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.

Just reading the #QuestionsforAmnesty on Twitter.

They'll never get this through, surely? Cannot possibly see how anyone can support it. It goes against all the other work they've done with exploitation and prostitution.

I don't see why they need support 'right to (buy) sex'? Have they not heard of masturbation? Protect the right to wank, by all means, just not into another human.

Have written.

Kerry, have you written yet? If not, I strongly suggest that when you do, you suggest "protect the wank" as a tag line

Sorry to be an eejit but can anyone give me a thumbnail sketch of what the "nordic model" is?

WithRedWine - yes yes, and I would suggest that it is a weird internalising of that common mistake that the only sort of morality that counts as such is conservative (ie patriarchal) sexual morality - which is just giving the whole discourse to right wing dickheads

There is nothing wrong with morality. We all have a clear sense of what is right and wrong according to our views.

Surely the morality point is trying to say that there are rights that are above morality and not open to discussion. This is the point of a right. It is universal and it just is.

This was what amnesty said about their lobbying against the criminalisation of punting in Belfast. It wasn't at all about pushing the rights of the punter but a more pragmatic stance about division of resources:

“However, Amnesty International is concerned that making ”the paying for sexual services of a prostitute” a criminal offence could run counter to the purpose of tackling trafficking by confusing these related but separate issues and diverting criminal justice resources away from tackling trafficking. It is already an offence in Northern Ireland to pay for sexual services from someone who has been subjected to force,a position which we support.

Grainne Teggart added:

“The Trafficking Convention and the EU Trafficking Directive expressly provide measures to be taken for discouraging and reducing the demand for trafficking victims; the criminalisation of the users of prostitutes is not one of the measures they recommend. The proposed change to the law in Lord Morrow’s Bill thus creates an offence outside the trafficking legal framework. Legislators should focus on the provision of essential support services to the victims of trafficking and steps to ensure more successful prosecution of traffickers.Amnesty International welcomes this debate on how Northern Ireland can meet its international obligations to protect and uphold the human rights of victims of trafficking.”

The source for that was

belfastfeministnetwork.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/amnesty-highlight-challenges-with-lord-morrows-prosecution-bill/

Then AI are very naive. Criminalising punters reduces trafficking. It has everywhere it has been put into affect. To reduce trafficking you tackle supply and demand.

Also there is no evidence at all that resources will be diverted away.

Naive, or just gripped by the desire to pursue a very particular agenda where paid-for sex is concerned?

But how can someone know with any certainty that someone hasn't been trafficked? So how can you prosecute thoseraping having sex with trafficked women? They can always claim to not know she was trafficked.

It's so difficult to prosecute rape cases anyway

I was just this morning listening to a story about a man who got off for rape as the woman he was raping kept shouting no, and he says thought it was a sex game.

Not one they had prediscussed mind you.
"I recognized the way she said no as a part of the sex; I recognized it from other girls"

www.thelocal.se/20140110/rape-suspect-freed-claims-womans-no-was-part-of-sex-game

Surely the morality point is trying to say that there are rights that are above morality and not open to discussion. This is the point of a right. It is universal and it just is.

How can there possibly be rights that are "above morality" and not open to discussion?

All rights are derived from an ethical framework.

Universal rights are rights that people believe to be important enough to apply to all people.

They aren't things that "just are" in any possible sense.

If they were, and there was no room for discussion about them, then what would we need Amnesty for in the first place?

What they mean by "morality" is "sexual morality".

And what they mean by saying they don't take a stance on sexual morality is that disapproving of prostitution is the same as disapproving of sex before marriage or the use of contraception.

They don't see the sale of women's bodies as an ethical issue, but an issue of strictly sexual morality, which all right-thinking, non-prudish people are "open-minded" about.

That's why they think it's covered by the right to privacy.

The right to privately rape a woman when you have know way of knowing whether she consents, but you've paid so it's OK.

Join - exactly, that was the stuff I was trying to get at!

I really think that there is a role in many organisations for an in-house philosopher (as many have in-house lawyers, for drafting contracts etc)
For those organisations that only need to call on a philosopher occasionally, they could outsource it to a philopshers' practice for a fee

A lot of trafficking is internal trafficking in this country. Some people have a very stereotypical idea of what trafficking actually includes.

And children in the sex industry, are usually still there when they become adults. Why is it wrong to rape them at 15, then fine on their 16th birthday?

Quite, Grennie. The problem with reducing everything to a question of 'choices' is that it ignores the extent to which vulnerable people have their choices and ability to choose shaped, restricted and manipulated by exploiters.

Hi Grennie,

Thanks so much for putting together the letter template. There is an issue with the wording, though, in that it does not distinguish between assymetrical decriminalisation (the Swedish model) and across-the-board decriminalisation (the sex industry's preferred model).

It's important to note that decriminalisation of prostituted people is essential to protect their rights and wellbeing, and is also a recognition of the fact that they are not the ones who should shoulder the blame (or shame) for the situation they are in. That properly falls on the buyers and pimps. Hence, the feminist approach is to remove all criminal penalties from sellers, and criminalise the johns and pimps.

Can I suggest an amended version of the letter:

Write to Amnesty International
Letter Template

Feel free to use the following letter template to send to Amnesty International and ask them to end their pro-prostitution lobbying efforts in Northern Ireland.

”To Amnesty International’s Secretary General, International Board and Secretariat:

I am shocked to learn that Amnesty International is calling for the total decriminalization of prostitution “in order to protect human rights.” This is an absolute outrage because prostitution is a severe violation of the human rights AI claims to protect. The decriminalization of buyers and third-party profiteers will not eradicate but instead normalize the violence, abuse, and health and safety risks most women in the sex industry face day in, day out. Most would exit the sex industry if they could.

The Swedish model, which decriminalises prostituted people, and criminalises the buyers, is the only model which recognises the vast power disparity between these two parties, and targets the demand which drives trafficking in human beings for sexual use.

You state that your “vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.” Please meet the standards you have set for yourself. Stand up against the sex industry, not for it.

In Urgency,

[ ... ] ”
Please send your letters to:

1. AI Secretary General

Salil Shetty, [email protected]

1. AI Board Members

Bernard Sintobin, Guadalupe Rivas, Julio Torales, Mwikali Nzioka Muthiani, Nicole Bieske, Paul Divakar Nimala, Rune Arctander, Sandra Lutchman, Sarah Beamish, Vincent Adzahlie-Mensah, [email protected]

1. AI International Secretariat

(According to AI, the Secretariat is responsible for the organization’s research and campaigns), [email protected] Tel: +44-20-74135500

Fax: +44-20-79561157

Twitter: @Amnestyonline

Address:1 Easton Street, London, WC1X 0DW, UK

Tel (US member services): (212) 633- 4254,

Fax: (212) 627-1451.

1. AI “Contact Us” Page

www.amnesty.org.uk/contact#.UujLkfswdxC

1. General AI Email Address

[email protected]"

stoppornculture.org/action-alerts/write-to-amnesty-international/

AI has women throughout it’s chain of command. They are at the front-line for the battle to 'Stop Violence Against Women' around the world.

I find it hard to believe an organisation actually inside these cesspits, fighting for women’s rights all over the globe is somehow naïve and all they are doing is protecting the men’s rights.

What is there to gain by ‘supporting the Johns’ ?

Maybe criminalising Prostitution/Johns will simply push them into the hands of local gangster/pimps.

There will always be men willing to pay for sex, there will always be women willing to sell sex.
What should be done is working with these women, why do they see prostitution as a way out of poverty.
Also should work with these men and find out why they need to visit prostitutes when the majority of men don’t.

We should be investing more in more access to therapy, counselling, etc?

Criminalising/ decriminalising will not make a difference. The gangsters will deal with the legal issues (connect the punters to the prostitutes) but ultimately the fundamentals will remain the same, some men will pay for sex and some women will sell sex.

We have a situation where police know about every brothel and for these brothels to maintain the status quo, they don’t have under 18s working etc.
If the whole industry goes further underground, it will be difficult to maintain that openness.

It just doesn't work like that, Arsenaltilidie. All the evidence shows that what actually happens is that where you have legal prostitution you get an increase in illegal, as well.
It's a comforting fantasy to think you can magic away exploitation just by making it legal but it doesn't work.

If there are a few of us planning to go to Edinburgh for the AGM, should we try to meet and go together?

Dusk, the Swedish, or Nordic, model involves a three-pronged approach to the issue of prostitution, recognising the evidence from research that people (mostly women and girls) in prostitution are exposed to overwhelming levels of violence from pimps and johns, and that most are there through poverty or other coercion.

1. Decriminalise the sellers of sex, criminalise the buyers and third-party profiteers (pimps).

1. The state provides funds for exit programs, counselling and support and skills training for people who wish to leave prostitution.

1. Retraining the police force to root out a culture that may involve police harassing or otherwise using their power against prostituted people - police are to understand that their job under the law is not to target prostitutes, but to focus on arresting the pimps and johns.

Here is a good interview with the brilliant Swedish feminist Kasja Ekis Ekman, explaining how the Swedish model was developed - she notes that it was not (as is often claimed by sex-industry advocates) imposed over the heads of 'sex workers' by feminists and politicians; rather, it was inspired by decades-long research into the material conditions of prostitution which involved in-depth and documented interviews with prostitutes themselves.

It's a long interview, so scroll down towards the end for the bit about the model and the research (although the whole thing is well worth reading).

feministcurrent.com/8514/being-and-being-bought-an-interview-with-kajsa-ekis-ekman/

thank you DonkeySkin!

Having mulled and wracked my brain again I am wondering if they have somehow over intellectualised the issue? Is there too much sophistry going on?

I wonder if the logic was 'if you are supporting the right to sell something you have to support the right to buy it'. Strikes me as weird though. I wish they would answer a bit more to clarify and explain their stance.

Sophistry is indeed the word for it, TAIT.

I've just read through the International Issue Sub-Committee minutes and it shows that Amnesty is being deliberately deceptive regarding the position it plans to adopt and the one being put to 'consultation'.

It states that the internal position of the IISC is: 'Decriminalization of both demand and supply side are part and parcel of achieving whole objective.'

But when it comes to putting this position to a vote, the question members will be asked is: 'Do you support Amnesty International adopting a policy to support the decriminalization of Sex Work?'

So members are not being given the information that Amnesty plans to lobby for the decriminalisation of pimps and johns.

Members will also be given a document '10 Reasons to Decriminalize Sex Work' to help them decide. No doubt this will detail the horrifying circumstances in which most prostituted people live, which will inspire anyone with a conscience to say, 'Of course we should get the law off their backs'.

While they are not told that Amnesty also plans to work towards getting the law off the backs of sex buyers and sex-trade profiteers (many of whom are deeply implicated in the human trafficking industry that Amnesty supposedly opposes).

There is also a reminder to committee members to 'be mindful of terminology especially when broadening out on international level' - which presumably means to be careful to use gender-neutral language when talking about this overwhelmingly gendered phenomenon.

It's all so blatantly dishonest, so ghastly and Orwellian, to have the world's most high-profile human rights group deliberately obscure the violence, the torture and the massively gendered power imbalance that underlies an industry responsible for vast human rights violations against women and girls.

I almost feel like I'm in a parallel universe, one where feminism has made no impact whatsoever on the understanding of women as actual human beings.