Letter from Steve Cohen from No One is Illegal (PR5)

Dear Comrades,

I write as a member of No One Is Illegal – and therefore as one opposed in principle to all immigration controls. I found the article by Helen Ward on “Prostitution – Marxism versus Moralism” very convincing in its analysis of sex work as labour (PR 3). However I would disagree on one point. Helen makes a point which conceals far more than it states. In a section on “policies on sex work” (essentially a sex workers manifesto) she states support “for the free movement of labour across borders”. I unconditionally agree. And argues for “no immigration controls” and of course I agree with this. However she then goes on to make a leap by asserting “this is the only way to undermine the power of the traffickers”. However it is highly debatable that the absence of controls will in and of itself diminish the power of traffickers.

It is first necessary to make the point that by no means all sex workers are trafficked in the sense of being physically coerced or tricked. Many are voluntarily smuggled – albeit by very unpleasant people for money. It is because of this voluntary aspect that one has to be cynical of the UK’s so-called anti-trafficking laws, which are designed not to protect women but to control borders. Of course women who are trafficked are trapped between the tentacles of immigration controls and the power of the traffickers. The traffickers use the very existence of controls and the need to evade them as a way of dominating the women (e.g. by lying about their immigration status, by stealing their passports, by hiding their visas etc).

However the removal of controls could/would in itself simply alter the form of these power relationships not their substance. In fact precisely because migration will be easier then it is arguable that the domination will become easier. Remember the so-called “white slave” trade existed well before the introduction of immigration controls (in 1905) and there is no reason whatsoever to think it will not exist after their removal (paradoxically and usually hypocritically one of the justifications for controls – which have always had a sexualised aspect – was the protection of women! This is why Sylvia Pankhurst opposed the anti-trafficking legislation of 1912).

Actually the argument in respect to sex workers for opposition today to controls is a highly political one. Traffickers do and always have operated internationally – it is the nature of the trade. Therefore it is only the absence of controls that will allow women to organise internationally and collectively against enforced trafficking. Also the battle against immigration controls will have to be so powerful that to be successful it will probably challenge power relationships of all kinds – given the relationship of controls to the state it may even require the revolution.

Although she does not mean it, Helen’s article makes it appear that abolition of controls will in and of itself be a panacea for the abolition of all evils connected with the exploitation of migrant labour. For those of us arguing such ideologically difficult positions – prostitution as sex work, the abolition of controls – I think it important to articulate the political difficulties around these areas. In particular I think it essential that irrespective of the issue of sex work (but including sex work) it is important to point out that in a world of free movement we will also be demanding national and international conventions protecting migrant workers – because just as sweated/slave labour existed before controls there is no reason not to expect such conditions to reassert themselves simply by the removal of controls.

Steve Cohen

No One Is illegal

http://noii.trick.ca

Helen Ward replies:

I think that Steve makes an important point – abolition of immigration controls should not be regarded as a panacea, since it would leave many oppressive and exploitative social relations intact. The point I way trying to make, and have tried unsuccessfully to argue with policy makers, is that whilst these controls are in place they make it very difficult to differentiate between “trafficking” as a form of slavery and coercion on the one hand, and voluntary migration of people who have no rights on the other. Therefore the latter group can be presented (and when it is useful may present themselves) as victims of trafficking when in fact they are victims of immigration controls.

The dominant argument in sex work policy debates is that by advocating decriminalisation and sex workers’ rights, people like me are encouraging exploitation and abuse. In response, I argue that the current laws, whether criminalising sex work or criminalising migration, both make it impossible either for sex workers to organise against exploitation and abuse, but also make the bonds between sex workers and dealers/traffickers/criminals very hard to break.

I was involved in some research in the 1990s on the impact of crack use on sex work (another scare story that was making everyone panic) and we found that there was indeed a close link between crack and some forms of sex work. But much of this related to overlapping markets and distribution networks (of crack and of cocaine, but the latter involved the more middle class clients so was seen as less of a problem) rather than to the general image of addicted women desperate to get money.

On the main point of your letter, I should have said that the abolition of immigration controls is a necessary start in undermining the power of sex traffickers, but that any fight against exploitation requires organisation, solidarity, and ultimately political change.

It is exactly the same with decriminalisation – on its own it is likely to lead to an increase in sex work, and for some that will mean increased exploitation unless it is accompanied by organisation, unionisation, campaigns against the stigma and attitudes people have towards sex work.

I suppose it is like any reform – it is important but, as you rightly say, not a panacea! The key issue is to link the struggle for reforms, such as ending immigration controls or decriminalising sex work, to the struggle to overthrow the fundamental basis of the oppression and exploitation, namely capitalism.

I think the best way to forge that kind of link is to build strong organisations of sex workers and other oppressed and exploited groups to fight on all fronts – for the immediate end to legal barriers but also for the kind of control over our lives that is necessary for a revolutionary challenge to the system.

Mon 08, October 2007 @ 18:51