Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

145 replies

iAmSiri · 11/08/2015 19:26

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

OP posts:
Queeltie · 13/08/2015 12:37

But it does not do that Lweji. How does decriminalising pimps and punters protect those who are prostituted?

AnyFucker · 13/08/2015 12:49

Elton John: that paragon of sense and sensibility

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 13/08/2015 12:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

IrenetheQuaint · 13/08/2015 12:56

Yes Buffy, it is clearly symbolic, so what are they trying to achieve with it? If they just wanted to point out that prostitutes' human rights are frequently ignored (and lack of access to justice, amongst many other things, is surely a massive issue for prostitutes) then why not focus on that rather than invent this whole controversial and ill-supported recommendation for decriminalisation.

CloserToFiftyThanTwenty · 13/08/2015 13:06

annoyingly I can't find again the article I was reading earlier about this, but some things I picked up from it were:

  • this resolution is being left to individual chapters to decide how to take forward in their country - ie whether to lobby the government, spend money on a campaign etc. So in many places it might not feature at all in the local AI work; and
  • a Swedish minister has said that this is the completely wrong way to go about tackling the issue, and veers substantially from the Scandinavian model.

Its' so disappointing that having spent months (years?) researching the issue and compiling such an extensive evidence base that this is the conclusion that AI have reached. A classic case of identifying the right policy problem and the wrong policy solution...

Queeltie · 13/08/2015 13:11

The Policy Unit in Amnesty International have been pushing this policy for a few years now. They have been campaigning actively to get decriminalisation adopted as a policy. There have been leaked strategy documents that prove this.
The "sex workers" organisations they consulted include people like the International Union of Sex Workers that is pimp led and has only 7 members.
There is masses of researched evidence to show that decriminalisation of pimps and punters does not work. It simply leads to an increase in trafficking, and increase in prostitution, and violence.

ArcheryAnnie · 13/08/2015 13:19

And those reacting in a knee jerk fashion would do well to read it properly.

Lweji, I am really seriously tired of the trope that those of us who disagree with AI:

  • haven't listened to sex workers (we have, just the ones we've listened to have also included the ones that AI and the pro-pimp lobby have ignored and belittled)
  • haven't read the document (many of us have, just have come to entirely different conclusions than you).

If we come to different conclusions, fair enough. But please don't assume it's because those of us on this side haven't done the reading.

Lweji · 13/08/2015 14:37

And those reacting in a knee jerk fashion would do well to read it properly.

Lweji, I am really seriously tired of the trope that those of us who disagree with AI:

Clearly, you'd do well to read what I wrote properly.
I didn't even say those who disagreed in a knee jerk fashion, but those who reacted. If you don't think you reacted in a knee jerk like fashion, the recommendation had nothing to do with you.
But if you read the document like you read that sentence, then perhaps you should read it again.

ShipShapeAhoy · 13/08/2015 14:41

I just can't see how the most vulnerable will be protected by decriminalisation.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 13/08/2015 14:58

Which document are you talking about lweji? I have only seen the original one which likened selling sex to cleaning and said even if people were doing it to stop their children starving that counted as a free choice and people shouldn't be concerned as that denied them "agency". And the stuff about sex being a human right and those who couldn't out wouldn't access it via other means needed to be able to buy it. As a human right.

It sound like you have something different or more up to date, could you link please.

Queeltie · 13/08/2015 14:58

They won't. We don't do it with any other industry.
Oh those people working in the fields are being exploited by gangmasters. Let's make sure there are no laws that affect them. No we put MORE laws in place.

Lweji · 13/08/2015 14:59

The way I understand it, one big problem is that in many places the vulnerable are being criminalised, which is even worse. And while I'd want punters and pimps to be punished, I can understand that it could lead to less safety for the vulnerable.
By definition the most vulnerable aren't capable of giving totally free consent, though. So it would still fall under the arm of the law to abuse them.
I can see how decriminalisation could be abused, but so criminalisation of pimps and punters, although, again, this would seem the right thing to do. The balance and the best strategy to protect prostitutes may be different in different settings, though. What may work best in Europe may not have the same result in an Asian country, I'd imagine.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 13/08/2015 15:00

Or at least I think it was cleaning, it was a while ago.

ArcheryAnnie · 13/08/2015 15:12

Well, Lewji, I for one am now totally convinced you are arguing in good faith...

ArcheryAnnie · 13/08/2015 18:00

Hirples of the two orgs whose names I recognise on there, one is a cult-like pseudo-activist organisation that's been going since the 70's, and for most of its' life most participants haven't been working in prostitution at all, but fellow members of the umbrella organisation. (I know this because I knew lots of them in the 1980s.) The other I know less well, but the ones from that org I do know are middle-class, well-educated women who do sex work as a choice, and have about as much in common with most women in prostitution as Mary Portas has with the woman who sold me milk in tesco's yesterday.

As far as I know, neither organisations are known for their transparency, so I don't know how many "sex workers" they claim to represent, and how many of those women had input into the decision to sign that statement.

(I am not naming them because the cult org is incredibly vindictive.)

I'm sure plenty of the other orgs are genuine worker-led orgs, but I wouldn't dare to put money on how many.

HirplesWithHaggis · 13/08/2015 18:17

So because you don't recognise them, their opinions are invalid? Hmm I for one am now totally convinced that you are arguing in good faith.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 13/08/2015 18:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FloraFox · 13/08/2015 18:31

Most of the ones I recognise are not "sex worker" led which causes me to doubt the ones I don't recognise.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 13/08/2015 18:39

Thing is, I can understand the decriminalisation argument, I get that. I don't think I agree with it, but probably a lot depends on the country involved.

What I don't get is

The idea that sex with another human being I'd a human right
The idea that sex must be available for purchase to those who are "unable or unwilling" to get it by other means
The erasure of the gendered nature of the problem
The insistence that selling sex is exactly the same as any other job
The glossing over of the variety of reasons that people can end up in this job and the statement that even if they are there through economic necessity this should not be a cause for concern because it's still an active choice and people seeking sex who are in this position mustn't be denied their agency

And etc and so forth

Unless another document has come out, this is what has been voted for.

On the sex as a human right piece, they could have clarified in their Q&a and they didn't.

The idea that amnesty believe that sexual intercourse with another human being is a fundamental human right, like food, or not being tortured, is highly problematic. A lot of it is highly problematic.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 13/08/2015 18:49

There is very little in there at all about how people will be helped in practice.

Expecting the police around the world to stop abusing these women and children and men because it's not illegal any more is a joke
Expecting the punters and pimps to stop raping, beating, murdering etc if it's not illegal is a joke
Expecting there to be a decrease in trafficking if it's not illegal is a joke. Supply and demand. And people will always want the children, the vulnerable, they will always want to rape and hurt if that is what they like. These men will continue to be catered to

And in societies where women and girls are for sale to men, and that is seen as utterly normal, where does this lead in terms of the population attitude to women and girls? This is the one that they haven't touched. Enough men think women and girls were put on this earth for their sexual gratification as it is, without having this attitude endorsed at state level. Saying that this is a human right, something that men must be allowed, access to bodies to fuck. It doesn't lead anywhere good. How can females get ahead in the fight to be seen as people when an organisation like this says our place is to be there for men to fuck whenever they fancy?

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 13/08/2015 18:53

Also if sex with another human being is a human right, like food or water or shelter, then it must be provided to all citizens. Irrespective of their ability to pay. That's kind of the point of human rights, that they apply to everyone not just those who can afford it. Some men cannot afford to buy sex. Yet it is their human right to have it. Where does this end up, at its logical conclusion?

AnyFucker · 13/08/2015 19:01

The logical conclusion is that men will avail themselves of their "human rights" whenever they want, cos they is entitled to innit

ArcheryAnnie · 13/08/2015 19:20

Er no, Hirples, I said nothing of the sort. I don't respect the two organisations I do recognise, as they don't bear any resemblance to a "worker-led" organisation, or ones which have any credibility to "represent" sex workers.

But did I say that the opinions of all the orgs I don't recognise are invalid? Why, no, I didn't.

I look forward to your apology and correction.

Or you could continue to misrepresent what I have said. That's what's happened to the anti-pimp, anti-john side in this debate all the way through. Why stop now?

Lweji · 13/08/2015 19:21

Where is it mentioned by AI that sex is a right?

www.amnesty.org/policy-on-state-obligations-to-respect-protect-and-fulfil-the-human-rights-of-sex-workers/