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 expect AI will say they have "consulted" with us, after this webchat today.

Prostitution is an unsafe job. Nobody disputes that all sex workers would be safer if selling sex was not a crime.

The question is whether all sex workers would be safer if buying sex was not a crime.

Now what makes the job unsafe? Most people here argue it is the way far too many prostitutes are treated by pimps and punters, using violence and coercion. A corrupt police force is secondary to that, and sure, it doesn't help if you're treated like a criminal when you report a crime. But that fight needs to be fought where it belongs, in the police force. It seems ridiculous to change policies because the police are not willing to implement the policies through ignorance, prejudice and misogyny. They need educating.

On top of this, the AI document even suggests that buying sex should be viewed as a right to seek sexual gratification in non-traditional ways, thereby putting the needs of the punters above the needs of the prostitutes. This is totally abhorrent, and this is what most of us are arguing against.

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

Another ignorant comment from rhinoceer.

Do you actually know what decriminalization means?

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

From the Amnesty website:

www.amnesty.org.uk/douglas-fox

"Douglas Fox has not been a member of Amnesty International for some years and has had zero input on Amnesty's draft policy on sex work.

Claims that he did are without foundation. "

What do you think it means Beach?

prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000114

sonjdol said 'a lot of lesbians pay for sex'

Which lesbians? Where? When?

No, they don't. Laughable suggestion.

I am joining the ranks of the deeply disappointed and have also cancelled my monthly direct debit to AI.

Instead I will be making a contribution to Plan instead, who fight issues like child marriage and FGM.

Women with their boyfriends watching, pay prostitutes. But more for the man's benefit

(please excuse my multiple "instead"s)

"I am joining the ranks of the deeply disappointed and have also cancelled my monthly direct debit to AI."

I was actually thinking of joining. I can fill the gap you left :)

You will fit right in Rhino

How hugely disappointing that so few questions were answered with any degree of sincerity. I wonder if Kate disagrees with the policy but cannot say so for internal reasons. I didn't feel any sense of engagement from her.

Just noting here that rhinoceer, despite lauding the authority of sex worker organisations in this debate, hasn't actually been able to come up with the names of any sex worker organisations that aren't already discredited.

"it seems to say that punters and pimps should be decriminalised in order to keep women in prostitution out of the hands of law enforcement."

Basically Kate was arguing that police and law enforcement are MORE dangerous to women than pimps and punters are. It's a ridiculous argument.

My point exactly, Mooncup!

That's an interesting thought Snatch and I agree she did seem slightly detached from the draft policy. I would imagine there is considerable divided opinion within Amnesty HQ on this, as well as amongst members, and in the wider world. For those of us that would like to see some changes to it perhaps that's encouraging?

Would corrupt police officers still not abuse their power if prostitution were legal? They are still the first port of call for a woman who has been raped so I don't see how that would improve things? Because according to the punters other posters on this thread that's why there rape accusations aren't taken seriously.

I would have thought that the underlying reason a police force may be dangerous to a prostitute is the same reason why pimps and punters can be dangerous to prostitutes. Neither respect the human rights of prostitutes to have full agency of their own body, the right to consent, the right to withdraw consent, the right to be safe from violence etc.They are viewed as inferior.

Decriminalising pimps and punters does nothing to change these attitudes towards prostitutes amongst pimps or punters nor amongst the police. In fact, it reinforces these attitudes, especially when decriminalisation is being justified with a so-called right to seek sexual gratification.

That's what I think Creeping. Misogyny can't be so easily dealt with especially by decriminalizing rape

'In conclusion, Kate Allen apologised for her mistakes over the last year. She said that the message she has taken away, (after the EGM called by members in February 2013) is how far away some members feel, from the management who are running AIUK. She said that “she profoundly regrets the disconnect that has occurred between members and the board.” She added that “ it has been a difficult year, we got things wrong and have learned from them.” '

Found this in the minutes to the meeting in 2013.
I'm not sure she's learnt from it at all.

rhinoceer, Douglas Fox doesn't agree although I'm prepared to accept he may be suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Any confirmation as to the contribution of the IUSW yet though?

So what was the issue in 2013? Why did members call an EGM?

Link to the emergency meeting.

here