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

The sex as 'human need' crap that has been spouted by Ms Allen is yet again a way of de-gendering a gendered issue. Just as using the term 'sex worker' is a sneaky piece of spin designed to gloss over the fucked up (gendered) power dynamic that exists in paid for sex.

We all know that in prostitution, the prostituted are overwhelmingly girls and women and the punters are virtually all men. Which quite clearly demonstrates that within the context of prostitution, we are not talking about 'need' but about 'entitlement'. Male entitlement. Which stems from male privilege and which manifests as the subjugation of girls and women. And by talking about 'human need' within this context, in one fell swoop, Amnesty International exhibits an alarming shift from being humanitarian and progressive, to a position which glaringly shows them to be deeply conservative and deeply sexist. Deeply deeply sexist.

What I have taken away from this poor show of a webchat is that, on the issue of prostitution, (which many other humanitarian organisations analyse as a travesty of human rights, notably those of girls and women) Amnesty International is a profoundly patriarchal and misogynistic organisation.

If you want to know how humane a society is, look at how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. If you want to know how misogynistic a society is, look at how it treats its most vulnerable women.

Anyways, if the genuine reason for this move by AI was to protect vulnerable women (and some men/boys), they'd promote that having a paid job or alternatively access to education and benefits are human rights.

Yes. I would say it's human right to not be forced to prostitute yourself. There must be alternatives for girls adn women.

There are organizations who work on helping making it easier for girls (in poor countries) to go to school and get an education, help women start small businesses etc. But AI's response is just "Well they're poor and the world is unfair so they should just prostitute themselves, let's decriminalize pimps and buyers because it's men's human need to wank into women"

Im going to do some Googleing tonight to find ut how many men have died or been serious injured due to their balls exploding because of lack of sex.

Shocking Briar, but I hope Amnesty are still reading and thinking hard about the response they've had here.

I'm confused as to why bella and sinmore are still here. This is British parenting site. None of us here work for Amnesty International or are seniors making 100k in religious American anti prostitution organizations. Spamming this site with random posts is a waste of your time.

go away please

We all know that in prostitution, the prostituted are overwhelmingly girls and women and the punters are virtually all men. Which quite clearly demonstrates that within the context of prostitution, we are not talking about 'need' but about 'entitlement'. Male entitlement. Which stems from male privilege and which manifests as the subjugation of girls and women.

KABOOM! Spot on Beachcomber. As you say, it is deeply sexist and more than a little worrying that AI seem to be shifting to the right.

Yes Beach - your post says perfectly what I think. Using prostitutes is not a need. It stems from men's belief that women belong to them.

AI are feeding this attitude.

Does anyone know what other charities have to say about AI's approach to tackling problems in this "imperfect" world?

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. - Amnesty International

Well I was offline yesterday and thank christ for that. This ^ is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever heard. It's like saying 'we can't stop logging in the rainforests because the locals will suffer economically and will start dealing drugs instead so we'll just carry on'.

AI are feeding this attitude.

Exactly SauceforTheGander. This is why if Amnesty supports, in any way, the idea that men (even though they say humans, we all know due to the gendered nature of prostitution, they mean men) have a need for sex and therefore a need for women to provide them with sex, they will be showing themselves to be deeply misogynistic. And deeply classist and racist as the next item in that thought process is an acceptance of which sort of woman will be considered expendable and can be discarded from the world that Ms Allen, and most of us here, live in, and put into a subclass of women who will sexually service men and fulfill their 'need'. Because of course we all know that in a misogynist's mind, a man's need to stick his penis in a woman's mouth, anus or vagina is more important than her need for safety, food, shelter and bodily autonomy.

This is rape culture in action. I was dismayed and angry yesterday at the way the webchat went. Now I've had a bit of time to absorb it, I am horrified and sickened.

Anyway, I came on here to post the first part of the video I posted yesterday of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Rachel Moran gives evidence from about 18 minutes in. I applaud her.

www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/northern-ireland-25973268

Everyone knows it's mostly men buying women/girls.

I used to live near a type of redlight district. Male punters and scary male pimps lurking around and young women standing around waiting for them. Any woman or young girl no matter what they looked like would be harassed by the punters if they passed through the "wrong" street.

Only the dishonest and the deluded use neutral language to make it seem equal between the sexes.

This is rape culture in action
Yes.

Just caught up on the yellow posts and I'm absolutely livid.

a) Rhinoceer asked two questions and despite MN saying that those who only asked one question would get answered, and that he's blatantly an MRA/punter, he got answered

b) KateAmnesty only discussed this using the term 'people involved in sex work' without questioning what sex work exactly is - the coercion / consent issue, the level of grooming involved in order to do it. The assumption that it's on par with nursing or administration is the fundamental flaw in AI's reasoning.

c) KateAmnesty kept rattling on about making things safe for women who are in an imperfect situation. Sanctioning sex for sale makes them safer? Perhaps sanctioning decent running water would be more straightfoward. Did we do this with child labourers in India - make their lives better by legalising their work? No.

d) KateAmnesty didn't answer my question.

I have never read or heard an intelligent, logical or substantiated pro-legalised prostitution argument and this thread has been no exception. If the trolls realised just how thick they sound and how thin their 'evidence' is, they might think again, but probably not.

What's really depressing here is to have AI making similarly stupid points. I started a group at my school years ago and have given money fairly regularly since, but never again. So to see the patriarchy taking over what I thought was an organisation that actually supported human rights.

One thing I hope Amnesty International think about very very carefully is that if buying sex is legal and state endorsed that turns women into meal tickets.

As already happens, particularly in poor countries, girls and women will be farmed out by their male relatives and their partners and husbands.

So well put Beachcomber.

I'm just hoping that KateAmnesty has only been briefed on the consultations done on sex worker victim groups and is still due to consult the rest of the population of women on the planet.

I'm still really interested to find out why Rhinoceer got two questions answered despite this being against the rule set by MN and the additional rule that was set later on. She must have been very keen to respond to that particular person despite the many many other questions by many other people.

Hmm, good post Beachcomber.

I think some part of buying and selling sex needs to remain illegal (partly because instinctively it seems wrong, but also for practical reasons), though of course I can quite see the argument for de-criminalising the sex workers who are usually vulnerable people with few options (possibly not always, I don't know)

I'm not convined Amnesty have thought this through - certainly not as well as they should have done before producing a "draft document" as described by their director (whether or not it was leaked into public view)

Christ there are still men in Africa that truly believe that having sex with a virgin is a cure for Aids. Is this the kind of location that AI think their policy will make a difference? It's absolutely horrifying.

Here's another petition
www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/amnesty-international-we-demand-amnesty-international-listen-to-survivors-and-reject-the-proposal-to-decriminalize-all-aspects-of-prostitution#share

Horse I wondered the same thing too re. The two questions - seemed a bit convenient.

Amnesty are 'open to the thought that some others may have chosen this freely'. The tiny percentage of women who choose 'freely' to be prostitutes, not out of coercion/poverty/mental health issues/drug dependence/previous sexual abuse etc should not be a part of this discussion. Nobody's choices are totally free in any case, we all live in a global culture that says sex is a 'need' which it is just 'natural' for men to get fulfilled by any means so prostitution is therefore normal. We are all conditioned by that and people make unhealthy life choices. Women who claim 'agency' in doing this work are priveleged and if we take their views into account we are sacrificing the vast majority who aren't. This argument is always a red herring.

I'm happy that MNHQ got KateAmnesty onto the webchat so quickly but I would be interested in why AI have this defensive attitude.

Surely if there was an open, comfortable consultation going on she would not be debating using punter's terms of reference and welcoming discussion - this was not the tone of her posts.

Yy horse - most webchats I've seen start with the first questions on the thread then try and cover various areas (rather than answering several similar questions from different posters). This one? No.

Just seen a twitter conversation between a LibDem candidate (Cambridge Castle) who is supporting AI.

I had a feeling it was the old-fashioned bonkers liberals behind all this.

She really ought to know better www.belindabrooks-gordon.org/biography

Has this been linked to before?
www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/sex-trade-was-asked-to-join-amnesty-and-lobby-internally-1-5854040

I explained the illusion of choice to my 9 year old the other day in relation to sexual and racial discrimination. Of someone is devoid of role models and told only certain jobs are available to you then your choice is not a free choice. He got it immediately.

I'm amazed AI look at the inequality, shrug and say "it's an imperfect world" and expedite the acceptance of prostitution by saying sex is a need for men.

There's plenty of men who have sex with their wives but happily use prostitutes. It's not just about sex.

^Rachel Moran gives evidence from about 18 minutes in. I applaud her.

www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/northern-ireland-25973268^

Watching this now. Much recommended.

In response to "
So those of you who are pro buys a woman's body as a wank aid, what are your feelings to the news reports of children as young as 12 being sexually abused?

Is that ok? Cuz men need sex afterall?"

More kids are sexual abused by church members coaches, cops and caretakers than there are in sex trafficking. in the US we have traced over 300 cops that have rape kids and many didn't even get 3 years in jail nor were they made to register as sex offenders.

SEX WORK has NOTHING to do with children being abused, as its PREDATORS that abuse kids, not sex workers or our clients. Sex workers could be the best tools in finding these kids who are being exploited yet the anti trafficking movement and law enforcment refuses to cooperate with us to get this done. This is like saying we need to abolish all sex to protect kids, or abolish marriage to stop domestic violence. How is publishing the names, photos and addresses of arrested sex workers part of stopping child trafficking? These policies are set up to punish women for being sex workers. How does "condoms as evidence" stop trafficking or in the best interest of public safety. These are all polices that the anti trafficking narrative has been supporting.

See below 300 cops in just a few years that raped kids in the US

www.policeprostitutionandpolitics.com/pdfs_all/Truth_about_sex_trafficking/Cops_prostitutes_child_sexual_exploitation_Sex_Trafficking.pdf

To the person who keeps asking "Would legalising prostitution mean that women could forced to accept to work in prostitution or risk losing their unemployment benefits?" "

Of course not, nobody is going to force anyone to be a sex work by withholding their benefits, so please stop the hysteria