Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Mumsnet webchats

WEBCHAT GUIDELINES: 1. One question per member plus one follow-up. 2. Keep your question brief. 3. Don't moan if your question doesn't get answered. 4. Do be civil/polite. 5. If one topic or question threatens to overwhelm the webchat, MNHQ will usually ask for people to stop repeating the same question or point.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

616 replies

KatieMumsnet · 03/02/2014 11:27

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

Live webchat with Amnesty International Tuesday 4th Feb, 11-12pm
OP posts:
enlightenmequick · 04/02/2014 16:27

The quote above was from

Amnesty International UK
National Conference & AGM 2013 (type in google)

I can't link because it comes up as a word document.

SinaMore · 04/02/2014 16:32

"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."

This is what I mean. However, you are wrong in thinking decriminalizing doesn't help. As I explained above, many sex workers are legally "pimps", because they rent and sub-rent their rooms to other sex workers, and help each other finding customers. As long as this is per se defined as pimping, sex workers are criminalized. The thing is that even if people don't want to see sex work as work, it functions like any other business. People rely on other people, they outsource certain tasks and specialize in other ones. Legislators shouldn't try to isolate sex workers from services they might need. We need laws that punish exploitative arrangements (which certainly exist), but many third-party-contacts make live so much easier and safer for us, for example the possiblility to rent rooms, be it from a fellow sex worker or a third person. I have worked as an escort as well as in an appartment with other women that was cared for by a non-sex worker. The latter was much safer, and the conditions absolutely fair. A good escort agency is a blessing for a single sex worker who doesn't know anyone she can trust with her job. One simple but very effective safety measure is: Always have someone who knows where you are, and let the client know this. If you are with an escort agency, the client knows that you are not alone, that you will be searched for if anything happens. By the way, this is a similar measure that some taxi drivers and social workers have. Also, an agency manager can give valuable advice for unexperienced escorts, especially on how to properly set lines.

"Would corrupt police officers still not abuse their power if prostitution were legal?"

The problem is that in countries like England and Sweden, "cracking down" on sex workers and robbing them is a job requirement for policemen. They have to do it. The corrupt ones see an opportunity and may abuse this situation to gain sexual favors in exchange for not carrying out their duty. But it's the whole system that even enables this kind of abuse (and supports the "legitimate" kind of abuse).

How police personnell treat sex workers has a lot to do with what kind of training they have. If a police officer learns that he should respect a sex worker who seeks help, he will be more likely to do it. For example: In Sweden, there was a mother who sought help against her violent husband from the police. She was also a sex worker. The swedish authorities said she needed to sort her "real" problem, sex work, out first before she would get any protection against her husband. They believed she suffered a "false conciousness" and lied about her husband. In the end, he was even awarded custody of the children. He killed the woman and a social worker. This is only possible in a climate where police are taught that prostitution is the worst fate a woman can suffer, and all other abuses don't matter compared to it. On the other hand, in England in a certain region (i don't remember where) the police have been actively encouraged to be respectful with sex workers and treat crimes against them as hate crimes. This has proved effective: Sex workers trust the police and report crimes, and as a consequence of higher crime-solving rates, the violence has decreased.

In a social climate where sex work is legally defined as violence against women, the stigmatization is practically impossible to overcome. If you say buying sex is buying a woman, people will start to believe it and clients may think they can actually buy you, and outstanders believe you let yourself be bought and don't respect you. A change in attitudes doesn't happen overnight, but it goes hand in hand with legal acceptance of sex work and ACTUAL protection for sex workers.

enlightenmequick · 04/02/2014 16:35

International UK National Conference & AGM 2008 summary of events from 2008 to date posted by Amnesty

Apologies if everyone has seen it.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 04/02/2014 16:42

From the AI document: by recognising the basic principle of difference between coerced and non-coerced sex workers

I'd still like to know how a punter does that.

Creeping · 04/02/2014 16:46

Sinamore, so you are agreeing that training the police to treat prostitutes respectfully and crimes against them as hate crimes works. So let's focus on that then, rather than decriminalising punters and pimps.

Because I would argue that for the vast majority of sex workers (and not the happy hookers you're talking about) prostitution is nothing less than violence against women, and decriminalising this exploitation won't make it any better for those women.

Beachcomber · 04/02/2014 16:50

Not sure if this has been posted already but might be of interest.

www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/northern-ireland-26019502

SinaMore · 04/02/2014 16:50

"In fact, it reinforces these attitudes, especially when decriminalisation is being justified with a so-called right to seek sexual gratification."

On the contrary. One reason why violence against sex workers is not taken seriously is the underlying sentiment that prostitution in general is violence against women. If prostitution is violence anyway, why would it matter if a woman gets raped and abused by a client? After all, she gets raped as a profession, so there's not really a difference. To you this thinking may seem horrendous, but one can see this reasoning in many sentences where abusers walk free. See also the case I wrote about in the previous post, where non-sexwork related violence against a sex worker was ignored because her job was considered so much worse than actual violence she suffered (petite jasmine in sweden). In Germany, people also argue that it's ok for police to grope sex workers "because they endure so much worse on a daily basis anyway". I think Amnesty International has made it very clear that NOBODY has the right for sexual gratification. Acknowledging that sex is a need and that people have the right to engage in sex isn't opposed to acknowledging the sexual autonomy of women, but goes hand in hand with.

SinaMore · 04/02/2014 16:54

"Sinamore, so you are agreeing that training the police to treat prostitutes respectfully and crimes against them as hate crimes works."

Yes. But to gain the trust of the sex workers, the police first had to stop closing their working places (and arresting the managers even if they were not exploitative).

enlightenmequick · 04/02/2014 16:55

Thanks beach I've searched for it a few times!

Creeping · 04/02/2014 17:08

"Acknowledging that sex is a need and that people have a right to engage in sex isn't opposed to acknowledging the sexual autonomy of women"

That is if you completely ignore the imbalance of power, that prostitution is a gender issue, that most sex workers in the world are not happy hookers.

BellaRobinson · 04/02/2014 17:10

The most problematic comment I heard is the guy who says all the people that comment should have had to sign up a week ago, in order to keep those comments out that support sex workers rights. So why do the anti's go to such great lengths to silence the voices of sex workers.

None of the anti's want to explain how criminalization helps victims or sex workers. As I said in my earlier comment, nobody want to stop trafficking more than sex workers, o look what happened when sex workers reported a victim, NOBODY cared or went to rescue Kathy.

legalizetoprotect.blogspot.com/2012/08/common-nightwalkers-disabled-escorts.html

Sex work between consenting adults has nothing to do with trafficking, as it would make as much sex to blame all marriage on domestic violence. Then we get into more HYSTERICAL comments that suggest a women would be forced to be a sex worker to access public services. 85% of US sex workers work inside and most are independent escorts.

Many people seem think AMERICANS have access to housing, food and medical care, which is IRONIC as we have thousands of homeless teens in every major city but they ANTI's don't seem interested in helping anyone that isn't willing to exit the sex industry.

I love how they call Amnesty International pimps and ask about their funding, as the anti's are the biggest PIMPS of all, making their entire living promoting violence against sex workers. To the tune of hundreds of millions ea h year in funding. Go to guidestar.org and look up how one lady at equlitynow made 272,000 in just 9 months and many of their so called survivors are also on their payrolls.

Ironically anytime a sex worker hires help, a driver, a bodyguard a booker they are deemed pimps/traffickers by US law, and yet when Walmart hires help they are called employees.

The anti don;t understand that what little trafficking takes place is about domestic violence after all, tons of women who work at Walmart go home and hand their entire paycheck over to a abusive spouse but nobody cares that they have been exploited by Walmart and then exploited bu their partners.

TunipTheUnconquerable · 04/02/2014 17:15

This is a Mumsnet webchat, arranged so that Mumsnet members can ask the Amnesty director questions. It's a bit of a stretch to call it 'silencing sex workers' when we suggest it might be an idea to limit the webchat to actual Mumsnetters.
The internet is a big place.

SinaMore · 04/02/2014 17:16

Before i started as a sex worker, i actually belived this too. Now i have seen too many satisfied sex workers to belive it. However, in the end it doesnt matter how many like it ir hate it, what matters is that all policies have to have the starting point of carefully evaluating the consequences and awarding each and every sex worker the biggest possible self-determination. Be that through helping her exiting, or by respecting that she wants to eork.

FloraFox · 04/02/2014 17:22

"the anti's are the biggest PIMPS of all, making their entire living promoting violence against sex workers"

What a load of shit.

WhentheRed · 04/02/2014 17:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FloraFox · 04/02/2014 17:28

Coming back to the webchat, I actually quite disgusted by Kate Allen's performance here. She took all two patsy questions from rhino and one from sonjdal, gave very few if any straight answers to straight questions and she was passive aggressive in her response to bindelj and dusk. She clearly hadn't read any of the threads we've discussed here as she woefully underestimated her audience and came over as condescending. Emphasising that AI doesn't care about women or listen to women.

I'm not sure what AI hoped to achieve with this webchat. As Alibaba said, massive PR fail.

WhentheRed · 04/02/2014 17:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Beachcomber · 04/02/2014 17:31

It gets very interesting at around 30 minutes in with the evidence from Ugly Mugs and then Amnesty come in at 57.30

VegetariansTasteLikeChicken · 04/02/2014 17:33

The most problematic comment I heard is the guy who says all the people that comment should have had to sign up a week ago, in order to keep those comments out that support sex workers rights. So why do the anti's go to such great lengths to silence the voices of sex workers.

No, a group I am a part of, have arranged for the voices of their members to be heard. I didn't think it was fair for it to be suddenly inundated by MRA trolls pushing an agenda.. when it was our members who specifically requested MN arrange this web chat. It would also make it appear that the average person agree with this and also let Amnesty take the easy way out by only accepting those questions which worked with their agendaa. This was proven by rhinoceer having two of his questions answered despite them promising only one per person.

I have no problem with the people who are already on MN using it as a forum for whatever their views are. Many on MN and even some of the feminist contingent are pro-prostitution. I would not attempt to "silence them"

VegetariansTasteLikeChicken · 04/02/2014 17:35

Before i started as a sex worker, i actually belived this too

Before you became a prostitute you thought all women were abused in the industry?

hmm strange that you would enter it willingly isn't it? Hmm Could it be you aren't a sex worker but a "financial supporter" of sex workers?

JugglingFromHereToThere · 04/02/2014 17:37

That was a bizarre bit to include I thought - the reference to being a miner or a foreign domestic worker. I also noticed a few typos in the draft policy and on two occasions they used the word "involuntary" when they meant "involuntarily"

Just added to my feeling of being less than impressed (at best)
Actually very worried about the implications of Amnesty making the wrong call on this.

BellaRobinson · 04/02/2014 17:59

Then when will Amnesty International give the same platform to listen to the voices of sex workers. The anti's do silence us everywhere in the media, and they refuse to even debate the issues with us. Since they are trying to create policy that directly effects us, should't be be apart of their conversation. I find it OFFENSIVE that the anti's are allowed to call us TROLL just because we support sex worker rights.

JugglingFromHereToThere · 04/02/2014 17:59

(Actually I can only find one "involuntary" in the document now, I thought there were two when I read through earlier)

Grennie · 04/02/2014 18:09

The idea that those who promote "sex worker's" rights are silenced, is a bizarre one. Feminist conferences in the UK usually promote the "sex worker's" rights agenda. And if the opposite view is promoted, they are usually "sex worker's" rights people aka women sponsored by pimps, protesting outside.

FloraFox · 04/02/2014 18:22

It appears that not only has AI given pimp lobbyists a platform, they've handed them the pen.