Slavery in Australia goes beyond the sex trade

Tina says:

07:22am | 12/10/11

I agree. I dont know any percentages but there are far more trades involved than sex industry and heaps of men are targeted as well. In Europe unfortunately there are a lot of people exploited from Eastern European or bordering countries. Its everything for slavery, forces labour to limitations such as not granting them what they are entitled to by law (minimum wage, education, safety gear, job security). Usually those people are not permitted contact to outsiders at all, because they might start learning the language and understand their rights and entitlements. Especially when you are in a country unlawfully then I assume you dont dare ask for help.

Tezza says:

01:36pm | 12/10/11

For about ten years from the mid 1990’s to the 2000s I had a Vietnamese client (let’s call him Mr. Minh. He is deceased now). Mr. Minh had a restaurant in Cabramatta when I first met him, and a building company and other businesses. He lived in a small strata block of units that he had built at Cabramatta. He had not sold any of the units; he lived in one and the others were all occupied by various followers, employees and relatives like feudal retainers. These followers worked in his restaurant and on his building sites or other businesses. Few of them spoke English and Mr. Minh always did all the talking. Every six months or so Mr. Minh would go back to Vietnam and return with more retainers. They all seemed to love Mr. Minh, and he “looked after” them, but I will bet that some of them didn’t have proper work permits or residency status, and I will also bet that he didn’t pay any of them award wages (to put it mildly).  Would you call these people “slaves”?

Chris_D says:

03:01pm | 12/10/11

@Tezza makes an interesting and relevant point.  What basis and background do the lawyers use to assess each claim of “slavery”? Do they compare Australian apples with Chinese Oranges?

marley says:

04:01pm | 12/10/11

@Chris D - well, I mentioned below the case of several boatloads of Chinese men being trafficked to the US.  They were all young fujianese whose families had either paid or promised to pay fairly large sums to the snakeheads to get them to the US, where they would work off their debts by basically becoming indentured labour.  That kind of trafficking is very big business (you don’t charter five ships for spare change).  So it’s on a different scale to the example Tezza gives.

I think I’d just describe her example as people smuggling rather than people trafficking.  The latter has an element of coercion to it.  I guess that’s where the line gets to be drawn.

Fiona says:

05:57pm | 12/10/11

A casual at my hubbies work, recently boasted about how he had made “an arrangement” with a Thai family to bring back one of the girls of the family to cook, clean house and babysit his 12 year old daughter (who lived with him), along with “other services” for dirt cheap. It makes your skin crawl.

Leah says:

09:37pm | 12/10/11

Tezza, you don’t provide enough information for anyone to make a proper call on that. But if Mr Minh’s ‘retainers’ were happy and actually cared for - and free to leave if they wanted - I’d say no, they’re not slaves. They might not be paid in money but perhaps in food, accommodation, schooling for their children, etc. I think marley is right to distinguish between people smuggling and people trafficking.

Labor is Toxic says:

02:27pm | 13/10/11

Tezza .... you are right on the money!!! A few years back an Asian Restaurant west of Sydney was found to have ‘slaves’ living in a locked tin shed. I know of other Asian Restaurants that mainly employ students (pay cash) who are not legally allowed to work. I know of others that employ “qualified chefs” from overseas and pay them a pittance ..... they are retained on the hope of one day getting an Australian Visa.

St. Michael says:

11:15am | 12/10/11

Capitalism assumes a *free* market.  These forms of labour are not and justifiably deserve crackdowns.

Kipling says:

01:24pm | 12/10/11

A “crackdown” is certainly something required with regard to sexploitation.
As to Capitalism “assuming a free market” part of that free market is labour that capitalism seeks to exploit at every opportunity. Workers rights did not come as a neat and wonderful little gift in the capitalist system, they were hard fought battles by workers and were, in effect, reluctantly agreed to be employers after no other options became available.
So by all means, please clarify what you mean by “these forms of labour”. Is that specifically sex workers who are effectively working as slaves or do you actually mean any and all forms of labour exploitation?

St. Michael says:

01:35pm | 12/10/11

Actually, in a free market the labour is also free to seek other employment, too.  Please don’t run the old “hard fought rights” or “exploting the workers” line, I was in a union and I’m well acquainted with that bullshit too.  Capitalism does not exploit the workers.  Capitalism allows the workers to exploit themselves if they choose to do so.

By “these forms of labour” I am referring to the indentured servitude that amounts to slavery.  The free market does not work on slavery.  A free market allows for a worker to freely choose which employer he works for.  If he’s had enough gumption and drive in his life to obtain skills that are valuable or needed, he’ll be paid more.  And employers that choose to pay too little simply can’t get the workers they need.  The mining boom is a fine demonstration of this: employers in retail and hospitality are not paying enough, so the vast majority of retail and hospitality staff are finding better-paying jobs elsewhere.

I don’t believe in a lawless system: free market theory of itself requires the rule of law to operate, since the system largely operates on trust.  And there always needs to be Goldilocks regulation—not too little, not too much.  The unfortunate part is that government usually doesn’t know how to implement it or most of the time doesn’t care to.

Kipling says:

11:29am | 13/10/11

St. Michael, I had responded earlier this morning, however, at present that has not appeared for some reason.

Firstly though, please do not dictate to me what I can and cannot mention. The fact you refer to the history of trade relations as “bullshit” highlights how little you actually are aware of. Given your asertion that being “hard won” or “hard fought” conditions is bullshit, do you honestly suggest that conditions (you know, like paid holidays, sick leave entitlement, 8 hour working days, overtime etc etc etc) were given by a bunch of generous minded employers with no thought to their bottom line? ICB there.
Further, as to how a free market operates, what you articulate in your response is actually more akin to liberalism doctrine. Although that ideal works within a capitalist economy it is not free market theory per se. Further, it is the worst kind of semantics to turn around the concept of exploitation to make it the fault of workers if they choose to allow themselves to be exploited. In short, they are at fault if they do not receive reasonable conditions, they are at fault if they then choose unemployement (as this is the default position in our society, but don’t let that reality get in the way of your fantasy theorising) over a job that offers poor pay and deplorable conditions. What a remarkably distorted view of the world you actually live in.
Further to this, theory is just that, theory. You can sprout every bit of theory you like it won’t make it the reality that most of us live with.
As to the free market offering choice, that only holds water when there are viable choices available which is not our reality, is it? Unemployment being what it is demonstrates the hole in your point of view there, whilst there are a surplus of workers and significant competition for each position, the workers capacity to exercise your much vaunted choice is susbtantially limited. Those limitations are regardless of qualifications, demonstrated skill sets and/or vast experience.
The free market might work with rule of law as you suggest, tell me something though, how does it work with democracy?

St. Michael says:

11:49am | 14/10/11

“Given your asertion that being “hard won” or “hard fought” conditions is bullshit, do you honestly suggest that conditions (you know, like paid holidays, sick leave entitlement, 8 hour working days, overtime etc etc etc) were given by a bunch of generous minded employers with no thought to their bottom line?”

Unions didn’t obtain all of those rights, either.

And there are many employers who pay well above the award because it’s in their interests to do so.

“Further, it is the worst kind of semantics to turn around the concept of exploitation to make it the fault of workers if they choose to allow themselves to be exploited. In short, they are at fault if they do not receive reasonable conditions, they are at fault if they then choose unemployement (as this is the default position in our society, but don’t let that reality get in the way of your fantasy theorising) over a job that offers poor pay and deplorable conditions. What a remarkably distorted view of the world you actually live in.”

Actually you’re the only one with a distorted way of thinking.  Mainly because: a worker can (bar the minority of true slavery cases) quit and look for other work any time they like.  If they choose not to go, that is their fault, their own hangups, and their own cowardice for doing so.

My language was not semantics.  A worker exploits themselves.  They choose to give 8 hours of each day of their life to a faceless boss who doesn’t really care about them, in the hope of obtaining money as a result of doing so.  That is converting time into money.  That is self-exploitation.

Also: casual workers.  By your theory they should not exist, since no worker would exploit himself by taking away his own holidays, leave, etc, in favour of a 20% loading on his wage.  The truth is otherwise, and for the vast majority, it ain’t the sad old story of “Der boss won’t gimme a permanent job,” it’s more like “Stick your permanent job up your significant orifice, I like earning 20% more for every hour I work and I don’t want or need holidays.  In fact as a casual I can take them when I like.”

Your problem is, like so many in the union movement and so many I dealt with in the union movement, you have not obtained sufficient maturtiy to take responsibility for your own working decisions in life.  I don’t blame you, of course; generations of progressively leftie thinking have disabled you in that regard.

MarkS says:

08:07am | 12/10/11

“clearly not consenting” How so? The owner & operator of the brothel knows this but the client is another matter. In any event as the writer made clear many indeed most know they were going to be involved in sex work. It is the illegal conditions of that work that is the problem.

Tina says:

08:25am | 12/10/11

I am no expert on the matter, but wouldnt you be able to tell if the sex worker looks healthy? Is she drugged or absent? Is she bruised? Is she malnurished?

Anna C says:

08:58am | 12/10/11

I agree with you Tina. Surely a guy would twig that something is wrong when they go into a brothel and the ladies there can’t speak English and don’t look too thrilled to be there?

I personally wouldn’t want to have sex with someone who I can’t communicate with and appears to be there under some duress. But then that’s just me. It just proves that men really do just think with their dicks.

Erick says:

10:51am | 12/10/11

@AnnaC - “It just proves that men really do just think with their dicks.”

That statement proves that some women engage in broad-brushed stereotypical smearing of men. What a non-bigot would have said is “It just proves that SOME men really do just think with their dicks.”

Even so, I don’t see how men would be expected to read the minds of sex workers. It’s not like they have “slave” written on their foreheads.

Tina says:

11:54am | 12/10/11

Erick, wouldnt you generally be able to tell if someone is doing well? Sometimes those girls are so drugged they are not even conscious. Its not a science. I think you would be able to have a feeling of right or wrong when you see the woman. Talk to her. But I wonder how many customers do actually talk or try to check if she is an adult or not.

I am totally guessing here, but maybe some customers feel a bit guilty or bad about “going there” already, that they rather close their eyes and try to ignore everything around them? Who would really seek help, raise awareness or go to the police, after having visited a brothel that mistreats the girls? I think maybe that worst case they just go to a different one.

Tubesteak says:

12:15pm | 12/10/11

Actually, Tina, there’s no real way of telling.

It’s not like within the space of an hour you can tell if a woman is there against her will or if she is malnourished (hell, it may just be her personal dietary choices).

A lot of sex workers can be drugged of their own volition. Especially the ones that work in the Cross. So you can’t tell.

Anna C
What has communication got to do with sex. You’re not there for the conversation; you’re there for the action. Conversation is the tedious boring part you pretend to care about when you’re chatting up a woman in a bar. You don’t have to do that in brothels.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

12:19pm | 12/10/11

@ Erick - “That statement proves that some women engage in broad-brushed stereotypical smearing of men. “

Of course, we could never accuse Erick of doing the same of women now, could we? Erick, you don’t come across as the type of man who is likely to care about the woman he has sex with either.

Chris_D says:

03:07pm | 12/10/11

If I took the advice of Tina or Anna C i would be obliged to ring the authroities every time I went through the drive-thru at Maccas or HJ’s. 

Not being flippant, but since when is it the consumers responsibility to ensure that the service provider is bright and cheery with their career path? And don’t get me started on people not speaking English.  If we questioned that every time we encountered it we would quickly be labelled racist and bigoted.

Erick says:

04:16pm | 12/10/11

@Benevolent Rapscallion - “Of course, we could never accuse Erick of doing the same of women now, could we?”

Of course not, at least not with integrity.

I have never said “It just proves that women really do just think with their ****,” or anything similar.

If you can find a linked, authentic quote where I have said anything of the sort, feel free to post it.

Sam says:

06:55pm | 12/10/11

If you watched the four corners story on this the you would have to agree with Tina.  The story was not about underpaid workers it was about slaves.  I think most men would know that something was wrong when the girl was laying still with her fists clenched and crying!

jade (the other one) says:

08:33am | 12/10/11

Most women involved in sex trafficking were deported for being here illegally.

Those “returned to their country of origin” as you so euphemistically put it, are at greater risk of being trafficked again. They also frequently experience retribution from traffickers against themselves and their family.

That is why it is wrong to send them back. Our criminal system actually supports the traffickers here in Australia, by ensuring that their victims are not in Australia to denounce them.

Frances Simmons says:

08:38am | 12/10/11

Yes, the right term is “removed”. In practical terms removing these victims of trafficking from Australia meant that they did not receive any justice for the crimes they suffered in Australia. This situation has now changed and people who are identified has suspected victims of trafficking get help regardless of their immigration status.

marley says:

12:30pm | 12/10/11

@Jade - well actually, I spent some time in Eastern Europe and there were definitely programs, run by, among others, IOM, to help women who had been trafficked and wanted to return home.  It wasn’t as though they were just dumped and left to be picked up by the next trafficker.

jade (the other one) says:

01:25pm | 12/10/11

@marley, I am well aware that there are programs in the home country to assist these women.

Are you suggesting that I said there weren’t? Or, because I dared to mention that women who are trafficked are at greater risk of trafficking without mentioning that there are programs to support them, I’m somehow trying to hide some great truth?

Women sent back to their own countries are at greater risk of re-trafficking. That is a fact. Women who are sent back do experience retribution from traffickers. That is a fact.

The very organisations that try to help these women are the ones who acknowledge this.

marley says:

03:55pm | 12/10/11

@Jade - I’m implying nothing.  I’m adding some nuance to your comment above.  It’s not a black and white situation.  Some women do get retrafficked, others manage to get on with their lives.  It depends on the individual, their situation and the support they get back home.

Tina says:

07:24am | 12/10/11

Had the same thought here.

Erick says:

07:47am | 12/10/11

Under capitalism, one man exploits another. Under socialism, it’s the other way around.

Mahhrat says:

08:39am | 12/10/11

@Erick, (if that’s the real Erick), I’m not advocating socialism any more than free-market capitalism.

There is a right and a wrong.  Exploiting people is wrong, and when found should be punished.

My solution is education backed with enforced authority.  We give everyone all the information they need.  Imagine if you could easily and freely access the kind of support information these exploited souls require?  They wouldn’t stay so isolated if they felt included.

Then, authority and judiciary for those who break the law.  Those that decide not to live in our society - which means living within the restriction of just laws and contributing appropriately to them - should be removed from that society, through incarceration or deportation.

I’m coming to the realisation that society is too vast to have simply “free market” for all of it or “socialism” for all of it.  Each section needs solutions based upon what is needed at that time.  That’s kind of what we have now, except we’ve got idiots at the tiller.

Tina says:

07:28am | 12/10/11

Oh sorry. It is unfortunately a known problem in my home (Germany) that labour from Eastern European countries are “recruited” for work on building sites. They are in the country unlawfully, have their passports removed on some occasions, and are made to work for next to no money. They have organised accommodation in basements, crowded, get picked up, driven to work and then locked back up. The building industry is just one of those that benefit a lot from cheap labour.

MarkS says:

08:03am | 12/10/11

Happens in Australia as well.

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:36am | 12/10/11

Does happen here, but not a huge problem. For sites these days you have to have your green card and all that stuff so stamps a lot of it out.

We employed recent immgrants and paid them normally, its mainly people of their own background which exploit them, usually asian.

jade (the other one) says:

08:37am | 12/10/11

Google is your friend.

Numerous agencies have done investigations into the problem of trafficking.

One of the things that makes it difficult to escape is the fact that their passports are removed by the traffickers on arrival. This means they have no identity documents. Victims hail from countries as far away as Eastern Europe and as nearby as Indonesia. Another reason they find it difficult to escape is that the traffickers often threaten relatives in their home countries with retribution if they do escape. They are often locked into their rooms. Because they can’t speak English, it is also difficult for them to get out, as they cannot ask for help.

Erick says:

08:23am | 12/10/11

@progressivesunite - Just had to spout your little bit of hatred and man-bashing, didn’t you? Many of these slavery rings are run by women, so females are equally to blame.

Any man who followed your example would not have the slightest concern for women, since you don’t have the slightest concern for men.

progressivesunite says:

08:36am | 12/10/11

Sorry Erick, why do men need “concern” here? They’re not the rape-slaves….men are using them….Or is that some twisted feminist exploitation of men? Men are the real victims of female rape victims? Hmmm…

Yes - many of the rings are run by women and they’re to blame too - but it’s not women purchasing the rape-slavery victims’ “services” and thus driving the industry….

andye says:

08:38am | 12/10/11

@Erick - Are you deliberately misinterpreting her point? Men are the customers. Feel free to open a brothel for women if you want to challenge this. I suspect it would be a lot harder to make a buck that way.

I mean you seem to agree that the victims are women but find it sexist to say that the customers are men. Is this incorrect? Are you syaing this sint the case?

And I agree with her that the customers must be held responsible for their part in this.

Conservatives Unite! says:

08:40am | 12/10/11

Rape-slave? Eugh, this issue is already over-polluted with silly sensationalisms. As the author notes, most ‘trafficked’ women come here to work in the sex industry willingly. It is the unilateral changes to the terms of their employment that most find objectionable.

And, incidentally, we are not really talking about slavery here, we are talking about bonded labour. I am not saying that bonded labour is OK, but why is there a constant need to exaggerate? I mean, we don’t refer to abortion as ‘kiddy genocide’, or euthenasia as ‘granny culling’.

In any event, clearly the best way to deal with this problem is to make it easier for guest workers to come here, preferably for short stints, funded by their employers. That way, people wouldn’t have to deal with unscrupulous people smugglers in order to get the chance to work here. I take it there is currently no 457 visa for sex work?

Jade (the other one) says:

09:45am | 12/10/11

@ConservativesUnite - You’re kidding right?! The far right, and particularly Christian far right frequently refers to abortion as genocide, or worse and more insidiously, Holocaust, and euthanasia in similarly sensationalist terms.

I don’t necessarily agree with the use of progressivesunite’s terminology, but please, at least be realistic and acknowledge that the faults of sensationalist language to get one’s point across fall on both sides.

@Erick. You are suggesting that the men who use the services of these women should not have any concern for whether they are there willingly and legally? Really? And then have the audacity to claim that you don’t really hate women? The gender of the person running the thing shouldn’t matter. What does matter is that there are young women being victimised, and men who don’t care so long as they get their rocks off.

I believe quite strongly that some men are probably simply ignorant of the pervasive nature of this problem, and to characterise all men as simply animals with no regard for the women involved (as you so eloquently manage to do), but that is where education of men is so important. Educate men about the possibility that the Asian hooker ready to fulfil their every fantasy may not be as willing and enthusiastic as she seems, and I believe that many men will begin to question their choices more deeply, and demand more stringent levels of proof that the women that they receive services from are willing, consenting participants in this industry.

But I clearly have a higher opinion of men than you do Erick.

Tina says:

10:25am | 12/10/11

@ Conservatives Unite

I am not sure about your comment on women coming here to work in the industry willingly. Sure they come here for that purpose. But I wonder how many would really want a different job. They do it “willingly” because they know they dont have any qualifications, dont speak the language and its the only way they can send money to their families.

Erick says:

10:56am | 12/10/11

Sigh. I do wish people would learn to read before commenting.

The whole point of the original article was that slavery involves far more than the sex trade, and both men and women are victims.

Like a typical feminist bigot, progressivesunite ignored the main message, and immediately started bashing men. Not just the tiny minority of men who might actually have encountered a sex slave, but ALL men.

Hateful sexist attitudes like this encourage similar responses. Obviously PU doesn’t give a toss about men who are exploited as slave labour. Why, then, shouldn’t men have the same attitude - and not give a toss about women?

jade (the other one) says:

11:26am | 12/10/11

@Erick, the impression I got was that PU was “bashing” the men who purchase women in brothels. While I don’t necessarily agree with her sentiments regarding those men (I do think that many are simply ignorant of the possibility of trafficking, rather than apathetic), her advice is sound.

Men should absolutely question the credentials of the prostitute serving them. They should make sure that she is a willing, able, and adult participant.

It is possible, Erick, that PU simply has more knowledge of, and therefore more emotional attachment to, the sex slavery trade than other forms of trafficking. It could be that she views this as an opportunity to educate people about this issue. It could be that you are right and she doesn’t care. But until PU herself speaks on the issue, I think you are unjust in condemning her as compassionless to the men who are victimised in other trades.

St. Michael says:

11:51am | 12/10/11

“Men should absolutely question the credentials of the prostitute serving them. They should make sure that she is a willing, able, and adult participant.”

Why?

You don’t ask how much your cleaner is being paid or whether they’re working off a “migration fee”, and nobody is suggesting customers of cleaners ought to be Fair Work Inspectors on their own time.  And, as the original article was trying to point out, there’s as much slavery going on in the hospitality and cleaning industries as there is the sex industry.

progressivesunite says:

01:26pm | 12/10/11

Jade and Erick - Jade got it in a nutshell (I know a lot more about the sex industry than other industries - just like some people know more about the construction industry than the car industry for eg - so that’s what I tend to comment/focus on). Just because I didn’t mention other types of abuse, doesn’t mean I don’t think they exist/care. They’re just not my area…(just like a cardiologist might not comment on something to do with kidneys, but it doesn’t mean he hates kidney patients…)

St Michael - people should be concerned about people who do work for them, including cleaners etc. What is so bad about having some basic human empathy for someone and checking you’re not exploiting them, especially if the “services” they’re providing are as intimate as sex?? Sex workers are people…..even if men who “purchase” them don’t think so.

And Erick - it’s not just the “tiny minority” of men who’ve encountered a rape-slave, it’s all men who go to brothels who matter here - they ALL should have some basic human empathy for the women and not see their precious appendage getting “serviced” as more important than a woman’s life…

jade (the other one) says:

01:39pm | 12/10/11

@St Michael, you are really comparing forced sex, including gang rape (which is what many trafficked women are subjected to as part of their training in brothels) to the situation of a cleaner? While I don’t personally have a cleaner (I prefer to be responsible for my own mess - ever since I was 5), I would absolutely check that the company she or he worked for was “on the level”. I would hope that I would employ someone from a reputable company where I could have some level of assurance that she was being paid appropriately for her work, and had the appropriate conditions required by the government. Even if that meant paying a few dollars more.

The problem is those who generally would employ someone to clean for them, generally want someone cheap. They don’t question too closely how the price reduction occurs, because they know. They just want to pretend that “that can’t happen here”.

As for confirming that the prostitute in question is at least adult - you really think that this shouldn’t be a priority for someone having sex? It shouldn’t be a priority for people to confirm ever that the person that they are about to have sex with is of age? Willing and able participants are perhaps another matter, but I imagine that if a woman is bruised and battered, and clearly hesitant to engage with you that perhaps you might seek the services at another establishment.

I am hardly suggesting that men need to be mind readers. But if the premises are illegal, dirty, and the women appear to be mistreated, the least a man can do surely, is take his money elsewhere. Surely any man would rather pay more for the greatly improved probability that the girl he is obtaining the services of is not being exploited or forced against her will in any way, than run the risk that he is adding to the trauma and hardship of a frightened, abused woman?

But again, I see I think too much of men in general, if you and Erick are to be believed.

St. Michael says:

02:37pm | 12/10/11

@ PU: “St Michael - people should be concerned about people who do work for them, including cleaners etc. What is so bad about having some basic human empathy for someone and checking you’re not exploiting them, especially if the “services” they’re providing are as intimate as sex?? Sex workers are people…..even if men who “purchase” them don’t think so.”

I have a little more regard for a person’s human dignity and their own capacity to take responsibility for their own actions and own situation than to patronisingly assume they’re being exploited merely because they’re not working in the same job I am.

I *did* have the same attitude as you, until I asked a small, frail-looking Asian cleaner whether her boss was paying her properly.  To which her reply was: “Piss off, mind your own business, and let me to get on with the job.”

You might try it some time.

Sex workers are people, too.  And as Vivica Delicious and various escorts replying to her have said, being people, they generally do their jobs out of free choice and usually do it for the money.  They also don’t get any more emotional about the act or the transaction than any bloke who goes to them does, which is what you seem to be White Knighting.

Your persistent image of the majority of sex workers as distressed damsel hookers is out of whack with how the real world operates, but then that seems to be consistent with a number of your world views from what I’ve seen thus far.

@ Jade: “Surely any man would rather pay more for the greatly improved probability that the girl he is obtaining the services of is not being exploited or forced against her will in any way, than run the risk that he is adding to the trauma and hardship of a frightened, abused woman?”

(a) Safety of the escort and the client alike is already a part of the price of brothel services or independent “housed” escorts.
(b) As Luscious Loni said in another thread, prostitutes themselves tend to police against underage escorts because the underage escorts tend to compete unfairly.
(c) Odds are on you wouldn’t get an honest answer (or even an answer at all) if you did find yourself in a situation as you describe anyway, whether it’s because the girl is intimidated, ashamed, or because you’ve got the wrong idea.

jade (the other one) says:

03:48pm | 12/10/11

@St Michael. Naturally, if you go to a legal brothel, the chances that the women working there are being exploited are much, much less than if you take a street worker with a pimp lurking in the background home, or go to an illegal brothel because the prices are much cheaper, and the acts you can engage in are more liberal. Naturally, there are still women exploited in legal brothels. All I am suggesting is that men who are the least bit concerned about the women whose services they engage would, I imagine be far more likely to go to a legal brothel. And I imagine that many of the men who choose not to, either want to participate in acts that are illegal, or are too cheap to pay for the somewhat more exorbitant rates.

Is it really too much to ask that a man, or a woman, seeking the services of a prostitute, use the legal methods. I mean, isn’t that why brothels were legalised in the first place?

Luscious Lani, I imagine, works in a legal brothel. Therefore, her perspective regarding potential exploitation in the industry is somewhat skewed towards a positive perspective. I do find it telling though, that she cannot bring herself to acknowledge that exploitation does occur in unregulated brothels, which is where the majority of trafficked and underage women and girls work.

I am by no means suggesting that men interrogate the women that they have sex with in brothels. Merely that they attend the brothels that were made legal for them in the first place. Similarly, I would hope that people employing cleaners and the like are doing so from reputable agencies or checking the background of the people that they employ to some degree.

I would imagine that any decent man who entered an illegal brothel for the purposes of sex, and saw a bruised and battered or clearly unwell woman would not proceed to have sex with her anyway, and would anonymously report the occurence. I would hope that with the legalisation of prostitution, that men would not be frequenting illegal brothels in the first place to be honest.

jade (the other one) says:

03:50pm | 12/10/11

I’m greatly surprised to hear that, honestly. To be fair, I do tend to hang out in political forums where only the extremes of left and right have a voice, so my experience is probably not particularly representative.

AFR says:

03:28pm | 12/10/11

A lot of them are here on student visas - Now THAT is a rort. They enrol in some dodgy course they barely attend or understand, and can legally work up to 20 hours a week (although the reality is often a lot more)

AFR says:

03:34pm | 12/10/11

Unfortunately in Asian culture “face” and denial override any thought of equity and decency. I was telling a chinese friend about the 4 corners story, and she said it must all be untrue as there is noway this would happen in her home country. Hell propstitution is technically illegal in most of Asia.

Tina says:

01:21pm | 12/10/11

Although there are a lot of overstayers who end up as kitchen hand in some restaurant of a distant family member that managed to get a proper visa. Of course, as overstayer you are already very dependent and vulnerable.

marley says:

01:58pm | 12/10/11

@Tina - I strongly suspect that the majority of overstayers, at least from China, got their visas courtesy of a snakehead back in China with connections here.  The visa may be genuine, but issued based on false information.  Once here, the worker is effectively indentured labour until he pays off his family’s debt to the snakehead.  That can take years. 

The methods for getting people here, whether to work in the sex trade or in construction or vineyards or whatever, are pretty much the same.  It’s all organized crime, whether that’s Russian Mafiya or Chinese triads or anything in between.

St. Michael says:

01:03pm | 12/10/11

Hasn’t done so anywhere it’s been tried.  Grow up, for Christ’s sake.

AFR says:

03:30pm | 12/10/11

Well, at the very least, the sentences are appalling. In the 4 corners story, the ringleaders who trafficked hundred of women around the world were given relative slaps on the wrist.

jade (the other one) says:

09:41am | 13/10/11

Wow…I must be pretty high on your radar. I should point out to you that I was echoing the words of another contributor, Luscious Lani, who first used the words “purchase”. You might note that the rest of my language was in fact very carefully chosen to acknowledge that it is services that are being purchased, not people. You should have called out ProgressivesUnite as well. But I suppose, when someone mentions you by name and suggests that your perspective is biased, you would get all defensive. Kinda cute really.

I don’t know where I doubted your autonomy. Not being a customer of the sex trade, I assume that people work in brothels, like most people work in companies. I’m not au fait with the ins and outs of how it all works, so pardon my ignorance. My statements were intended to show that as someone working legally in the industry, your contact with those working illegally (and therefore most likely to exploit or be exploited) would be less than if you were working illegally. Therefore, if you are basing your opinions on exploitation on your experiences, your basis for argument is flawed from the outset.

Though in the case of trafficked people, I believe that the line is far more blurred. Your suggestion at the end, is the only one I have been trying to make.

Luscious Lani says:

10:44am | 13/10/11

@Jade

“kinda cute”??

Are you aware of how condescending you sound?

This is my point, right here. You know nothing of my life, you know very little about the industry, and yet you seem to feel right at home making sweeping blanket statements about why you don’t have to take my points on board - for example your incorrect assumption that I have always worked legally and have never been exploited, therefore, any of my points are moot.

Talk to me, ask me questions. I have actual real life experience in this area, which you have admitted you do not. At the very least, do your homework before you start blaring your opinions about things you know very little about.

I picked out you in particular because you didn’t respond to any of my points in the comments on Vivaca’s article, but feel its ok to name me and make assumptions about me in the comments on this article….

It is a classical rad fem move - talk about me, not to me, because I am not entitled to an opinion, I’m a voiceless victim, right? You have to save me, right? I can’t possibly be an adult who is capable of assessing the situation for myself…  You can see how assumptions like this would be offensive to any intelligent, autonomous human being, am I right? Can we agree on that?

At least we’re talking now. And we have something we agree on. Trafficked labour is not cool.
I’d like to agree on the following points as well -  Exploitation happens in legal and illegal jobs. Sex work is not inherently exploitative. It would be a great start towards a better understanding of the realities of the industry, as opposed to recognised stigma and assumptions about the industry.

Lani xx

Ps - Luscious Lani is my business name. You can google it if you want to learn more about me and my role in the industry. For the purposes of conversation, I prefer to be called Lani. Thanks

jade (the other one) says:

01:05pm | 13/10/11

@Lani,

Again, I responded to another contributor who brought up your name. I was not the first to bring it up, and chose to respond to them, with my thoughts. You seem to have a specific problem with me though, not sure why.

You have stated that you work legally, and have never previously indicated that you worked illegally. You also downplay rather significantly in my opinion, the risk of exploitation for young women who are not as educated or advantaged as you. The only “exploitation” you have ever raised is the difficulty of being the youngest member of a brothel, and the ill treatment by your fellow prostitutes. This is just as likely to happen to waitresses at a cafe, as in a brothel. You also frequently (and rather shrilly), decry anyone who dares to suggest that there are a significant minority of women being exploited in the sex trade, and that this should be an area of concern, without providing any evidence more compelling than your own experience. This led me (apparently erroneously), that you did not have experience of exploitation, and therefore were making gross assumptions about the likelihood of exploitation for those not as fortunate as you.

I do not, and have never doubted, the veracity of your own, or Vivica Delicious’s personal choice to work in the sex industry, or as a fetish model, as being that of an independent, educated woman, who is capable and free to make her own choices. I take issue with the assumption that because the two of you are educated and privileged enough to be able to make those choices, that there is not a significant minority of women in the industry who do not have that same choice. I take issue with the fact that when the problems encountered by THESE women (and men) are discussed, you seem to view it as a personal attack on yourself, and counter with your own experience.

Sex work, like any other job, is not inherently exploitative. However, because of the stigma and shame that society attaches to both workers and customers, workers in that industry are at far greater risk of exploitation than in other industries.

I admit quite freely that I know very little about the industry. But I do know significantly more about human trafficking. The Trafficking in Persons Report 2011 issued by the US State Department identified Australia as a destination country for women trafficked for the purposes of prostitution, primarily from South East Asia. It was also noted that we have significant problems with the exploitation of teenage Indigenous girls being exploited in remote communities by truck drivers and other workers.

I have never called you a victim, or implied that you were anything other than empowered to make your own choices. My only issue is with the trivialising of serious problems within your own industry regarding the potential exploitation of workers. I don’t think you need saving - I think you need to help save those who are not in your industry or any other by choice. I think we all need to help save those who are trafficked to work in slavery.

Luscious Lani says:

02:07pm | 13/10/11

Ok… I can see where you are coming from, but you are making even more assumptions about me. You assume I am educated, rather than self taught, for example.

For the record, I didn’t get my HSC. I was expelled during the trial exams. I do however have a lot of books. I also have internet access and a dictionary. Those are a good start, but they don’t add up to an educated background.

You assume that i am privileged, perhaps meaning that I come from a middle class or above background. Again, a mistaken assumption that is not even close to the truth. I come from a very working class family - as someone who was expelled during the trial HSC, I am still the most educated member of my extended family.

It’s your assumptions that bother me. I haven’t extended any assumptions about you - it would be insulting for me to do so without any knowledge of you other than what you have posted here - I am sure there is much more to your life experiences than these comments indicate.

I have experienced exploitation in the form of being refused urgent medical attention because a client was waiting to see me. I had a burn on my wrist at the time that looked like a cheese pizza - all melty and red and dripping.

Does this satisfy “exploitation” in your view?I was referring to this incident and another similar incident when I said i had experience with exploitation in legal brothels. 

Please feel free to question me for further information if what I have said doesn’t add up for you. Please don’t assume. It’s a very efficient way of coming up with the wrong ideas in my experience.

Lani xx

jade (the other one) says:

03:03pm | 13/10/11

@Lani, I assume that you are educated, because you are, even with being expelled, by virtue of being in this country, more educated than most of the world. I also don’t distinguish between self-directed education, and formal education. Therefore, I don’t feel I have made assumptions about you. Your written expression demonstrates your level of education (whether that be through formal, or informal channels) as very high.

Furthermore, you are privileged because you live in this country, and are relatively free to make your own choices. In comparison to the people residing in the countries people are trafficked from, you are extremely privileged. You also have rights conferred on you by virtue of your citizenship. You are also free to leave your employment at any time, and have the protection of the Fair Work Act and other government protections. Therefore, you are privileged above many in this world.

In the example of what you perceive as exploitation, were you forced physically to remain and see your client? Were you threatened with retribution or punishment beyond losing your job if you left? Were you aware that you had protections under the Fair Work or similar acts, which would prevent your employer from firing you if you walked out (obviously this is assuming that you are working in a legal brothel)? Were you made to feel in any way by your employers that you couldn’t physically leave? If so, yes I would likely class that as exploitation. If not, then I would suggest you suffered bad working conditions, but perhaps not to the extreme of exploitation.

luscious Lani says:

01:04pm | 13/10/11

My only experience with trafficked labour was the story I shared above, regarding agricultural workers in the Hunter Valley.

I agree that the discussion needs to focus more on people who need support to leave indentured labour in situations it actually exists, rather than creating panic about sex slavery, which is very rare in Australia despite public opinion to the contrary.

Lani xx

AFR says:

03:29pm | 12/10/11

You do realise prostitution is completely legal in most states and territories?

stephen says:

06:10pm | 12/10/11

Mate i don’t know how many pick-ups I’ve had at the laundrymat, all for the price of 20 minutes at the drier.
It’s cheap, legal, and yer get yer clothes cleaned at the same time.

AFR says:

07:29pm | 12/10/11

stephen, i would have thought most chicks wouldn’t go for a laundromat aproach as they would assume you’re too poor to own a washing machine?

BK says:

08:36pm | 12/10/11

@Taxpayer: This is just not true. Applying for a Witness Protection (Trafficking) Visa relies on support from the AFP. You don’t get this support if you’ve ‘made up’ a claim to ‘avoid deportation.’ You get it if you’ve assisted the AFP in an investigation/prosecution in relation to trafficking/slavery and you will genuinely be in danger if you have to return to your home country.