Thread by @ObjectUK

We were shocked, and it often shocks others, that Amnesty International is in favour of female sexual slavery and sexual exploitation - here is their prostitution policy: scribd.com/doc/202126121/…

'Amnesty International believes that seeking, buying, selling and soliciting paid sex are acts protected from state interference as long as there is no coercion, threats or violence associated with those acts'.
What about financial coercion?

Do Amnesty think the power balance is one of equality? From Dt. Superintendent Sporer 'Several women finally stated that these men had exploited them and had put pressure on them. ..

The women only did that, however, after the pimps had been jailed. Before, they had been too afraid of them'.

Huzzah, some recognition from Amnesty: 'Amnesty International understands the imperfect context in which individuals choose to become sex workers (or miners or foreign domestic workers)'.

'We know that some individuals engaged in sex work do not have the necessary resources or information to leave commercial sex work when they want to'. So they are trapped and it is not voluntary? So Amnesty is promoting the rape of the vulnerable?

'We believe that policies which purport to support and improve the situation of the resource-poor must focus on empowering the disenfranchised and directly addressing structural disadvantages such as poverty'. So Amnesty thinks poor women will be empowered by...

selling sexual access to themselves? This may be the most libfem drivel we have read. Is this female empowerment through male eyes - the more you let me fuck you, the more you suck it then I might think about sharing wealth and power with you.

On page 2/11 Amnesty defines Sex Worker: 'Many jobs involve using some aspect of sexuality for economic gain. Throughout this policy, we refer to“sex workers” as those who exchange sex acts for money or some other form or remuneration (i.e., food or shelter)'.

Sucking and fucking for the basics - food and shelter - so desperately poor women.

Now, if prostitution was empowering why is it always the poor and vulnerable with no other option who are prostituted? If it was a means to power wouldn't all the men be doing it? They have monopolised all other power in patriarchy, did they just miss this one?

The Amnesty document claims on page 1 that prostitution is gender neutral, against all evidence. They remove the sexism of prostitution using transgenderism - 'gender identity or expression'. That it is mostly women who have their bodies sold is erased.

With regards to selling mostly female flesh, Amnesty proposes that 'governments have an obligation to create an enabling environment where these decisions are free, informed, and based on equality of opportunity'.

Yup, equality of opportunity to be financially coerced into sex - what do we normally call coerced sex.... oh yeah, rape. An enabling environment, would that be the decriminalisation of pimping and brothels?

This next paragraph sits oddly with what Amnesty has previously said about fucking and sucking to female empowerment. Amnesty state 'Amnesty International is also acutely aware that in a world in which 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day, and 80% of the

global population live in countries where income differentials are widening, individuals make transactional arrangements with regard to sexual relationships that are not always a matter of direct coercion, but rather a reflection of limited options'.

Limited options - so not really a free choice then?

Amnesty argues that 'This is particularly true for girls, women and other individuals who are marginalized'. Finally a recognition of the sexist dimensions to sexual exploitation.

Amnesty is of the opinion that analysing the links between human trafficking and legalised/decriminalisation of pimping is the actual abuse and human rights violation.

'Amnesty International believes that the conflation of sex work with human trafficking leads to policies and interventions which undermines sex
workers’ sexual autonomy, and causes them to be targets of exploitation and abuse, as well as may enable violation of their human rights

Right so academic and legal analysis is the cause of exploitation, not male sexual entitlement, not trafficking gangs, not a culture of sexual objectification, not continuing economic inequality.

Amnesty is clear they would prefer we did not look at human trafficking for sexual slavery: 'The disproportionate focus on trafficking into forced prostitution by some governments also ignores the human rights violations suffered by people trafficked into domestic work...

construction, agricultural work, or other forced work, in which they often suffer a range of violations, including exploitation and violence'.
This is whataboutery at an institutional level.

On p.5 Amnesty get straight to the point, that they want to decriminalise pimps and traffickers: 'states impose criminal or other sanctions on activities related to sex work. Such sanctions are applied to those who keep a brothel, procure or buy sexual services...

'recruit for or arrange the prostitution of others, live off the proceeds of sex work'.

Look at this queer theory inspired hogwash from Amnesty (Screen grab)

Amnesty makes the frankly bizarre claim that 'the use of condoms as evidence in criminal cases against those accused of sex work has shown to detract from sex
workers’ ability to protect themselves against sexually transmitted infections'.

No mention that men will pay higher rates to penetrate prostituted women without a condom and pimps will often force the women to sexually engage without a condom.

This is what Detective Superintendent Sporer said regarding prostitution is his area: 'we also see more and more punters demanding sexual contact without a condom and paying higher prices for this. This is what many women tell us. They accept this out of poverty'

Amnesty's policy on prostitution was largely informed by Alejandra Gil, the NSWP’s former vice-president, who was jailed for 15 years for sex trafficking.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

Soros also gives a lot of funding to Amnesty. Here is a case in Ireland declaring some of the funding unlawful: irishtimes.com/news/politics/…

Soros is the biggest financial donor to organisations attempting to legalise prostitution and pimping. Brilliant article on this by Julie @bindelj : newsweek.com/great-sex-trad…

Nordic Model Now (@nordicmodelnow ) produced a fantastic rebuttal of Amnesty's pro-pimp policy: nordicmodelnow.org/2016/05/28/res…

Want to do further reading? Brilliant books on the subject include:
J. Bindel, Pimping of Prostitution
R. Moran, Paid For: My Journey Through Prostitution
Norma, Reist, Moran (eds.), Prostitution Narratives
K. Banyard, Pimp State
S. Jeffreys, The Industrial Vagina

The amazing @RadfemBlack 's thread on how sex work is not work like any other: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1031645…

Speech at the Seminar “Reality of Prostitution”, European Women´s Lobby, 1 Oct 2013 in Brussels: Prostitution in Germany, (by Helmut Sporer, Detective Chief Superintendent of the Crimes Squad, Augsburg) scribd.com/doc/184667092/…

Got a live one ladies, this man thinks that women shouldn't read documents - 'smacks of book knowledge' - Goddess forbid us women were educated lol. #WarOnWomen #Sexism #Misogyny

Undeterred by his demand that we remain ignorant of institutional policies, he is now trying the 'what about the men' argument. Nah, mate, we see you. Do you go around prostate cancer charities asking what about breast cancer? It is as if it is only when women prioritise women..

Believe it or not this is not the first time women have been asked 'what about the men' when discussing the impact of sexism. It is so old-hat and unoriginal feminists have even written about 'whatabouttery'. Here is @Jessicae13Eaton 's amazing work: victimfocus.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/sto…

To return to Amnesty and prostitution after that small derail, what this 2015 draft turned into - the 2016 Prostitution Policy will be discussed in another thread.