Tag: Amnesty International

Amnesty International expelled the coordinator of its branch in Providence, Rhode Island for publicly disagreeing with Amnesty’s policy of decriminalizing pimping.

Marcia Lieberman, a freelance writer and member of local group 49 since 1976, received a certified letter Tuesday morning alerting her that her membership had been revoked, she said. Lieberman faxed a copy of the letter to the Providence Journal.

In the letter, Ann Burroughs, a board member for the global human rights organization, wrote: “Amnesty member leaders are not free to dissent from Amnesty’s policies and positions while identifying themselves as Amnesty volunteer leaders.”

Amnesty International’s policy on sex workers, which was published in May after a vote by chapters internationally, calls for “the decriminalization of all aspects of adult consensual sex work due to the foreseeable barriers that criminalization creates to the realization of the human rights of sex workers.”

Lieberman, and most of the members of the 10-person chapter she coordinated, disagreed with this, she said. They felt the research into the policy was scant and that it would embolden “pimps and johns” who were exploiting “mostly young women and girls.”

Lieberman first spoke out against the leadership in a Sept. 2015 letter to the editor published in the New York Times. Days later she received a phone call from David Rendell, the group’s Northeastern representative, and an email from Becky Farrar, a membership chairwoman, warning her that members are not allowed to speak against policies in public. If she continued, she was told, this could lead to expulsion.

Let’s read that letter. (Scroll down: it’s the fourth and last one on the page.)

Little has been heard from Amnesty International members who are opposed to the decriminalization of all aspects of sex work. In advance of a forthcoming “open” conversation call, Amnesty members have been officially reminded that although we are not required to agree with or defend this policy, we “are obligated to not convey a different message in the public arena.”

This gag order is contrary to one of the rights on which Amnesty International was founded: freedom of expression.

MARCIA LIEBERMAN

Providence, R.I.

The writer is coordinator of an Amnesty International group.

I was disgusted when Amnesty announced that policy, and this is even worse.

The irony of a local leader of a group dedicated to free speech, being disciplined for speaking out, is not lost on Lieberman, or her membership, she said.

Former AIUSA member Beth Anterni said removing Lieberman is “counterproductive.” She didn’t renew her $25 annual membership in June because she was upset the way Lieberman was treated. Many other members likely will do the same, she said.

“This is someone who has dedicated her life to this work,” said Anterni. “It’s close to her heart.”

Burroughs declined to be interviewed for this story, but issued a statement through Amnesty International’s press office: “Recently, our Board of Directors voted to revoke an individual’s membership after nearly two years of working with her to address multiple violations of our policies. We won’t publicly discuss this matter further in order to protect the privacy of the former member involved.”

Lieberman has the opportunity to appeal her expulsion, but she is not sure whether she will.

Amnesty for pimps, but not for Marcia Lieberman.

Darren Geist at Rolling Stone has 5 reasons to be wary of Amnesty’s position on prostitution.

In its report, Amnesty frames prostitution as sex work, pimps as legitimate sex business operators and johns as customers. This approach to prostitution is irresponsible and has been opposed by more than 600 leading organizations and individuals in the women’s rights, human rights and anti-human trafficking fields.

But they can all be called whorephobic and dismissed.

The first reason is that decrim will increase sex trafficking.

Prostitution has been decriminalized or legalized in several countries, and the results have been clear: Sex trafficking and criminal activities have increased or, at best, remained constant. Even Amsterdam had to impose greater restrictions on its prostitution industry to deal with rising crime. Denmark, where prostitution was decriminalized in 1999, has four times as many sex-trafficking victims as nearby Sweden, even though Sweden’s population is 40 percent larger.

These conclusions are backed up by three recent studies of global databases. All three — a World Development paper, University of Gothenburg study and NYU School of Law report — found that decriminalizing drastically increases the demand for prostitution by reducing the associated stigma and costs.

It’s not hard to see why that might be. If cocaine were available at Safeway next to the aspirin and Ibuprofen, more people would buy it.

Next, decrim will make life worse for prostitutes.

Prostitution’s decriminalization typically has a race-to-the-bottom effect where prostitutes are pressured to offer more for less. Prostitutes in Germany, for instance, often put in 18-hour days and live in the rooms out of which they work — hardly a healthy environment. Prostitutes also end up offering a wider range of risky services, including unprotected sex, anal sex, group sex, BDSM and acting out torture or rape fantasies. In New Zealand, women in brothels have reported that “men now demand more than ever for less than ever. And because the trade is socially sanctioned, there is no incentive for the government to provide exit strategies for those who want to get out of it. These women are trapped.”

But it’s whorephobic to say that.

And then there’s the issue of consent, aka “agency.”

Over the past several years, consent to sex has been a hot topic of debate — but Amnesty largely ignores its complexities. What counts as voluntary prostitution is highly contested. We know that prostitutes are predominantly from disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. We know that entry into prostitution is often preceded by prolonged and repeated trauma, that rape was the first sexual experience of most prostitutes, and that a majority of prostitutes were victims of child sexual abuse. We know that many sex traffickers groom their victims, fostering romantic relationships with them before leveraging those attachments into commercial exploitation. We also know women who enter into prostitution do so at a very young age. While exact numbers are impossible, several controversial studies have put the average age of entry between 12 and 14; others have found that the majority entered prior to 18, and an international study found that 47 percent entered before age 18. Under the U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act, any minor — person under 18 — in prostitution is a victim of sex trafficking. Yet in Amnesty’s framework, regardless of a prostitute’s history of exploitation or age of entry into sex work, prostitution is considered consensual from the day she turns 18.

And that’s treated as “respecting” the prostitute’s “agency” – which I think is a perverse way of looking at it.

And then there’s the rape culture reason, which I’ve always considered all but undeniable. If prostitution is okie doke, then rape becomes just a property crime.

Amnesty’s embrace of commercial sex feeds rape culture by trivializing sex, weakening gender equality and treating sex as something that can bought and sold. But sex is — and should be — treated differently from other activities. It is a uniquely personal and private act. Rape is categorically worse than other forms of assault precisely because it is a more intimate violation. The human rights push against anti-sodomy laws was also grounded in a belief that sexual activity deserved special protection.

Decriminalization of prostitution will lead to bizarre (and morally troubling) legal problems. If a client and prostitute reach an agreement for services and the client “exceeds” those agreed-upon services, is that theft of services or rape? If police are investigating the incident, should they, at first instance, treat it as a contract dispute or a sexual assault? These problems are created by Amnesty’s framework, in which sex is treated as just another commodity.

Exactly.

The final item is yo, this is economic libertarianism, and since when is that a left thing?

The government prohibits a wide range of economic activity, and groups like Amnesty usually advocate for robust regulation because of concerns about labor-right violations, work conditions and abuse of workers. But in this case, Amnesty proposes a decriminalization of an industry known to be highly dangerous, rife with corruption and violence, frequently if not by definition sexually exploitative and at a high risk of sex trafficking.

Not to mention harming mostly women, for the sexual pleasure of mostly men.

Amnesty’s proposal perverts human-rights and women’s-rights principles. It sacrifices the concerns and welfares of the vast majority of prostitutes, who are caught in an exploitative and brutal industry. As a result, Amnesty has staked out a position that will be a boon to pimps and sex traffickers, and will do great damage to the human rights of the men, women and children caught in the sex industry.

Especially the women and girls.

Sisters Uncut on why not the Nordic model :

Some may be be wondering why we are not supporting the Nordic model or ‘sex buyer law’, which is sometimes presented as the ‘feminist’ legal model regarding prostitution. Countries such as Sweden, Norway, and most recently France have implemented ‘Nordic model’-style laws.

Sisters Uncut cannot support the Nordic model, in part because it retains the criminalisation of people who sell sex – in particular, sex workers who are working together indoors for safety. This criminalisation has been extensively documented by sex worker-led organisations, and has also been noted by Amnesty International. The arrest and prosecution of sex workers is a form of state violence against (mostly) women and LGBTQ people, and advocates of the Nordic model are overwhelmingly silent on the fact that the law they are attempting to import retains criminalisation for those who sell sex – silence which does not persuade us that these campaigners meaningfully oppose this criminalisation of sex workers.

Except that the Nordic model is about decriminalizing prostitution, not criminalizing it.

Rosalie Haynes on Sisters Uncut:

I heard the anger in this John’s voice. The look in his eyes. It was hungry, it was murderous. I fought against him when he lunged at me, I tried to be strong. But it wasn’t enough. It never is enough. I was an ant in comparison to him. He was a man that would always tease me about being weak, you know,right before he’d rape me and carry out his sexual fantasies. (I think he liked that. He liked me to be reminded of how small and powerless I was, so then he could feel big and powerful). I was pinned, hurting, I wanted to close my eyes and forget everything. Who I was, who he was, what was happening, my whole life. I guess you could say I wanted to tap my shoes together and go home. That only happens in fairytales. This was far from one. The lives of prostituted girls/women are hardly rosey, are they?

For the next few weeks every time he called me I had to go over to his house. He threatened to hurt my family and friends. Especially my mum. Always. I legit think he was mentally disturbed. He always told me how when he was younger no girls wanted to go out with him & he felt like he missed out on a lot of fun & fooling around.

I think this is why he was obsessed with always buying me, because I was just a child.

She was fourteen. She was pregnant, and hid it from him. One night she had a miscarriage in his bathroom.

He was angry as ever when he came right back and attacked me again because of the “period” mess I made in bath. I tried so hard to clean it all up and to make sure there were no stains but I didnt have enough time. (I also think he had OCD) I tried to fight him all night, crying, hurting and screaming. But I felt too weak and I stopped resisting. He didn’t stop, they never do. He carried on and carried on and carried on.

He smeared the blood from my vagina on my face.

I WAS 14 FUCKING YEARS OLD AND HE PUNISHED ME BY SMEARING THE BLOOD ON MY FUCKING FACE

DO YOU THINK THAT’S OKAY? DO YOU THINK IT WAS OKAY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN?

Amnesty International wants to decriminalize Johns like that. AI wants to make pimps and johns just good participants in capitalist consumerism, and prostitutes workers in an industry like any other industry.

SistersUncut I hope you do realise that you’re supporting the death of women too? Couldn’t really give a toss if people think I’m being extreme by saying that, because personally I’m not & realistically I’m not.

So, “they cut, we blood” yes, for sure we do. But what about the men who make me bleed?

Your support against the Nordic Model  means women like me will carry on bleeding.

Their words are still threats to me. But also their words are not heard by me anymore. I have grown deaf to them, see that’s where the lovely thing we like to call dissociation comes in and helps us lasses out.

Every man who’s ever raped me should be in prison.

Every man who’s ever beaten me to a pulp should be in prison.

Every man who’s EVER paid to have sexual access to a womans body and has tortured her sexually, physically and mentally, should be in fucking prison.

We’re always told to listen to the sex workers.

As a feminist group, AS WOMEN, you fucking disgust me just as much as the men who buy and rape me. I hope you are aware that’s a huge level of disgust.

You stand there and preach about refuges and DV services which I fully support. Carry on doing so.

But for some reason exploited women are left out of your activism? But that’s because you don’t class being prostituted as abuse, right? I’m assuming that this is the only answer?

Your support against it means women like me will carry on bleeding. And you’ll make it harder for men to be held accountable. Because like I’ve said many times before, anyone who doesn’t support the Nordic model and is against it, support rapists. End of. That’s how I see it and essentially, that IS how it is. You’ll probably disagree with that statement but I couldn’t really give a flying fuck. Though, I’m also aware you have a habit of ignoring women when they question you. So I won’t hold out for a response.

No sexual predator on this earth deserves the support of any woman OR any organisation to okay them buying their way into a womans body.

Surely, as “feminists” you should know this?

Once we are bought, once that transaction has been made we aren’t safe. We aren’t ever safe when we’re in the company of a John. But once he’s paid for you, you are his to use and abuse for as long as he likes.. He owns your body. He own everything. You know, there are no safe words. Safe words don’t exist in our world. No doesn’t mean no. Stop doesn’t mean stop. All we can do is stay silent and suffer in silence.

You are supposed to be a feminist organisation, right? Fighting for women’s rights? Fighting for women’s freedom? Fighting for women to live a life free from violence? Is supporting the commercialisation of my body a feminist action?

There’s more.

Here’s one way we can talk back to Amnesty International:

It’s Official — Amnesty International Creates the Human Right to Pimp and Purchase Sexual Acts

MAY 27, 2016 — Nearly a year after Amnesty International’s International Council released a proposal on prostitution, which it calls “sex work,” the organization’s International Board issued its global policy calling on governments to decriminalize pimping, brothel owning and sex buying. As of May 26, 2016, Amnesty has officially adopted a framework that will shape its advocacy to stand with exploiters, not the exploited.

CATW, along with survivors of the sex trade and other women’s rights and human rights activists, will continue to urge Amnesty to reevaluate its policy. Instead of the wholesale decriminalization of the sex trade, the organization must call on governments to decriminalize only prostituted individuals — not their exploiters. It should not allow pimps, traffickers and brothel owners, who profit from this multi-billion dollar global trade, and the sex buyers, who fuel it, to brutally abuse women with impunity.

Amnesty’s decision to legitimize the sex trade is a gross violation of human rights principles and international conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1949 Convention, the Palermo Protocol and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). As we continue to oppose this devastating move, our Change.org petition will remain active until we succeed in reversing Amnesty’s policy to decriminalize the sex trade.

In October 2015, as part of the Global Day of Action against Amnesty’s proposal, we circulated a Global Declaration urging the organization to uphold human rights, especially those of women. If you fit into the categories of “We, the undersigned…” as described in the text, please join the signatories who have already rejected Amnesty’s decision to endanger the lives of countless women and girls by condemning them to commercial sexual exploitation.

A human rights organization has a duty to protect the most marginalized among us, especially those who lack real choices. Amnesty is the first and the most prominent grassroots human rights organization in the world. With this policy green-lighting prostitution as a source of employment and empowerment for women, Amnesty has lost its vision of a world where every human being has a right to live with dignity, free from violence. However, we hope that Amnesty will one day reclaim its mission and credibility, and that it will once again abide by international law and fight for the human rights of all.

Until then, it’s official: Amnesty is advocating the right to pimp, buy sex, and profit from the sale of sexual acts off the backs of women and girls everywhere.

You can sign the global declaration here.

Amnesty International has a report on the physical assault, exploitation and sexual harassment that refugee women face as they reach Europe.

Governments and aid agencies are failing to provide even basic protections to women refugees traveling from Syria and Iraq. New research conducted by Amnesty International shows that women and girl refugees face violence, assault, exploitation and sexual harassment at every stage of their journey, including on European soil. 

The organization interviewed 40 refugee women and girls in Germany and Norway last month who travelled from Turkey to Greece and then across the Balkans. All the women described feeling threatened and unsafe during the journey. Many reported that in almost all of the countries they passed through they experienced physical abuse and financial exploitation, being groped or pressured to have sex by smugglers, security staff or other refugees. 

But that’s sex work. Surely Amnesty views it as their right, as well as the right of the smugglers, security staff and other refugees.

A dozen of the women interviewed said that they had been touched, stroked or leered at in European transit camps. One 22-year-old Iraqi woman told Amnesty International that when she was in Germany a uniformed security guard offered to give her some clothes in exchange for “spending time alone” with him.     

“Nobody should have to take these dangerous routes in the first place. The best way to avoid abuses and exploitation by smugglers is for European governments to allow safe and legal routes from the outset. For those who have no other choice, it is completely unacceptable that their passage across Europe exposes them to further humiliation, uncertainty and insecurity,” said Tirana Hassan. 

Abuses? Exploitation? That sounds very sex-negative. How can Amnesty International call an opportunity for sex work “humiliation”?

Smugglers target women who are travelling alone knowing they are more vulnerable. When they lacked the financial resources to pay for their journey smugglers would often try to coerce them into having sex.

At least three women said that smugglers and those working with the smugglers’ network harassed them or others, and offered them a discounted trip or a shorter wait to get on the boat across the Mediterranean, in exchange for sex.

Well what’s the problem? It’s sex work, which Amnesty thinks should be totally legalized for pimps and johns as well as the sex workers.

Hala, a 23-year-old woman from Aleppo told Amnesty International,

“At the hotel in Turkey, one of the men working with the smuggler, a Syrian man, said if I sleep with him, I will not pay or pay less. Of course I said no, it was disgusting. The same happened in Jordan to all of us.”

“My friend who came with me from Syria ran out of money in Turkey, so the smuggler’s assistant offered her to have sex with him [in exchange for a place on a boat]; she of course said no, and couldn’t leave Turkey, so she’s staying there.”

But it’s just sex work. Sex work is pleasant, enjoyable work, which meets men’s inherent need for “intimacy.” How can it be disgusting? Why did her friend say no?

Nahla, a 20-year old from Syria told Amnesty International

“The smuggler was harassing me. He tried to touch me a couple of times. Only when my male cousin was around he did not come close. I was very afraid, especially that we hear stories along the way of women who can’t afford the smugglers who would be given the option to sleep with the smugglers for a discount.”

He has a need for “intimacy” like any other man. He’s just exercising his right to try to get some.

Reem, a 20-year-old from Syria who was travelling with her 15-year-old cousin:

“I never got the chance to sleep in settlements. I was too scared that anyone would touch me. The tents were all mixed and I witnessed violence… I felt safer in movements, especially on the bus, the only place I could shut my eyes and sleep. In the camps we are so prone to being touched, and women can’t really complain and they don’t want to cause issues to disrupt their trip.”

If they would just think of it as sex work, and the men groping them as potential sources of income, everyone would be happy.