Everything You Need to Know About the Amnesty Sex Work Argument, Broken Down

[Disir]

You might have noticed a shit-storm of controversy around sex work in your newsfeed this week: Amnesty International was accused of siding with pimps, there were lots of open letters, and there were even more opinions. Lena Dunham got involved.

The beef is based on Amnesty's proposal that sex work should be fully decriminalized, as the charity believes this will make things safer for sex workers. Some people disagree; most conspicuously some of Hollywood's leading ladies, including Anne Hathaway, Carey Mulligan, Kate Winslet, and the aforementioned Lena Dunham. According to those in opposition, Amnesty has climbed into bed with a bunch of pimps, while the organization's supporters argue that decriminalization is the way forward for sex workers.

Managed to miss the whole thing? Here's a breakdown of what happened.
Everything You Need to Know About the Amnesty Sex Work Argument Broken Down VICE United States

Yep. I've pretty much lost almost any respect for Amnesty.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"The beef is based on Amnesty's proposal that sex work should be fully decriminalized, as the charity believes this will make things safer for sex workers."

They are correct. What's safer for all involved, making booze today legally or illegally during Prohibition?

 

[Disir]

Decriminalization versus legalization. They have different repercussions.

And NZ law after five years:
The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously.

However, progress in some areas has been slower that may have been hoped. Many sex workers are still vulnerable to exploitative employment conditions, and there are still reports of sex workers being forced to take clients against their will. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to note that most sex workers contacted during the research for this report were aware of their right to say 'no', and that some brothel operators' behaviour in this respect has improved since the enactment of the PRA.
14 Conclusion and Future Review Ministry of Justice New Zealand

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Decriminalization versus legalization. They have different repercussions.

And NZ law after five years:
The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously.

However, progress in some areas has been slower that may have been hoped. Many sex workers are still vulnerable to exploitative employment conditions, and there are still reports of sex workers being forced to take clients against their will. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to note that most sex workers contacted during the research for this report were aware of their right to say 'no', and that some brothel operators' behaviour in this respect has improved since the enactment of the PRA.
14 Conclusion and Future Review Ministry of Justice New Zealand

Did you intentionally plan to undermine your own thread?

"The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously."

 

[Disir]

Decriminalization versus legalization. They have different repercussions.

And NZ law after five years:
The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously.

However, progress in some areas has been slower that may have been hoped. Many sex workers are still vulnerable to exploitative employment conditions, and there are still reports of sex workers being forced to take clients against their will. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to note that most sex workers contacted during the research for this report were aware of their right to say 'no', and that some brothel operators' behaviour in this respect has improved since the enactment of the PRA.
14 Conclusion and Future Review Ministry of Justice New Zealand

Did you intentionally plan to undermine your own thread?

"The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously."

I didn't undermine it. When progress is at least knowing that they have the right to say no and some brothel operators' behavior has improved then you don't have much. Legalization and decriminalization have different repercussions.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Decriminalization versus legalization. They have different repercussions.

And NZ law after five years:
The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously.

However, progress in some areas has been slower that may have been hoped. Many sex workers are still vulnerable to exploitative employment conditions, and there are still reports of sex workers being forced to take clients against their will. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to note that most sex workers contacted during the research for this report were aware of their right to say 'no', and that some brothel operators' behaviour in this respect has improved since the enactment of the PRA.
14 Conclusion and Future Review Ministry of Justice New Zealand

Did you intentionally plan to undermine your own thread?

"The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously."

I didn't undermine it. When progress is at least knowing that they have the right to say no and some brothel operators' behavior has improved then you don't have much. Legalization and decriminalization have different repercussions.

You undermined it completely. And I noticed you couldn't answer the simple question above, which makes your position total nonsense. What is legal is always safer because it can be openly plied and regulated. When a John beats you up, you can go to the cops. You don't need a pimp, you have a license and a union card, and the protection of law enforcement.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's interesting to me that all the entitled celebrities believe that they can speak for sex workers.

Every sex worker that I've heard voice their opinion on this supports it.

 

[Disir]

Decriminalization versus legalization. They have different repercussions.

And NZ law after five years:
The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously.

However, progress in some areas has been slower that may have been hoped. Many sex workers are still vulnerable to exploitative employment conditions, and there are still reports of sex workers being forced to take clients against their will. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to note that most sex workers contacted during the research for this report were aware of their right to say 'no', and that some brothel operators' behaviour in this respect has improved since the enactment of the PRA.
14 Conclusion and Future Review Ministry of Justice New Zealand

Did you intentionally plan to undermine your own thread?

"The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously."

I didn't undermine it. When progress is at least knowing that they have the right to say no and some brothel operators' behavior has improved then you don't have much. Legalization and decriminalization have different repercussions.

You undermined it completely. And I noticed you couldn't answer the simple question above, which makes your position total nonsense. What is legal is always safer because it can be openly plied and regulated. When a John beats you up, you can go to the cops. You don't need a pimp, you have a license and a union card, and the protection of law enforcement.

I didn't answer it because it was useless. It makes zero sense for you to make a comparison between prohibition and prostitution considering that you could make a comparison between legal and illegal prostitution in the states just as easily.

Legalize it. And don't make the mistakes that Germany made that allows the abuse because the law got fuzzy on "management".

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Decriminalization versus legalization. They have different repercussions.

And NZ law after five years:
The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously.

However, progress in some areas has been slower that may have been hoped. Many sex workers are still vulnerable to exploitative employment conditions, and there are still reports of sex workers being forced to take clients against their will. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to note that most sex workers contacted during the research for this report were aware of their right to say 'no', and that some brothel operators' behaviour in this respect has improved since the enactment of the PRA.
14 Conclusion and Future Review Ministry of Justice New Zealand

Did you intentionally plan to undermine your own thread?

"The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously."

I didn't undermine it. When progress is at least knowing that they have the right to say no and some brothel operators' behavior has improved then you don't have much. Legalization and decriminalization have different repercussions.

You undermined it completely. And I noticed you couldn't answer the simple question above, which makes your position total nonsense. What is legal is always safer because it can be openly plied and regulated. When a John beats you up, you can go to the cops. You don't need a pimp, you have a license and a union card, and the protection of law enforcement.

I didn't answer it because it was useless. It makes zero sense for you to make a comparison between prohibition and prostitution considering that you could make a comparison between legal and illegal prostitution in the states just as easily.

Legalize it. And don't make the mistakes that Germany made that allows the abuse because the law got fuzzy on "management".

Yes, one thing being illegal, and therefore dangerous, versus another thing being illegal, and therefore dangerous. I can see why you'd have so much trouble comparing the two? Morons here, total fucking morons.

 

[Disir]

Decriminalization versus legalization. They have different repercussions.

And NZ law after five years:
The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously.

However, progress in some areas has been slower that may have been hoped. Many sex workers are still vulnerable to exploitative employment conditions, and there are still reports of sex workers being forced to take clients against their will. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to note that most sex workers contacted during the research for this report were aware of their right to say 'no', and that some brothel operators' behaviour in this respect has improved since the enactment of the PRA.
14 Conclusion and Future Review Ministry of Justice New Zealand

Did you intentionally plan to undermine your own thread?

"The PRA has been in force for five years. During that time, the sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously."

I didn't undermine it. When progress is at least knowing that they have the right to say no and some brothel operators' behavior has improved then you don't have much. Legalization and decriminalization have different repercussions.

You undermined it completely. And I noticed you couldn't answer the simple question above, which makes your position total nonsense. What is legal is always safer because it can be openly plied and regulated. When a John beats you up, you can go to the cops. You don't need a pimp, you have a license and a union card, and the protection of law enforcement.

I didn't answer it because it was useless. It makes zero sense for you to make a comparison between prohibition and prostitution considering that you could make a comparison between legal and illegal prostitution in the states just as easily.

Legalize it. And don't make the mistakes that Germany made that allows the abuse because the law got fuzzy on "management".

Yes, one thing being illegal, and therefore dangerous, versus another thing being illegal, and therefore dangerous. I can see why you'd have so much trouble comparing the two? Morons here, total fucking morons.

There are different outcomes with decriminalization versus legalization.

 

[MikeK]

"The beef is based on Amnesty's proposal that sex work should be fully decriminalized, as the charity believes this will make things safer for sex workers."

They are correct. What's safer for all involved, making booze today legally or during Prohibition?

This issue is much easier to ponder if we avoid resorting to the euphemistic designation, "sex workers," and contemplate these individuals and their chosen occupation in the more traditional and familiar terminology, which is prostitutes and prostitution. Which, in my opinion, should be legal.

I firmly believe everything which presently is deplorable about the world's oldest profession would be eliminated or sanitized if the practice were legalized, regulated and monitored by law-enforcement and health authorities. If this were so there would neither be need nor demand for such unpleasant, often ugly realities as streetwalking, trafficking, vice cops and pimps.

The simple fact of the matter is there are many women (and men) who would rather turn a few tricks a day (or night) than punch a time card, bag groceries, or flip hamburgers. And if these individuals were required to conduct their trade in approved locations, in regularly inspected premises, routinely submit to medical examinations and pay taxes, what presently exists as a social malignancy would occur as a productive activity and the criminal element would be eliminated just as the repeal of alcohol prohibition eliminated bootlegging.

 

[MikeK]

There are different outcomes with decriminalization versus legalization.

Decriminalization is better than prohibition and legalization is better than decriminalization because the latter is indefinite, misunderstood, subject to official corruption and commercially tenuous.

 

[Disir]

There are different outcomes with decriminalization versus legalization.

Decriminalization is better than prohibition and legalization is better than decriminalization because the latter is indefinite, misunderstood, subject to official corruption and commercially tenuous.

You know, back when the US had big red light districts and the social purity movement was cruising through Chicago there were mini protests in front of the brothels. They sang Christian songs. These guys knew and acknowledged publicly that the primary issue is economics but they weren't going to deal with that.

Money is paid to someone to locate women. Someone presents themselves as having legitimate jobs in another country. The woman or child is transported to another country with the intention or belief that they are working in a legitimate job. They are forced into prostitution AND they may even be under some type of contract to pay back money arranging the transportation. All aspects of sex work are decriminalized in that country. You can't nail 'em.

 

[Slyhunter]

Individuals should be free to do with themselves and their own property as they see fit as long as it doesn't infringe on another individuals rights.

 

[MikeK]

Money is paid to someone to locate women. Someone presents themselves as having legitimate jobs in another country. The woman or child is transported to another country with the intention or belief that they are working in a legitimate job. They are forced into prostitution AND they may even be under some type of contract to pay back money arranging the transportation. All aspects of sex work are decriminalized in that country. You can't nail 'em.

The circumstances you've described can only take place where prostitution is either illegal or inadequately monitored and the women are illegal immigrants who cannot reveal their circumstances to authorities. If prostitution is legal it would be a criminal offense, as well as a medical risk, to patronize a prostitute who is not licensed. So as long as the activity is adequately monitored by the appropriate authorities, prostitutes are interviewed and their citizenship established prior to licensing, the kind of trafficking you've described cannot function.

When prostitution is illegal a primary function of vice cops is to arrest prostitutes. If prostitution were legal one critically important function of vice cops would be posing as johns (patrons) to surreptitiously monitor freelancers and brothels to ensure proper licensing and operations. This function, alone, would make the kind of trafficking and exploitation you've described impossible.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There are different outcomes with decriminalization versus legalization.

Decriminalization is better than prohibition and legalization is better than decriminalization because the latter is indefinite, misunderstood, subject to official corruption and commercially tenuous.

You know, back when the US had big red light districts and the social purity movement was cruising through Chicago there were mini protests in front of the brothels. They sang Christian songs. These guys knew and acknowledged publicly that the primary issue is economics but they weren't going to deal with that.

Money is paid to someone to locate women. Someone presents themselves as having legitimate jobs in another country. The woman or child is transported to another country with the intention or belief that they are working in a legitimate job. They are forced into prostitution AND they may even be under some type of contract to pay back money arranging the transportation. All aspects of sex work are decriminalized in that country. You can't nail 'em.

Which is the more important goal - "nailing" the traffickers, or helping the sex workers themselves?

The major difference between legalization and decriminalization can be seen in your example above - in a situation in which prostitution is decriminalized, the woman forced in sex work can walk up to any policeman in the street, and their pimp will end up in prison for kidnapping and false imprisonment - whereas in a "legalized" system of prostitution, the coerced and forced sex worker from your hypothetical would still be a criminal in the eyes of the law for being unlicensed.

 

[MikeK]

Which is the more important goal - "nailing" the traffickers, or helping the sex workers themselves?

The major difference between legalization and decriminalization can be seen in your example above - in a situation in which prostitution is decriminalized, the woman forced in sex work can walk up to any policeman in the street, and their pimp will end up in prison for kidnapping and false imprisonment - whereas in a "legalized" system of prostitution, the coerced and forced sex worker from your hypothetical would still be a criminal in the eyes of the law for being unlicensed.

Decriminalization means all existing laws remain active but enforcement (at most levels) is administratively suspended but may at any time be selectively enforced or fully resumed. The consequence of this capricious condition is a state of limbo in which nothing productive can occur. Such as (in the example of prostitution and marijuana) taxation, specifically dedicated law-enforcement protection and administrative regulation.

If prostitution is made legal it will generate enormous tax revenue and the attentions of various government agencies will, as in the example of the repeal of alcohol prohibition, immediately drive the criminal element from the activity.

Decriminalization should serve as an introductory phase for full legalization. But the problem is it has a habit of lingering without movement in anticipation of an opposing political atmosphere.

 

[Disir]

There are different outcomes with decriminalization versus legalization.

Decriminalization is better than prohibition and legalization is better than decriminalization because the latter is indefinite, misunderstood, subject to official corruption and commercially tenuous.

You know, back when the US had big red light districts and the social purity movement was cruising through Chicago there were mini protests in front of the brothels. They sang Christian songs. These guys knew and acknowledged publicly that the primary issue is economics but they weren't going to deal with that.

Money is paid to someone to locate women. Someone presents themselves as having legitimate jobs in another country. The woman or child is transported to another country with the intention or belief that they are working in a legitimate job. They are forced into prostitution AND they may even be under some type of contract to pay back money arranging the transportation. All aspects of sex work are decriminalized in that country. You can't nail 'em.

Which is the more important goal - "nailing" the traffickers, or helping the sex workers themselves?

The major difference between legalization and decriminalization can be seen in your example above - in a situation in which prostitution is decriminalized, the woman forced in sex work can walk up to any policeman in the street, and their pimp will end up in prison for kidnapping and false imprisonment - whereas in a "legalized" system of prostitution, the coerced and forced sex worker from your hypothetical would still be a criminal in the eyes of the law for being unlicensed.

Well, I was trying to point out and should have done a better job at it-- If the primary issue is economic then we would see a focus on it. But we don't have that. The workers themselves are calling for legalization rather than decriminalization.

If you don't nail the traffickers then the supply doesn't end.