Tag Archives: IUSW

More on the IUSW

Cath Elliott has another piece up on the IUSW here.

I’ve just had word that Sunday’s fringe meeting on sex workers at the GMB Congress has today been cancelled following an intervention by the IUSW’s Catherine Stephens.

Apparently Stephens wasn’t happy that a representative from the Poppy Project had been invited to speak, so she managed to convince the GMB’s equalities peeps that Poppy were an anti-union organisation who shouldn’t be given a platform at a trade union conference.

Sorry, if you could just excuse me for a minute…..


The IUSW trying to dictate to others what trade unionism is all about?

Cath Elliott on the IUSW

Douglas Fox, pimp and professional windbag for the IUSW is at it again, although this time on a rather obscure pro-porny blog, rather than CiF.

Cath Elliott blogs about it effectively here (and gives our sister organisation, Autonomous Radical Feminists, a mention).

As Cath points out, and it’s important to keep on pointing out, the IUSW is not a legitimate union; it is a lobby group for the sex industry. There is a real and significant difference between front-line workers and middle management (who both have the same employers) being allowed to join the same union, and workers and bosses and members of the public with vested interests being allowed to join the same ‘union’.

What’s interesting to note, from one of Cath’s comments, is how discussion of IUSW membership/campaigning seems to be part of the ‘services’ being purchased by some johns now, as a precursor to the real ‘business’. I guess this particular speciality won’t be listed on the ‘menu’ any time soon, as it might shatter the johns’ illusions.

Also good to note that Douglas is no longer referring to himself as an ‘Amnesty activist’ (although he’s still calling himself a ‘human rights activist’). He was only ever a member of Amnesty International, he paid his three quid a month like thousands of other people in the UK, he was not employed by Amnesty, he did not speak on behalf of Amnesty, and Amnesty did not indorse his opinions in any way. It was thoroughly dishonest the way he was trying to cash in on their good name and reputation.