In response to the criticism that Kathleen Maltzahn has been facing from within the Greens, combined with the heat that the young Greens are copping over their reluctance to publicly come out against Maltzahn, the Victorian Young Greens made a post to their Facebook page in which they claim to stand up for the rights of sex workers:
We recognise sex workers as workers, and that they have the same equality of labour as other workers. We're proud of Greens Policy which is "Decriminalisation of consensual adult sex work." [...] We need to stand with sex workers as we would with any worker whose right to livelihood and safety was impacted by unfair policy.
Mind you, nowhere in this frankly poorly formatted post is there any condemnation of Maltzahn over her views regarding sex work. One person was quick to point out this contradiction:
Maltzahn's views now not only contradict the Greens policy, but are actually supported by sections of the Victorian Liberal Party, who are going to attempt to get it adopted as formal Liberal policy:
Could they be banking on the Greens support, knowing full well that Maltzahn has a real chance of getting elected come November, especially given that Maltzahn herself is on the record to say that she would "vote with her conscience" against the Greens established policy regarding the decriminalisation of sex work?
Definitely not all smooth sailing within the Victorian Young Greens. They are trying to play both sides of the fence, keeping one foot in the door, and people are clearly seeing through their charade. They need to decide, firmly, which side they stand on: do they stand with the Liberal Party? Or do they stand with sex workers - an extremely marginalised group in our society?
Given it is me who the above anonymous page admin is referring to, I only felt compelled to respond. Since I have published those comments, which have been attributed to the Victorian Young Greens, I've had several members of the Young Greens from other states clambering over each other to get to me in order to work who the source is (sorry, I don't give up the identity of my sources). Also given that I'd be liable to defamation by making up comments and falsely attributing them to a specific source; it's not exactly within my best interest to be fabricating quotes and falsely attributing them to specific sources, is it?
Nice try, though.
Update - 9.34PM April 22, 2018
It appears that the Facebook post (along with the associated comments) has been removed.
About the author:
Matt Hrkac is a writer and photographer based in Geelong. He has particular interests in politics, elections, social movements and the trade union movement.
Have your say
|Total comments: 2|
Spam (24 April 2018 1:15 PM)
So great and ‘principled’ they are that they removed the post. LOL. Word to the wise, VYG, don’t post shit if you can’t stand by it when your hypocrisy is called out.
The ‘Tree tory memes’ page, who was commenting on the thread before it was removed, also belongs to a VYG OB too, the same one who made the original post.
Spam (23 April 2018 0:23 AM)
I saw the post in question before it was removed and yeah, pure opportunism as per usual from this mob. Fancy making a statement that is pro sex workers when they are unwilling to make a comment against their candidate who is clearly anti sex worker? They were also copping quite a bit of flack on their post too... the irony of doing more damage to the party’s brand by putting party ahead of principles is not at all lost. Bunch of political lightweight morons.
There is also no doubt that the Libs would be banking on Kathleen’s support to implement the Nordic model in Victoria, especially if she holds the BOP after the next election. As mentioned, she has said herself that she would vote against the Greens policy that is to decriminalise sex work.