rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Why I won't be cracking champagne with Amnesty International

Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Amnesty International has voted in favour of adopting a policy that supports the "full decriminalization of all aspects of consensual sex work." That is to say, they will be developing a policy that supports the decriminalization of pimps, brothel-owners and of men who buy sex, as well as the degendered "sex worker."

For those unfamiliar with the debate, opponents of full decriminalization and of Amnesty's position advocate for a model that decriminalizes those who sell sex (mainly women and girls) but that criminalizes those who exploit and otherwise harm prostituted women (i.e. pimps, johns and brothel-owners).

A press release published today specifies: "The policy will also call on states to ensure that sex workers enjoy full and equal legal protection from exploitation, trafficking and violence." This sentence certainly sounds positive, in terms of Amnesty's desire to end exploitation, but is naive at best. There is no way to ensure "legal protection" of those in prostitution when you legalize the very abuse and exploitation that the sex trade is based on. At its root, prostitution is about exploitation — that is, a scenario wherein a man pays a desperate and/or marginalized woman to provide him with sexual services because she has no other choice. The very idea of prostitution is one that says women are not fully human, that they are things that men have the right to use and abuse, that men's sexual pleasure is more important than women's humanity. The relationship between a john and a woman he buys is not one of equality — he is, in fact, paying for the right not to respect her.

It is not possible to legalize the purchase of sex while ensuring prostituted women are protected from exploitation, trafficking and violence. The industry requires exploitation and violence is inherent to the system of prostitution. The system is violent. It is exploitative. It is about male abuse of female bodies. Prostitution is harm.

What Amnesty has left out of their statement is women's rights, as well as an analysis of how poverty and racism make poor women of colour particularly vulnerable to exploitation.

In fact, they didn't mention women at all.

Amnesty's repeated, insistent use of the term "sex worker" might sound neutral, but is far from it. The term is politicized as it intends to normalize and decontextualize prostitution. Its purpose is to erase the fact that the sex industry requires patriarchy, as well as capitalism, in order to maintain its existence. To erase the fact that, without inequality, prostitution would cease to exist. To erase the fact that, if human rights were a priority and reality in this world, there would be no such thing as prostitution. The term "sex worker" erases systems of power, presenting women in prostitution as simple labourers, as though bodily penetration by strange men is comparable to working at General Motors. The term ensures men remain invisible and unaccountable in all of this, despite the fact that it is only men who drive the industry and only men who are responsible for the harm.

The press release reads, "Sex workers are one of the most marginalized groups in the world who in most instances face constant risk of discrimination, violence and abuse." But saying that "sex workers" are marginalized, as a group, because they are "sex workers" erases the entire context surrounding the existence of a sex industry at all and the reasons why women and girls are prostituted in the first place.

Amnesty wholly accepts the existence of the system of prostitution and, in their statement and position, effectively denies that "sex workers" are marginalized because they are women in prostitution. That is to say, the only reason that women and girls end up in prostitution is because they are marginalized in the first place as females and that prostitution epitomizes that marginalization. That marginalization, though, starts long before entry into the industry.

"How do women end up in prostitution and why?" is a question Amnesty has intentionally avoided addressing, as is the question of why it is acceptable that this industry exists at all.

While their statement says, "Amnesty International considers human trafficking abhorrent in all of its forms, including sexual exploitation, and should be criminalized as a matter of international law," they have not acknowledged that trafficking exists only because women do not want to be in prostitution. It exists because prostitution exists. It exists to feed demand. If the sex industry were something freely chosen by women and girls, there would be no need to traffic them. Amnesty's efforts to draw a clear line between "sex work" and trafficking only shows how deeply ignorant they are, in terms of the realities of the industry. Or, alternatively, that they simply don't care.

"This is a historic day for Amnesty International," the statement reads. And indeed, here are some Amnesty staff members cracking a bottle of champagne over the objectified, exploited, abused and dead bodies of women and girls everywhere. Now that we've moved a step closer to further entrenching men's rights to access the commodified bodies of women, free of guilt, accountability or any barriers whatsoever, it's time for a glass of bubbly, amirite? I assume Amnesty will be sending over a few crates to our sisters on the Downtown Eastside?

In refusing to acknowledge gender, race or class as key factors, Amnesty has abandoned women and girls, globally, and has shown they cannot be trusted in their position as advocates for human rights. Despite this, feminists everywhere will continue to insist on women's humanity. We won't be abandoning this fight, Amnesty International can be sure of that.

Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

 

Thank you for reading this story...

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all. But media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our only supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help.

If everyone who visits rabble and likes it chipped in a couple of dollars per month, our future would be much more secure and we could do much more: like the things our readers tell us they want to see more of: more staff reporters and more work to complete the upgrade of our website.

We’re asking if you could make a donation, right now, to set rabble on solid footing in 2017.

Make a donation.Become a monthly supporter.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.