Why Amnesty International’s decision to decriminalise sex work is a win
Amnesty International adopted a resolution on Tuesday to protect the human rights of sex workers around the world. Crucially, the resolution recommends that Amnesty supports the full decriminalisation of all aspects of consensual sex work.
I hope someone gave the delegates a firm handshake and some celebratory refreshments for passing this resolution, given the pressure put on them to reject it.
A celebrity fuelled movement, supported by people like Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet, has been actively campaigning against the decriminalisation of sex work. I have to wonder how these women, some of the richest and most successful women in the world, had the gall to think they should override not only the two years of research and consultation Amnesty undertook on this issue, but also the overwhelming voices of sex workers themselves.
Sex work, as I have said before, is a vastly complex and wide ranging industry. It’s not just selling sex on the streets – although that can certainly be one aspect of consensual sex work. Pornography can also be consensual sex work, as can escort, massage, companionship, fetish and BDSM services, among others. Not all of them necessarily involve intercourse and not all of them are exploitative by definition.
I once heard a self-described sex worker talk about being paid to sit, fully dressed, on ice-cream cakes on live webcam (and yes, she thanked United States of Tara for that inspiration). Do we define that as sex work? Is it something that should be a criminal act? Is paying for it criminal?
Where sexual services are non-consensual or involve minors, it is not sex work, it is rape and/or human trafficking. Both of which are illegal in most countries in the world and Amnesty International is unambiguous in saying these are crimes and it takes them very seriously.
The campaign against the Amnesty resolution were not solely suggesting that sex workers themselves should be criminalised. Most were in favour of what is known as the Swedish model, where the sale of sex work is not a crime, but the purchase of it is.
The arguments in favour of the Swedish model are that sex work is inherently exploitative, but that the people who do such work shouldn’t suffer for their own exploitation, the people who pay them and are thereby facilitating the exploitation should be punished or prevented from doing so.
I can see the merit in the argument. While it is not just women who do sex work, men, trans people and other gender identities do it as well, it’s probably fair to say that most sex workers are female. The idea that bodies, any bodies, can be bought and used as sexual objects is damaging, particularly for women and trans women, who are culturally objectified to such detriment.
Where the argument falls down is in its insistence that all sex workers are exploited, that they can have no agency or choice, and in the idea that the solution to this is to impose criminal penalties on either party to the transaction.
Sex work is something many people would consider dangerous, and certainly street based sex work can be very dangerous. The thing that makes it dangerous, however, is the clients and the men who see sex workers as vulnerable. How can the solution to this be to make police a threat not a protection?
In most western countries anyone working in any other industry has access to support services, ombudsmen, doctors, hospitals and most of all police if they are threatened with violence at work. Research and experience has proven that decriminalising sex work provides better, safer outcomes for sex workers.
One of the issues in this is, of course, defining consensual sex work. It can be highly problematic. There is a huge difference between a privileged person, with a wealth of other options, who enthusiastically chooses to do sex work – clearly consensual – and someone who does sex work because they have no other options. Can someone truly consent to something when they have no other choice?
Probably not, and there are people doing sex work for whom this is true. They may not necessarily be trafficked or specifically exploited by another person – what many people refer to as pimps – but the opportunity to earn money in any other way is not open to them. This happens to people in Australia, and more commonly, to people in developing countries where access to education and employment is limited, especially for women.
The fact that this kind of non-consensual sex work occurs is not a reason to criminalise it. Any aspect of it. All that achieves is to drive sex work away from the services that could otherwise be of assistance and put the sex workers in danger of further exploitation, from police as much as anyone else. There is a place for activism to assist people in such situations. The work of organisations like Scarlett Alliance, St Kilda Gatehouse and Care Australia. The solution is not in the justice system.
To quote from Amnesty’s resolution, these are some of the things that policy on sex work should take into account:
Evidence that sex workers often engage in sex work due to marginalisation and limited choices, and that therefore Amnesty International will urge states to take appropriate measures to realize the economic, social and cultural rights of all people so that no person enters sex work against their will or is compelled to rely on it as their only means of survival, and to ensure that people are able to stop sex work if and when they choose.
Ensuring that the policy seeks to maximize protection of the full range of human rights – in addition to gender equality, women’s rights, and non-discrimination – related to sex work, in particular security of the person, the rights of children, access to justice, the right to health, the rights of Indigenous peoples and the right to a livelihood.
Recognizing and respecting the agency of sex workers to articulate their own experiences and define the most appropriate solutions to ensure their own welfare and safety, while also complying with broader, relevant international human rights principles regarding participation in decision-making, such as the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent with respect to Indigenous peoples.
The evidence from Amnesty International’s and external research on the lived experiences of sex workers, and on the human rights impact of various criminal law and regulatory approaches to sex work.
When we talk about reform of any industry or workplace, we talk to the workers and we look at the research. When both those groups overwhelming point in the same direction, who has the right to argue?