Help protect SP

[postiepete]

I have a friend going to court. The worst of the trial is over.

She went to the police after she was assaulted by a client. The case is basically finished.

They had asked for a publication ban and it was promised. Now the reporters have applied to the courts that they have the right to publish the info in the papers. Including her name.

The judge has yet to decide if he will allow the ban or not.

Your help please. The reporter doesn’t seem to understand how this will cause the SP harm having her name published.

I need convincing words to show the judge how this will danger someone’s life. It has already been stated to the judge that this is already a minority group who doesn’t report assaults because of the stigma of how the public associates sex workers. They think the ban won’t cause harm and is to save humiliation only.

Advice please.

 

[sensualsixty]

It's more than humiliation

There is not enough detail about the circumstances given in the post, but a reading of many of the threads here will make it clear that many of the SP's (many highly regarded as people and for their services) have children. For the children to find out would be devastating. If anything should convince the judge to withhold names, it is the possible impact on the SP's children, or even her family, not just the impact on the SP.

 

[HeMadeMeDoIt]

I doubt the press will be lining up to print your "friend;s" story, I'm sure it will go unnoticed like the dozens of others assaults tried daily in BC courts. Although I'm sympathetic to your friend I'm a strong believer in giving the press access if the victim is not a child. Whether you're a high profile physician or an SP everyone needs to get treated the same way and we need the access to ensure a fail system hence the reason behind public trials.

 

[treveller]

Safety vs Humiliation

I think HeMadeMeDoIt and sensualsixty are missing the point. The crown attorneys and judges have their names published but ask them if they would like their home addresses and family details included in the newspaper stories. SPs unfortunately need the protection provided by a false name.

Others can provide more usefull comment to support the publication ban but I have some other suggestions. You could start a "Petition Online" page asking the newspapers to drop their application, or perhaps perhaps better, asking them to use no name or only her working name in any story.

Is it a story that can and should be published without harming your friend? There is so much that needs to change.

 

[TheSilkenBadger]

I think HeMadeMeDoIt and sensualsixty are missing the point. The crown attorneys and judges have their names published but ask them if they would like their home addresses and family details included in the newspaper stories. SPs unfortunately need the protection provided by a false name.

Others can provide more usefull comment to support the publication ban but I have some other suggestions. You could start a "Petition Online" page asking the newspapers to drop their application, or perhaps perhaps better, asking them to use no name or only her working name in any story.

Is it a story that can and should be published without harming your friend? There is so much that needs to change.

Sorry but online petitions don't work.. they are only annoying bits of fluff that hit peoples E mails etc.. no one pays any attention to them.

The SP need to provide the court / judge with Why? it would be detrimental for her name to be published. An affect on her family, her husband, her children, he mother and father (if she's a younger SP ( in her 20's) If she is worried about the client or his colleagues finding out more information about her to do her harm financially, physically etc etc etc. She fears for her life is always a good one to start with.

Sorry but thats the route she has to take. Online petitions are a waste of time.

 

[Holly Taylor]

I don't think the main issue is how this would impact your friend. Yes, it would be bad for her, certainly.

However, the main tragedy of printing her name would be the impact it has on the entire sexworker community. If this woman's name is printed, I guarantee you that some sexworkers will not report assaults because they will want to protect their privacy.

It doesn't require that much thought. Just think of a sexworker who wants to remain anonymous. Her line of thought would go like this: "Well, I've been assaulted, and I have a lot of evidence to get this guy convicted. But then everyone could find out my name and will know I'm a prostitute. My family will disown me, and I will never be able to get a normal job. I can't take that risk."

Think of all the crimes that will go unreported, all the damage that criminals will be able to get away with. I am not trying to be sensationalistic - I actually view this as a realistic possibility.

 

[mimi]

The problem with media today is that the release of her name and the subsequent damage would be just as newsworthy to them as the original story.

We have become a nation that enjoys staring at others while they are in their deepest misfortunes.

The close-ups of grief stricken faces that one sees on news channels these days seriously offends me!

Have you noticed that while the reporter is asking asinine questions like: How are you feeling right now?" to someone who has just lost their child/mother/ brother/ father etc...the cameras are trying to peer into their faces, even, and more vigorously when they turn away?

An sp in danger of being exposed to her family and community is a 'Reality TV' kind of heaven!

 

[sweet_seductive]

She took the risk coming forward, because obviously it was the right thing to do. There's several angles to attack and the first is probably to reinforce the idea that the stigma and humiliation doesn't serve justice because other victims will be afraid to come forward. I will inform the girls at DZ411 & hopefully they will be able to help her out. Check your PMs.

 

[old pooner]

It would also put other SP's at risk, as they would be far less likely to come forward in the future.

 

[HubbaHubba]

The problem with media today is that the release of her name and the subsequent damage would be just as newsworthy to them as the original story.

We have become a nation that enjoys staring at others while they are in their deepest misfortunes.

The close-ups of grief stricken faces that one sees on news channels these days seriously offends me!

Have you noticed that while the reporter is asking asinine questions like: How are you feeling right now?" to someone who has just lost their child/mother/ brother/ father etc...the cameras are trying to peer into their faces, even, and more vigorously when they turn away?

An sp in danger of being exposed to her family and community is a 'Reality TV' kind of heaven!

Very well said mimi! I agree with you 100% and it pisses me off to no end.

 

[susi]

here's something i wrote about the importance of confidentiality....

Because of our criminalization confidentiality is absolutely paramount. Working with the criminal justice system that many in our community view as the enemy, can cause a person to be outcast or worse. They could be viewed as a rat or collaborator and experience violence or be cast out /isolated from their family/social circle. Ensuring confidentiality of participants will prevent the loss of any social capitol or violence against them.
The Tri Council Policy Statement sets a precedent for federal and legal policies http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/index.cfm
Most research disciplines also have their own codes of ethics. Most share these basic principles:

• Ethical research should be conducted in a way that ensures all parties are
free from harm and researchers are concerned with the safety of research
participants that may experience heightened risks;

• Participants have the right to provide their free and informed consent at the
onset of the relationship and researchers have an obligation to obtain this
consent;

• Researchers must take steps to ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of
participants is respected;

If the court truly wishes to allow criminalized and marginalized populations access to justice, new approaches must be tried in order to break down the barriers of the past. The tri council policy reflects currently accepted government best practices for ensuring safe engagement of marginalized or criminalized populations. Should the court not also be held to the same standards as other bodies in terms of protecting those they claim to wish to protect?

 

[treveller]

Thanks for the update Nina. As there was a conviction could more info about the case and the convicted individual be posted without making things harder for the woman? It may be helpful for everyone to see that there can be a conviction while her privacy is protected. This may be a timely issue with the Russell problems.

 

[SeekSteadyRegSP]

here's something i wrote:

Because of our criminalization confidentiality is absolutely paramount.

Does anyone else see what's basically wrong with this statement?


We might as well be letting inmates write the laws.


Your personal safety must be more important than your confidentiality.

It is your choice as to whether your income is more important to you than your confidentiality, or vice versa. If your income is more important, then you take the chance of working in this business. If your confidentiality is more important than your income, then you shouldn't be chancing it, but if you are, then the equation mirrors that of STD's and the risks you take every day/week.


The most significant problems occur when your drug of choice becomes more important in your own mind than any of the factors above.

 

[SeekSteadyRegSP]

Although your argument seems to have logic, in this particular case, how does exposing the name of the victim make things safer for her or for society?

As far as I remember, women who are raped are allowed the privacy of having their names withheld.

Are you suggesting that "Susi" was the victim? If so, then you are as much as "outing" her on this board under the guise of making things safer for her.


At least you can recognize an ounce of logic in my statement whereas...


I, however, am guessing that the victim was someone other than "Susi", which brings us back to square one.