The Guardian, yet again, is calling a commercially raped child a ‘sex worker’.
In this article on Cyntoia Brown, who was first trafficked into commercial sexual exploitation at the age of sixteen, the first paragraph says this:
Celebrities including Rihanna, Cara Delevingne and Kim Kardashian West are calling for freedom from prison for a woman who was 16 years old when she killed a man who hired her as a sex worker.
At this point I can’t believe this is an accident; this is very deliberate, partisan language, “hired her as a sex worker”, not even “hired her for sex”, as if the situation was just a bug in the otherwise benign system of ‘sex work’.
I have written to the Guardian many times on this subject, and not ever received a reply (the Observer does better). Please feel free to use or adapt the below template:
Dear editor,
I am writing to you, yet again, to complain about your use of the term ‘sex work’ in relation to a commercially sexually exploited child (in the article ‘Cyntoia Brown: celebrities call for victim of sex trafficking to be freed’ published online today).
Brown was sixteen years old when she was commercially raped (and had been sexually abused from a younger age), the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises anyone under the age of eighteen as a child, regardless of local age of consent laws. In New Zealand, where the sex industry has been decriminalised, only people over the age of eighteen can legally consent to ‘sex work’, so there is no justification to refer to Brown as a ‘sex worker’.
This use of language is harmful, it invisibilises the abusive system in which Brown was exploited, and invisibilises the role sex buyers play in this system. By calling Brown a ‘sex worker’ you sanitise the man who paid to rape her as someone merely engaging in a commercial transaction, rather than a predator who targeted the most vulnerable children.
The Guardian keeps asking for subscribers, I will not give you a penny while you continue to sanitise the harm done to vulnerable children, young people, and adults by uncritically using the term ‘sex work’ to describe commercial sexual exploitation.
Yours sincerely,
Abi
guardian.readers@theguardian.com
international@theguardian.com
UPDATE 02/Sep/18: The wording has been changed from “hired her as a sex worker”, to “hired her for sex” (H/T message-from-matilda on tumblr), I don’t know when this happened, as my email was never replied to (and I am sure I was not the only person to complain).
Here’s an archived copy of the original article, and here’s the live article.
I’d kinda given up writing to the Guardian, since none of my emails have ever been replied to, but it might just be worth keeping on with!
Here are all the previous times I have blogged about this:
https://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/2017/08/09/an-absolute-low-from-the-guardian/
https://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/the-guardian-is-still-calling-raped-women-workers/
https://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/qotd-us-teens-often-forced-to-trade-sex-work-for-food-study-finds/
https://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/the-guardian-is-still-calling-child-victims-of-commercial-sexual-exploitation-sex-workers/
https://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/2014/12/23/this-is-why-the-term-sex-work-is-a-lie/
Here’s some links to the UN Convention onthe Rights of the Child:
https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_summary-1.pdf?_ga=2.14437812.202559414.1511815662-828301493.1511815662
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OPSCCRC.aspx
Great post Abi, I hadn’t been aware that the Guardian was being so ridiculous.
Looking back at the different archived versions, it was changed sometime between the 3rd and the 12th December 2017.