Trustees of Irish anti-prostitution NGO Ruhama used to run Magdelene Laundries

Discussion in 'world politics, current affairs and news' started by Louloubelle, Oct 22, 2012.

  1. Louloubelle

    Louloubelle Well-Known Member

    This is an interesting situation IMO

    This Dublin based NGO Ruhama has been campaigning for some time to make the purchasing of sex illegal. The campaign is called Turn Off the Red Light www.turnofftheredlight.ie which opposes the campaign run by sex workers in Ireland, www.turnoffthebluelight.ie

    They appear to be an abolitionist (of sex work) organisation and they do not recognise sex work as something that be an individual's choice, that is to say they believe that all sex workers (and they do not like the term) are oppressed and that there is no real difference between women who consensually enter into the sex industry and those who are forced, coerced or trafficked.

    They seem to share the same abolitionist stance as the Poppy Project here in the UK.

    I was shocked to discover that their trustees, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity and the Good Shepherd Sisters, were both involved in running the notorious Magdalene Laundries, the former ran the largest laundry in Ireland.

    What an appalling situation where a controversial charity claiming to campaign against human trafficking, slavery and prostitution was founded by and is still run by groups of "sisters" with a long history of, er, enslaving (some would say trafficking) young women.

    Ruhama has criticised the Turn Off the Blue Light campaign as having been infiltrated by pimps. If they are right then this is very concerning. However surely there is more than a little hypocrisy in pointing the finger at others when they are themselves working with traffickers and slavers.

    Links:

    http://www.paddydoyle.com/laundry-orders-run-sex-workers-aid-group/

    http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/dirty-laundry/

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/08/irealnd-magdalene-laundries-scandal-un

    http://www.thejournal.ie/magdalene-laundry-true-story-margaret-bullen-samantha-long-614350-Sep2012/

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/printthread.php?t=2056733543
     
  2. Idris2002

    Idris2002 the liberation forces make movies of their own

    Ha. What a fucking surprise.

    I always thought those fuckers were just keeping their heads down, in the hope they could insinuate themselves back into the driving seat again.

    Fuckers.

    Thanks for this, LLB.
     
  3. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Turn Off the Red Light is not run by Ruhama. It's not their campaign.
     
    Pickman's model likes this.
  4. Louloubelle

    Louloubelle Well-Known Member

     
  5. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    And? Is the campaign "being run by an alliance of civil society organisations, unions, non-governmental organisations and individuals" or by Ruhama?
     
    muscovyduck likes this.
  6. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    So you've no problem with Ruhama being involved?
     
  7. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Yes, that's exactly what i said. Or did i say - correctly - that Ruhama are not running this and it's not their campaign as the OP states so the OP is wrong and needs to be corrected. As it appears LLB has now done. The reason i highlighted this is because exactly this was used to throw sand in peoples eyes when this story broke 2 or 3 years ago. I always tell people that things like BNP stories need to have their facts right or they are handing their opponents a tool to beat them with.
     
    muscovyduck likes this.
  8. Louloubelle

    Louloubelle Well-Known Member



    Ruhama, an NGO founded and run by traffickers, is a "core group member of the Turn Off The Red Light campaign".

    They appear to be the most vocal advocates of the campaign and are interviewed by the Irish press re the campaign fairly often, in fact more than any other Irish NGO.

    I do wonder how the "alliance of civil society organisations, unions, non-governmental organisations and individuals" feel about Ruhama being a core member of the campaign given their odious history of involvement with human traffickers?
     
  9. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    So you've no problem with Ruhama's involvement then.
     
  10. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Well, given it's been known about for years i reckon they don't seem that bothered. And, as i said, if you're going to turn this turf over, you need to get those basic facts right as a start point - unless you are going to make the case that Ruhama do actually run the thing as you seem to be hinting at above.
     
  11. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    What posts of mine have led you to this conclusion?
     
  12. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    All of them frankly. So what if it's not solely their campaign?
     
  13. Louloubelle

    Louloubelle Well-Known Member

    Yes, maybe they are not bothered about traffickers running an anti-trafficking NGO

    What do YOU think about it?

    I never said that Ruhama ran the campaign exclusively. That was something you read into my OP.

    Now we know that Ruhama is simply a lead/ core / whatever organisation involved in the running of the TOTRL campaign, what do YOU think about their involvement in the campaign?
     
  14. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Did you miss the bit where i explained to you how getting basic facts wrong over this in the past has allowed Ruhama to avoid questions as to why they are allowed to be involved at all?
     
  15. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Are you saying to me that the OP did not previously say:

    "This Dublin based NGO Ruhama has been campaigning for some time to make the purchasing of sex illegal. Their campaign is called Turn Off the Red Light"?
     
  16. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    Not at all. Doesn't answer my question does it? However you seem a lot more keen to criticise the OP for a perceived fault than engaging with the substantive points.
     
    Louloubelle likes this.
  17. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    Which can be read two ways. Unsurprisingly you chose the less charitable interpretation.
     
  18. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    No, read the corrected version of what i'm asking her if it said

     
  19. Louloubelle

    Louloubelle Well-Known Member

    I said that. Nowhere did I state that the campaign was run by them exclusively. They are a lead / core organisation in the campaign, which is perfectly congruent with my post.

    Why not just make a post to clarify the situation if you felt my post was not clear?
     
  20. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    That is a substantive point and the entire point of my posts - to point out that you need to get your facts right on this or this people will - on past experience, be able to silence or avoid any criticisms you have of them. Which you charitably read as supporting their involvement.
     
  21. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    Doesn't really change what I said. Why do you choose to focus on a very minor point?
     
  22. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Sorry, i edited in what the OP says now instead of what i intended to ask you - did it originally say?

     
  23. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    Only doing to you what you do to others, squire.
     
  24. Louloubelle

    Louloubelle Well-Known Member

    No it didn't say that. I didn't edit it at all
     
  25. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    I've told you why three times now.

    And no, it doesn't change what you said at all i agree - what you said was that because i offered some tactical advice as to how Ruhama manage to get away with things that i am supportive of their involvement in this campaign.
     
  26. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Yet you managed to get it in first. And i didn't do it at all. Well done. Have a penguin.
     
  27. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    You offered advice? You call that advice? Some help you are.
     
  28. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    In that case it was a simple misreading of the for their by me - for which apologies - but which still leaves the OP open to potentially being read as if the their is there, and which then still leaves my advice pertinent. They wouldn't miss an opportunity like that, and would immediately point to the other groups involved.
     
  29. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Yes i did, i said that i've seen them manage to avoid accusations or damaging facts by being presented to them by a media strategy handed to them on a plate by their opponents getting basic facts wrong. Which in Truxta world means that i am supportive of their involvement in this campaign. More than one misreading here isn't there one rather more insulting and wrongheaded than the other though.
     
  30. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    That came much later. Your first posts sounded very much like a defence of their involvement. Now that we've established it wasn't I'm off out. If you feel insulted, what was it you said? Suck it up?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice