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.

They wouldn't be doing this in order to increase their female membership to get it voted down, would they? I know that sounds bonkers but only as strange as the proposal is in the first place.

Some great points, buffy. Asking someone of a libertarian bent whether consentual slavery (relinquishing choice) should be legal is an excellent dilema!
I'm not sure that legal prostitution handled correctly should be the equivalent of slavery or of organ donation. There should be a way to deduct abuse and human-trafficing from the equation of legal prostitution.

Actually I do think that it is a mans human right to buy sex from a consenting adult who wishes to sell it.
For me another point of legalising prostitution would be to regain control over it. Why have all of these women under the control of lawless criminal gangs? I understand we would have to avoid the poor and corrupt implementation that has occurred in Australia.
Maybe organising an infrastructure which vets and maintains legitimate prostitution would provide some tax revenue to fully police the underage/sex-slave side of things?

Libertarianism is bunk. Unless you've got the guts to say you're an anarchist, you're just drawing the line around things that affect you. It's bankrupt as a political philosophy and deeply rooted in power structures.

Since this is your first post, you might not realise you're derailing the thread vaudevelle - start another thread about libertarianism if you want.

As for AI, their position is clearly stated, this is not a consultation. The proposal paper relies only on pro-decrim research and papers by George Soros's Open Society Foundation. Also AI are lobbying against adoption of Nordic model in NI. Hardly an open consultation. I'm disgusted at Amnesty. I don't always agree with them but they do some good work. I have been a donor in the past but will not support them again.

If this is true then I will cancel my direct debit with them.

Ditto TheCrackFox

I wil also be cancelling my direct debit to them.

Second the amnesty web chat idea, surely this can't be true?

I am now an ex-Amnesty supporter as a result of this.

Thank you for posting this. If you are a member phone them on 02070331777 to protest. They are supposed to listen to members and I can imagine a lot of us will be unhappy about this proposal. Don't just cancel as there will be a consultation process with members.

This is a good article about the proposals.
smashesthep.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/amnesty-international-supports-the-exploitation-of-women/

Also a woman who was in the sex industry set up this virtual event today in protest.

www.facebook.com/events/276227092528043/?ref_dashboard_filter=upcoming

Florafox, I was giving my opinion that what amnesty international was suggesting (legalising prostitution) may not be such a bad thing and that the morality may still be open for debate. I'm pretty sure that it's disingenuous to suggest that AI would want girl sex slaves to continue being abused (as has been intimated in this thread).

A web chat with them would be great.

And vaude, every single country that has legalised prostitution has seen a rise in violence, muder, trafficking and children in prostitution.

And it is obvious if you think about it. A lot of prostitution is controlled by criminals. Legalisation makes their life much easier and they take full advantage of it.

The biggest indicator of quantity of human trafficking is geographical proximity to an exporting country. Maybe there is room for more than one opinion?

Except the evidence does not support your view.

And women being bought for men to use for sex, will never be okay or just a job.

I have always failed to see why legalising something already in the control of organised criminal groups is supposed to transform the trade in that thing. The criminals will not relinquish control in something with reliable demand, like sex or drugs. They will create legitimate business structures to take advantage of legalisation, behind which they will operate as they always have.

There absolutely is a correlation between proximity to exporting countries and quantity of trafficked humans, but I am not suggesting that this fact somehow over rides the potential harm of legalising prostitution.
I just feel that the current prohibition model tends to give more power to criminals, not less.

AngelaDaviesHair, The really obvious one would be alcohol, there are other examples but that's for another thread.

The Nordic Model is the only one that has had any success in reducing violence and trafficking. Women are decriminalised, punters and pimps are criminalised, and women given support to get out of prostitution and into something better.

Prohibition of alcohol in the West was fleeting and localised. I don't think it disproves my point. In places like Saudi there has been a long-standing cultural and religious prohibition.

In the leaked policy document from Amnesty it says:

"Sexual desire and activity are a fundamental human need. To criminalize those who are unable or unwilling to fulfill that need through more traditionally recognized means and thus purchase sex, may amount to a violation of the right to privacy and undermine the rights to free expression and health." .

This would appear to state that the rights of those who desire sexual access to other human beings usurps the rights of those who would deny them.
The aim of Amnesty International's Policy on Prostitution would , in that case, impose legal prostitution for the benefit of the sellers and consumers of prostituted people and put the rights of those so commodified last. Where women's rights fit into this is inexplicable, because they don't.

Amphetamine use is massive in Saudi, with all the dangers of home-brew, unregulated drug use. But again that's for a prohibition thread.