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.

I don't know about any of this. On the one hand we're talking human rights, real life abuses that many people suffer from the world over. Vested interests in heavily entrenched mysoginistic attitudes clashing with feminist (and therefore humanist) ideals.

Putting my mind into that of the punters I can see the appeal, sexual experience limited only by the size of your wallet. I mean sex is fun right? And there is always the between consenting adults argument too. I understand there is a school of thought that philosophically speaking consent cannot be bought and is therefore coercion, I'm not sure that works, unless you play around with what coercion/consent means by narrowing or broadening definitions. It's also entirely possible that particular argument has gone over my head and I need to understand it better.

Anyway it's a moot point, because in order to take up the mantle of punter especially if it was a regular thing I might out of 100 women meet 99 Elle's who are all cool and gravy with the whole business, but then meet the 1 poor soul who is actually worse off from the exchange. I'm not sure the 99 are worth the 1. Maybe I'm being unfair, maybe I could meet 999 Elles's before I'm harming that 1, it could even number much much higher to be even statistically unlikely. Still there is only one way to know I'm not contributing to that one poor persons wretched circumstances, and that is to not do it at all. Is it wrong that I can't do the mental gymnastics required to put her out of my mind? Is it horribly judgemental to think that little bit less of the chaps who can? Despite the one's who have been terribly nice and helped people like Elle?

Is it also weird to think that using the argument that prostitution allows women in third world countries to feed their children highlights poverty and hunger issues that we all deep down already know the answer too, but lack the will and basic humanity to implement? I don't think fucking food into people is quite the answer I am sorry.

Anyway I'm still ignorant of a lot of this. Maybe Amnesty is right and decriminalisation is the best short term solution, and judging this purely on my own emotional feelings on the topic is the wrong thing to do. However framing this from the position of men's right to buy sex seems a remarkably arse about face way of going about it. Furthermore it's my emotional reaction to this that has given me the clear conscience I am at least not part of the problem.

If I may a question to Elle. I respect you are going to be an authority on this topic way more than I am, but as a man how on earth do you make sure you are hiring someone who is doing it vocationally? I mean a lot of sex work is selling a fantasy right? You can never be sure surely? I would have many more questions, but that seems the most salient one, and I really have prattled on long enough.

Prostitution only exists because of the patriarchal attitude that women belong to men - either as daughters, wives, mistresses or for hire.

Being a happy and fulfilled sex worker does not remove the inequality - it's just another form of Stockholm syndrome that many women experience within destructive relationships with men.

DominaElle, going by your username and posts, I'm guessing that you are a dominatrix?

Which is a sideways move from traditional prostitution. I'm glad you are in a better place now but am utterly unconvinced by your assertions that you have never seen trafficking and that prostitution is a Good Thing for women.

I suspect that you don't use the official definition of trafficking and that is why you think you have never seen it. For example if a woman prostitutes under pressure from her boyfriend and money or drugs are paid to him, she is trafficked. You cannot know with any certainty which of the women you encounter in prostitution are trafficked or not.

As for the rest, as usual, I agree with the majority of posters here. AI are acting like a pimp lobby.

Sorry forgot who posted it, but could someone post the link that shows the NI committee talking to Amnesty again. That link just took me to Democracylive, but I couldn't see any mention of Amnesty etc.

I did find however a committee meeting on the 16th Jan (under previous schedules), that showed that the International Union of Sex Workers had submitted their members numbers to the committee and it was a grand total of 10!

Ignore the derailers, the took up 3-4 pages of the thread not even bothering to apply basic reading comprehension. Where does the debate go from here on (i) the NI Bill and (ii) Amnesty's fuckwitted policy suggestion?

Thanks for that, englighten. :o

I couldn't find the debate either. Perhaps it wasn't recorded?

Enlighten, could you post a link to the thing that shows it is only 10?

sorry green im having a fecking nightmare with my internet connection and im currently using my phone- hence lack of punctuation, capitals etc.

can someone do it for me. from memory,
go on democracy live
click on previous schedules
go to the calendar in the top right
click on 16 jan
look under ni assembly
click on link for sex trafficking

its mentioned almost immediately

if not, then i will do it after, if dp hasnt thrown it out the window in frustration!

sorry gren

thanks Red

Thanks. I really want to know which sex worker organisations Amnesty worked with to produce this policy.

Dreadful. But don't Amnesty have form for this kind of men=human conflation?

Love the argument that women have a right to feed their children but men have a right to their own desires. Nothing but a vessel for children's needs or men's needs.

I have very little time for the legalistic human rights agenda generally. Obviously I am ok with the concept of human rights but the way it gets discussed and laid down in law is very transactional, very male. I did a philosophy degree and we spent three years discussing the genesis and the extent of human rights and not once in three years did we touch on the fact of one human life being created and emerging (apparently with human rights fully intact) from the physical body of another human being (whose human rights should also be unassailable) and the fact that there is a potential - and sometimes real - conflict between those two sets of rights if rights are set up like that.

There is a motion passed in this document that talks about "sex workers". I think that is what was proposed by Douglas Fox, but amended and passed. I can't see the original motion though.

www.amnesty.org.uk/sites/default/files/agm_decisions_2008.pdf

Anyway I'm still ignorant of a lot of this. Maybe Amnesty is right and decriminalisation is the best short term solution, and judging this purely on my own emotional feelings on the topic is the wrong thing to do. However framing this from the position of men's right to buy sex seems a remarkably arse about face way of going about it

This is at the heart of the philosophical problem. Either it's a utilitarian solution that pays no regards to rights (perfectly permissible argument to make but be honest about it). So it's the right thing to do because it ensures women can feed their children. Or its a deontological solution based on the inalienability of rights in which case the fact that it might be a practical solution to the problem of women not being able to feed their children is neither here nor there - the main thing is to ensure the respect of pre-ordained rights (such as the right to sex about which I am but that's another matter).

But to muddle up the two and use the "rights" terminology to defend a not-rights based argument (enabling women to feed their children), especially by an organisation dedicated to thinking about what's right and what's wrong - is crap. And dishonest about what they are really thinking.

Actually the evidence shows it doesn't even work as a short term solution. The women should never be criminalised. But decriminalising pimps and punters, mean the criminal gangs have free rein.

Thank you for your post quangle.

Anyone else feel this has already been decided by AI?

It absolutely has not been decided. Their constitution requires any policy to be approved in full by members. The plan is for a full debate with a dedicated side session at the AGM.

Within amnesty the Paisley group has been proposing and lobbying for the Nordic model for years. They have 2 or three motions passed on the issue.

This is a live and vocal debate in amnesty. The leaked draft policy is just for debate.

Apparently there is a mumsnet web chat with someone from amnesty next week. Tuesday I think.

Then why have they lobbied against the introduction of the Nordic Model in NI?