Last Friday, Titania Kumeh wrote an excellent blog post at Mother Jones about the International AIDS Conference in Vienna, and the over 100 sex workers and advocates who protested outside. The protest was about how U.S. funding to fight HIV transmission explicitly and deliberately excludes sex workers, even though they are one of the groups most vulnerable to becoming infected and transmitting the virus to others.

The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) requires that funds do not go to sex workers or those who work with sex workers, and has done so for years. In fact, it recently came up in a post that I wrote about police abuse against sex workers in Cambodia. But while the situation is nothing new, it is discussed far too little, and needs to be highlighted whenever an opportunity presents itself. Because it’s killing people.

Back in 2003, Congress mandated that in order for any group or organization to get US global HIV/AIDS funds, it must have “a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.” (See: Sex, American Style). The 2008 PEPFAR fact sheet states “prostitution and sex trafficking are abusive and dehumanizing to women, and they fuel the spread of HIV.” It’s not clear whether former-President Bush—who implemented PEPFAR and its anti-prostitution pledge—recognized the difference between sex trafficking and prostitution, spoke to any sex worker-run organizations that combat exploitation, or spoke to groups that seek HIV preventative care and battle sex trafficking. The anti-sex worker, anti-trafficking pledge left sex worker organizations—which incidentally work with one of the most at-risk populations for HIV (PDF)—out in the cold.

“We need HIV treatment but we don’t need the mandate that sex workers are excluded,” says Pisey Ly of Cambodia’s Women’s Network for Unity (WNU), a sex worker advocate organization. When WNU applied for US HIV prevention funds, it was denied and told to drop its sex worker status, Ly says. It refused. “The original idea behind WNU was to be an independent sex worker organization, to provide sex workers with ownership and leadership to speak about the issues that effect their lives,” Ly says. Because of PEPFAR’s anti-prostitution policy, Ly says, many donors and NGOs that once worked with Cambodian sex workers have abandoned them for fear of losing their US funding.

Meanwhile, unprotected intercourse between sex workers and clients is the main cause of new HIV infections in Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Really, you should go read the whole post. I wholeheartedly mean that — quoting as much of Kumeh’s text as I would like to would genuinely constitute copyright infringement.

What it comes down to though, is this: U.S. policy is not only failing to help sex workers, it’s actively harming them. Through requiring that any group oppose sex work in order to receiving funding, we’re not just failing to provide funding to those who already didn’t have it and leaving them where they started — though when the situation is so dire, that would be unconscionable on its own. No, we’re ensuring that organizations that previously worked with sex workers and trafficking victims, providing them with information, resources, and care that they needed, no longer will. Because they can’t keep working with sex workers and trafficking victims and afford to stay open.

It’s very similar to the Global Gag Rule. It’s probably just as deadly, if not more so. And it deserves every damn bit as much attention from feminists and other people who care about women’s rights and welfare.

The PEPFAR policy is blatantly misogynistic and sex worker-phobic. It makes sense that organizations should be anti-trafficking in order to receive funds — kidnappers and rapists don’t need anymore money than they already have — but it certainly doesn’t make sense to say that organizations can’t even assist trafficking victims as a part of their work, as such victims are usually among those who most need assistance. To further extend anti-trafficking sentiment to anti-sex worker sentiment is to conflate two issues, and obscure them both. And to deny funding and services to sex workers because they are at particular risk for contracting and transmitting HIV is more than counter-intuitive, it’s downright nonsensical. No — it’s malicious.

I would go so far as to say (and do not doubt that I am not the first) that such a denial of funds constitutes a direct act of violence. With a vast majority of sex workers being women, it constitutes an act of misogynistic, gender-based violence. With sex workers also being disproportionately women of color, trans*, and/or non-straight men,  it further constitutes an act of racist, transphobic, and homophobic violence. And when the U.S. has such great financial power over those who are most vulnerable to it, the label of colonialist violence also applies. We know that when sex workers don’t have access to condoms and information about how HIV is transmitted and prevented, they die. And yet, we continue as though we’re not killing them, or as though their deaths do not matter.

I greatly resent the notion that PEPFAR’s anti-sex work rule has anything to do with “protecting” women. The paternalistic notion that sex work is inherently “dehumanizing to women” isn’t based on a concern for women’s health and well-being. If anyone was concerned about that, the rule wouldn’t exist. The rule is about shaming and punishing those women who step outside of society’s bounds, whether through choice or coercion or force, of what a proper woman acts like. The rule is about appeasing the concerns of religious groups and middle-class moralists and generally taking out society’s hateful, misogynistic disgust at sex workers at those who can be harmed the most. It’s about taking power and abusing it in the worst way possible, just because we can.

Just because we can, and because we can simultaneously tell ourselves that by doing so, we’re doing something good.

And until the rules regarding access to U.S. anti-HIV funding are changed, it’s just yet more blood on the nation’s hands.

h/t @audaciaray

Trigger Warning for discussions of sexual violence and police violence, specifically including violence against sex workers and transphobic violence.

Earlier this year, I wrote about an Amnesty International report about sexual violence against women in Cambodia, and the judicial response (or more accurately, lack of judicial response) to sexual violence. A section of that report dealt with sexual violence against sex workers, and the fact that good portion of such violence is actually committed by law enforcement officials.

Now Human Rights Watch has released a more detailed report specifically about police abuses against sex workers in Cambodia, including but not limited to sexual violence. You can view and download the full report here. The Human Rights Watch press release states:

Police arrest sex workers in regular sweeps on the streets and parks of Phnom Penh. Some of the violence is opportunistic, while other abuses commonly occur in periodic crackdowns and raids by police and district authorities, at times targeting sex workers specifically  and other times picking up sex workers along with other groups of marginalized people on the streets.

Police abuse sex workers with impunity. Sex workers told Human Rights Watch that police officers beat them with their fists, sticks, wooden handles, and electric shock batons. In several instances, police officers raped sex workers while they were in police detention. Every sex worker that Human Rights Watch spoke to had to pay bribes or had money stolen from them by police officers.

A 2008 Cambodian law on trafficking and sexual exploitation criminalized all forms of trafficking, including forced labor. Human Rights Watch found that police officers at times can use those sections of the law that criminalize “solicitation” and “procurement” of commercial sex to justify harassment of sex workers. The provisions are also broad enough that they can be used to criminalize advocacy and outreach activities by sex worker groups and those who support them.

Human Rights Watch urged the Cambodian government to consult with sex worker groups, United Nations agencies, and organizations working on human rights, trafficking, and health to review and address the impact on the human rights of those engaged in sex work of provisions in the 2008 law on trafficking and sexual exploitation, before implementing those provisions.

In Phnom Penh, police refer sex workers to the municipal Office of Social Affairs and from there to NGOs or the government Social Affairs center, Prey Speu. Conditions in Prey Speu are abysmal. Sex workers, beggars, drug users, street children, and homeless people held at Prey Speu have reported how staff members at the center have beaten, raped, and mistreated detainees, including children. Local human rights workers, citing eyewitness accounts, allege that at least three people, and possibly more, were beaten to death by guards at Prey Speu between 2006 and 2008.

This is sadly the problem with far too many efforts that purport to be anti-trafficking: they actually don’t work to prevent or address trafficking, but merely serve as a cover to abuse all sex workers and trafficking victims. The stigma, revulsion, and misogyny (combined with many other prejudices) directed at sex workers is enormous. And verbal taunts and harassment easily lead to physical and sexual violence. Dehumanization of sex workers through slut-shaming, classism, transphobia, etc., enforces a culture that turns the other way to such abuses, or actively affirms them. And while not the only perpetrators, law enforcement is always first in line.

That’s why it’s absolutely vital that anti-trafficking efforts actually involve groups made up of trafficking victims and sex workers, to ensure that the law will truly be used to assist those who are victims and not work to create new ones. And it’s also why, as the report addresses (starting on page 60), the U.S.’s inability to do its job as a member of the international community without imposing moralization and anti-sex mandates on other governments is so problematic:

The US is one of Cambodia’s largest bilateral donors, and a major donor supporting antitrafficking efforts in Cambodia. Under the Bush administration, the US government maintained that in order to combat trafficking, countries should take steps against prostitution. National Security Presidential Directive 22 stated that, “Our policy is based on an abolitionist approach to trafficking…. In this regard, the United Statesgovernment opposes prostitution and any related activities including pimping, pandering, and/or maintaining brothels as contributing to the phenomenon of trafficking in persons.”

Since 2003, US legislation dealing with HIV/AIDS and human trafficking has required recipients of international anti-AIDS funding to have a policy “opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” as a condition of receiving funding. The legislation bars the use of funds, to “promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution.” This provision was retained when the law was reauthorized in 2008 and remains in force. In May 2010, the US government issued implementing regulations that largely mirror those imposed by the Bush Administration.

This anti-prostitution stance combined with the impact of the annual US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons report seemed to show US support for the Cambodian government’s efforts to criminalize voluntary sex work.

…

While there is no language concerning criminalizing sex work as a means to combat trafficking in the MOU, US policy on sex work under the Bush administration was quite clear. In supporting these efforts in Cambodia, the US failed to consider the context of a police force long known for its problems with corruption and for committing abuses against sex workers with impunity, when it pushed for the 2008 law [that authorized brothel raids and street sweeps].

Nice job, U.S., nice job.

One critique I had about the Amnesty International report was a failure to take a look at experiences by trans* individuals. The HRW report specifically interviewed multiple trans women sex workers. While the information provided about trans experiences is hardly comprehensive, and while it’s highly unfortunate that HRW seems to take pains to separate out trans women sex workers from “female” sex workers and uses other problematic language, some level of inclusion is both positive and illuminating. In the press release, a woman identified as Neary recounts:

“Three police officers beat me up seriously at Wat Phnom commune police station after I was taken from the park. One of the police officers pointed his gun at my head and pulled the trigger, but the bullet did not fire. They kicked my neck, my waist, and hit my head and my body with a broom stick. It lasted about half an hour. I begged them not to beat me. The police officers were cruel and they did not tell me any reason why they did this to me. “

And in the full report (page 33), she also states:

Sometimes the police say, “A-khtoey [a disparaging word for a transgender person] you fuck up the ass. You have HIV/AIDS and you infect other people. You deserve to be shot.”

Unsurprisingly, wherever there is misogynistic violence, there will also be specifically transmisogynistic violence, and it will always be magnified.

At over 70 pages, the report contains a whole lot more than I’ve highlighted in this brief overview, including many more personal testimonies from sex workers who have experienced abuse by police. I strongly urge you to take some time to browse through it, or at the very least read the full press release, and pass it along.

Trigger Warning for descriptions of sexual violence, specifically sexual violence against sex workers.

Continuing in an unfortunately long line of stories about police officers using their state power as a means to commit sexual violence against women, comes this one out of Oregon. An officer named Joshua Jensen (left) was alleged to have forced two women, both sex workers, to perform oral sex on him while he was on duty.

When Joshua Jensen twice arranged to meet a prostitute in a Beaverton parking lot for sex, neither woman knew he was a cop until he showed up in uniform and ordered them behind a garbage container, investigative reports show.

Both women said they were upset and felt they had to go with the officer.  

“When he first took me back behind the Dumpster … my hands were shaking,” one of the victims told The Oregonian Wednesday.

“I was scared – his whole demeanor was very intimidating,” she said. “I really didn’t know what to expect or what would happen.”

In the first incident, Jensen told the woman what she was doing as a prostitute was wrong. Then he asked for oral sex. She asked if she had to, and he said she didn’t. Afterward, he paid her $40.

But with the second woman, Jensen asked her why he shouldn’t arrest her. She replied that she wouldn’t do it anymore.

He said, “Well, if there’s something I want out of it,” then unzipped his pants, reports show.

The woman told investigators and The Oregonian that Jensen then “grabbed me by the back of the head and forced my head down, and I really didn’t have a choice.”

The good news is that Jensen has pleaded guilty. The bad news is that what he pleaded to doesn’t quite add up with the details presented above:

Jensen, 25, pleaded guilty Monday to two counts of prostitution, two counts of official misconduct and one count of coercion, and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. He was not charged with a sex crime and will not have to report as a sex offender when he is released.

Um, what? I’m sorry, how exactly is this not a sex crime?

Detectives who investigated the case were considering first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse, both Measure 11 crimes, police reports show. Those charges require evidence of “forcible compulsion,” said prosecutor Roger Hanlon. Based on the evidence, he said, “he didn’t commit those crimes.”

Forcible compulsion requires an expressed or implied physical threat, Hanlon said. Coercion occurred because of his implied threat to arrest the victim if she didn’t perform the sex act, he said.

“He didn’t force them, but he certainly coerced them,” Hanlon said. “He didn’t threaten to kill them or hurt them, but there was this element of coercion.”

Look, I’m ambivalent right now about categorizing sexual violence via forcible compulsion and sexual violence via coercion as two different levels of criminal offense, though I think the often blurry line between coercion and force creates a strong argument against. What I don’t see any argument whatsoever for, though, is not even classifying sexual violence via coercion as a sex crime.

Because coercion is not consent. And sex without consent is rape. So this, as described, and as Jensen apparently confessed to, is rape. It is rape. Further going back to that often blurry line between force and coercion — again, neither of which count as consent — I think there’s a strong argument to be made that a man ordering you to perform a sex act on him while he has a gun strapped to his hip and a badge saying that he can arrest you anytime he likes very much crosses it. And while I don’t exactly expect prosecutors to recognize as much, contrary to what Hanlon expresses up above, the threat of arrest is a threat of force and violence, especially when the threat is made against someone marginalized and particularly at risk for police violence, like a sex worker.

There are, it seems, at least two things going on here.¹

The first is the often special treatment that police officers who commit crimes receive at the hands of the judicial system. Sadly, with all of the victim-blaming and rape apologism in the legal system, it’d be absurd to suggest that “anyone else” who committed such a crime would receive harsher treatment. But it is probably safe to say that most people who committed such a crime,  saw their case progress to the point of charges being pressed, and then confessed, would in fact probably receive harsher treatment, and would have been charged with a sex crime and been given a longer sentence. This is in spite the fact that law enforcement officials who commit acts of violence while on the job should be held to much higher standards than the average civilian, what with their positions of enormous power and role in representing the government. And yet, the legal system cares a lot more about protecting its own than it does with ensuring that the state doesn’t represent fear and violence.

Just as important and influential in these cases is that unique brand of misogyny reserved specifically for female sex workers. While the victim-blaming doesn’t seem explicit in this case, from what’s being reported, a lot of victim-blaming tropes are poking their heads out. The two most notable among them are the myth that a victim who has had consensual sex with her attacker previously cannot be raped by him at a later date, and that a sex worker cannot be raped at all. While it doesn’t seem that either the prosecution or defense has directly made either of these arguments — and thank god for small favors — it’s difficult to believe that in spite of their exceedingly common nature, they’re not playing a role here.

It’s next to impossible to honestly look at a case in which all evidence suggests that two women who do sex work were raped by a man who had previous paid them for sex, and think that these misogynistic, victim-blaming, sex worker phobic myths had nothing to do with the decision to not charge the perpetrator with a sex crime. All women are at some risk of this level of atrocity, but some of us more than others — and it’s difficult to think that there is an equal likelihood of this happening to a woman who does different work. It’s hard to believe that for most other women, the standard for force would just as readily be placed so high.

One of the two known victims told the Oregonian that she is upset with how the case was handled, and says that she continues to fear for her safety. And why shouldn’t she, when prosecutors have devalued her safety so much that they won’t admit it was ever at risk to begin with?

via Woman Undefined, h/t SAFER

Good News: earlier this month, the New York State legislature passed a bill allowing victims of sex trafficking to have prostitution convictions against them vacated. The bill currently only awaits Governor Paterson’s signature, but activists are hopeful that he will give it his stamp of approval:

Sex trafficking victims may soon be able to have prostitution convictions against them vacated, thanks to new legislation approved in Albany.

Young women are often lured to the New York area with promises of jobs and then find themselves coerced into prostitution. Many of these young women get arrested and charged with a crime even though they were forced to do the work against their will.

Sienna Baskin, a staff attorney for the Sex Workers Program at the Urban Justice Center, says treating trafficking victims like criminals simply pushes them back into the hands of their abusers.

“They end up with a conviction on their record and they go right back into the hands of their trafficker, so we have clients who were arrested up to ten times before escaping their trafficking situation, usually on their own,” Baskin says.

Baskin adds that those convictions can make it harder for women to get jobs or legal residency. The landmark legislation–New York’s law is the first in the country–will allow trafficking survivors to start their lives over with a clean slate. As it stands, women who’ve been abused for years are then forced to disclose their criminal convictions to potential employers.

Now, personally, I find the need for such legislation in the first place to be very sad. This comes from a position of supporting decriminalization and believing on principle that no one, whether forced into prostitution or engaging in sex work freely, should have to face a prostitution conviction, let alone being ostracized because of it. It also comes from the chill sent up my spine at the thought of women being tried in a court of law and convicted for the “crime” of having been repeatedly raped, since that’s what non-consensual sex work is. It’s an utterly appalling system.

That said, in a climate where decriminalization still seems a hell of a long way off, this bill is a good start. People, usually women, who are trafficked into the sex industry tend to face an uphill battle getting out. Often, they don’t speak the dominant language or have legal immigration/working papers, and have reason to fear law enforcement. Almost always, they lack strong outside support systems, something that made them a desirable target for traffickers in the first place. They also tend to lack a financial support system, making an escape potentially even undesirable, as it means a lack of shelter and ability to feed oneself. To ensure that this battle is even more difficult by leaving a criminal conviction on a victim’s record — and for prostitution, among the most stigmatized of crimes, no less — is unconscionable. Being the first of its kind in the U.S., the bill is a huge victory, and one that was diligently fought for by sex worker’s rights advocates.

Indeed, even more than just advocating for the bill once it was drafted, the Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center actually assisted in writing it, ensuring that language was genuinely favorable to trafficking victims. For a group that does work to “protect the rights and safety of sex workers who by choice, circumstance, or coercion remain in the industry” and highlights the voices of actual sex workers and trafficked persons, helping to write a piece of important and passed legislation is a major success, and one that deserves to be celebrated and applauded.

Unfortunately, the Feminist Majority Foundation didn’t seem to think so. FMF, which publishes the major and long-running feminist publication Ms. Magazine, wrote a story last week about the bill’s approval by the Senate, and didn’t see fit as to so much mention the Sex Workers Project’s name — despite working from the same sources I am now, including the press release that was explicitly put out under the Sex Workers Project. Instead, all materials are simply credited to the Urban Justice Center, and no mention of the organization’s role in drafting the bill is mentioned.

Seeing Ms. Magazine’s track history regarding the erasure of the experiences of sex workers by choice, the decision to ignore the self-advocacy done by sex workers, and the regular support of legislation that many sex workers explicitly say hurts them — reasons why, I should note in the interest of full disclosure, I opted to not renew my own subscription with the magazine quite some time ago — it’s incredibly difficult to read the press release and FMF’s own story, and see this as an accident. And even if it was an inadvertent omission, it’s still not at all excusable, when the voices of sex workers and trafficked persons are so regularly left out of stories about them.

Over at SWOP Colorado, where I was first alerted to both the bill and the FMF story, sixtoedkittens writes:

So what did this article do aside from mutilate a press release that someone probably worked very hard on?  THEY LEFT US OUT OF IT.  Entirely.  They wouldn’t even publish the name “Sex Workers Project.”  But it is more than that.  Both major grassroots sex workers rights organizations in NYC, SWOP-NYC and SWANK, not only officially supported the legislation but worked to get it passed.  I was a member of both organizations at the time.  One thing we did was to write a memo of support to legislators that was not only deeply personal to some of us but also well-researched and broadly applicable.  Some of us also contacted our legislators personally, distributed materials, etc.  And the campaign to get this legislation passed in the first place?  It was spearheaded and carried out by….The Sex Workers Project at the Urban Justice Center.  Look, there’s that word again.  Sex Worker.  Yes, we were involved!

Some people don’t realize, I think, that there are people involved in the sex workers rights movement in the US who have experienced force, fraud, or coercion in relation to the sex industry.  Well, there are.  And you know what?  Most of the rest of the people involved in the movement are actually decent people, who are as horrified by sex (and labor) trafficking as any decent person, and even organize to improve the lives of those affected by it.  Go figure.

Apparently, some feminists think that it’s okay to erase the contributions of women, and the work done in support of women’s rights and safety, when that work contradicts a set of principles set forth by a very specific form of feminism. Not just disagree with or counter those contributions, mind you — but outright act like they don’t even exist. I guess it’s better to act like the majority male legislature, which doesn’t deal with these issues on a very real and personal level on a daily basis, deserves all of the credit. To act like the work that marginalized women do to further free themselves and other women just doesn’t matter.

Maybe its expected that advocates will simply be grateful that they wrote about the story at all. After all, almost two weeks after the Senate’s decision to pass the bill, their story and the one by WNYC are the closest things I could find to “major” news sources reporting on the issue. But I remain personally unconvinced that one type of erasure of marginalized bodies and voices is superior to another.

Thanks to Robin for the link.

Yesterday, International Women’s Day, Amnesty International released two reports on sexual violence against women and judicial response to this violence. The report Breaking the silence: Sexual justice in Cambodia focuses on how police corruption intimidates, frightens, and harms victims in Cambodia who attempt to come forward, usually with one’s chances of justice falling along class lines. I haven’t yet had the time to read the entire 60 page report (pdf), but regardless wanted to draw attention to the shameful situation, and the parts of the report I have been able to examine.

Demanding cash bribes from victims and/or their families before agreeing to an investigation is the most common act of corruption on behalf of police. In addition to this being a generally horrific request, the fact is that many Cambodians simply do not have the funds to pay the bribe, or must endure extreme hardship to do so. From the actual report:

A clear majority of interviewees told Amnesty International that they had paid bribes to the police, or had been asked to pay bribes but did not have any money. In 21 of the 30 cases victims reported that police had “investigated” the incident. Sixteen of these responded that they knew they had had to pay bribes to ensure an investigation. Typically, they were asked for between five and 10 USD to initiate an investigation, which almost none of them could afford.

In some cases, police will offer to take other forms of “payment” in exchange for starting an investigation — such as one case Amnesty International found, where a police officer told the mother of a victim that he would investigate the rape, if only she complied with his rape of her first:

Two perpetrators raped Mom five times in 2006, when she was 11 years old. Her mother went to the district police, where the police chief asked her for a 10 USD bribe to pay for “the investigation and stationery”. When she did not have the money he requested, the police chief asked her to meet him at a hotel room, suggesting that sex in lieu of money would facilitate the investigation of the rape of her daughter.

Some police officers interviewed by Amnesty International argue that the requests for bribes are the result of underfunding. While this may be to blame for some of the behavior on behalf of police, it doesn’t explain nor justify a climate in which sanctioned rape via coercion and duress by police officers is seen as a valid exchange for an investigation into a different rape. Further, even insofar as it is true, this underfunding nonetheless causes appalling and terrifying treatment towards survivors (emphasis mine):

Police officers who wished to remain anonymous told Amnesty International that their experience in working directly with victims and criminal investigations confirmed this bleak situation. They complained they had no available budget to conduct investigations, and therefore either had to ask the complainant to provide funds; not conduct an investigation; or pay with their own money. Clearly, the prevalence of corruption in the police force takes place in a context of inadequate resources allocation.

Police told Amnesty International that a lack of budget blocked them from acting in ways that ensures the well-being of the victim. For instance, when victims and suspected perpetrators were transported to court for initial questioning, police officers said they typically transport them in the same car, often sitting together in the back seat. Police officers also explained that families of victims and perpetrators were generally also required to split the transportation cost.

Even when families can pay for an investigation, nothing akin to justice is usually actually done. Indeed, rather than a court process with the potential for incarceration for the perpetrator, most rape cases are handled through a mediation process, with a monetary payment to the victim (or victim’s family) as the best outcome:

Extra-judicial settlements are widely used in rape cases; several high-ranking officials believe it is the most common “solution”. In Khmer, the term samroh-samruol is used for this mediation process, which is typically initiated and facilitated by police at the commune or district levels. The police act as a mediator between the families of the victim and the perpetrator, and seek to secure a monetary settlement from the perpetrator or his family to the victim or her family, on the condition that the victim withdraws any criminal complaint. The mediator receives part of the settlement. Around half of the interviewees had experienced such intervention.

Partly accepted as alternative justice, and by some perceived as “the best option available,” extra-judicial settlements are not recognized as a legitimate form of remedy in Cambodian law. Nevertheless, they continue and the authorities recognize that they are widespread.

…

Although the samroh-samruol is an intervention that is sometimes perceived as providing some “closure” for the victim, several of its characteristics indicate that it may perpetuate the stigma facing victims of rape. One source also said that some victims do not want to receive money, as such a transfer would make them look “cheap,” or as indicated in the case referred to on page 25, would lead the police to perceive the rape as consensual sex. Several of the victims who had received, or agreed to receive, money expressed fear or anger that the perpetrator remained at large and that he could repeat the offence against other women or girls.

Now, my personal reaction to the idea of sitting in a mediation session with my rapist is simply that I can imagine few things more horrifying and triggering. But at the same time, I know that all victims have different needs, and think that alternative avenues should be open for victims to explore, should they want them. I also understand that different cultures have different methods of dealing with crime, and I am entirely open in general to the idea of community solutions to violence that do not involve the prison system.

But all of that said, this is not a community-based solution, but an illegal government practice that seemingly involves a lot of exploitation. Further, it’s unclear that the victims going through the process actually desire to, rather than simply perceiving it as their only option for their perpetrator to be held accountable at all. And importantly, these kinds of solutions are absolutely useless if they do not require real accountability from the perpetrator and address the roots of violence, but only allow him an easy out and opportunity to offend again.

But the police corruption is often worse, still. As in so many parts of the world (including the good ol’ U.S. of A.), it can extend to outright violence, usually against the most vulnerable targets. In addition to the coercive sexual violence against poor women, referenced above, police are also quite likely to be the original perpetrators of sexual violence against sex workers. When sex workers are raped by non-police, they are thus also extremely reluctant to seek out help from law enforcement (emphasis mine):

Amnesty International interviewed two sex workers who reported that uniformed police officers had raped them. In both instances, the victims had been rounded up in raids on sex workers and first encountered the perpetrator while in police custody.

Police had arrested Thavy together with four other sex workers in a Phnom Penh park in November 2009. They were taken to the nearest police station, where a few officers, who appeared to be drunk, beat the detainees with their batons on the ankles and forced them to clean the toilet. A uniformed policeman who did not work at this particular station was also there. After a couple of hours at the station, he approached Thavy and forced her to go with him to a guesthouse in another part of town, where he raped her.

…

Sex workers are particularly vulnerable in their relations with police, which translates into a very low reporting rate of rape, regardless of whether the perpetrator(s) was a policeman or not. All five sex workers interviewed by Amnesty International had been raped numerous times, but none of them had ever gone to the police. Four had concluded that the police pose a danger to them, not a means of protection or assistance. One had not even known that she could have reported the incident to police.

The nauseating icing on this giant, repulsive cake, is that rates of rape in Cambodia also appear to generally be rising.

The report has its flaws. First of all, it seems to wholly ignore the experiences of trans* and intersex victims, as well as victims who are men and boys — in part because this is the general framework usually used when discussing sexual violence, and in part because, as the report notes, data on sexual violence in Cambodia is so generally scarce. Further, while Amnesty International offers its own long list of recommendations at the end of the report, it doesn’t seem to reference any specific Cambodian organizations by name, and discusses their work only in terms of limitations. And while I think AI is a fabulous organization, one which I have financially supported myself on numerous occasions, I’d still much rather that support and recognition go to established, on the ground activists who have the best understanding of their own situation. If you know of any such organizations, please pass along the information, as I’d be more than happy to highlight their work here.

Those substantial limitations in mind, however, the information contained in the report is immensely valuable, as is likely the publicity it will generate. I urge you to give it a closer look yourself, and to help spread the word.

Trigger Warning for rape apologism and graphic descriptions of sexual violence

In Sydney, a U.S. sailor has been acquitted on charges of raping a sex worker who told him to stop — even though he admitted, in court, to using a “lock down maneuver” to pin her to the bed.

A New South Wales District Court jury cleared Petty Officer Timothy Davis, 25, of a charge of sexual intercourse without consent, with the aggravating factor of causing the woman actual bodily harm. The charge carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison.

Davis was one of 3,000 Marines and Navy personnel on shore leave in Sydney after the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu and guided missile destroyer USS Halsey arrived in the port in October, 2008.

The woman told the court she had protected, consensual sex with Davis at the brothel where she worked, but said he became aggressive when she told him his time was up and forced her to have unprotected sex. The jury was shown police photographs of scratches on the woman.

Davis denied forcing the woman to have sex, but admitted in court that he used a “lock down maneuver” to pin her to the bed when she said she wanted to stop. He told the court he backed off when she kicked him, though he said he muffled her mouth with his hand when she began to scream after he demanded his money back.

Could we possibly be reading this correctly? Let’s try another source:

She said he “ripped” off his condom, telling her he had paid for sex and he was going to finish it off “like a real man”.

The slight woman said he pushed her head into the pillow, started suffocating her, and had unprotected sex for 30 seconds.

The jury was shown police photos depicting scratches on the woman, who described Petty Officer Davis as an “animal” during an angry outburst at the trial.

In his evidence, the sailor – who agreed his weight was more than double the woman’s – admitted using a “lock down manoeuvre” to pin her down to the bed when she said she wanted to stop.

He said he told her he was going to “finish”, but when she kicked him away, he backed off with his hands in the air.

So, she told him to stop. And even only as far as he admits, instead of stopping as he was told, he pinned her to the bed and told her he was going to continue anyway. I repeat: against her wishes. After she told him to stop.

Which means that as far as any reasonable definition goes — hell, even working off an antiquated and misogynistic definition of rape that requires physical violence to be present — he confessed to raping her.

And yet, despite his clear admission of rape, he simultaneously claimed that it wasn’t rape — as we know, men will frequently admit to behavior that classifies as rape so long as the word rape is not actually used. The fact that he would do so in a court of law, though, is particularly shocking, exposes some extremely concerning cognitive dissonance, and most appalling of all, displays a clear belief by his defense attorney that such a tactic would succeed, and that the jury would accept that cognitive dissonance right along with him.

That belief was, of course, ultimately validated by the jury. But why? Because the victim was a sex worker, and many people believe that sex workers have no right to bodily autonomy, and therefore cannot be raped? Because she had consented to the sex up to that point, and many people believe that women who have consented to sex generally have no right to bodily autonomy, and therefore cannot revoke or renegotiate consent once it is given? Because the rape may have “only” lasted a few moments, and how could a rape — of a sex worker! who had previously consented! — possibly “count” as real rape? Because Davis is a member of the U.S. military, and therefore he doesn’t look how most people expect a rapist to look?

My best guess is that all of these forms of misogynistic prejudice played a role, most likely in the order I’ve listed them. Yet again, even a blatant confession in a court of law is not enough to earn a conviction from a jury pulled from a culture that thinks men are never to blame, and women always are.

After all, the men and their feelings are the only ones that matter:

Davis made no comment to reporters following the verdict, but his attorney, Sam Macedone, said Davis was very happy with the outcome.

“He is glad it’s over,” Macedone said. “It has been very stressful for him.”

Yes, clearly too few of us spend enough time thinking about the toll that rape accusations take on rapists.

link via $pread

Trigger Warning

Every single time I argue that a rape apologist defense attorney has hit a new low, I speak too soon. This time, the evidence that there was still further to sink just came at a particularly rapid speed, and with a particularly hard impact.

Outside Charleston, West Virginia, a defense attorney defended a now-convicted serial rapist who specifically targeted prostitutes by repeatedly proclaiming the victims “whores,” and explicitly stating that their bodies and rights did not have the same value as those of non-sex working women:

Ed ReBrook, Gravely’s defense attorney, called no witnesses. But he summed up his case in a dramatic closing argument to jurors during which he called the victims “tramps” and “whores.”

“You cannot rape the willing,” ReBrook said. “They got in those automobiles with the intention of having sex for money.

“I would be horrified if any of the women in my life were raped, but I’m talking about decent, honorable women,” ReBrook said, and then dramatically raised his voice. “Not whores who have sex with many, many men for money.”

Assistant Prosecutor Fred Giggenbach immediately asked Kanawha Circuit Judge Tod Kaufman to stop ReBrook, but he did not.

“They are whores,” ReBrook persisted. “That is a perfectly usable word in the English language.

“Finding this man guilty of rape lessens the dignity of every other woman,” ReBrook said. “What they have done is turn sex into something disgusting.

“They are not like your wife, your girlfriend or your daughter,” he said. “They are street tramps. And what happened to them was, at least in part, their fault.

“If stupidity was a crime, my client would be a three-time loser,” ReBrook told the jury. “He may be guilty of assault, but he is not guilty of sexual assault.”

I had to read all of this over several times, feeling more and more nauseated upon each read, just to verify that yes, this article is recent, and no, it is not written on some kind of horrifically unfunny “spoof” site.

The idea that a woman who has sex for money is physically and emotionally incapable of being raped is absolutely nothing new. It has been around since the dawn of rape itself. The idea that a woman’s inherent human worth is tied to her sexual purity, and that any woman who has sex willingly — hell, who has sex willingly or not — has therefore given up her human right to say “no” in the future, is a basic staple of misogyny. It is used against all women, each and every one of us. But it is quite logically used most harshly, regularly, and despicably against sex workers — some of the very most despised women in a world that determines a woman’s value based on what she does or doesn’t do with her genitals.

Ed ReBrook specifically called the victims “whores” and “street tramps” in order to shame them. He used those names because they’re misogynistic, because they would hurt, because they resonate with so many people and seem synonymous with “worthless.” He did so because he knew that even in the face of the open admission that Thomas Gravely did that of which he was accused, the “you can’t rape the willing” defense is a pervasive one, and many people, like apparently himself, see a sex worker as permanently willing to have sex, no matter how violent, no matter if she says no, no matter if there is a knife at her throat. He did so, because as he proudly and publicly proclaimed, he doesn’t see these victims as fully human, but as something else, something lesser. He did so because he doesn’t see rape as violence, but as sex, and believes that sex can only harm a woman “honorable” to not ever have it. He did so because women are not their own people with their own thoughts, feelings, desires and dreams, but because they only exist in relation to their worth to men, as “[a] wife … girlfriend … daughter” — because rape is a crime not if it harms a woman, but if it “shames” a man.

Ed ReBrook made this argument without shame because he is shameless, because he is a misogynistic rape apologist to the extreme, who really shouldn’t be allowed in the same room as any woman. You can argue at me until you’re blue in the face that maybe Ed ReBrook didn’t “mean” those words above, that he was “just doing his job.” But you do not say those words unless on some level, you think it is acceptable for anyone to say them. And you do not think it is acceptable for them to be said, if you do not at some level believe them.

But the part of this that hit me the hardest personally wasn’t the childish and despicable name-calling. And it wasn’t the “what happened to them was, at least in part, their fault,” because though it’s not usually so explicit, I see this argument made so regularly and I’ve covered it so many times that I’m sadly almost numb to it. What hit the hardest was the phrase “Finding this man guilty of rape lessens the dignity of every other woman.”

I’m used to seeing the argument that “calling this rape is an insult to victims of ‘real’ rape,” though I feel the twinge of pain every time I do. The argument that calling rape what it is is an affront to all women and their dignity, though, is an even more frightening and misogynistic extension of that idea, yet again disingenuously made under the guise of actually standing up for women (the “good” ones).

To refer to rape as rape and to convict a man of committing it is not an insult to my dignity, either as a rape victim or as a woman. Rather, it is an important affirmation that my gender does not affect my very worth as a person. It is a means of sending the far too frequently ignored message that all women have rights. Giving other women their dignity does not decrease mine, it increases it, by narrowing the possibility that mine can so easily be snatched away by those who think that women are sub-human. To call rape what it is builds every single woman up, by making the world closer to a place where violations of their bodies will be taken seriously.

And any person who does not see it that way, any person who sees the simple admission that sex workers, too, have rights, can be raped, and in fact are, as an insult to women is valuing women not as people, but as genitals, as sexual objects. Any person who thinks that it lessens any other woman’s dignity to allow a sex working woman to have hers is saying that a woman must “earn” and “prove” her dignity in ways that men are never forced to. Any person who sees this relief of a verdict as an affront to herself or the women in his life is the one truly denying women their dignity, by holding onto a world where women are not seen as deserving and worthy enough to be automatically afforded it by the very act of being. They are stealing the dignity of all women by creating a world where an acknowledgment of the pervasive rape against women is not based upon what a man does, but about who a woman is.

Rape shield laws exist in the United States to prevent a defense attorney from questioning an alleged rape victim about her (or his) previous sexual history. And they exist for a damn good reason — because a sexual assault victim’s sexual history has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she was actually raped. The only reason, in fact, that an alleged victim’s sexual history would be “useful” to the defense in a rape trial is the hope that a jury’s prejudices about a woman’s previous sexual history will cause them to declare her unrapeable.

And so, exceptions to rape shield laws are very rarely made. And you can bet than when an exception is made, it’s very regularly for a bigoted reason. Suddenly, an alleged victim’s sexual history is deemed relevant after all, because this victim is black, a gay man, a drug addict, a transgender person, a person with a disability, an immigrant, etc. … (and/) or a sex worker. The last one is what a defense team in Philadelphia is counting on in their plea for a court to ignore the rape shield law.

Lawyers defending a Philadelphia man accused of carjacking a couple in the city, then murdering the man in Bensalem and raping the woman, have asked a Bucks County judge to allow them to reveal to the jury that the alleged rape victim was a prostitute.

Omar Shariff Cash, 29, will stand trial in November for the slaying of Edgar Rosas-Gutierrez, 32, and the rape of a 41-year-old woman, whose name is being withheld.

Prosecutors have called Cash a “cold-blooded killer” and are seeking the death penalty.

Cash denies the charges. During a pretrial hearing in Doylestown Thursday, Cash’s public defenders asked county Judge Theodore Fritsch permission to tell the jury about the victim’s prior sexual conduct and reputation.

The attorneys said the woman told police she’d had sex with two other men in the hours before Cash allegedly raped her.

Cash’s lawyers said the Rosas-Gutierrez, whom the woman previously identified as her boyfriend, actually was her driver who had taken her to appointments with customers before the alleged crime.

Although evidence of a victim’s prior sexual activity usually is not admitted in court under the Pennsylvania rape shield law, public defender Suzette Adler argued the victim’s sexual activities on the day of the alleged rape are relevant, since they could explain some of her injuries.

There is so much to cover here, it’s hard to know when to begin. Let us start by saying that while rape does not always leave injuries behind by any stretch of the imagination, consensual sex does even less frequently.

But let us examine this defense further. Cash, of course, is claiming that he is innocent on all charges. If he really expected a jury to believe this, then the question would be not whether or not the woman was actually raped, but whether she was raped by him. And so, to take the defense at face value, it would seem they’re arguing that yes, a man is dead — and Cash didn’t do it — but also that the woman who was with him is lying about being raped because, well … I’m guessing because lying is just what women do. Especially women who allegedly have sex for money.

That quite clearly makes no sense whatsoever, either as a scenario or a defense. To argue both that Cash is innocent, but also that if he did it, it really wasn’t that bad, is talking out both sides of your mouth and pretty much akin to telling a jury that yeah, they probably should think that he did it.

What makes a whole lot more sense to me is that Cash likely doesn’t have a real defense or expect anyone to buy that he’s innocent, but is also trying to mitigate his chances of receiving the death penalty (which, for the record, I think ought to be abolished) by convincing the jury that his crime wasn’t heinous enough to deserve it. And what better way to do that than to convince them that the woman he raped was the kind of woman they’re likely to see as worthless and as deserving of no sexual autonomy? And to further convince them that the man he murdered was some sort of pimp?

If it’s true, if the woman is actually a sex worker, the point is to play off of that stigma, to paint her as unrapeable. If she’s not actually a sex worker, they’re trying to attach that stigma to her anyway, just because they know from experience that it works.

And it is proven from experience that it works. It’s hardly shocking to me that this trial is taking place in Philadelphia, not because Philadelphia is an awful, terrible place, but because precedent has been set there. Philadelphia is home to the notorious Judge Deni, a judge who determined that an alleged gang rape victim could not charge her attackers with rape because of her job as a prostitute, and instead felt that the rape was a “theft of services.” It’s unsurprising that they’re at least giving it a shot. And yes, I do think that those, such as Judge Deni, who have given legitimacy to the myth of sex workers as unrapeable, and to propagating the myth as a valid defense tactic, hold some of the responsibility here.

Here’s to hoping that for once justice and fairness trumps misogyny, and the judge dismisses the motion. This woman has been through far more than enough already.

This story comes straight out of the WTF files.  A 14-year-old girl was allegedly kidnapped, sexually assaulted numerous times, and forced to perform at a strip club.  Everyone involved agrees that the girl, who again is 14, did indeed perform there.  There is absolutely no debate about that particular aspect at all, in fact.  And yet, somehow the strip club is now suing the 14-year-old and her parents.

A strip club in Texas that hired a 14-year-old as an exotic dancer says it was swindled and is suing the seventh-grader and her parents.

The girl allegedly exposed her breasts while working at Cheetah Club in Corpus Christi, a violation of state law. Alan Yaffe, the club’s attorney, said the club didn’t know the girl was a minor and disputed the alleged sequence of events that led the teenager to work there in the first place.

“She came (into the club) with 6-inch stiletto heels and a miniskirt and looked just like a model from a Miss America’s contest,” Yaffe said.

Authorities say Leslie Campbell, 48, kidnapped the girl in San Antonio in March, took her to Corpus Christi and sexually assaulted her over the course of a week. He then allegedly gave her a false identification and forced her to strip at the club.

Yaffe called the story bogus, and the club is suing Campbell, the girl and her parents for unspecified damage in a lawsuit filed last week. It also wants a judge to declare that the club didn’t intend to hire a minor.

“There was no real kidnapping,” Yaffe told the San Antonio Express-News. “We’re the victims here, sir. My clients are the victims.”

The club and their lawyers, of course, are claiming that the girl looked “very mature” and so the club couldn’t possibly have known.  Even state officials are refuting that claim by stating that the girl clearly looks to be her actual age.  This, of course, is very likely true.

What seems to be missing though is the fact that even if she looked 25, it’s still the club’s responsibility to ensure that they do not have minors working in their clubs.  When did “she looked older” become an excuse?  (And when did “look at what she was wearing!” become the same as “she looked older”?  Nice attempt at slut-shaming, though.)  It’s not an excuse.  Just like “I thought that we were following the fire safety code” and “it seemed like we paid our taxes” aren’t excuses either.  Except, you know, this version involves an exploited child.

And then there are those exceedingly relevant charges of kidnapping, assault and forced work at the club.  What’s most interesting of all is that Leslie Campbell, the man alleged to have kidnapped and assaulted the girl and forced her to work at the club, is also being sued.  It would seem that if the club actually did have the grounds to sue anyone (and I don’t think they do — again, they’re the ones who illegally “hired” the girl), he would be the correct person.  And yet, they also deny the sequence of events that led to the girl being hired by the club!

So, really, Cheetah Club, what is it?  Did the girl seek “employment” at your establishment of her own free will, thus making her subject to your lawsuit, or did Campbell actually force her to work there, thus making him the one to blame?  You can’t have it both ways.

Unless, of course, you think that a kidnapped, assaulted and essentially enslaved girl is actually to blame for her the crimes committed against her.  Which is precisely what this whole thing reeked of from the very start.

A reader sent me this disgusting little story about a father and son who were running some sort of rape trade business together.  The two men were roping women into working for them by saying they’d be providing massages, and then held the women captive so that they could sell the right to rape them — not “have sex with,” people, since we’re talking about women who had no choice in the matter — to other men.  The two men were holding three different women captive; when they attempted to do the same to a fourth woman, she managed to call the police.

When detectives arrived at the motel, Charles, Timothy Lee and the three other women were not there. They later came to pick up the 20-year-old woman and were arrested by detectives, according to the statement. After the arrest, one of the women told police that she had been with Charles and Timothy Lee for the past few years and had not been allowed to leave.

Detectives said they believed Charles, Timothy and the three women had been in the Nashville area for the past few weeks.

In addition to the sex trafficking charges, Charles Lee was booked on charges of tampering with evidence, for purposely breaking a cellphone that was believed to be used in the business.

Horrible story, and probably an extreme example of how misogynistic attitudes are passed down from generation to generation.  That said, I didn’t really have a whole lot to add by the way of analysis.  Until I came across this little tidbit at the end of the article:

Charles, Timothy Lee and the three women were all booked for misdemeanor marijuana possession, the statement said. Both the men are being held on bail.

Seriously?  These women have been held against their will for years and raped by god only knows how many men, and quite likely abused in other ways as well.  Finally, it looks as though the worst part of their nightmare just might be coming to an end, when police decide to add insult to injury with a criminal charge on their record.

First of all, it seems to me exceedingly unlikely that when you’re being held captive so that men can buy the right to rape you, you have a choice in the matter of whether or not illegal substances are in your possession.  And it strikes me as incredibly bizarre and offensive that anyone would see it otherwise.

Secondly, I ultimately don’t really care whether or not the women were in possession of marijuana by their own choice.  Because even if somehow they were, this would still be wildly unacceptable.  These women were victims of a severe crime.  To use the investigation of said crime as an excuse to charge the victims with a crime, one that does no harm to anyone, is absolutely ludicrous.  And it’s yet another example of police managing to take a situation that you’d think couldn’t get any more awful, and just making it that little bit worse.

It’s also not a one-off occurrence, either.  Women who have been trafficked are in fact routinely booked on prostitution charges themselves.  Sex workers who report a robbery, rape or other assault are also often booked on prostitution charges — being one of many reasons why most of these women don’t report.  And if police can’t get them on the prostitution charges, they’ll often go for a different ridiculous charge such as this one.  Just because they can.  Just because they’re looking for an excuse to harm these women and their futures further.   Because they don’t see these women as human and worthy of their protection.

No, there’s actually nothing about this that is unusual.  But acting as though it’s therefore not worth speaking up about is part of what allows it to continue.

Thanks to Kymberly for the link.