Comments on: Being a Powerful Advocate: The Rhode Island Case

By: Michael Goodyear

Michael Goodyear — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:10:29 +0000

Holly suggested I share these reflections from the internal Center for Sex Work Research and Policy listserve with a wider audience.

“In this thought provoking blog, Audacia challenges our strategising.
I agree with everything she says in principle, if not necessarily emphasis. However I would like to place this in perspective. We recognised these problems from the start, but whether we achieved our goals is another matter.

We brought in 3 Rhode Islanders to this group, and consulted with several more, I wrote to a number of Rhode Island academics but got no response.

Where we could do more (but are not funded like CAT) is to forge formal links with supportive members of the legislature like David Segal, and with known activist groups in Rhode Island like ACLU and NOW. Obviously we would like to have a closer relationship with RI sex workers and their leaders.

Also the theme that Rhode Island laws should be made by Rhode Islanders has been a backdrop throughout – that Rhode Island input into the debate is more likely to be listened to is clear – but I don’t think we can say that we should not take a stand – as I blogged earlier today:
http://sexinthepublicsquare.org/ElizabethsBlog/dont-let-personal-attacks-distract-us#comment-12029

part of our role as scientists is to ensure that public policy and political decisions are informed as well as possible by a reliable evidence base. What happens in Rhode Island is influenced by the rest of the world, and will also inform decisions elsewhere.

Incidentally at least one of the signatories lived in Rhode Island, but
worked across a State line.”

There are some good ideas in both the original post and the comments, the difficulty being to translate them into specific actions. We would welcome overtures from Rhode Islanders to work together. In the mean time I believe we have done our best under the circumstances and with the resources available. I would like to take this opportunity for feedback on the second letter we have composed, and to get people’s support for it. Hopefully these two letters can be used by Rhode Islander’s in composing their submissions.
http://sexinthepublicsquare.org/MichaelsBlog/Rhode-Island-the-next-step

In my Public Health experience we have found opinion polling a very useful tool, but is resource intensive.

By: Eliyanna

Eliyanna — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:35:50 +0000

Thanks for all the comments. I wanted to add mostly in response to Alexa, that this is mostly a question of energy, a non-infinite resource. Collectively, a lot of national energy has been put into a letter to legislators from academics who aren’t local. Why not to helping locals write letters to legislators? One letter from a constituent means more to a legislator than fifty letters from people from other states, whatever their qualifications. I should know, for almost ten years I’ve worked in government watching letters (definitely the ones from out of state) be deleted and recycled–unread.

By: Holly

Holly — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:16:47 +0000

Sorry, I should have also mentioned Eliyanna’s name in my response since she co-authored the piece and Audacia didn’t write it alone. That being said, I do agree with both of you in terms of supporting Rhode Island sex workers’ justice advocates and allies.

By: Holly

Holly — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:12:37 +0000

Hi Audacia:
Something important you didn’t mention is that the people advocating for recriminalization also aren’t directly affected by the anti-prostituion laws like sex workers are, even if some of them do live in Rhode Island. I don’t know of any working sex workers who are advocating for recriminalization, and these are the people who are most strongly harmed by anti-prostitution laws. I guess it’s easy for some people to promote the recriminalization of prostitution when they aren’t being unjustly punished under these laws like sex workers are.

By: Iamcuriousblue

Iamcuriousblue — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:43:45 +0000

“Strategy and speaking out – especially speaking out to Rhode Island legislators – needs to come from the affected community. Rhode Island legislators most likely donâ€™t care a whole lot what you think if you donâ€™t vote in their district. A good analogy for this is whatâ€™s happening with the national health care debate – leaders from other nations with national health care systems can put in their two cents to our government, but ultimately Congress doesnâ€™t care what the French think of our health care system. Same thing goes for how Rhode Island legislators feel about input from folks from Nevada.”

That’s what I had been thinking, which is why I never sent any letters to Rhode Island legislators over this. However, I recently read (I forget where) that RI legislators have been flooded with mail from Hughes supporters, probably people on her DIGNITY listserv, and probably mainly out of state people.

So that makes me think if they’re receiving that much national and international feedback supporting Hughes position, then maybe its important that our side made its voice hear.

By: Why Rhode Island Prostitutes Maybe Aren’t Speaking Out « Mixtapes for Hookers

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:47:52 +0000

[...] Ray and Eliyanna Kaiser of Sex Work Awareness co-wrote an interesting article about Rhode Island the other day. Not about the prostitution law itself, but about the way [...]

By: Alexa

Alexa — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:13:02 +0000

While I absolutely agree that being snarky in response to things like this doesnâ€™t do anyone any good, I disagree with the notion that Rhode Island legislators donâ€™t need to hear from anyone other than their constituents.

You know as well as anyone that very, very few active sex workers are going to step forward publicly and make a case for the continued decriminalization of prostitution, for a variety of reasons which are commonly known. And in fact very few of them are likely to be able to speak to the direct consequences of the proposed legislation, aside from the fact that theyâ€™re more likely to be arrested.

Those 50 academics are, in my opinion, just as qualified as anyone to offer up opinions and prognostications about the effects of recriminalization, as each has, in their own way, studied this subject and can speak to it as someone with some credibility on the issue. Even active sex workers in R.I. themselves generally wonâ€™t have that kind of background and knowledge base upon which to educate the legislature like these individuals possess, especially as it relates to countering the falsehoods and extra-contextual misinformation being presented by other supposed academics such as Hughes. In the minds of many, the opinions and assertions of an academic such as Hughes carry greater weight than those of the average â€œhookerâ€ that most people see as the embodiment of sex workers. Therefore, it is essential that someone with equal or greater academic credibility weigh in to counter that misinformation.

And while your example of American legislators not caring what the French think about our health care system may ring true, they are indeed studying the health care systems of other countries in an attempt to see what does and does not work. Thereâ€™s a difference there.

R.I. legislators need to hear from as many credible sources capable of presenting legitimate information as can be brought to bear. Some may not listen, but those seeking the truth (how many politicians do that, really, though?) might weigh the evidence presented by Elizabeth or Michael, or one of the other signatories to that letter (none of whom has responded snarkily to anyone to the best of my knowledge).