Amnesty International says laws against buying sex breach men's human rights

[DonkeySkin]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545003/Amnesty-calls-legal-prostitution-Charity-says-laws-ban-people-buying-selling-sex-breach-human-rights.html

The organisation is planning to adopt a position that calls for the full decriminalisation of the sex industry, including johns and pimps.

It is tabling a paper for its UK branch to vote on that says it is a human right for 'consenting adults' to purchase sexual consent from another person (regardless of the desperate circumstances that person may be in, presumably). The paper also devotes time to that latest favourite cover-all for sex-industry advocates, 'the rights of the disabled', as a reason to allow the continuing expansion of the global sex industry with no oversight or concern from governments.

Apparently the human rights of the (overwhelmingly) women and girls who are coerced, trafficked and enslaved inside the sex industry to satisfy the demand from men for paid sex are of no concern.

Oh, sorry - Amnesty does remember to devote a whole two words to this, conceding that prostitution takes place in an 'imperfect context'. That would presumably be the context of a worldwide patriarchy that devalues female human beings, denies them education, safety and fairly paid work, and tells men they have the right to use their bodies for sex regardless of their actual desires. Not to mention, systemic racism, colonialism and exploitative capitalism.

Good to know Amnesty is prepared to stand up for the most vulnerable people on earth - male sex buyers.

It is the equivalent of letting a columbian drug gang write advise you on your policy to help drug dependants.

AI should know much better. They have been naive beyond belief. Which makes me lose even more respect for them.

The IUSW also has members who are sex workers. Or doesn't that count for anything?

This is a global document, right?

How could anyone assume that the statements they might find from someone like DominaElle will apply globally?

That's just ridiculous.

Anyone who thinks that the vast majority of people working in prostitution, are doing so of a genuine choice, with alternative equally lucrative jobs available, and not out of a need to feed children, or themselves, or a drug habit, and with no history of sexual abuse, and an absolute ability to choose clients to engage in mutually satisfying sexual intimacy and all the rest of it...

Anyone who believes that is basically really really fucking stupid. Or self serving. Or both.

rhino - It wouldnt work as a very good front if every single member was a pimp. They need a few who are not.

But actually who knows if they have any. At the parliamentary committee the ISWU were unable to give even an estimate of their membership. 10, 100, 200? They couldn't say.

Tabard - I think there are a few genuine prostituted women who either have an okay experience and think it applies to most, or are fooling themselves. But every single women I have ever met who has been in the sex industry, says it was not a good experience - whether or not they agree with the Nordic Model.

I tend to think some who talk it up are really pimps. That is the beauty of the sex work phrase, it includes anyone from those who work behind a till in a sex shop, to photographers and pimps. Very few of those who say they are pro sex workers, are actually getting penetrated by men for pay.

And every survivor organisation publically states the number of members they have.

They only say it when those "sex workers" are saying what they want to hear. As soon as they don't, they magically don't listen to them.

Yes Grennie exactly that. And p*nter is unprovable but happy prostitute stories are all real.

I keep thinking of Spearmint Rhino

"Also, if you really believed that only the voices of "sex workers" should be heard, you would not be speaking. But here you are."

quite.

Exactly. Whenever a sex worker who isn't trafficked speaks feminists all put their fingers in their ears.

do try harder

Not at all.

If there are people who are happy in their work then good for them.

How that relates to the reality for people who are, as AI put it, "choosing" to work as prostitutes in an "imperfect context" is anyone's guess.

And note the "imperfect context" idea is from AI.

The language they choose goes a long way to disguise what they are talking about.

The paper is revolting, frankly.

Pimping is already illegal in the UK, and I don't see many people wanting to make it legal.

Twitter is exploding with the " pro sex work" crowd. They are trying to take over the hashtag #questionsforamnesty. If you are on twitter, can you please tweet under this hashtag about this disgraceful policy. Thanks

A quick re-skim and the AI document has no comment on pimping.

If they seek to decriminalise all aspects of "sex work" and don't exclude pimps, then I would say that they would be included in their plans.

Yes, they are seeking to decriminalise pimps.

I have just rtft and it is virtually unanimous that this idea is really ill considered. Personally I will be writing to Amensty to express my opinion. It has actually given me the opportunity to really consider my views on this whole issue. It does demonstrate the limitations of choice though. Domanella was able to contort the 'who are you to tell me what to do with my body?' card of feminism and to twist it to an almost unrecognisable vista of actually attempting to undermine huge numbers of other vulnerable women, the irony I guess.

I think Amensty are making a huge mistake. I think sometimes you can take the academic argument way to far and lose sight of the real issues and that is definitely what Amensty have done here. If you have to take a human rights argument so far that it serves to undermine the human rights of the most vulnerable of people then I think it is time to reconsider your organisational leadership.

It is the equivalent of letting a columbian drug gang write advise you on your policy to help drug dependants.

^ Yes, this.

I'm so utterly disappointed with Amnesty over this. Human right to buy sex? Listening to pimps?? You've got to be joking.

Prostitution is exploitation of women and girls. Never mind the oldest profession, it's the oldest form of misogyny that exists. Women being bought and sold for the sexual services of men.

Anyone who says prostitution is "the oldest profession" is a misogynist dickhead.

It's basically just saying that women's vaginas have always been for sale to men and that it's inevitable that they always will be.

The idea that before women were gathering their own food they were "selling" their bodies for sex is incredibly insulting.

You might as well claim that slavery is the oldest "profession" as a justification for legalising that.

I read somewhere that the oldest profession is more likely to be 'shaman' or 'farmer'. (Or even 'midwife' )

Prostitution is certainly one of the oldest forms of oppressing women. How can AI be listening to pimps and brothel owners? I just can't get over that.