Revealing your ethnicity on the phone

[winkywanky]

So now your an expert on this to?  A little knowledge a dangerous thing and think you be best of having the discussion here rather than seeking answers externally 

In law it's quite simple what constitutes an organisation. 

Why would you say that when he was the only one who had the balls to write to them?

An organisation: go on then, it's simple, is it? 

[peter purves]

You're forgetting that I also specifically suggested you should write to the EHCR yourself.

And then you can raise all your concerns yourself, exactly as you would wish to.

Why don't you?

But why can't you lobby your MP? You could do it under a false name, because of the stigma around prostitution which you yourself have stated several times.

What level do you think I have descended to? 

I thought you were being sarcastic. 

Because prostitution falls outside the law of teh Equality Act. My first task would not be the Equality Law but to lobby for prostitution to be decriminalised, legal etc. After this is done then the nuances of discrimination could be looked at. However, this is something the politicians would do anyhow.

Now do you see how ridiculous it sounds for me to lobby my MP to bring about a law whereby prostitutes cannot discriminate.

[peter purves]

Why would you say that when he was the only one who had the balls to write to them?

An organisation: go on then, it's simple, is it?

I know we are speaking at different times but you have not answered the question - or I have not seen it? 

Are individuals who discriminate exempt from the Equality Laws in the UK whereas organisations that do discriminate are solely the ones liable??

Cheers I have just seen your answer - so my mistake.

Here goes.

If a prostitute as an individual - not a sex worker - can choose to discriminate as an individual. Then surely it follows any other person who owns a small shop, is a mechanic, a hairdresser etc etc can also discriminate because they are individuals as well. Mutatis Mutandis

However, it is not true that if you work individually you can discriminate - Sorry I think this should be clearly obvious. And hence why I said the Doc misunderstood what the ECHR is actually saying

[freeze44]

Why would you say that when he was the only one who had the balls to write to them?

An organisation: go on then, it's simple, is it?

Really WW you getting yourself in a lather 

Ball's to send an email! 

Yes it is simple what am organisation is in law but we not here to discuss company law!

Settle down and if ya mate want's to come back at me, let him do it. 

[winkywanky]

I thought you were being sarcastic. 

Because prostitution falls outside the law of teh Equality Act. My first task would not be the Equality Law but to lobby for prostitution to be decriminalised, legal etc. After this is done then the nuances of discrimination could be looked at. However, this is something the politicians would do anyhow.

Now do you see how ridiculous it sounds for me to lobby my MP to bring about a law whereby prostitutes cannot discriminate.

Prostitution is legal. When we see a WG, neither they nor us or they are doing anything illegal  .

So it wouldn't be ridiculous for you to lobby your MP, you're engaging in a legal pursuit yet you're discriminated against on the basis of your colour/race.

But possibly more productively (depending on who your MP is  ) you could definitely write to the ECHR about this. I was amazed that Doc did (and very glad he did, hats off to him) and he got a proper response too.

You could do the same, but include all your arguments as posited here. And again, I wasn't joking, include a link to this thread (although I'm now wondering what Head1 would make of this, if you do, perhaps check with him first?)

[winkywanky]

Really WW you getting yourself in a lather 

Ball's to send an email! 

Yes it is simple what am organisation is in law but we not here to discuss company law!

Settle down and if ya mate want's to come back at me, let him do it. 

Well you bloody well didn't, and there you go saying I've got my head up his arse.

And 'organisations' are simple, yet you don't want to show it?

NONE of this is simple, it's technical and it's nuanced.

[freeze44]

I know we are speaking at different times but you have not answered the question - or I have not seen it? 

Are individuals who discriminate exempt from the Equality Laws in the UK whereas organisations that do discriminate are solely the ones liable??

Cheers I have just seen your answer - so my mistake.

Here goes.

If a prostitute as an individual - not a sex worker - can choose to discriminate as an individual. Then surely it follows any other person who owns a small shop, is a mechanic, a hairdresser etc etc can also discriminate because they are individuals as well. Mutatis Mutandis

However, it is not true that if you work individually you can discriminate - Sorry I think this should be clearly obvious. And hence why I said the Doc misunderstood what the ECHR is actually saying

You made the point straight forward and easy to understand 

[winkywanky]

Well yes, you're looking at the edited version.

[winkywanky]

I know we are speaking at different times but you have not answered the question - or I have not seen it? 

Are individuals who discriminate exempt from the Equality Laws in the UK whereas organisations that do discriminate are solely the ones liable??

Cheers I have just seen your answer - so my mistake.

Here goes.

If a prostitute as an individual - not a sex worker - can choose to discriminate as an individual. Then surely it follows any other person who owns a small shop, is a mechanic, a hairdresser etc etc can also discriminate because they are individuals as well. Mutatis Mutandis

However, it is not true that if you work individually you can discriminate - Sorry I think this should be clearly obvious. And hence why I said the Doc misunderstood what the ECHR is actually saying

Perhaps they meant prostitutes who are working on their own?

I don't know.

Why don't you ask EHCR yourself?

[peter purves]

I will be honest I would feel funny writing the ECHR even anonymously...Maybe you can  


Perhaps if we look at New Zealand it may provide us with some more insight:


Refusal to provide commercial sexual services : section 18

(1)
Despite anything in a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services, a person may, at any time, refuse to provide, or to continue to provide, a commercial sexual service to any other person.

(2)
The fact that a person has entered into a contract to provide commercial sexual services does not of itself constitute consent for the purposes of the criminal law if he or she does not consent, or withdraws his or her consent, to providing a commercial sexual service.

(3)
However, nothing in this section affects a right (if any) to rescind or cancel, or to recover damages for, a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services that is not performed.


Now if we look at sub-section 1 it talks in the singular.

"Despite anything in a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services, a person may, at any time, refuse to provide, or to continue to provide, a commercial sexual service to any other person"

If I take your position for a moment then the law should read as:

"Despite anything in a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services, a person may, at any time, refuse to provide, or to continue to provide, a commercial sexual service to any other person".............................................................................. "colour, ethnicity, nationality and/or racial group".

As I have suggested the way the laws are currently framed, it is untenable to have those other 'personal characteristics' as it relates to 'race' into the statute.

External Link/Members Only

[daviemac]

I will be honest I would feel funny writing the ECHR even anonymously...Maybe you can  

Perhaps if we look at New Zealand it may provide us with some more insight:

Can't really compare New Zealand to us. Prostitution in New Zealand, brothel-keeping, living off the proceeds of someone else's prostitution, and street solicitation are legal in New Zealand and have been since the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 came into effect. Coercion of sex workers is illegal.

[peter purves]

Can't really compare New Zealand to us. Prostitution in New Zealand, brothel-keeping, living off the proceeds of someone else's prostitution, and street solicitation are legal in New Zealand and have been since the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 came into effect. Coercion of sex workers is illegal.

Of course! However, you can compare how Equality laws are applied in principle and this is the point for citing it. I hope you have not missed the point why there is nowhere in UK statutes you can find any provisions where is written

It is ok

...not to serve or distribute goods or services to those of a particular colour, ethnicity, nationality or racial group

[winkywanky]

I will be honest I would feel funny writing the ECHR even anonymously...Maybe you can  


Perhaps if we look at New Zealand it may provide us with some more insight:


Refusal to provide commercial sexual services : section 18

(1)
Despite anything in a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services, a person may, at any time, refuse to provide, or to continue to provide, a commercial sexual service to any other person.

(2)
The fact that a person has entered into a contract to provide commercial sexual services does not of itself constitute consent for the purposes of the criminal law if he or she does not consent, or withdraws his or her consent, to providing a commercial sexual service.

(3)
However, nothing in this section affects a right (if any) to rescind or cancel, or to recover damages for, a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services that is not performed.


Now if we look at sub-section 1 it talks in the singular.

"Despite anything in a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services, a person may, at any time, refuse to provide, or to continue to provide, a commercial sexual service to any other person"

If I take your position for a moment then the law should read as:

"Despite anything in a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services, a person may, at any time, refuse to provide, or to continue to provide, a commercial sexual service to any other person".............................................................................. "colour, ethnicity, nationality and/or racial group".

As I have suggested the way the laws are currently framed, it is untenable to have those other 'personal characteristics' as it relates to 'race' into the statute.

External Link/Members Only

I won't be writing to them because I have no particular issue with this, for the reasons I've gone over before.

And if you write to them you can raise all the issues you want, in the way you want.

NZ law is not UK law of course. Although it does provide a(nother) perspective.

Although you say you take my position, I actually wouldn't say that. I would say (as I have done before) that it is a woman's right to choose who or what she puts between her legs, at any particular time, and moreover she retains the right to change her mind at any time. If anyone or anything were to try and force the issue, that would be rape. (And in my opinion that is the intention of that wording).

But within the context of our discussion, yes. Basically it is the inalienable right of a woman to choose, be that based on race, creed, colour, whatever hair colour she currently has, whatever phase the moon is in, whether she has a headache or not. That principle - in my opinion - goes beyond the race thing, but includes it.

[peter purves]

But within the context of our discussion, yes. Basically it is the inalienable right of a woman to choose, be that based on race, creed, colour, whatever hair colour she currently has, whatever phase the moon is in, whether she has a headache or not. That principle - in my opinion - goes beyond the race thing, but includes it.

Then under our current laws this would be 'indirect discrimination' - and this is why you would never have the lawbook written in the ways you have done above.

[winkywanky]

Of course! However, you can compare how Equality laws are applied in principle and this is the point for citing it. I hope you have not missed the point why there is nowhere in UK statutes there are no provisions where is written

It is ok

...not to serve or distribute goods or services to those of a particular colour, ethnicity, nationality or racial group

You can talk about this here until you are blue in the face (or indeed, fingers). NO-ONE here will be able to answer you to your satisfaction, however broad our knowledge base is, however 'clever' they are (or indeed, thick they are (and I include myself in that).

This is a wonderful intellectual (and even philosophical) debate (I actually mean that) but we've reached the point where we're going around in circles, Googling shit to 'prove' our point(s), (I generally can't be bothered to do that, it's an age thing  ), but ultimately none of us really knows the law well enough, or how to interpret it, or indeed how one law might work when possibly in conflict with another (which I suspect is what might be the case here).

SERIOUSLY Peter, write to the equalities commission as Doc has done, this stuff is bread & butter to them, they are the experts. And they seem willing to engage with Joe Public (which they bloody well should do of course).

[winkywanky]

Then under our current laws this would be 'indirect discrimination' - and this is why you would never have the lawbook written in the ways you have done above.

You can give it a name if you want.

[peter purves]

You can give it a name if you want.

Cheers! You have just reminded me. It can also be Perceptual Discrimination


"This is called discrimination by perception.

Example

A massage therapist at a spa refuses to give you a massage because he thinks you’re transsexual. This is unlawful discrimination because of gender reassignment."


Or in the case of Sparkus the WG refused to see him because she thought he might be of a certain ethnicity or race when he was not.

So both indirect and perception discrimination under our current laws.

[winkywanky]

What about a masseur/masseuse who states they provide massage for either male or female, but not both?

[peter purves]

What about a masseur/masseuse who states they provide massage for either male or female, but not both?

I am not sure tbh. 

I don't have enough knowledge to answer your question because I was suprised to read that the above would constitute gender reassignment discrimination under our current law.

However, following the law as it is - I would guess - a masseuse could not advertise women only. The only exception I can see if she is employed in an all-female gym.

Hmmm

[daviemac]

Of course! However, you can compare how Equality laws are applied in principle and this is the point for citing it. I hope you have not missed the point why there is nowhere in UK statutes you can find any provisions where is written

It is ok

...not to serve or distribute goods or services to those of a particular colour, ethnicity, nationality or racial group

Don't know why we have to write it all in bold but never mind. If a prostitute is threatened with prosecution for refusing to have sex with someone, the person threatening that is then guilty of coercion and libel to prosecution themselves.

That is law.

[winkywanky]

Don't know why we have to write it all in bold but never mind. If a prostitute is threatened with prosecution for refusing to have sex with someone, the person threatening that is then guilty of coercion and libel to prosecution themselves.

That is law.

Good point.

And I guess ties in with what I was saying about one law dovetailing into or encroaching upon another. If you'll pardon the awful pun, it's not always black and white.

[peter purves]

Don't know why we have to write it all in bold but never mind. If a prostitute is threatened with prosecution for refusing to have sex with someone, the person threatening that is then guilty of coercion and libel to prosecution themselves.

That is law.

 

I thought it was to emphasise a point...writing in bold 

It is an interesting point you bring up, so thanks for that. However, it would not, in my opinion, negate the Equality Act 2010 which I will quote again. You can see from the example that an individual (and I will not highlight  )can be in breach of the Equality Act 2010


"If you’ve been treated unfairly by a trader or service provider, like a shop, bank or energy provider and it’s because of who you are, you may have been discriminated against.

The law which says you mustn’t be discriminated against is called the Equality Act 2010. Discrimination which is against the Equality Act is unlawful. If you’ve experienced unlawful discrimination, you may be able to do something about it." (Hopefully the italics are alright  )

External Link/Members Only

This is our hypothetical example because currently prostitution has nothing to do with Equality Act 2010 as I suggest - though others disagree - with this assessment.

[winkywanky]

So what we appear to have is a conflict between equality legislation, rape law, laws on sexual coercion and control, and the right for someone to be in lawful self-employment, fucking guys for a living.

Something's gotta give.

But which law? 

[winkywanky]

It's a point I've raised before, and I know where my money is.

[winkywanky]

I am not sure tbh. 

I don't have enough knowledge to answer your question because I was suprised to read that the above would constitute gender reassignment discrimination under our current law.

However, following the law as it is - I would guess - a masseuse could not advertise women only. The only exception I can see if she is employed in an all-female gym.

Hmmm

Re: your edit: so a masseuse who offers services to women, must also be compelled by law to offer massage to men.

Good luck with that.

[peter purves]

So what we appear to have is a conflict between equality legislation, rape law, laws on sexual coercion and control, and the right for someone to be in lawful self-employment, fucking guys for a living.

Something's gotta give.

But which law? 

In essence, there could be a possible conflict - I do not see it that way because of how the Equality laws are framed in the UK. However, nonetheless I am prepared to concede the point.

The reality is that prostitution does not impinge on the Equality Act 2010. Notwithstanding it may be possible to sue an agency for discrimination (but not discrimination related to having sex etc).

[winkywanky]

In essence, there could be a possible conflict - I do not see it that way because of how the Equality laws are framed in the UK. However, nonetheless I am prepared to concede the point.

The reality is that prostitution does not impinge on the Equality Act 2010. Notwithstanding it may be possible to sue an agency for discrimination (but not discrimination related to having sex etc).

What about the way rape law is framed? And the others? They're all laws, there to be upheld by a civilised, liberal democracy. It's a definite conflict I think.

I'm not sure about the agency thing, that would depend on how escort agencies are seen under the banner of employment law. But still, the same basic conflict would exist.

[peter purves]

Re: your edit: so a masseuse who offers services to women, must also be compelled by law to offer massage to men.

Good luck with that.

Where you miss the mark is that - and was a guess on my part - but you completely choose to ignore that with your patronising tone (ie ad hominem)

A masseuse would risk the possibility of discrimination if she advertised (back to the bold letters again  ) if she only sees men.

I gave you the example from a reputable source that suggested a masseuse is in breach of gender reassignment if she refuses to see a transexual.

So what is your issue? 

[winkywanky]

Peter, I've had a couple of drinks, let's go on a one-off MMF adventure as a mark of UKP solidarity, you choose the WG and we'll bang her doors in together  .

[winkywanky]

Where you miss the mark is that - and was a guess on my part - but you completely choose to ignore that with your patronising tone (ie ad hominem)

A masseuse would risk the possibility of discrimination if she advertised (back to the bold letters again  ) if she only sees men.

I gave you the example from a reputable source that suggested a masseuse is in breach of gender reassignment if she refuses to see a transexual.

So what is your issue? 

Oh dear, I'm taking that offer right back 

I don't have an issue. What do you think my issue is?

We are arguing the toss over the minutiae of race/equality law and whether or not that impinges on personal rights or laws to do with personal rights.

THAT is the issue.

[peter purves]

What about the way rape law is framed? And the others? They're all laws, there to be upheld by a civilised, liberal democracy. It's a definite conflict I think.

I'm not sure about the agency thing, that would depend on how escort agencies are seen under the banner of employment law. But still, the same basic conflict would exist.

As for the agencies I think they would be classified as 'organisations' and this is where Doc's email comes into play. Since as organisations they can be in breach of the Equality Act.

I am not sure what you are suggesting about the rape law??

[winkywanky]

An escorting agency is a bloke on the end of the phone with a glossy website and a box of tissues and a casting couch.

Girls use him as a portal for their services. He takes a cut.

[daviemac]

I thought it was to emphasise a point...writing in bold 

It is an interesting point you bring up, so thanks for that. However, it would not, in my opinion, negate the Equality Act 2010 which I will quote again. You can see from the example that an individual (and I will not highlight  )can be in breach of the Equality Act 2010


"If you’ve been treated unfairly by a trader or service provider, like a shop, bank or energy provider and it’s because of who you are, you may have been discriminated against.

The law which says you mustn’t be discriminated against is called the Equality Act 2010. Discrimination which is against the Equality Act is unlawful. If you’ve experienced unlawful discrimination, you may be able to do something about it." (Hopefully the italics are alright  )

External Link/Members Only

This is our hypothetical example because currently prostitution has nothing to do with Equality Act 2010 as I suggest - though others disagree - with this assessment.

The authorities cannot break one law in order to enforce another law. It really is as simple as that. It is illegal to coerce a prostitute, those doing it will be prosecuted and to try and enforce the Equality Act would be coercion.

[winkywanky]

Re: your edit: so a masseuse who offers services to women, must also be compelled by law to offer massage to men.

Good luck with that.

Sorry, how is that patronising? 

[peter purves]

Oh dear, I'm taking that offer right back 

I don't have an issue. What do you think my issue is?

We are arguing the toss over the minutiae of race/equality law and whether or not that impinges on personal rights or laws to do with personal rights.

THAT is the issue.

What is the issue........................ to the point that if a masseuse advertises men only in light of the transexual example she would be in breach of discrimination.

I do not understand why the need to say 'good luck with that'.  You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you.

Hence I asked what is your issue with my response.... not what is your issue as if we are about to have a fight?

[winkywanky]

What is the issue........................ to the point that if a masseuse advertises men only in light of the transexual example she would be in breach of discrimination.

I do not understand why the need to say 'good luck with that'.  You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you.

Hence I asked what is your issue with my response.... not what is your issue as if we are about to have a fight?

My comment wasn't in the light of anything, it was to be taken on its own merits.

Should a masseuse be forced to massage men?

'Good luck with that' is a well known phrase which is quite possibly in the Urban dictionary, it's not a dig at you.

[winkywanky]

For the avoidance of doubt, in the context of our discussion, almost certainly rape law/laws on sexual coercion would trump equality laws when applied to sex work.

That is what I meant by 'good luck with that'.

[peter purves]

The authorities cannot break one law in order to enforce another law. It really is as simple as that. It is illegal to coerce a prostitute, those doing it will be prosecuted and to try and enforce the Equality Act would be coercion.

The reality is the Equality Act 2010 does not impact prostitution laws in the UK. So the above is a superfluous argument. However, you do make a valuable point. However, it is not completely true as we have seen with the Gay cases ie 1. the hotelier who were Christian and refused to have Gay hosts (lost). Then there is 2. the cake case which was won, where they baker refused to make a cake for Gays but the reason had nothing to with the sexuality of the customer.

[daviemac]

The reality is the Equality Act 2010 does not impact prostitution laws in the UK.

End of your argument then, this site is solely concerned with prostitution, anything else is off topic.

[peter purves]

For the avoidance of doubt, in the context of our discussion, almost certainly rape law/laws on sexual coercion would trump equality laws when applied to sex work.

That is what I meant by 'good luck with that'.

I am not sure it would - not in the way you have conceptualised things. It is something we have not yet discussed in full, though I have alluded to it parts in small amounts.

What is the difference between 'work' (public sphere) and 'personal life' (private sphere)?'

[Beamer]

I am not sure it would - not in the way you have conceptualised things. It is something we have not yet discussed in full, though I have alluded to it parts in small amounts.

What is the difference between 'work' (public sphere) and 'personal life (private sphere)?'

FFS this is not on-topic. Give it a rest......OFF TOPIC IS NO LONGER ALLOWED.

[peter purves]

End of your argument then, this site is solely concerned with prostitution, anything else is off topic.

However, we or I am in particular is discussing the point what if prostitution was to be applied to discrimination laws via the Equality Act 2010.

Surely, this cannot be off-topic

[daviemac]

I am not sure it would - not in the way you have conceptualised things. It is something we have not yet discussed in full, though I have alluded to it parts in small amounts.

What is the difference between 'work' (public sphere) and 'personal life (private sphere)?'

What part of it being illegal to coerce a prostitute are you missing or failing to understand. If you tell an SP she's breaking the law by not seeing someone then that is coercion.

This along with some other posts you've made is very much off topic.

The reality is the Equality Act 2010 does not impact prostitution laws in the UK. So the above is a superfluous argument. However, you do make a valuable point. However, it is not completely true as we have seen with the Gay cases ie 1. the hotelier who were Christian and refused to have Gay hosts (lost). Then there is 2. the cake case which was won, where they baker refused to make a cake for Gays but the reason had nothing to with the sexuality of the customer.

This is about prostitutes and nothing else, you are wrong on everything you've said on that subject, accept it.

[winkywanky]

I am not sure it would - not in the way you have conceptualised things. It is something we have not yet discussed in full, though I have alluded to it parts in small amounts.

What is the difference between 'work' (public sphere) and 'personal life (private sphere)?'

I'm not talking about her private life. I'm talking about her work life.

In her work life, the concept is should a working girl be forced to offer her services equally regardless of age, disability, race or colour.

Regardless of the fact that she's providing a service, there is still the possibility for rape or coercion.

On that basis I would contend that the laws applying to those things goes above equality law.

It seems obvious to me (just as I'm sure your argument seems obvious to you) so this is why I would seriously urge you to email EHCR, people who actually know what they're talking about.

[peter purves]

FFS this is not on-topic. Give it a rest......OFF TOPIC IS NO LONGER ALLOWED.

You have to bear in mind my friend...not everyone might be thinking the way you do.

If you do not like the thread, or more particularly my comments. You can either put a block on me, skip over my comments, or choose not to read the thread at all.

[winkywanky]

FFS this is not on-topic. Give it a rest......OFF TOPIC IS NO LONGER ALLOWED.

If you're not interested, GO AWAY.

[peter purves]

If you're not interested, GO AWAY.

Thank you WW. 

But in spite of his comments. I am gonna call it a day. Thanks for the dialogue, I have really appreciated it because you have got me to re-evaluate my position. I am no expert in the law so I am sure there are still things I may have missed or overlooked - even with taking on your arguments on board.

Cheers Doc for contacting ECHR.,..I can never remember if that is the right way round EHRC 

And cheers Daviemac too.

Nice One

[winkywanky]

 

PS the offer of a 'conciliatory MMF' still stands (within by budget limits of course) 

[Beamer]

If you're not interested, GO AWAY.

No.
The original post was.....
Revealing your ethnicity on the phone.
You and PP have hijacked this thread and moved into off topic areas.

[winkywanky]

Report it then.