As I am sure you are already aware, but I guess I have to type slowly so the idiots among us can keep up, your article had nothing to do with sex slavery, forced prostitution, or human trafficking. It was about "police" violence against sex workers.

Are you people really that obtuse? Of course considering the two mental midgets that jumped to the wrong conclusion, my question was obviously rhetorical.

Forcing sex and collecting money by police or any other persons for that matter = sex slavery.  

In the US, organized crime get girls from Russia and Eastern Europe and forced them to have sex and get money from them (yes Voilence is involved if they refuse).  There's no different between police violence and voilence done by organized crime to force ladies into sex.  Using violence to force ladies into sex or to earn money - that's slavery.    

Yes, human trafficking is not mentioned in the article, because there was no transportation of human beings from one place to another.  But slavery can happen without human trafficking.  And forced sex can happen without human trafficking or transporting humans from one country to another.  So, don't lump all that into one package.

The unregulated "free market" and gray market aspects of this business allow some very sleazy and unsavory people to work and stand right next to those who are honest and good folks.  It never hurts to point out this side is out there more than many of us would like to believe.

there is no place for forced sex work whether in Asia or in AMPs, whether in Eastern Europe or out of a mini-van in a trailor park in the South.  Too bad some still want to pretend this isn't out there.

Be aware and be careful everyone.

I don't know. You said mental midgets so naturally I assumed you were talking about me....

I know you and I don’t agree on this topic, but why don’t you read through this and answer some simple questions instead of skipping over the major points to pontificate your point of view.  Maybe I read things with a bit more of a broad interpretation.  Here are some of the lines I was referring to:

“Police violence against sex workers was frequently reported to occur in the context of severely repressive actions. In one country for example, four sex workers specified that sexual violence from police officers occurred ‘every time I was taken to the station’. “

“In Russia and Ukraine, sex workers shared that policemen frequently gang-raped them.”

“In Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Russia, Lithuania, Serbia and Macedonia, sex workers reported that crackdowns were often part of a larger system of police extortion that is enforced through threats, detention, physical violence and rape.”

“In many countries ‘fines’ amount to all the money sex workers have on them” In most countries, such extortion is underpinned by tremendous violence, as the following quotes show:

‘They beat a fine for prostitution of 1500 Rubles out of me.’ (Russia, Siberia)

‘If you don’t pay the money, the police gang-rape you.’ (Russia, Siberia)

I consider violence, rape, and taking a provider’s earnings as the primary marks of forced sex and pimps.  Whether the pimps are wearing police uniforms or not isn’t the issue.  Reread these and explain to me how this is not forced sex work?  Or do you think the women involved volunteered for sexual violence, rape, and having their money taken?  What is not said but happens often is they are also beaten and raped if they try to STOP working because then they are not forking over $$ to the pimp police.  Too often the providers are caught between two groups of thugs "encouraging" them to stay in the sex work business.  One group just happens to wear uniforms.

I don't know why you keep trying to pretend this doesn't exist.  As I have said repeatedly I am not claiming it happens behind the scenes with every sex worker in every situation.  I have left open that you and I may differ on whether its 5%, 20%, 50%, or 80% of the time.  But you seem to deny it occurs, even with articles such as this.

It can lead one to wonder why you are so close minded about this topic.

I am not questioning the data, nor the source.

My only points are:
--violence, rape, intimidarion, and robbery are wrong
--even if the people doing it are wearing uniforms, it's still wrong

You are arguing a completely different point than the one made in the article. This has nothing to do with women being forced into protitution and everything to do with violence being perpetrated against sex workers who in all likelihood are willing participants in their chosen profession.

Just because someone chooses to be a sex worker should not open them up to violence by the police or anyone else, that is the theme of the article and the message that SWAN is trying to get out.

You do them a great disservice by implying that sex workers must have been forced into their chosen proffession. SWAN is trying to get the point across that sex workers are simply women , and that they should not be victimized for their choice of vocation. NOT that they are victims simply for being sex workers in the first place.

As usual you of the White Knight mentality do more harm than good in your quest to rescue women from their chosen vocation. They don't need to be rescued from their jobs, they need to be afforded the same rights as the rest of us.

when it comes to reading what other people write.

You’re correct about one thing:  the article is about force, intimidation, rape, and robbery of sex workers.  Rape, intimidation, and robbery should have no place in this business.  Not from police, not from pimps, not from clients.  THAT was the point I made in my first post—that forced sex work is wrong whether it’s an unwanted from a client or the police.  And in case it went over your head that time I made it more direct in my second post with quotes from the article, but you ignored that.

Again in this post you say I am “implying that sex workers must have been forced into their chosen proffession”.  That is a lie you've repeated a lot.  I never said it, in this post or others.  The article DOES have to do with women being forced to have sex (their use of the “rape” word, not mine) and men (in these cases police) taking their money just as any street pimp.  I condemned all who are violent to providers.  I made NO comment that the providers needed to be saved from their job, only from people (in uniform or out) who prey upon them.

I have no way of telling from the article if these women are in the sex trade voluntarily or not.  YOU on the other hand can look at the article and tell the providers “in all likelihood are willing participants in their chosen profession.”  Where do you get indication either way that they are willing or unwilling?  And what should that matter?

I have repeatedly said there are good and bad in the business.  That many are working at this job freely and some are not.  Growing up there was a notorious streetwalker area near my home.  I saw women forced into this work, kept there by intimidation, and some tortured and killed when their pimp felt like they "deserved" it.  As badly as you wish to deny it, it DOES happen.  However you seem driven to claim 100% of the women doing sex work are there of their own free will.  THAT is the kind of comment that is dangerous.  And delusional.  You deny pimps exist, claim that everyone in the seamy side of this business is a misunderstood nice guy, that NO women are coerced.  That is the wrong message people need to hear.  Rather every man and woman in any aspect of this business needs to keep their eyes open for the good AND the dangerous.  We need to work towards a society where a provider isn't more afraid of the police than she is of a stalker.

I suspect you will creatively and selectively read this post as you have done so many others.  I can't do anything for that I'm afraid.