When you are losing the argument intellectually, paint your opponent as beyond the pale.
Such is exactly what is happening with the most recent debate on sex work coming out of Great Britain.
It all started with the brave and yeoman work of Caroline Shepherd, who has dedicated plenty of sweat, time, and bandwidth to her belief that proposed changes in sex work legislation proposed by the likes of Jacqui Smith are simply wrongheaded, counterproductive, and even dangerous to the women whom this legislation pretends to want to protect.
Well, that didn't sit very well with certain radical anti-sex work abolitionists, who have been all over the Internet countering Caroline's obvious facts with nothing more than the usual claptrap about "pimp enabling".
But baiting Caroline as an "enabler of pimps" is a softball as compared to the radioactivity that is thrown at any MAN who dares to challenge abolitionist ideology....and woe to him if he happens to be a sex worker himself.
Such is what is happening to Douglas Fox, who happens to be the spoken representative of a group known as the International Union of Sex Workers (IUSW), a group dedicated to protecting the rights and safety of existing sex workers, and who have been active in opposing Ms. Smith's legislation from the start.
He also happens to a gay man whose partner happens to run an English escort agency.
A fact, of course, that is now being exploited by a few abolitionist radicals to smear and demonize him as a "pimp"...and that's just the beginning.
One such article comes from Cath Elliott, who used the pages of the Liberal Conspiracy blog to all but call out D Fox as a pimp profiting off the suffering of sex workers and claim that he cannot represent all sex workers due to his position (or simply because he happens to be a man, I figure).
According to Elliot, the very existence of D Fox's escort agency using clients to protest the laws (funny, isn't that just like consumers defending legal agencies who do them no harm to resist legislation that would wipe them out for no reason??) should disqualify him and justifies the legislation sought after:
And it gets worse. In another recent discussion forum, this time over at Punterlink International, a contributor named Elrond posted this suggestion when discussing threats to the sex industry:"Punters", BTW, are the English slang for clients and others who patronize sex workers.
I would again suggest all write and complain to your MP. You all should either donate and join the IUSW as an escort or a friend if you are a punter.
And it’s as simple as that.
Indeed, according to Elliot, the mere inclusion of agency owners, "punters", and "pimps" in advocating against her favored legislation should disqualify their attempts, since apparently only sex workers themselves (at least, only those who favor Elliot's ideology" should be allowed to represent "sex workers" overall:
Yeah. Right. So, the people most affected by this legislation should have no right, according to Ms. Elliot, to even have a voice or to protest in this debate. But, this isn't really about censorship, isn't it??
If you look at the GMB IUSW membership application form it’s easy to see how anyone claiming to be an escort or claiming to work in any area of the sex industry can take up membership. Confidentiality is obviously at a premium when signing workers up from such a sensitive industry, but as the comment on Punterlink shows, this also means that membership of IUSW branch is open to abuse: anyone can join.
If the the IUSW is populated with pimps, agency owners, and punters, then it shouldn’t have any credibility in the prostitution debate.
But even Cath Elliot is dwarfed in the myopia department by one Yvette Doll, whom has made it her personal trolling campaign to taint anyone who dares to challenge the Smith legislation with charges of "pedophilia". Basically, she has used the pages of almost every blog debating this topic to go off on tangents that would make even the "9/11/01 Truthers" take notice. Some examples of her Tin-Foil Hattery:
[from the thread at Shriaz Socialist]
“From reading this and other threads, it seems clear to me that if sex workers are going to make any gains in terms of rights and safety, it’ll be done without the help of radical feminists.”
With all those creepy and pervy web-sites and people pretending to be schoolgirls,
or other doing child age role playing, I think the IPCE, PNVD or NAMBLA may be more reliable allies.
I’ve never met a pimp who wasn’t a pedophile, if we are talking personal experience.
“I really like the plain grey skirt,white blose, small chest in a training bra, black tights and M&S white knickers look. Anyone any suggestions?”
I think that is far too sick for feminist acceptance.
Yup...that was a NAMBLA reference she brought in....and in case you don't get the point:
In the USA, pro-sex feminism is in (open) alliance with pedophiles, it is the same in Britain and it was certainly the same in Holland. The most vile & violent pornographers are supported by Douglas Fox’s union.
And then, she breaks out the Max Hardcore case in the US as proof of complicity of porn with pedophilia. Never mind that Hardcore was convicted not of pedophilia but of classic obscenity on the basis of scenes performed by consenting adults (not one of them underage or illegal), and that some of the members of the jury openly stated that their guilty verdict was forced on them by the prosecution (and that the case is currently under appeal).
Ahhhhh.....yeah. Right. And Brooke Shields played a 17 year old prostitute in the movie Pretty Baby. Which means....nothing to you and me. Acting out a scene is probably not the same as actually having sex with an underage performer, which is already a crime....but why let truth and honesty get in the way of a good rant??
“Although the actresses in Little’s movies sometimes appear to be under the age of consent and even as young adolescents, it has never been proven that any of them actually were. In his film Max Extreme 4, an actress stated during one verbal exchange that she was 12 years-old, according to Adult Video News magazine.”
School uniform territory - that is were the money is. He lost his web-site to our friends.
And..."our friends"??? I thought that radicalfeminists didn't want anything to do with the Bush Justice Department and the Religious Right??? Except, of course, when it suits their agenda.
Oh. but there's more...when Renegade Evolution decided to chime in that not all (or even most, or damn few if any) "sex-positive" writers think of Max Hardcore as anything more than an asshole with a cracked view of women and sex who nevertheless was wronged as a means of sexual censorship, Yvette responded with this crap:
His endorsement is via a lobby, iincluding pro-sex feminism
As it happens, in the USA, UK and Holland, pro-sex feminism is in cahoots with pro-pedophiles. They go out together.
But the pornography industry ( in the USA) was using children for years and 2257 is after 1990 if I recall.
In Europe using kids was completely normal.
Even Larry Flynt and Hustler is brought into Yvette's conspiracy theory (what?? No "Chester the Molestor" toons??)
Do you think that happened?
Recurrent cartoon and composite photo themes picturing blood-soaked castration are seen in the reality of child rape and mutilation. In October 26, 1990 a nine-year-old boy in Norman, Oklahoma was raped, his penis cut off and eye gouged out causing Hustler to be removed from local stores — where a current Hustler depicted a young boy similarly tortured.
And, in response again to Ren, she makes the point as explicit as you can get:
So special that it justifies bolded emphasis.
“Oh look, the nazi comparision again. You know, as a Jew and a Sex Worker, I find that damn odious” [Response by Ren Ev]
I meant it, pro-sex feminism is in cahoots with pedophila, there are tens of millions of child porngraphy transactions in Britain and that scale of abuse is an unfixable atrocity against the children of the world.
So they’re as bad as Nazis, pedophiles and their supporters. And ( anyways) sex workers are always calling the Pope a Nazi
A pro sex feminist is a Jew the Nazis allow to live to trap other Jews. I mean look at the sex worker web-sites, they’re degrading, a crime against women.
So I really meant that, absolutely and for sure.
That just about says it all, doesn't it??
There is this bit about US child porn prosecutorial history, regarding the infamous Traci Lords case (again, in response to Ren Ev):
And she quotes in that same comment a case of a 61-year old man using MySpace to generate a fake ID/profile to befriend 15- and 16-year olds....as if that proves that "child porn" is so pervasive in "their culture".
That’s a dime a dozen in Europe, the Brits just leave it on the shelves. If you ask the Brits to take U18 child porn out of retail, they just can’t see the point.
The customs work OK, the age-checking is three years behind. The other thing is, Brits, well nobody wants to do it.
You have a heap of agencies, none o them will do it, it stays in retail or whatever.
It is not the USA, the Brits also have areas of immunity. It can take a decde to get one child pornographer and the FBI will probably have to do that for them.
A teacher for example, will have a long run. So 261 schoolgirls proxy child porn or whatever, is not going to zilch too many myspce accounts.
The USA does more teachers in a day, than the UK wants to do in a year.
The feminists (of all shades) allow the teeachers [sic] to get on with it. It is their culture & history.
And so on, ad nauseum. And pretty damn nauseating, too.
I'll just let Yvette close it out, since she does more damage to herself and her cause than any reasoned arguments to the contrary could ever do.
So pro-sex feminists, who like Max Hardcore, and that is seemingly most of them, are not really feminists. They use the tag ‘feminism’ but really they’re just in the pimping junior league.January 12, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I’m giving you a lesson anyway, I think you need it.
Lesson duly noted.....asshole.