Credit: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

It is no secret that the sex trade is riven with misogyny. The multibillion-dollar trade is built on the pain and oppression of women and girls. Yet many on the liberal Left support this abusive industry. Even the fact that black, brown and indigenous women and girls are first in line to be bought and sold into prostitution appears not to disturb these apologists. How come? On any other BME related issue they would be screaming from the roof tops, but perhaps the male defence of prostitution overrides even the racism that helps prop it up?
It was with this in mind that SPACE International, set up by Irish sex trade survivors who believe that prostitution is a cause and consequence of women’s oppression, organised the world’s first conference exploring racism in the sex trade.
‘Women of Colour against the Sex Trade’, held in London’s Conway Hall was a sell-out event, attended by women (and a smattering of men) of all ages and ethnicities. As one of the organisers I was mindful of the risk of protest. Not, as you might think, by thuggish racists, or pimps protecting their business model, but from self-identified ‘progressives’ such as the International Union of Sex Workers, one of the many fake “sex worker’s rights” unions. Thankfully, the protesters did not turn up, as they did at my book launch in 2017 – trying to shut down the voices of black and brown sex trade survivors is rarely a good look.
Nevertheless, the fashionable, ‘woke’ position taken by many white, middle-class students and other young people is “sex work is work”. According to this ideology, to be anti-prostitution is to practise “White Feminism”.
How can feminists support an industry which is, in the main, controlled by rich, powerful men? One that relies on exploitation of the poorest, most disenfranchised women and girls, in particular from developing and war-torn countries, to maintain its flow. In wealthy countries such as the UK, demand for prostitution leads to women and girls being trafficked in from South East Asia, West Africa, and Eastern Europe. How can the Left claim to be all for liberating oppressed peoples and yet support the most exploitative industry on the planet?
At Conway Hall the atmosphere was electric as the speakers explained with passion and honesty why the sex trade has to be shut down. More than half of the speakers had escaped prostitution, and the others supported women and girls caught up in sexual exploitation.
Ne’cole Daniels, an African-American sex trade survivor who works with at-risk women and girls in California told the rapt audience: “The sex trade is built on racism. Black women are paid less [than their white counterparts], and treated even worse.”
Bridget Perrier is a Native Canadian activist who was pimped into prostitution aged 12. Eventually, after years of abuse and degradation, Perrier escaped, going on to set up the feminist abolitionist organisation Sex Trade 101. Perrier recounted how, during a previous debate, a member of the pro-prostitution lobby group the English Collective of Prostitutes, accused her of having “blood on her hands” because she campaigns to introduce laws that criminalise the men who pay for sex.
The ECP argue that going after the punters means the men will be more nervous and potentially more violent. But countries that have introduced this law have found the opposite to be true – men are deterred, and women are able to be supported by police if they encounter a dodgy buyer because she is no longer seen as the criminal, he is.
At Conway Hall, Perrier spoke of how she is raising the daughter of one of the victims of the serial killer Robert Pickton, a Canadian farmer convicted of murdering 69 indigenous prostituted women. “It’s not stigma that kills our women, or laws,” she almost shouted, “it’s the men who buy us.”
When legalisation of the sex trade is so lauded by the woke crowd, hearing from the likes of the anti-trafficking activist Roëlla Lieveld is crucial. The founder of Share Network, an organisation based in Amsterdam that campaigns against trafficking and the sex trade, Lieveld says that the majority of prostituted women displayed like meat in the windows of Amsterdam’s brothels are from Romania and West Africa. There are so few Dutch-born women selling sex that pimps put stickers with the Dutch flag or “NL” (Netherlands) in the window for advertising purposes.
Vednita Carter, an African-American sex-trade abolitionist who in 1996 set up Breaking Free, a support service for women and girls in prostitution in Minneapolis. “Black women are at the bottom of society’s barrel,” Carter told Conway Hall. “If you refuse to stand with us to condemn prostitution, you can no longer say, ‘Sisterhood is powerful’. You would be betraying us if you support the buying and selling of the bodies of black women and girls.” The white, Leftists supporting campaigns such as Black Lives Matter need to have a think about the lives of the black women being exploited in the sex trade.
Suzanne Jay, of the Asian Women for Equality Society, described the history of male exploitation of women of colour. “US soldiers in the Philippines described the women they exploited as ‘little brown fucking machines’.” Jay spoke of the “comfort women system”, an abhorrent Japanese practice of keeping women under conditions of sexual slavery for use by army troops. The practice began prior to the Second World War and lasted well over 15 years and the countries in which it operated spanned the breadth of Japan’s wartime empire in the Asia-Pacific region. The US military even re-enacted the system during the post-war years when it occupied Japan.
And sexual exploitation in developing countries by military personnel continues today – among UN peacekeepers the issue is endemic and routine. Prostitution is built on inequality, and there is nothing as stark as the power imbalance between impoverished women of colour in developing countries, and the white male saviours supposedly there to help. Some punters I have interviewed have even had the nerve to tell me that paying desperately poor women for sex is an act of kindness, because at least they get to eat.
In the words of the Irish sex-trade survivor Rachel Moran, in response to the head of Human Rights Watch who was suggesting that “sex work” is better than going hungry: “Wouldn’t you say, if a person cannot afford to feed herself, the appropriate thing to put in their mouth is food, not your cock?” Those woke men and women who embrace the view that prostitution is “sex work”, and a genuine choice for women, should think about Moran’s words.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMaybe time to ask the question that has frequently been asked recently – who is running the US?
Yes and of course the glib answer is global elites who seemed to be completely in control of the last election. If so they went too far as the recent event has demonstrated.
…The irony is that on the principle that “diversity is our (human) strength”, a strong foil to the self appointed Empire of the Rules Based World Order is needed.
Glib is the word! There are no ‘global elites’, if by that you mean a cabal of people running everything according to some grand plan.
The US is run by the Washington Elite, The EU is run from The Elysse through two Parliaments in Mastrick and Brussels.
Revolting by Mick Hume is a good read.ISBN 978-0-00-822082-2
I’m not sure what these pithy one-liners actually mean, if anything. Every known society of any size since settled agricultural polities were set up thousands of years ago has had an elite: the landowners, the priesthood, the rich, the better educated etc. etc. Plato made a specific virtue of it in his writings. ‘Aristocracy’ – rule by ‘the best’.
The spelling is Maastricht; there is no parliament or assembly there, though there was a treaty signed there. You could bother to get those basic facts right.
You may have noticed that there are actually elections in the US with a real choice for the electorate. The EU is a different case, but hides its ambitions in plain sight (‘ever closer union’ in the 1960 Treaty of Rome for a start) so there never was any excuse for the UK to not understand the political project it joined in 1973. This conspiratorial stuff is just so much guff. If the people who want legitimate change in western countries, of which I am one, choose to carry on down these rabbit holes, they will have less and less influence while events pass them by.
David Starkey’s suggestion is that we might end up with a euro/North American block, a russo-chinese block and a non aligned block including India and part of South America, a la Orwell. Plausible I suppose – what else ?
That seems like a reasonable guess. The problem is there are now too many moving pieces. What will the fate of Russia be? How will China try to benefit from this situation? What will be the effects on the developing world of possible food shortages due to loss of Ukrainian grain production? What will be the effects in the West of loss of Russian oil and gas on the Green Agenda. The issues go on and on.
We do seem to be witnessing the end of globalization, though, and the end of the notion that nation states don’t matter or that national identity doesn’t matter. I only hope the recent dose of realpolitik, courtesy of Putin, kills the ‘progressive’ cancer that has consumed the West for so long.
Yes I think the myth of the apocryphal ‘rules-based International world order’ is well on its way out
Agreed. Like the blocs in Orwell’s 1984.
Is that such a bad thing? Why fight it?
I never claimed it was a bad thing. Indeed it would be good thing not to have an, inevitably tyrannical, global government. We absolutely need diverse ways of organising society so we can learn from each others failings.
I think this underestimates the difficulty of actually creating a united states of anything. The most recent example, the EU, is a hopeless failure in terms of global power, the USSR collapsed after 70 years of oppression, and the two successful examples I can think of – the USA and the UK – achieved their respective unions only after wars and then a hard-won peace. And those have the advantage of being democracies where the creation of the unions in question possessed the consent of the peoples involved (well eventually, anyway).
A united states of Eurasia will be much more like the USSR than the USA. That’s not to say that such a thing isn’t worth worrying about – it could be very powerful and dangerous. But will we see millions of Europeans desperately trying to get into it because it’s a better place to be? Not a chance.
The world does seem like it is descending into two camps, both requiring walls to be built. One to keep its people in and the other to keep other people out. (Someone please inform AOC of the difference)
I have a better idea – put her behind the wall that she can’t escape from.
Looks like then, that Russia and Kazakstan are going to be a lot more equal in power than in previous centuries.
Interesting article. What disappoints me, in the article and the comments, is the lack of consideration of (for me) the best outcome of the Russo-Ukraine war. That would be an agreed peace, involving a neutral Ukraine, protections of both Ukrainian and Russian-culture people in the territories in and around Ukraine, and rapid restoration of free commercial and cultural links between Russia and the rest of Europe. Future peace, and the stronger democracy likely given peace, would be good for all of us.