• Prostitutes - Pity or Solidarity?

There is an article by Tawfiq Chahboune at the Socialist Unity blog from the UK, partly about the recently-released diaries of Alastair Campbell, a former adviser to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

I was disappointed to see that the piece on the Socialist Unity blog referred disparagingly to Mr Campbell's past as a male prostitute. I made a comment to this effect, which I hope was as comradely as I meant it to be.

I was more disappointed at the response from Tawfiq Chahboune, who says that he "pities" those who work as sex workers, explicitly says that we should not show solidarity towards them (both those who choose sex work, and those who do not choose it and need help to get out), describes sex work as a "depraved way to make a living", and defiantly states that he will bring up this part of Mr Campbell's life every time he has something to say about Mr Campbell.

I don't see how reminding sex workers who want to stop being sex workers that they are despised by many people is going to help empower them. And there is the issue of those women who actively choose to be sex workers. Are they to be pitied? Or perhaps regarded as immoral?

This would be an interesting place to start discussing if sex work would be permitted, tolerated, encouraged or banned under a socialist government - IE a post-revolutionary government where people were still working for wages.

I doubt if Tawfiq is in line with the rest of his SU comrades with his sentiments.

The one issue that stands out above all others on this question is human trafficking. This is a a SU link on the problem in the UK. It won't be much different in Australia.

 http://socialistunity.blogspot.com/2006/06/slavery-in-britain-today.html

 

Cyberman says,  "I doubt if Tawfiq is in line with the rest of his SU comrades with his sentiments."

 There is a good chance that you are right there. I should say that my post is meant to be a criticism of Tawfiq and not the SU blog in general - I doubt very much that they meet to decide if an individual's post is taking an agreed line before publishing it.

The reason I take the SU blog seriously, despite my disagreement with several of their positions, is that they appear committed to constructive debate.

As far as the issue of sex slavery goes, I imagine that most socialists (and other people of good will) would agree that it needs to be suppressed - by punishing those in control of it, not its victims. Under a socialist government that could be achieved. Since a socialist government does not appear to be likely any time soon, at the moment I suppose that one important thing to do is to humanise the victims.

People who would not support asylum for sex slaves in general may possibly be convinced if they are exposed to the personal story of a particular sex slave.

I used to blog for SUN. My position on sex work is decriminalisation and support for unionisation. I can't speak for the other comrades. I thought Tawfiq's post was patronising and insulting to sex workers. And the language was utterly moralistic. Sex workers have an appalling time already and it is a duty of Socialists to show solidarity as opposed to criticism. Sorry if I am tad late in the discussion as only just seen it. Louisefeminista

No worries about being late, Louisefeminista, we pick up old topics here all the time. Thanks for dropping in to the thread.

I was wondering if your position on decriminalisation is a policy for today, or if you think you might have a similar position if there was a socialist state?

I'm approaching this having been heavily influenced by sex-positive, career-positive sex-workers in the past - I was wondering if that is your position, or if you disapprove of prostitution but support decrimininalisation on the grounds that any other policy would victimise sex workers further.

(I'm aware that the sort of people I've met are probably a minority, and don't want to get too romantic about 'hookers with hearts of gold')