What’s in a Hub?

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better. – George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”

One of the City of Boston’s many nicknames is “The Hub” and there is some truth behind it. Boston is a transportation, commerce and communications hub for the New England region, perhaps even a bit beyond. Then there’s the historical importance of Boston, especially with regard to the American Revolution, both in terms of events and intellectual inspiration. Yet it’s hardly the “Hub of the Universe” that some jokingly refer to, nor is it on the same tier as New York or Los Angeles.

I raise this because prohibitionists, both the ideological fanatics and the cynical opportunists who ride their coattails, have a tendency to distort the meaning of words so that they make them sheer drivel. The word hub has become one such term, when used in their attempts to foment panic around human trafficking.

Often we think of hubs in terms of central points of convergence, where people and goods arrive on their way to another destination. Airlines fostered this, with their relatively cost-effective method of having the bulk of their flights travel into and out of a major metropolitan airport. Of course, given the size of the United States, and the number of airlines currently active, we also have “focal cities” which serve as secondary hubs, not to mention very large cities serving as hubs for multiple airlines. Still, by sheer volume, we’re able to determine where these air travel hubs are, and their relative rank in terms of volume and other factors:

Let’s contrast this with a map recently issued by the Polaris Project, a so-called anti-trafficking organization which Elizabeth Nolan Brown called “one of the biggest purveyors of bad statistics dressed up as ‘human trafficking awareness'”. This map supposedly shows the various “hubs of human trafficking” in the United States:

How is it that human trafficking not only has more “hubs” than the airlines, but in remote places like Montana? Furthermore, given that human trafficking is an underground industry, just how did Polaris determine where and at what level this or that location is a “hub”? Indeed, this whole map begs the question of how any city or town, of any size or location, is designated a “hub of human trafficking” – and my own hypothesis of how and why is rooted in an age-old political paradox.

Too many American politicians are prone to promising their constituents two key desires: law and order, and low taxes. That creates a problem. In order to accomplish the former, you need to raise revenue; but so long as you fulfill the latter, you’ll inevitably fall short unless you find another source of cash. Lately, a major source of that revenue has come in the form of civil asset forfeiture, yet the old standby has been to get Federal grant money by claiming that your jurisdictions has some “problem” connected with some issue that will get national politicians riled up enough to fork over some dough. This was very common during the War on Drugs (with even small towns claiming to have an “epidemic” of drugs) and the War on Terror (because we can’t let even one small town become a “soft target”). So with the War on Trafficking (which is, in reality a War on Sex Workers) all you need to get your piece of the pie is to declare your locale to be a “hub of human trafficking” – and it doesn’t even matter if you have no real data to prove you’re a hub, because the prohibitionists who started this whole boondoggle never even bothered to set any criteria for defining a hub. Add to that the number of “non-profit” groups like Polaris with their hands in the cookie jar, and you can see how the number of hubs multiplies, and how much of our tax dollars goes to feed the cycle.

Now, I certainly don’t expect either crusading fanatics or political opportunists to see the light of day. Part of me, however, is hoping that a combination of economic realities and not-so-enlightened self-interest will lead to a clash between the two camps as they vie for shrinking grant/tax monies, leading to someone somewhere deciding to clarify what is meant by “human trafficking” and what constitutes a “hub” wherein such an enterprise goes on. When that happens, that will be yet another opportunity for sex workers and their allies to be heard, and to propose real alternatives.

Taking Sex Workers for a Ride

Here in Boston, there is an organization for homeless and at-risk youth called Bridge Over Troubled Waters. They began in the 1960s as a group of women offering sandwiches and a supportive ear to runaway, throwaway and neglected teens in Boston Common and Harvard Square. Over the decades, they grew into a model organization, with a mobile medical van as part of its street outreach, and the first emergency shelter for homeless youth in the country.

One of the reasons they have been as effective as they are is that they take the time to build rapport with street youth. They don’t impose their will on them; they meet them where they are, or wait for them to come.

That, I have learned, is vastly different from the vision of those who seek to “rescue” people from sex work, especially street-based sex work. Seattle is one example of this, where police don’t simply refrain from arresting street-based sex workers, they take them for a ride to members of the city’s “Organization for Prostitution Survivors,” which touts itself as offering “counseling and advice” to sex workers.

If that’s anything like the “counseling and advice” given by Peter Qualliotine in Seattle’s “john school” program, then sex workers in that city would be wise to steer clear. Qualliotine – an art college dropout whose only qualifications for running such a program is that he worked for prohibitionist fanatic Melissa Farley – attempts to indoctrinate members of his “STOP Exploitation” classes in a noxious hodgepodge of extremist ideology and shame-filled pseudoscience, all wrapped up with a speech reminiscent of an evangelical preacher’s temperance sermon abjuring the faithful to swear off liquor.

Of course, I would expect Peter Qualliotine, Alisa Bernard, and others at OPS to scoff at my description, denouncing me as a “sex trafficking apologist” or member of their mythic “pimp lobby” for daring to question their dogma. Let me pose a couple of important questions for them: If commercial sex is so universally terrible, and if you are offering such beneficial services, why do you need undercover police officers to bring street-based sex workers to you under false pretenses? If you’re so convinced that no one really consents to selling sex, how is using the police to deceive and intimidate women into listening to you any better?

Frankly, I don’t expect an answer from them. But for anyone else reading, think about the use of such disingenuous means to achieve their ends. And remember that this is being done on the taxpayer’s dime.

If You Think “End Demand” is a “Progressive” Program, You Need to Read This

People who label themselves political or social progressives like to think of themselves as both forward-thinking and freedom-loving. That has not always been the case, however. Progressives have at times been divided on certain issues, just as they are today over sex workers’ rights. Those who currently favor the so-called “end demand” policies first instituted by Sweden in 1999 (hence its nicknames of “Swedish model” and “Nordic model”) follow a basic logic of social engineering:

  1. X is bad for society.
  2. If X were eliminated, it would benefit society.
  3. Therefore, government should institute policies for eliminating X.

Where this logic fails is in identifying “X” in utterly simplistic ways. Alcohol, for example, was considered “bad for society,” leading to failed experiments in prohibition which increased crime, thus making things worse for society. Homosexuals were (and in many places still are) branded as harmful deviants, subject to criminal penalties and dubious cures.

Progressives forget that, from the late 19th century until well past the end of World War II, there was a movement dedicated to improving humanity through a series of programs, all justified by the mantle of science. In fact, primitive forms of this form of social engineering had been practiced in ancient societies, and supported by philosophers like Plato. The ideas behind this organized movement began with an eminent scientist, motivated by his cousin Charles Darwin, and were promoted in many countries in Europe, the Americas, and Australia. In the United States, feminists and other progressives embraced the movement, leading to the adoption of laws in many states and the Federal government. In Great Britain, they found support across political lines, from conservatives like Winston Churchill to members of the Fabian Society. Sweden adopted elements of the movement’s agenda as part of the folkhemmet envisioned by Social Democrats and other reformers. Of course, the movement did have its critics, from public intellectuals like G. K Chesterton to notable scientists like Franz Boas and J. B. S. Haldane. Still, many embraced the ideas of the movement, even after witnessing its most brutal implementation in Nazi Germany.

That movement was eugenics.

Sir Francis Galton first conceived of the idea that, if animals could be selectively bred for certain traits, then the same principle ought to be applied to humans. He also suggested that those considered unfit “could find a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods,” and that prospective immigrants should be screened for their potential fitness (thus anticipating policies to be enacted in the United States, Australia, and other countries). While he was motivated by Darwin’s ideas of natural selection, his illustrious cousin did not openly embrace his views; indeed, his writings indicated that he preferred that such choices be left to individuals rather than the state. But others picked up where Galton left off, and started a worldwide eugenics movement to improve the human race, whether by positive means (e.g., “Fit Family” competitions) or negative ones (compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill and “feeble-minded”).

A vocal minority raised serious questions. They worried about who was to decide whether someone was “fit” enough to breed, and how. They raised the point that many supposed weaknesses were not inheritable at all. They pointed to outstanding intellects and artists who also exhibited supposedly congenital weaknesses. G. K. Chesterton argued that the vague definitions of unfitness could very well lead to an unjust imposition of conformity: “Every tramp who is sulk, every labourer who is shy, every rustic who is eccentric, can quite easily be brought under such conditions as were designed for homicidal maniacs.”

Sure enough, eugenics programs were being implemented to rationalize exclusion of racial minorities, forced sterilization of “degenerates,” presumption of guilt in criminal cases based on pseudoscientific theories, and other violations of human rights. Sex workers were especially victimized by these programs, as prostitution and other “lewd and lascivious behavior” was considered a sign of degeneracy, leading to governments on both sides of the Atlantic including them in their compulsory sterilization programs. When the Nazis were questioned about the barbaric measures they took to achieve their goal of “racial purity,” they tried to argue that the only differences from the eugenics programs being implemented in countries like Sweden and the United States was a matter of scale.

Nowadays, many self-described progressives are so horrified at the idea of eugenics that it leads them to be skeptical about everything from reproductive surrogacy to genetically modified foods. They need to remember that their ideological predecessors were some of the biggest supporters of this failed program – and that the same simplistic logic behind it is now being used to promote the cruel failure of the Swedish model and other prohibitionist policies against sex workers.

Purity is a Luxury That Activists Cannot Afford

When we began working for marriage equality in Massachusetts in the 1990s, we fully expected opposition from social conservatives. What we didn’t quite expect was reluctance on the part of two supposedly natural allies. Among some LGBTQ folks, marriage was considered an oppressive institution; and a number of libertarians thought it best that government stay out of marriage entirely.

“All well and good,” we replied, “but those goals are a long way off. Meanwhile, there are couples and their families who would benefit enormously from having their unions legally recognized. So why not work with us on this for now, and your ideal goals over the long haul?”

That argument swayed some, but not all. Fortunately, those who insisted on remaining pure in their purpose were quite small, and we had plenty of folks across the political spectrum willing to work on achieving our goal.

I shudder when I think what might have happened if it was our side which was dominated by ideological purists – welcoming only left-wing LGBTQ people, viewing allies with suspicion, rejecting help from groups who endorsed same-sex marriage for the “wrong” reasons. It would have been a disaster.

This post is a warning to those in the sex worker rights movement who have adopted such a purist approach. My experience in social activism spans three and a half decades. I’ve seen my share of successes and mistakes. One of the most consistent factors is the more a group embraces purism, the more likely it is to either die or stagnate into irrelevancy. Purism has an understandable appeal, of making you feel comfortable in the short run, safe within a tribe. But in the long run, activism is not about staying in a safe place – it is about taking risks to achieve what change is possible and desirable, one step at a time.

Maggie McNeill draws the analogy of a bus stuck in the mud. Do you really care that much who helps you push it out? Because if you sit there waiting for the “perfect” people to help you in the “ideal” way, you’ll likely find that the bus has sunk in deeper and the mud dried out and hardened. If your bus is stuck in the mud, you get out and push, and you call on anyone passing by to help you.

But purism is not just impractical. It’s an approach to seeing the world which is rooted in bitter and cynical nihilism. As Alexis Shotwell, associate professor at Carleton University notes: “Purism is a de-collectivizing, de-mobilizing, paradoxical politics of despair. This world deserves better.” While purists condemn efforts at reform, they are failing to see how such efforts are not only more realistic, but more hopeful and inspiring.

Pitting purism against purism never works. Prohibitionists may try to sell their “end demand” approach as reform, but it is in fact a purist attempt at social engineering, built on a simplistic view of both economics and human sexuality. Decrim is the hopeful reform, not because it will transform society by itself, but because it will empower and inspire sex workers to improve their own lives.

What’s the Real Reason for Julie Bindel’s Obsession with Abolishing Sex Work?

In the United Kingdom, radical feminist Julie Bindel is perhaps the most prominent prohibitionist crusader. In her latest book, she claims to expose the “myths” behind the commercial sex industry, painting it as irredeemably horrid, dismissing anything that does not fit her worldview.

To me, a person’s view of the world, and their vision of an ideal future, answers the question of that person’s motivation more than any scripted response. And from what I’ve seen of Bindel, it’s darker than any portrait she paints of those she opposes.

First and foremost, Bindel hates men. She’s not been shy about it, and even said in this interview how she would “have their power taken from them”:

I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.

She later complained in this article speculating on the “end of men” that: “Within hours of the interview going online, men’s rights groups were accusing me of wanting to put men in ‘Nazi concentration camps’. And they say feminists are the ones with no sense of humour.” Well, I have no sympathy myself for the so-called men’s rights movement, but if she thinks that talk about confining any group of people based on some characteristic is some sort of joke, she’s out of her mind. Granted, I am especially sensitive to her choice of words, given my Jewish relatives in Europe who were confined in camps and reduced to ashes. Bindel’s blatant lack of sensitivity, on the other hand, should give any decent person pause to support her.

If misandry wasn’t enough, Bindel hates transgender people. She would prefer the term “transcritical”, but she’s not content with raising questions. She has openly opposed gender-nonconforming folks from medical treatment, refuses to acknowledge transwomen as women, and doesn’t even talk about transmen or genderqueer people. Her whole beliefs and knowledge on the subject seem stuck in the 1950s, and in contradiction to the opposition of most feminists to biological determinism and gender essentialism.

The list goes on. She’s dissed bisexuality as a fad. She wrote an article titled “Why I Hate Vegetarians”, accusing them of being “humourless, judgmental souls using spurious arguments” (apparently, she doesn’t read her own work that carefully). She expects heterosexual feminists to convert to lesbianism.

Yes, Bindel has done admirable work to fight violence against women, and that is often the basis of her support. But given her propensity for dismissing others, even to have them punished for who they are, one has to wonder if her work is based on genuine concern for victims, or a desire to control and even bully others to conform to her wishes. The only thing more tragic and dangerous is how many such individuals rise to prominence within the prohibitionist movement.

Trumping the Prohibitionists

Donald Trump’s latest debacle has weakened him even further by revealing that he’s not merely using the far-right as a steppingstone to power, but that he indeed supports their bigoted beliefs. This is not, however, Trump’s real Achilles’ heel. His entire methodology of “shooting from the hip” without concern for consequences, and most importantly his refusal to admit to, and apologize for, any mistakes he makes, is what will lead to his ultimate undoing.

This is the same weakness in the prohibitionist camp – their own sense of self-righteousness and absolutism prevents them from seeing when they make mistakes, much less owning up to them.

When journalists began to question Somaly Mam’s story, then expose her pattern of deception and fraud, did “anti-trafficking” activists in this country step back and take stock? Hardly. Many like Nicholas Kristof tried to minimize the damage, and some like Susan Sarandon even supported her efforts to form a new foundation in her name.

Groups like Polaris continually claimed that “the average age of entry into prostitution is thirteen” – and when this was thoroughly debunked those groups waffled and took their time pedaling back on the bogus figure.

Anti-prostitution activists and law enforcement have been pushing the panic around sex trafficking so much, they are now seeing histrionic claims multiply beyond their own control – yet they are still unwilling to admit that their own distortions and confabulations are the fatal flaw. Let’s also not forget the radical feminist concept of “re-framing experiences” by embellishment, exaggeration and even outright fabrication.

This is no reason, however, for sex worker rights groups to be overconfident. Just as Trump tries to divert attention from his errors as part of his “doubling down” tactic, it makes sense that prohibitionists will do the same. They will look for any flaw, any error, any shortcoming in their opposition, and exploit it for their own purposes. We need to anticipate these attacks, own up to any mistakes, show how we responded, and most importantly, bring the conversation back to the core issue of empowering sex workers by removing legal barriers, and holding the architects of the prohibitionist movement accountable for the harms they have caused.

Kamala Harris: Whorephobic Enforcer in Progressive Clothing

As Democrats try to regroup from the debacle of the 2016 election, they are looking for prospective Presidential candidates. It’s not an easy task, as such a person needs to present strong leadership with minimal scandal. Right now, one of those being lifted up is the junior Senator from California, and former Attorney General for that state, Kamala Harris. She’s photogenic, charismatic, eloquent, and giving the Trump Administration a tough time (at least in Senate committee hearings).

Ask the sex workers’ rights movement, however, and they will give plenty of reasons why they wouldn’t vote for her. Harris was the persecutor-in-chief behind the misguided scapegoating of Backpage, and quickly joined Claire McCaskill and other “anti-trafficking” fanatics in the Senate. As Zoé Samudzi pointed out in a recent blog post: “Harris, like many others, claimed to support sex workers while actively making their lives more difficult: her prosecutorial logic deliberately conflated voluntary sex work and sex trafficking in a way that was indistinguishable from the rhetorics of sex work abolitionists and sex work exclusionary feminists (SWERFs).”

But it doesn’t stop there.

Harris may be promoting bail and prison reform now, but in 2011 her office opposed efforts to relieve California’s overcrowded prisons, claiming it would deprive the state of cheap labor. Harris later claimed she was “shocked” to read about this in the newspaper (perhaps the same way Louis Renault was shocked).

Harris has a similarly questionable background on drug policy, calling for reform after having opposed legalizing marijuana to such an extent that some folks endorsed a weed-friendly Republican who ran against her.

Harris may have gotten tough with Jeff Sessions, but as her state’s top prosecutor she was in line with him on civil asset forfeiture, opposing a 2011 proposal to curtail its implementation in California, and supported a 2015 measure to have assets seized before filing charges.

One might argue that, as Attorney General, she was merely doing what was expected of her in upholding the law – but that rings hollow given that legal experts considered her prosecution of Backpage to violate Federal statutes and constitutional protections. Let’s also not forget her her office overlooking cases of prosecutorial misconduct, not to mention failing to prosecute violations of state foreclosure laws (by a major donor to her campaign, no less), as well as refusing to respond to calls for an independent investigation into the sexual exploitation of a minor by several Oakland police officers.

I myself am a political pragmatist, and fully aware that no candidate is perfect. The record of Kamala Harris, however, raises questions about her administrative abilities, her political priorities, and even her integrity. As much as some would have us believe she is a progressive reformer, her record suggests an establishment figure all too willing to compromise principles to fulfill her ambitions. Not exactly the kind of star I’d want to hitch my wagon to.

The Need for a Skeptical Feminism

Recently, an acquaintance of mine from college recognized me via social media, and we began some online chats about the issues surrounding sex work, the anti-trafficking movement, and feminism. Having embraced the more radical form of feminism in her youth, my former classmate had gone on to obtain a law degree, then to focus her legal practice on civil cases that advanced women’s rights, most notably in the area of sexual harassment.

What eventually disillusioned her from the ideas of Dworkin, Mackinnon and other radical feminists was when she was invited to talk about her work at a feminist conference. By this time, she had handled a total of seventy-seven cases involving sexual harassment. Reviewing the files, she broke them down as follows:

  • 68 of the 77 involved a man harassing a woman; four involved a woman harassing a man, three involved a man harassing another man, and two involved a woman harassing another woman.
  • Fourteen cases involved a man making a single inappropriate comment, then apologizing and not engaging in any harassing behavior, and no long-term negative impact on the woman’s career; in all of these cases, the attorney advised the plaintiff that the case had insufficient merit to pursue.
  • One case involved a woman making a false accusation which the attorney found was motivated by malice against the defendant; another case involved a woman who was found to have serious mental health issues resulting in confabulation.

Based on this, my acquaintance presented a conclusion that should have been uncontroversial for this conference: that sexual harassment was still predominantly an issue of men using their power over women. After all, two-thirds of cases were bona-fide incidents fitting that narrative. But as soon as she presented her figures showing that individual men could be victims, individual women could be perpetrators, and that a minority of claims were either overblown (18%) or false (2.6%), she saw herself being attacked and denounced by the more strident participants at the conference, and she was never invited back. Fortunately, she found support among the oft-despised liberal and libertarian feminists, whom she said “had no problem seeing the facts as they were, and discussing them thoughtfully”.

In her mind, the “radical feminists” have become authoritarian ideologues, for whom even the slightest disagreement was considered unforgiveable heresy and treason. She has since embraced the label of a “skeptical feminist” – based on the book by British philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards – and, in her own words, “always takes a step back before taking sides”. This is certainly the case with her view of the anti-prostitution and anti-trafficking movements, having seen “outrageous” and “absolutist” claims with scant evidence, and leading her to consider full decriminalization as “a more workable approach” (again, her words).

Our discussions brought us back to a basic concept in the philosophy of ideas – the distinction between open and closed systems of thought. Open systems, while embracing certain core values or principles, are receptive of new evidence and ideas, and thus relatively flexible to change. Closed systems, by contrast, present a comprehensive set of doctrines to explain how the world works, and either explains away any conflicting evidence or rejects it outright.

It is no surprise that the prohibitionist camp sees sex work in overly simplistic and absolutist terms. This is, after all, the methodology of its parent ideologies – religious fundamentalism, and radical feminism. Some of the unchallenged presumptions of this system include:

  1. Sexual perfectionism – Sex must be confined to vanilla activities within either marriage or “committed relationships”; any expression outside of this is presumed to be “harmful” and/or “exploitative”.
  2. Gender essentialism – Men view sex a certain way, women view sex another way; this leads to the reduction of prostitution as “men buying women”, thus neglecting or ignoring the reality of male and genderqueer sex workers, and female and genderqueer sex work clients, as well as the complex reasons why people either enter sex work or seek the services of a sex worker.
  3. Punitive/corrective approaches – The way to address commercial sex is to “end demand” by either punishment (fines, jail, public shaming) or so-called therapeutic approaches (e.g., “johns schools”).
  4. Intolerance to opposition – This is exhibited by such methods as:
    • Ignoring questions and/or criticisms, often refusing to answer them.
    • Dismissive labels applied to other side (“not representative”, “pimp lobby”, etc.).
    • Controlling discourse to minimize or eliminate dissent and/or opposition.

This is not to say that the sex worker rights movement does not have its own faults, or that certain elements within it are more closed than others. But there is a greater tendency to base their beliefs upon evidence than ideology, and a greater diversity of viewpoints and approaches than seen within the contemporary prohibitionist movement. This raises the question of which approach is more compatible with the core values of human rights and democratic polity generally, and the feminist principles of achieving greater gender equality and personal autonomy. Is it any wonder that my former classmate and I, and many other “skeptical feminists”, have decided to support this movement?

A Very Large Grain of Salt

Recently, someone posed a question via the Contact page: “You seem very skeptical of the anti-trafficking movement. What about the women who share their experiences of being trafficked? Do you actually think they’re lying?”

I should preface my answer with the caveat that the various anti-trafficking organizations do not make up a single monolithic movement. There are at least two major anti-trafficking trends:

  • Those who oppose sex work, conflating it with trafficking, and are ideologically driven to favor punitive measures directed mostly against clients while claiming to help “prostituted women”; these are represented by neoliberal groups like Demand Abolition, radical feminists like Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, and “faith-based” organizations like Shared Hope International.
  • Those who make a distinction between sex work and sex trafficking, generally supporting a rights-based approach that often includes harm reduction and decriminalization of voluntary commercial sex; they include groups such as Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women and Freedom Network USA.

As you might guess, I favor the latter over the former. A major reason for this is that the rights-based groups are very careful in their research and presentation; they are not only rights-based, but fact-based, including an appreciation for the nuance and complexity of lived experiences for both sex workers and sex trafficking survivors.

If a rights-based group presents the story of a sex trafficking survivor, I’m much more inclined to accept it as is. The track record of such organizations suggests that they have checked it and not altered the narrative in any way (at least not without the consent of the survivor). So, why not accept narratives from the more ideological anti-trafficking groups?

Look at their track record. These groups and their leaders have a history of distortion, embellishment and fabrication in order to advance their goals. Stories are often presented second-hand, with no means of verifying them, almost invariably following the same narrative template. Even when survivors are given space to tell their stories, they are “encouraged” to “re-frame” them.

In social and behavioral science, re-framing usually refers to shifting the perspective from which one views an event or piece of information. It does not, however, include or support embellishing the narrative in question. Unfortunately, as survivor Jill Brenneman noted in an interview: “As difficult and extreme as my experiences were, [ideological anti-trafficking activists] wanted me to re-frame them, meaning add things that didn’t happen to make it worse.” In an even more notorious and flagrant example, Long Pros, a young Cambodian woman, was coached by Somaly Mam to recount a story of being stabbed in the eye by a vicious pimp – until her parents and doctors provided evidence to refute that account.

Let that sink in.

Is it any wonder, then, that individuals such as Somaly Mam, Chong Kim, Stella Marr, Justine Reilly, and others have been able to misrepresent themselves as “victims” and “survivors” within such organizations, or to set up shop on their own to bilk donors of their cash? Or how evasive these groups become when the game is played out?

I’m certainly not accusing every survivor connected with these groups to be fraudulent. I’m sure many have suffered, and turned to these groups for support. But given the propensity for these groups to twist facts and manipulate others into doing the same, these survivors should not be surprised when I and others take their stories with a very large grain of salt. And if, indeed, you were persuaded to embellish your own story in the name of “re-framing”, I would hope that you come clean and speak out. Such truth-telling is not an act of betrayal, but of personal integrity.

Double Whammy Against the Swedish Model

So many proponents of the “Swedish Model” criminalizing clients claim that it’s important to the fight against sex trafficking. Let’s put aside that proponents too often lump consensual sex work in with sex trafficking. Just how are police expected to find victims of trafficking or abuse, especially in an industry that’s been driven underground?

Well, just as law enforcement found Backpage a valuable resource here in the States, their counterparts in other countries also get a significant amount of tips from sex work clients. Even the Swedish police relied on clients for help – that is, until their “sex-purchase” ban was put into place:

[C]lients are less visible than previously and that they are less willing to cooperate in bringing to light coercion, Trafficking in Human beings, or underage persons involved in prostitution. (p. 53)

This is further confirmed by independent researchers, such as anthropologist Don Kulick …

Police report that their efforts to prosecute pimps and traffickers has been made more difficult, because clients, who before the passage of the law were sometimes willing to serve as witnesses, are now disinclined to cooperate, since they themselves are guilty of a crime. (p. 204)

… and public policy consultant Dr. Jay Levy:

[T]he [sex-purchase law] can act as disincentive for sex buyers to report suspected trafficking or abuse, for fear of essentially confessing to the crime of buying sex. One sex buyer I interviewed recalled two or three instances where he had not contacted the police to report suspected trafficking, for fear of legal consequences. He had left the premises without buying sex, and had tried to make other clients aware of the situation via online forums. (p. 8)

But this fact doesn’t just undermine the claim that the Swedish Model helps to fight trafficking and abuse. It also challenges the fundamental premise that clients are all exploiters who don’t care about those who sell sex. It doesn’t make sense to paint all “johns” or “punters” in this way when you have evidence from the police themselves that people looking to pay for sex were willing to come forward and report suspicions of coercion and abuse.

There are also studies like this one from Canada that indicate a significant percentage of sex work clients expressing concern for the well-being. Of course, rabid ideologues like Meghan Murphy predictably dismiss this. But when police are confirming that they know of clients willing help to uncover abuses, what then? That locks the prohibitionists into more of a conundrum – which is to be expected from a movement that puts simplistic beliefs above complex realities.