13 Jun Amnesty, human rights and the criminalisation of sex work
There’s a bill up for consideration in Scotland to criminalise the purchase of sex. It’s part of an international wave of laws that purport to “help” people in the sex trade by arresting their source of income – their customers. Rhoda Grant MSP has now released the results of her public consultation on the bill, including mentions of a rousing endorsement from Amnesty International. Only: Amnesty International hasn’t taken any position on the bill, and in fact has demanded this endorsement be withdrawn. They don’t want to be associated with a law that stands to do great harm to sex workers
These kinds of laws, variously called the “Nordic model” or “end demand”, claim that by arresting and prosecuting men who hire sex workers, they are taking a more woman-friendly or even feminist approach to sex work. In truth, using the police in this way creates fear and a greater potential for violence for sex workers: customers are reluctant to participate in negotiations around fees and safer sex, for fear of risking arrest, and sex workers find their power on the job even further curtailed. Never mind that the enforcers of “end demand” are the police, who sex workers the world over report present are a far greater threat of violence to them than customers. These laws pass because lawmakers ignore sex workers. Rhoda Grant’s bill is following the same pattern.
This controversy over Amnesty’s supposed endorsement, while upsetting to sex workers and advocates when first discovered, is actually an opportunity to question this entire bill’s premise. The endorsement, which was submitted by a local chapter of Amnesty International called Paisley Branch, is careful to state it “does not reflect the policy of Amnesty UK”, though it is represented numerous times in Grant’s consultation summary as an Amnesty International endorsement. But this Amnesty chapter has in fact defied Amnesty International in supporting Grant’s bill, which senior staff at Amnesty must now publicly resolve or risk being misunderstood as supporting such a criminalisation of sex workers.
First, they’ve had to explain how this chapter has gone rogue. “Every group has to work within Amnesty’s policy,” explains Marianne Mollmann, a senior policy advisor with Amnesty International’s headquarters in London. “I work for the International Secretariat, who has asked Amnesty UK to demand this group withdraw their support.”
In an email written for Amnesty UK, Mollmann went further:
…though we do not take a detailed position or engage in campaigning on this issue, any public stance would, at a minimum, have to be in line with international human rights standards. In this case, this means:
1. No criminalisation of the sex worker herself or himself.
2. No criminalisation of consensual sex between adults.
3. No conflating trafficking and sex work (trafficking has a very specific definition in international law, which does not equal sex work).
Prior to this directive, Amnesty UK contacted the Paisley Branch, asking them to withdraw the submission, or, if they wished, to resubmit it with all reference to Amnesty removed. The Paisley Branch responded that they refused to withdraw support for the sex work criminalisation bill.
Since, Amnesty has also instructed the bill’s originators in the Scottish parliament that the Paisley Branch’s submission is not representative, eroding any appearance of a respected human rights organisation signing on to such a dangerous bill. “To reduce any scope for confusion, our office in Scotland has reiterated to Rhoda Grant’s office and the Scottish Parliament Bill’s Office that the submission does not reflect the views of Amnesty International and should in no way be interpreted as representative of the position of the organisation,” says Amnesty UK’s head of nations and regions Patrick Corrigan.
Author: Wendy Lyon
Source:New Statesman