Have Amenesty really just voted to campaign for the decriminalisation of prostitutio?!

I note that some people were upset by my questions earlier. They really were just questions - thank you to those who answered them.

point 6 here says they are still wanting criminalisation of pimps?
www.amnesty.org/en/qa-policy-to-protect-the-human-rights-of-sex-workers/

Elton JOhn's Foundation has made a statement in support of AI. www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/11/we-stand-with-amnesty-on-sex-work

What really gives me the rage about this is all the points EJ makes in support would also be covered by the Nordic Model. Once again, gender, equality and bias are whitewashed off the table.

How can they dictate the AoC in countries where it's lower than 18?

If they are saying that "sex work" between 2 consenting persons should be decrim, then, if the AoC is 14 in that country, then a 14 yr old can "consensually" undertake "sex work"

Their approach makes no sense from any pov than the pimps and other men who feed of the pain of women.

I think they say people need to be 18 to sell sex.

This stance is however incompatible with their other stance that selling sex is a job like any other eg cleaning work. Which is frequently carried out by under 18s all over the world.

They can't have it both ways.

I wonder if the naming and shaming of western men who go to the far east to abuse children has made much impact on the trafficking of those children? Or whether, as in the Philippines, what's happened is that webcams where children abuse themselves for a faceless adult has started to take over a bit?

I know AI says that it's anti exploitation, but at what point do exploited children become adults with agency and choice? Midnight on the night of the birthday which tips them over into the age of consent?

I just don't see how decrim works for anyone but the men using women and children in this way.

This idea that the police around the world will magically stop abusing vulnerable people and start helping then instead is a joke.

I'm feeling really angry tbh.

Willingly selling that should say

I think it can be easy to confuse decriminalisation with legalisation and comparisons with legalised prostitution are of little use here

It was an opportunity for them to clarify one of the more shocking statements in that original paper but they haven't.

They have not addressed what happens when a person does not have access to people willingly seeking sex, or cannot afford it. Nor when their sexual predilections are not legal. It is at state level that human rights of people are supposed to be met- making sure citizens have enough food, shelter etc. And now, enough sex. Right.

Well yes. How hard would it be for them to say, 'We do not believe there is a human right to sex. Sex should only ever take place between consenting adults.'

That's amnesty saying that and being naive not you lweji, sorry wasnt clear

It is very hard to get men prosecuted for violence or rape or coercion even if you're not a prostitute and living in a country like the UK.

To say yeah that's bad countries just need to make it illegal is so ridiculously naive as to be dismissive.

In their Q&A they have the question about the human right to sex and in their answer they do not refute it. See my cut and paste upthread. Saying sexual intercourse with another human being is a human right like food or water is extremely problematical. Their response indicates they believe that it is.

The thing that strikes me as interesting is their contention that you've a human right to buy sex if you're not willing to get it by other means. So if you don't want to treat women like humans, you've a human right to pay them for temporary access to their bodies. It's a peculiar point of view for a human rights organization, I think.

Also agree with Irene.

I really don't see it that black and white because decriminalisation is more likely to bring in regulations and checks and overall protection.
Men can still be prosecuted for coercion, violence and rape.
I do not thing there is a perfect choice but I don't think this stance is that bad.
Even though I'm against prostitution and have no respect for those who use or profit from prostitutes.

If, and I'm taking their text at face value, the vast majority of organisations linked with prostitution support this, I'd think it is likely that it will benefit the women involved in prostitution. No matter how you regard prostitution.

I'll be jumped on, but I don't support abortion per se, but I agree with it being legal and for women to have the right to do it as the best option in a less than ideal world for reasons of their safety, mental health and so on.

To be fair, the Amnesty Q&A does say that lots of people end up in prostitution unwillingly and that this is an extra reason to protect them (which is certainly true).

But they leave so many questions unanswered; they mention that 50% of prostitutes report being raped but never address who raped them, how and why. It's a massive gap. If they are going to campaign for decrim I think they should also have a massive push to enable prostitutes to report abusive punters and get them prosecuted in a court of law. Plus a big programme of help for prostitutes to keep them safe, help with drug problems and enable those who want to leave the profession to do so.

I would also like to see an admission from Amnesty that using a prostitute is a bloody awful thing to do and that the only reason they don't want to criminalise punters is because they think it would make life less safe for prostitutes (I don't agree with this position myself but I do think it is the most cogent criticism of the Nordic approach).

Also if you say that selling sex is the same as any other work then there is no need for assistance, exit strategies and so on. Because you don't have those things for other jobs, do you.

Yet at the same time there aren't any other jobs that as a fundamental part mean such large physical and psychological risks for often young vulnerable people.

I haven't read anyone who thinks the people selling sex on the front line should be criminalised, lweji.

It's what happens after that.

Amnesty take the view that even when people are forced to sell sex through economic necessity ie do it or starve, do it or children starve, this should be treated the same as any other work, I think cleaning was specifically mentioned iirc

The report additionally barely mentions that this is gendered with men being the vast majority of purchasers and women and girls being the vast majority of prostituted.

Their stance that sexual intercourse is a human right in unpalatable. Their statement that people who don't want , or are unable to access sex via other means, should have the ability to purchase sex is bizarre.

There was more.

That was in the original discussion paper, they don't seem to have updated our changed it.

Oh and in it, it treated those on the "front line" as the same as those in the background. Ie pimps etc. And punters were barely mentioned even though they are a source of huge risk, apart from to say that their ability to buy women was a human right.

All of the vast array of problems were barely touched on, they just sort of said "yeah that should be illegal and week leave that to someone else to think about".