Please use your browser's return button to go back to previous pages. You are visiting ISWFACE- the International Sex Worker Foundation for Art, Culture and Education www.iswface.org

From Eddie Tabash, attorney for ISWFACE:

I would insert the following three paragraphs before the last paragraph. The current Czech government is very concerned about church/state issues.

"Religious freedom is the most important component of civilization's ascent from the Dark Ages. However, to be truly valid, religious freedom must equally include the freedom from religion, as well as the freedom of religion. The non believer must be equal before the law. Government should be neutral in matters of religious belief. Unfortunately, here in the United States, and in its outreach to the world, the Southern Baptist Convention is committed to harnessing the police power of the state in the service of forcibly compelling otherwise free people to conduct their lives in accordance with the Convention's religious beliefs.

Whether it involves the rights of women to control their bodies in matters of birth control or abortion, are the rights of homosexuals to live without punishment from the state, the Southern Baptist Convention has failed to recognize the difference between its religious views and what the laws of nations should reflect. The Convention, if it could, would hurl the world back into the horrors of antiquity, in which the state would become the enforcement mechanism for religious powers.

Thus, the Convention wants to deny freedom from persecution to sex workers primarily because of the Convention's religious views. Your great nation, after suffering the Nazi invasion and then the stifling strictures of communist dictatorship, does not need to suffer having your public policy dictated by religious fascists. The arguments of the Southern Baptist Convention should be rejected."

From Norma Jean:

I agree that this is an important issue, but in order to be as concise as possible, we might want to keep to the issues presented by the SBC- and even though clearly their position stems from their religious beliefs, the arguments they present (if you want to call any of their subjective, irrational assertions "arguments") need to be addressed without pointing fingers at the religious implications we know are there. That's not to say that other groups or organizations can't write letters which examine the issues in Eddie's comments- probably from organizations which focus on the separation of church and state issues. In fact, I think other organizations which are affiliated with the separation of church and state ought to draft a letter to send to their members/ mailing list to be sent to the Czech Republic in addition to ours. Eddie, can you talk them into writing such a letter?

From Maxine:

My comments are directed mostly to the first paragraph in you response letter as it equates legalization with decriminalization therefore perpetuating the myth that decrim would result in the same undesirable consequences as legalization. I think that it would behoove those of us who care enough to respond to help educate the ignorant about the differences and why is decrim is preferred over legalization.

Recently, I watched Melissa Farley publicly conceding that decrim was desirable over legalization. Also, Mary Sullivan, from the University of Melbourne, gave a talk recently here on what wasn't working for the legalized workers in Victoria Australia. It seems clear to me that the countries that have legalized before decrim have missed the important step to give the most important thing to workers, which is agency, so as to be able to lobby for their own occupational rights and decide what form that should be first and foremost. I seems that politics makes for strange bedfellows as groups like ours, the 'do gooder' feminist and the fundamentalists Christians have common ground on being decrim now and legalization later.

Maxine

From Norma Jean:

Since the letter from the SBC indicates the Czech Republic's interest in legalization, we used the terms they used.... and then go on to discuss issue of decrim- and that the legal efforts in The Netherlands have resulted in problems- and of course that we support a fully decriminalized system. We hope that by interjecting this option that they will consider decriminalization rather than legalization. It is possible that decrim is what they are considering- if any one knows for sure, please let us know and we will amend the letter accordingly.

From Veronica Monet:

I wish to add my name to your response letter with one caveat. I agree with Maxine that it is VITAL to make the distinction between legalization as it is practiced around the world presently and decriminalization as the sex worker rights movement envisions it. Legalization can look like slavery in many ways. By validating that fear, we can gain more momentum and power as a movement while keeping focused on our ultimate objectives without compromise! There is nothing so powerful as absorbing and even incorporating that which is correct about the opposition's rhetoric. Specific to this matter, I think legalization is often a governmental cover for increasing tax dollars without making a single stride in the direction of increased safety or autonomy for the sex workers who generate that income. By validating that and insisting on decrim, we will gain allies in many sectors of society as is being demonstrated so aptly by SWOP-USA. As Maxine states, "politics makes for strange bedfellows as groups like ours, the 'do gooder' feminist and the fundamentalists Christians have common ground on being decrim now." She is right and this is only good news for our quest to improve the lives of sex workers and women in general. I recommend that we validate the fears of the Southern Baptist Convention and point the way to solving the problems they detail by implementing decriminalization. This in my opinion, is a more powerful way to take the wind out of their sails.

From Norma Jean:

To make this distinction and not to add many more lines of text to our already lengthy letter, I have added the following three words " Rather than legalization" in the sentence "By closely examining the arguments made in the Southern Baptist Convention letter, we hope to show that not only is decriminalization (rather than legalization) the right and moral thing to do, but that many of their arguments should actually be taken as reasons to support the complete decriminalization of prostitution."

I think that the rest of the letter makes it clear that we do not want new laws or special laws which regulate sex workers- and that we believe that this alternative rather than legalization addresses the fears of the SBC and others.

From Veronica Monet:

I DID read the letter in its entirety. My impression was still similar to Maxine's, in that I thought the first paragraph made NO distinction between legalization and decriminalization. I have such strong feelings against legalization because I do NOT believe that it will ever lead to decriminalization. In other words, I don't see it as a partial step forward. Instead, I fear that big business and big government will become so entrenched in the sex industry, that they will maintain control over it in perpetuity, thereby locking in the subjugation and oppression of the women who work for them. This is similar to what has happened to strip clubs and the adult video industry. The men who are in power are so wealthy and powerful that no new laws can be passed in favor of their employees.

That said, I still feel that you bring home the importance of decriminalization in the last two paragraphs of the letter and of course I want to support YOU in anyway I can. So by all means please DO add my name to the letter. But if you can find a little stronger wording for the first paragraph to highlight the important differences between empowering workers and giving government the green light to pimp, that would be wonderful too.

From Norma Jean:

I agree that once legalized, decriminalization is almost impossible to achieve. And of course, we support decrim and not legalization. What we are saying in the first paragraph is that we have learned that the Czech Republic is considering legalization (as far as I know that's what they are considering) and we merely reflected the information in the Southern Baptist Convention letter. And we are very pleased to learn that they are considering an alternative to continued criminalization. At some point we had to consider the letter finished so we could send it out for signatures. Under ideal circumstances, we would have had more discussion on the letter, but time forced us to get it done and agree that it was done and that we included all the elements we wanted and made it clear we supported decriminalization.

I encourage people to write to the Czech Republic leaders individually and share your concerns with them. I will send the addresses we have for the CR leaders to anyone who inquires.

Conference: PROSTITUTION AND THE EFFECTS OF REGULATION

When: May 31, 2004, 2:00 - 5:00pm, Parliament

Monitoring prostitution in border regions, Dr. Zdislava Majeráková, EMPS work group

The types of problems associated with legalized prostitution Dr. Roman Joch, Citizens Institute

Experience with legalized prostitution in Austria, Prof. Friedrich Romig, University of Vienna

The Swedish experience combating prostitution and trafficking - policy and legislative Gunilla S. Ekberg, Division for Gender Equality, Sweden

Towards an abolitionist approach to trafficking and prostitution Prof. Donna Hughes, University of Rhode Island, USA