Most recently human rights organisation, Amnesty International has come under heavy criticism for its draft policy advocating the decriminalisation of sex work. This has received a great deal of attention this week as actresses including Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep signed a petition calling for Amnesty to reverse their position. But they shouldn’t!
Amnesty’s proposal states “The available evidence indicates that the criminalisation of sex work is more likely than not to reinforce discrimination against those who sell sex, placing them at greater risk of harassment and violence, including ill-treatment at the hands of police”. Logical, right?
Amnesty’s proposal specifically focuses on marginalised sex workers, those in developing countries such as Argentina and India. Yet it seems that white feminists have jumped into the debate, without fully understanding the deeper issues at stake. The easy conclusion for Western feminists to reach is that decriminalisation of sex work is wrong, despite public health organisations and Amnesty International reinforcing it as a right.
The fact is that criminalisation of the sex trade will put those most marginalised sex workers at increased risk of harassment, police brutality, imprisonment, and discrimination. In developing countries in particular, criminalisation would hurt prostitutes the most, with clients, brothel owners and pimps increasing their wealth, secured from police scrutiny. The suggestion therefore is the ‘Nordic’ model, which offers assistance and alternatives to prostitution. It was created to ensure that clients were punished, and those forced into prostitution were helped. Currently this is adopted by Canada, Sweden, Norway and most recently Northern Ireland.
Amnesty has only drafted its policy on the decriminalisation of sex work, and it may be subject to change or review, however I would argue it remains firmly in place. The policy would not ‘legalise’ pimping as many opponents are blindly stating, it would ensure that those most marginalised are not punished for being forced into prostitution. India has a vast industry of sex workers; all of whom are subject to the most invasive police brutality, face daily discrimination, and where police raids take place they are imprisoned indefinitely.
Many of the actresses who have petitioned for Amnesty to withdraw the policy talk of criminalisation as though it will offer protection, security or support. This could not be more misguided or misinformed given recent police violence against ethnic minorities. Eric Garner, Mike Brown, Sandra Bland, Samuel DuBose and Edward Foster to name a few. We are living in an age where institutionalised racism, discrimination and prejudice are so ingrained that to argue criminalisation of an offence will protect those most vulnerable, seems increasingly flawed.
It remains, criminalisation will not offer protection to those most vulnerable. Cases of harassment and police brutality will increase, and once again those most marginalised will deprived any chance of being able to lift themselves out of the poverty imposed upon them by a society that fails to recognise the rights of the individual.
Sources:
Feministing.com
Amnesty International
Thinkprogress.org
Amnesty’s proposal states “The available evidence indicates that the criminalisation of sex work is more likely than not to reinforce discrimination against those who sell sex, placing them at greater risk of harassment and violence, including ill-treatment at the hands of police”. Logical, right?
Amnesty’s proposal specifically focuses on marginalised sex workers, those in developing countries such as Argentina and India. Yet it seems that white feminists have jumped into the debate, without fully understanding the deeper issues at stake. The easy conclusion for Western feminists to reach is that decriminalisation of sex work is wrong, despite public health organisations and Amnesty International reinforcing it as a right.
The fact is that criminalisation of the sex trade will put those most marginalised sex workers at increased risk of harassment, police brutality, imprisonment, and discrimination. In developing countries in particular, criminalisation would hurt prostitutes the most, with clients, brothel owners and pimps increasing their wealth, secured from police scrutiny. The suggestion therefore is the ‘Nordic’ model, which offers assistance and alternatives to prostitution. It was created to ensure that clients were punished, and those forced into prostitution were helped. Currently this is adopted by Canada, Sweden, Norway and most recently Northern Ireland.
Amnesty has only drafted its policy on the decriminalisation of sex work, and it may be subject to change or review, however I would argue it remains firmly in place. The policy would not ‘legalise’ pimping as many opponents are blindly stating, it would ensure that those most marginalised are not punished for being forced into prostitution. India has a vast industry of sex workers; all of whom are subject to the most invasive police brutality, face daily discrimination, and where police raids take place they are imprisoned indefinitely.
Many of the actresses who have petitioned for Amnesty to withdraw the policy talk of criminalisation as though it will offer protection, security or support. This could not be more misguided or misinformed given recent police violence against ethnic minorities. Eric Garner, Mike Brown, Sandra Bland, Samuel DuBose and Edward Foster to name a few. We are living in an age where institutionalised racism, discrimination and prejudice are so ingrained that to argue criminalisation of an offence will protect those most vulnerable, seems increasingly flawed.
It remains, criminalisation will not offer protection to those most vulnerable. Cases of harassment and police brutality will increase, and once again those most marginalised will deprived any chance of being able to lift themselves out of the poverty imposed upon them by a society that fails to recognise the rights of the individual.
Sources:
Feministing.com
Amnesty International
Thinkprogress.org