Live webchat with Amnesty International Tuesday 4th Feb, 11-12pm

[KatieMumsnet]

Following the leaking of an Amnesty International policy document 'Decriminalisation of Sex Work: Policy Background', which argues that men who buy sex are ‘exercising their autonomy’ and should be allowed to do so ‘free from government interference’ there has been considerable discussion on the site and requests for a webchat.

Today, Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK will be here between 11-12pm to answer your questions.

Please do join us live on Tuesday or ask your question on this thread in advance. Just a quick reminder that it’s one question per person; take a look at our webchat guidelines, here.

Best

MNHQ

I'm sure that they'll be thinking about the Nordic model and other possibilities.

How does that relate to men's "need" for sex?

Why did Kate even bother to turn up when she was never going to answer any questions properly. How pathetic. Amnesty is for men's rights now, women are clearly lesser.

rhinoceer do you care to name the "sex worker organisations" which you think do legitimately represent workers? Because I can't think of any which haven't already been discredited as either being run by pimps and open to punters, or mostly founded and run by people who have never worked in the industry at all.

Speaking of Latin America, are you going to be asking pimping organisations in Mexico how many more women they will traffic each year if pimping is not illegal?

Every year thousands of women are forced into prostitution and traded from Mexico to the United States. The BBC investigates the sex trafficking business, which makes some men very wealthy at the expense of vulnerable young women.

Well that was exactly as expected deeply disappointing.

In terms of terminology IMO I would prefer for the term clients to be used when speaking formally. Punter is a slang term.

Goodbye Amnesty Kate.

Thank you for coming. I hope you make the right decision here. I really, really hope you do.

@DuskAndShiver

Re-posting Flora's point as a question:

Kate, why are you now saying "Amnesty isn't saying that there is a right to buy sex."

• but, in contrast, the documentation clearly says:

"As noted within Amnesty International?s policy on sex work, the organization is opposed to criminalization of all activities related to the purchase and sale of sex. Sexual desire and activity are a fundamental human need. To criminalize those who are unable or unwilling to fulfill that need through more traditionally recognized means and thus purchase sex, may amount to a violation of the right to privacy and undermine the rights to free expression and health"

?

Has something changed? Has Amnesty changed its mind? Or is it not being quite straight?

I feel that you are really picking and choosing your questions here by focusing on being anti-rape (unproblematic); anti-trafficking (unproblematic); LGB rights (unproblematic)

Kate, please answer the difficult questions which are about sex work as a key part of women's oppression, and the difficulties of framing any sort of policy about these based on a simplistic notion of "consent" which has not been fully interrogated; also please answer the question about why the document is about punters but you are pretending it is all about sex workers

Hi there

We are saying there isn't a human right to buy sex.

Perhaps we need to think more clearly about how we present the argument. But let me assure you, the central point of this draft policy is how we can protect the human rights of those engaged in sex work. The argument about whether the punter is criminalised or not centres on the effect on the person working as a sex worker. If what the sex worker does is not criminal but what the punter does is, the sex worker has to find ways to protect the punter otherwise they too are bought into the police and criminal justice system. If it's illegal for the punter, the sex worker will have to be in unsafe situations to find work. and it is from this perspective that we are consulting, whether you support that view or not.

Seems to me that AI stance is that rape is not a crime if women are poor and women are not entitled to state/police protection.

describing a client as "punter" is already very discriminatory

Why? If the cap fits?

In terms of terminology IMO I would prefer for the term clients to be used when speaking formally. Punter is a slang term

why not valued customer?

Thank you for coming in and giving an initial response to questions this morning Kate. I'm sure it can't be easy. I hope we have all given you and Amnesty plenty to think about in going forwards towards creating a policy which will be best in protecting vulnerable women and girls around the world.

"If it's illegal for the punter, the sex worker will have to be in unsafe situations to find work."

Massive assumption. Betrays your rejection of the Swedish model in advance of so-called consultation.

describing a client as "punter" is already very discriminatory

How about rapist instead?

Not once have you said how you're going to protect these vulnerable women and girls?

The lack of safety for women in prostitution comes from the pimps and punters. Increasing access to women will increase danger.

now we will never know their thoughts on nationalising the UK sex industry :( whether it could be a bit like the NHS with all their cheap doctors from Abroad or with market triumphalism, could those of us who can afford it buy a go on some hotter Europeans etc

Perhaps we need to think more clearly about how we present the argument.

Have you thought of becoming an MP? They're brilliant at giving non-answers and accusing us of not understanding the point.

How about rapist instead?

Nah, remember these women 'consent.'

I will be leaving Amnesty.

I've enjoyed the conversation, a lot to think about and will take this all away and feed in into our consultation. Those of you who are Amnesty members please do join in our members' consultation (the AI magazine will have a way to get involved). As we move forward and make decisions on this, I'd be very happy to come back if that would be something people would find useful.

I agree Whenthered, this has been massively insulting to the intelligence of MNers.

Would you really rhinoceer - IMO punter is polite considering how many of them are abusers and rapists.

Well thanks for coming Kate. I hope people leave your organisation in droves if you play a part in the decriminalizing of the buying of sexual access to society's most vulnerable.

BindelJ - huge thanks for leaking that document.

Damn you Mitchy for making me laugh on a serious fred :o

"slug Tue 04-Feb-14 12:10:14
describing a client as "punter" is already very discriminatory

How about rapist instead?"

IMO putting all sex workers (including consenting sex workers) and rape victims into the same category would be insulting to victims of rape.

IMO Prostitution between consenting adults and rape are not the same thing. There is NEVER consent in rape.