireland that can criminalise those selling sex:

Brothel Keeping: This is the biggest concern for most sex workers. As our recent investigation into Brothel Keepers has shown, our brothel keeping laws are being used to criminalise sex workers, and this has huge negative consequences for the safety and welfare of sex workers.

Advertising: It is an offence for sex workers to advertise the services they provide. Almost all sex workers advertise online, and to date we have not seen the advertising laws used against sex workers, but they could be in the future, so this has to be a concern for sex workers.

Soliciting / Loitering: It is an offence to solicit another person in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution. Loitering in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution is also prohibited. Outdoor sex work is effectively criminalised by these laws.

Are TORL campaigning for decriminalisation of brothel keeping, advertising prostitution and/or soliciting / loitering for the purposes of prostitution, to the point that those selling sex are no longer criminalised by these laws?

Still not convinced that we have worked out what TORL might mean when it says it is campaigning for persons selling sex to be decriminalised, we looked to Sweden, the country whose prostitution legislation TORL frequently refers to as the model inspiring them.

In 1999 Sweden criminalised the purchase of sex. But nowhere can we find any information to say that Sweden decriminalised the sale of sex, or anything else that could criminalise persons selling sex, at the same time. It seems, like in Ireland, selling sex was not criminal in Sweden prior to 1999, though other activities associated with selling sex were illegal, and, in 1999, the only thing that changed was that it was made a crime to purchase sex.

Looking at Sweden we did however find another possible explanation as to what TORL might mean when it says it is campaigning for persons selling sex to be decriminalised.

Religious anti-sex work group Ruhama, part of the TORL coalition, wrote a report called ‘Analyzing the Swedish Model on prostitution’ and, reading this, the Swedish Model was described as a ‘three pronged strategy’ where the Swedish government criminalised the purchase of sex and at the same time implemented initiatives to help women exit prostitution and educate society about the harm of prostitution. “Monies were made available to NGOs…” we read. Ruhama is an NGO that works both to help women exit prostitution and to raise awareness in society about the harm of prostitution, the only such NGO in Ireland.

Last month Ruhama were full of praise for a garda initiative against street prostitution in Dublin where undercover female gardaí loitered in areas well-known for street prostitution and then arrested and charged men who tried to solicit them for sex. More that 60 men were prosecuted. However “Any women working as prostitutes who were encountered by the undercover gardaí were not prosecuted. Instead, they were diverted to the north Dublin-based Ruhama agency…” Ruhama are calling for this approach to be rolled out nationwide. It may have also been of financial benefit to Ruhama, as many of the men prosecuted may have been dealt with by means of being ordered to pay a fine to a charity, and Ruhama would be an obvious likely recipient.

Decriminalisation is legislation that makes something legal that was formerly illegal. The possibility that sex workers facing arrest might instead be handed over to Ruhama is not decriminalisation. However, we have become suspicious that this may be what TORL means when it says it is campaigning for decriminalisation for those selling sex.

It should also be noted that Ruhama is run by the same religious orders than ran Ireland’s Magdalene Laundries, where ‘fallen women’ were enslaved until 1996. See Laundry orders run sex workers’ aid group.

Only TORL can clarify what they mean when they say they are campaigning for decriminalisation for those selling sex, but we believe it is high time they did. People are supporting TORL in the belief that they are supporting a campaign that will mean persons selling sex are decriminalised. If that is not the case, it is very wrong that TORL are misleading people into thinking it is.

Google’s change of heart was an important decision for Turn Off the Blue Light, and indeed for sex workers all over the world campaigning for their rights. We sent Google a private thank you note at the time and we’d like to publicly thank Google here now. We’d also like to thank Jody Paterson for her support, notably her article in the Times Colonist, Google tramples sex workers’ rights.

The realisation that a small group of sex workers in Ireland can influence the mighty global search giant Google got us so excited in here that we had an idea: Wouldn’t it be great if Google recognised International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers with a Doodle?

(A Google Doodle is when Google replaces its standard logo with an artistic version of the Google logo in recognition of a holiday, event or anniversary. The official gallery of Google Doodles is here.)

However unlikely it may seem that Google will listen, we shall be asking Google to help raise awareness of International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers by marking December 17th with a Doodle. Before we do that we’d like to ask sex workers and allies all over the world for their feedback on some Doodle designs.

The above poll will run for 7 days, closing 21st July 2011.

A stereotypical image of an outdoor sex worker, used by the BBC to illustrate an article about indoor sex work in Northern Ireland

However we have been disappointed by the BBC of late.

We are Turn Off the Blue Light (TOBL), a sex worker led association campaigning against calls to criminalise the purchase of sex, and for the health, safety, human, civil and labour rights of sex workers in Ireland.

Last week a BBC investigation brought us shocking news, Millions spent in 88 brothels in Northern Ireland. It was claimed that the demand for prostitutes is higher in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the UK and Europe, that up to £500,000 per week is being spent in brothels, which are usually run by criminal gangs, and many of the women working in these brothels have been trafficked from abroad and are held captive and forced into prostitution.

Steven King of the Irish Examiner responded to this BBC Investigation, Crusade against trafficking may be missing the point on sex industry, and we hope the BBC read his article.

We would ask the BBC to give more consideration to their news coverage of the sex industry in Northern Ireland in the future. Repeating shocking claims is not what a BBC investigation should be.

When will the BBC actually investigate the sex industry in Northern Ireland? When will the BBC make efforts to talk to people who actually work in Northern Ireland’s sex industry, instead of only talking to those who don’t work in it but have something to say about it? We appreciate it isn’t always easy for journalists to engage with sex workers, but this is what a proper investigation into the sex industry requires. And when will the BBC start checking the information it is given, and so long as it doesn’t, when will other media outlets stop taking it as fact, like the Belfast Telegraph with its Sexism bears the blame for a vile trade in human flesh follow up to this BBC investigation?

One of the reasons why sex workers in Ireland often don’t want to engage with journalists is the poor manner in which the Irish media so often treats sex workers. We feel we need to bring the BBC’s treatment of sex workers to its attention also.

Following the BBC’s investigation into prostitution in Northern Ireland last week, BBC Radio Ulster’s Talkback show tasked itself with coming face to face with a prostitute in Belfast within 90 minutes. A BBC producer took up the challenge. In his article, One man’s encounter with a Belfast escort, he describes how he pursued an escort called Natasha he found advertised on the Internet, pretending to be a client himself, and within 37 minutes she was opening her apartment door to him, whereupon, without making any excuses, he left. Shocking was how he described it.

We agree that it is shocking, but it is not that a BBC producer found an escort in Belfast in 37 minutes which is shocking to us, it’s that the BBC considers this type of conduct acceptable.

Let’s assume that Natasha is indeed a prostitute, for arguments sake, because we do not actually know that she is. What offence is she committing to justify the BBC hunting her down like some sort of criminal? It is not a criminal offence for a woman to privately work as a prostitute in Northern Ireland, is it? Where is the respect for her privacy, the consideration for not causing harm to her?

Sex workers call men like this BBC producer suspicious timewasters and location seekers. They contact us pretending to be customers, find out our address, and then suddenly run upon arrival, leaving us not knowing what is going on. Incidents like this cause sex workers anxiety. We don’t know what is happening, what type of weird person we have encountered, will they be back, do they mean to cause us any harm? The sex industry is driven underground and this makes sex workers vulnerable to many types of abuse. We could do without the BBC scaring us like this unnecessarily.

According to the BBC’s investigation most prostitutes in Northern Ireland are working in brothels run by criminal gangs, and many have been trafficked from abroad and are held captive and forced into prostitution. We would seriously question this, but, for arguments sake, let’s assume Natasha is being forced into prostitution. If that’s the scenario, how will Natasha’s pimp lurking in the background react to her customer suddenly bolting, will he think she did something to make him run, are the BBC putting Natasha in even more danger?

We are not taking the view that the BBC or the individual producer in question meant any harm here, but please BBC, think about your actions, consider how you treat sex workers. Sex workers are human beings, just like BBC staff. Sex workers deserve the same respect and consideration as everybody else. The BBC could really help sex workers in Northern Ireland by shining a light on important issues, instead of this poorly thought out approach, and that’s what we’d like to see.

Whilst we are asking the BBC to consider its approach to the sex industry, we would like to also refer to a BBC article published on 1 June 2011. This article detailed that a County Down man, who robbed a prostitute after putting a gun to her throat and telling her he was from the IRA, had been jailed for six years. This is very welcome news to us. Unfortunately in our experience most crimes against sex workers in Northern Ireland are not even reported to the police. Convictions like this really don’t happen often enough. However our joy on hearing this news was dampened by the BBC publishing the victim’s full name. Due to the popularity of the BBC, if you now search Google for the victim’s full name, the first result is this BBC article. We wonder how this woman feels about this?

Since 1976 in the UK victims of certain sexual offences, including rape, are automatically entitled to lifelong anonymity once their complaint has been made. It is a criminal offence for the media to reveal the victim’s identity. The reasoning behind this is that it was found that one of the greatest causes of distress to complainants in rape cases was the publicity that they sometimes suffered when their names and the personal details of their lives were revealed in the press. Potential publicity was also thought to be a severe deterrent to women reporting rapes.

We would very much like to see a discussion about the same protection being given to sex workers reporting any crime. Being identified in the media as a prostitute can be very damaging to a person’s life for a number of reasons. Remember there is huge discrimination against sex workers in society. It is our experience that a lack of anonymity for sex workers reporting crime is also a major deterrent to sex workers reporting crime.

Thirty-five years on from rape victims being given anonymity, sex workers still don’t have this protection, so we are not suggesting the BBC did anything wrong legally by publishing the victims name in regard to this case. But what we are saying is, morally, could the BBC show more consideration to sex workers? Is it necessary to publish sex worker victims’ names, is there any public interest in doing so? If a sex worker is a victim of crime and he/she has the courage to report it and see the process through, could the BBC consider how hard then being named in the media as a prostitute might be for him/her?

We have sent this open letter to the BBC Complaints department. We will also be trying to reach out to the individual BBC programmes, journalists and producers concerned. If you agree with us, you can help by also complaining to the BBC and/or helping us publicise this article.