Have Amenesty really just voted to campaign for the decriminalisation of prostitutio?!

[iAmSiri]

WTAF! I feel like I'm misunderstanding it because I can't believe it's true! Please can anyone explain what's going on?

Also agree with Irene.

The thing that strikes me as interesting is their contention that you've a human right to buy sex if you're not willing to get it by other means. So if you don't want to treat women like humans, you've a human right to pay them for temporary access to their bodies. It's a peculiar point of view for a human rights organization, I think.

It is very hard to get men prosecuted for violence or rape or coercion even if you're not a prostitute and living in a country like the UK.

To say yeah that's bad countries just need to make it illegal is so ridiculously naive as to be dismissive.

In their Q&A they have the question about the human right to sex and in their answer they do not refute it. See my cut and paste upthread. Saying sexual intercourse with another human being is a human right like food or water is extremely problematical. Their response indicates they believe that it is.

That's amnesty saying that and being naive not you lweji, sorry wasnt clear

Well yes. How hard would it be for them to say, 'We do not believe there is a human right to sex. Sex should only ever take place between consenting adults.'

It was an opportunity for them to clarify one of the more shocking statements in that original paper but they haven't.

They have not addressed what happens when a person does not have access to people willingly seeking sex, or cannot afford it. Nor when their sexual predilections are not legal. It is at state level that human rights of people are supposed to be met- making sure citizens have enough food, shelter etc. And now, enough sex. Right.

I think it can be easy to confuse decriminalisation with legalisation and comparisons with legalised prostitution are of little use here

Willingly selling that should say

This idea that the police around the world will magically stop abusing vulnerable people and start helping then instead is a joke.

I'm feeling really angry tbh.

I wonder if the naming and shaming of western men who go to the far east to abuse children has made much impact on the trafficking of those children? Or whether, as in the Philippines, what's happened is that webcams where children abuse themselves for a faceless adult has started to take over a bit?

I know AI says that it's anti exploitation, but at what point do exploited children become adults with agency and choice? Midnight on the night of the birthday which tips them over into the age of consent?

I just don't see how decrim works for anyone but the men using women and children in this way.

I think they say people need to be 18 to sell sex.

This stance is however incompatible with their other stance that selling sex is a job like any other eg cleaning work. Which is frequently carried out by under 18s all over the world.

They can't have it both ways.

How can they dictate the AoC in countries where it's lower than 18?

If they are saying that "sex work" between 2 consenting persons should be decrim, then, if the AoC is 14 in that country, then a 14 yr old can "consensually" undertake "sex work"

Their approach makes no sense from any pov than the pimps and other men who feed of the pain of women.

Elton JOhn's Foundation has made a statement in support of AI. www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/11/we-stand-with-amnesty-on-sex-work

What really gives me the rage about this is all the points EJ makes in support would also be covered by the Nordic Model. Once again, gender, equality and bias are whitewashed off the table.

I note that some people were upset by my questions earlier. They really were just questions - thank you to those who answered them.

point 6 here says they are still wanting criminalisation of pimps?
www.amnesty.org/en/qa-policy-to-protect-the-human-rights-of-sex-workers/

Elton John can fuck right off.

I haven't forgotten his set at one of the Stonewall gigs (Albert Hall, many years ago) where he thought it appropriate to dress his troupe of backing dancers - grown men doing a stripper routine - as Boy Scouts. There were an awful lot of women who sat on their hands when it was time for applause.

Also when they say "still be criminalised", what does that mean?

Is it currently an explicit criminal offence in every single country in the whole world?

The original paper and the Q&a don't sound like they were written by people with the level of, I don't know, thought? Expertise? Legal knowledge? Logical process? That I would expect from an organisation as massive and well funded as this one, over such a delicate and complicated and divisive subject. It seems odd. Are they always like this?

Decriminalisation means there are no laws impacting on those prostituted, pimps and punters. So yes, pimps are totally legal, or in Amnesty's language "the managers" are legal.

Corrupt police officers will still harass, rape, sexually assault and beat up prostituted women, this will make no difference.

If it really was a job like any other, health and safety laws should apply. The reality is they don't, because if they were applied, prostitution is no longer possible.

Having read THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, it only reinforces my early impression that the AI in this instance is mostly interested in protecting sex workers.
And those reacting in a knee jerk fashion would do well to read it properly.