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

Well that was disappointing

Have Amnesty actually said they would want pimping to be legal? I'm not certain but Kate did clearly deny Amnesty works or consults with pimps.

Pimping doesn't have to be legal to have decriminalization. At the moment in the UK we have decriminalization but pimping is illegal.

rhinoceer perhaps you didn't see my question to you the first time, so here it is again:

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.

well I made DoctorTwo laugh so on balance it was time well spent or at least not entirely wasted

would like to be more interested in the idea of complete decriminalisation but I think it's really hard to do that, to make the demand for prostitutes a lawful exercise of one's rights, if you start from a position of women's well being and interests

but was an explanation ever given for the ungendered language? wanted to know why it was important to pretend that women and men buy and sell sexual services in roughly equal ways and amounts

What most people don't seem to realize is that at one point or another, most sex workers profit from the work of other sex workers, for example by renting out their flat to friends while not working. In countries with harsh prostitution laws such as sweden and england, this is considered pimping. Of course the police know that these women are not violent predators, but they still prosecute them because it's their job and they can gain financially from it. People here are incredibly naive about how police treat sex workers. In reality, not everyone thinks sex workers deserve to be treated with dignity, and especially not every policeman. In england, police can legally rob sex workers and victims of human trafficking of their income, under the guise of "securing evidence about organized crime". In Sweden, police are allowed to harrass sex workers to find the clients, and sex workers are forced to testify in court against their clients and can be evicted by the landlords.

As with any criminalization, this means sex workers can be raped and blackmailed by corrupt policemen. Clients can anonymously call the police and tip them off about the living place of sex workers who wouldn't do what they wanted- and soon the place will be swarming with police. The sex worker will lose her social standing, her second job if she has one, her children, her home...everything. It doesn't matter whether one thinks prostitution is wrong or good, what matters is what effects policies actually have.

I think decriminalising pimps and punters would amount to declaring prostitutes fair game, especially the most vulnerable ones in Nairobi, because pimps and punters are officially doing nothing wrong, just seeing to their needs being met.

Why would a corrupt police force suddenly treat prostitutes any better than they do now, when their status as slaves to providers for the sex needs of pimps and punters has become official?

Gosh, more political non-answers. Very disappointing. I have already left AI because of this, having written to them twice with concerns over the "sex is a human right" footnote and only had the standard response about "consultation"

If they would just take a stance that says they retract that footnote wholly, it would be a start, but if their starting point is sex is a human right, I don't think it matters what the rest of the policy says.

when their status as slaves to providers for the the sex rightsneeds of pimps and punter has become officially endorsed?

Forgive my ignorance here. Do "members" of AI pay a subscription fee of some sort? I would support a campaign of wholesale withdrawal. Perhaps money talks, eh ? (as per...)

Never heard such a ridiculous argument as Sinamore just stated.

"As with every criminalisation, sex workers can be raped and blackmailed". Surely this can happen with all criminals, not just sex workers? This is not a reason to decriminalise the punters.

Sorry, I didn't intend to equate sex workers with criminals of course. Anybody who comes into contact with the police is a better description.

The stuff about prostitution being consensual sex on a par with LGB relationships really pissed me off too.

It seems that Kate believes that saying more or less the same thing over and over again,albeit in slightly different words, to whatever questions are asked is reassuring.

Thank you Kate but reassured we most definitely are not.

Kate did make it clear Amnesty have a zero tolerance stance against rape and trafficking.

She also made it clear Amnesty do not work with or consult with pimps.

And also Amnesty have consulted dozens of sex worker/prostitute groups and dozens of women's rights groups over many continents.

Doesn't that count for anything?

@ WhentheRed: As I explained above, most sex workers have profited from the work of other sex workers in some kind. This is considered promoting prostitution, and is a criminal offense, so if a police officer decides he wants to arrest you, he will find something to justify it. If it becomes known that a woman is a sex worker, police will start harrassing her in order to find clients. How else are they supposed to arrest clients? As the state is not obliged to pay remedies for lost income, she will lose her income. If there is a lot of police activity at her home, it becomes known that she is a sex worker. As a sex worker I can assure you that for many of us, the biggest fear is that our social surrounding will find out about our job. It can mean social death. This fear is even larger in countries where the Landlords can evict her and are even obliged to if she works from her home, because otherwise they would be considered pimps. Many sex workers are mothers. In countries where sex work is partly criminalized, children are usually taken from the mothers if it becomes known that she is a sex worker (read for example about petite jasmine, where custody was awarded to a violent ex-husband). The partner of a woman can be prosecuted as a pimp if she contributes anything to the household finances. Furthermore, I have read first-hand experiences from colleagues who have worked in norway, where clients are criminalized. They were treated with utter disrespect by police, manhandled, stalked and insulted, even if they were supposed to be victims.

Why would any sex worker go to the police when she is attacked if she faces these risks? I know I would rather not. Re-living an attack would already be hard enough.

Hey, rhinoceer, do you need me to repeat my question? Am happy to.

AnyFucker, yes members pay a monthly subscription fee. I urge women not to resign though until after the AGM. If they endorse this policy, then I will resign my membership and would support a campaign to get others to do the same.

SinaMore Mon 03-Feb-14 20:57:51

^"While I agree that criminalizing the buying of sex is a grave human rights violation of the bodily autonomy of buyers (NOT because there is a "right to sex, but because there is a right to have CONSENSUAL Sex , and that is of course what Amnesty International means), I'm more interested in the human rights abuses against sex workers in the name of "saving" them as I'm a sex worker myself.

Question: I have noticed that most legitimate social service organizations for victims of human trafficking as well as social services for sex workers and migrant women are against criminalizing the buying of sex and strict regulations for the industry (for example, because sex workers are afraid of going to the police if they face the risk of being harassed and losing their income or even home and children). How do you explain that the recommendations of actual experts gets so little attention in the broad media and by most politicians, or are dismissed if they become public?"^

I agree with this. Rape and trafficking are already crimes and should always be treated as such. Consensual sex work should never be. NOT because of the human rights of men to buy sex - which I think is a very weird angle for Amnesty to approach the whole issue from - but because decriminalising sex work brings sex workers within the protection of the law. Which makes it more likely that they can report rape without fear of being prosecuted themselves.

There seems to be such a split between Radfems who only believe the testimony of exited women and everything said on the issue by current sex workers. Why is it so hard for people to see that some women are trafficked, and need help. Some choose prostitution because their only alternative is poverty. Others choose to do the job because they like and enjoy it. ALL those groups would be safer if selling sex was not a crime.

Women who are prostituted should be totally decriminalised. Nobody here wants anything different. If a mother has a violent pimp, in countries like the UK, she will always be at risk of having her kids taken away. Thta has nothing to do with criminalizsation, legislation, or decriminalisation. That is because authorities put the needs of the children first.

reader - There are women currently in prostitution who don't agree with the "empowered sex worker" line. The reality is that the only voices that are heard of "sex workers" are usually those in a much better situation to most women in the industry.

And the reality is it is very difficult to talk about being abused. Why do you expect women who are currenbtly being abused and exploited to talk about it publically.

We don't when making policies around DV go and only talk to women who are being abused at that time by male partners, Christ read relationships here and you can see how many women who are being terribly treated by terrible partners, take ages to realise it.

She also made it clear Amnesty do not work with or consult with pimps.

They didn't consult with Douglas Fox the IUSW then?

I would also like to know which women's groups they consulted with.

Shocking stuff

Proposal written dreadfully. I sincerely hope my reading of it is different from its intentions.

Terrible webchat. I hope Kate and others at AI have a very good read of this and at least try to have some intelligent discussion amongst themselves. Shame it couldn't happen on here.

Very disappointed with AI, very impressed with MNers.