BY JOYCE WU
Why is the Labor left so keen on mainstream business lobbyists that it's asking for their opinions on human rights, free speech and personal freedom at its conferences — and not providing space for independent, critical voices?
On July 1, the Labor left held a conference, "Building the Left within Labor", at Melbourne Trades Hall, to provide a forum for "left Labor activists and their supporters to force progressive reform".
Two of the speakers in the first session, titled "Our bodies, our rights", which was meant to address to issues of civil liberties and personal freedom, were Peter Torney and Maureen Mathews, both members of the Eros Foundation, a lobby group for Australia's $1.2 billion a year sex industry.
There was no independent feminist voice on the platform criticising the sex industry.
Many local feminists emailed or phoned Lev Lafayette, Labor left policy convenor and conference organiser, to express concern at the omission and recommend an additional feminist speaker be included.
In response, Lafayette claimed that feminism is merely a "sectional interest", rather than of "universal concern", and argued that he did not see how the political and economic rights of women are seriously under threat from the sex industry.
His argument for the exclusion of a specific feminist analysis is inexcusable.
For example, in the Factbook on Global Sexual Exploitation, it is reported that at least 300 Thai women are illegally trafficked each year into Australia for the purpose of sexual exploitation, and are subjected to a debt bondage which they must pay off in order to be released.
Likewise, in Judy Atkinson's research on violence against Aboriginal women, it was found that among many other crimes, eight-year-old girls were shown "hard pornography and asked to perform the act depicted".
Protests organised
When it became apparent that Lafayette was adamant in his willful denial of women's speech on the day, some activists decided it was time to take action. A leaflet was written, local feminists were contacted to participate and support in a protest at the conference, there was even support and encouragement from feminists in other countries.
There was also a sense of hope: surely people will realise the inconsistency of the left not seeking the views of industry bosses on issues of workers' rights, while deeming sex industry lobbyists qualified to speak on behalf of women? Surely the pornographers' speech is not as important as the lives of women and children implicated and harmed by pornography?
On the day, activists had arranged to meet half an hour before the conference to pass out the leaflets. After that, five decided to go in: the plan was to listen to the conference, and articulate our thoughts accordingly during discussion time.
In the session itself, out of the six speakers on the panel, one was questionable, and the other two decidedly objectionable.
Former deputy PM Jim Cairns, the first speaker, was right on when he observed "Labor works within capitalism". But then he started to talk about eroticism, and things went downhill: according to Cairns, human eroticism is intrinsic to human biology, which should be unrestricted, being "free-flowing energy".
Cairns might want to consider that biology itself is a human discourse which is not free from the influences of the socio-political context it arises in. Those in power often predetermine the definition of eroticism when they wish to sexually exploit the disempowered, while getting away with their actions through the argument of "natural" sexual urges.
Peter Torney of the Eros Foundation spoke about publishing rights and censorship, but seemed more interested in associating anti-pornography feminists' argument with right-wing conservatism and religious fundamentalism.
Torney sought to divert the issue of pornography's harm against women and children (and sometimes men as well) to an issue of "free speech" and "personal freedom".
While personal freedom might be a pre-given privilege of the middle-class Western white male, it is not applicable for women and minority groups discriminated against on the basis of social divisions. For these groups, social and political equality is a necessary precondition to freedom.
What was also objectionable was Torney's statement that "sex is not violent". Well, what about rape? Rape is both sex and violence, it is sex used as a weapon against the victim but justified as sex in a society which eroticises the power imbalance between the men and women.
As for the issue of censorship, American radical lesbian feminist De Clarke has pointed out that when official censorship takes effect, it is to "support the privileged and silence the dissenter. Pornography, the product of a multimillion-dollar industry, is the literature of patriarchy. We, who fight against it, are the dissenters."
The way to freedom
Maureen Mathews, a member of the Eros Foundation and of a Labor women's network Emily's List, and the owner of the sex shop Bliss for Women, argued that she sought to provide a "feminist perspective" on the sex industry.
But there are many different forms of feminism: socialist feminism, Third World feminism, ecofeminism, radical feminism, lesbian feminism, black feminism, and many others — including bullshit feminism.
Mathews belongs to the last category, because, in summary, her argument is that women can, and indeed must, fuck their way to social freedom and justice.
In a world where sexism is intersected with other forms of discriminations — such as racism, classism, homophobia, ageism, ableism, and many others — to say that women can ignore all these issues and just blissfully sleep our way to liberation is either politically naive or an attempt to push some other agenda.
What is dangerous about "feminist" representatives such as Mathews is that the sex industry will prop her up as their "feminist speaker" whenever there is a public debate on the sex industry to discredit the arguments of actual feminists against pornography.
Several feminists rose in discussion, one pointing out the inconsistency of the Labor left asking representatives of the sex industry to talk about free speech and personal freedom while denying feminists a platform to speak.
I rebutted Torney's statement that "sexual repression leads to rape and assault" by pointing out that pornography itself contributes to the social construction of a particular masculinity and sexuality, which eroticises gender imbalance.
I also showed a horrific picture of a woman being vaginally and anally raped which was found on an internet porn site, talked about the similarities between racism and sexism, and how as a woman of colour, I do not find dominance and subordination to be erotic.
Surprisingly, some in the audience applauded, and Mathews quickly stepped in to deflect our argument away from "emotional" issues. Glennyys Romanes, the conference convenor, then cut us off, saying that we had had our turn — and five of us walked out.
Neither Torney nor Mathews addressed the issue of the material condition and rights of the women and children who are involved and harmed by the sex industry.
They were clear about one thing though: the power of the consumer and the power of money to purchase sexual freedom and expression, which according to them is a right that women are entitled to.
It was very nice of them to try to make sexual exploitation a women-inclusive activity, and it was very nice of them to reassure us that whilst there are some things money cannot buy (such as love, respect, or human rights), for everything else there is MasterCard, and it was also very nice of them to try to talk like a "feminist".
But at the end of the day if you are saying — and I am paraphrasing Andrea Dworkin's wonderful comment — that women-hating is bad but OK in pornography, because pornography turns you on, then you are not a feminist.
Pornography is not "representation" or "fantasy". The bodies of real women and children are used to makes pornography — often against their wills, but that only make pornography sexier because we live in a society which eroticises oppression, so that rape becomes consent.
Furthermore, as an Asian radical lesbian feminist, I was disgusted by how pornographers such as Peter Torney seek to impose their predominantly Eurocentric ideology and understanding about a specific sexuality to a multicultural society such as Australia. If sexism is the dehumanisation of women as sexual objects, then racism is a "flesh-coloured" dildo.
Although I did not attend the rest of the conference, I think the first session says a lot about what the Labor left is about — it talks about the evils of capitalism, and yet it invites business entrepreneurs to talk about free speech and personal freedom.
It purports to give a platform to Labor left supporters and activists, yet denies the speech of feminist activists and supporters.
In sum, the Labor left has decided to get into bed with the sex industry, and according to them, the speeches of pornographers are sufficient lip service to feminism and women's rights.