Response from the board of AI Norway to the draft policy on decriminalisation of sex work
Publisert:
30. Mai 2014, kl. 14:12
|
Sist oppdatert:
4. aug 2015, kl. 14:13
Oslo, May 2014
Response from the board of AI Norway to the draft policy on decriminalisation of sex work
AI Norway’s position
AI Norway does not support the proposed policy. Rather than choosing a one size fits all approach, we believe that Amnesty International should consider on a case-by-case basis whether legal actions by the state concerning sex work (where they constitute interference with people’s rights to privacy and work) are appropriate and proportional with regard to the state’s responsibility to protect citizens against abuse or discrimination.
Amnesty International should to a greater extent focus on the vulnerable situation most sex workers find themselves in, and demand that states increase their efforts to protect this group against abuse, whether or not their actions are in conflict with existing laws.
Process and reasoning:
The policy draft was considered by the board’s working group on international issues which both analysed it with regard to international human rights law and AI’s strategy and priorities, and considered the opinions of external Norwegian actors, both those in favour and against a decriminalization of the buying of sex. (There are no serious actors in Norway supporting a criminalization of selling sex.) In Norway, selling sex is not illegal but buying sex is.
Norwegian organizations representing the interests of sex workers are opposed to the prohibition against buying sex, arguing that it forces sex workers to act in the underground, making them more vulnerable. The Norwegian Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud, the Norwegian police and many Norwegian women’s rights groups on the other hand strongly support the legal ban, pointing both at its general effect in combatting discriminating attitudes (it should not be accepted to consider women as something you can just buy if you feel like it), the state’s obligation to intervene with a business that is inherently abusive and oppressive, the need of making it clear for people who end up in prostitution out of need that they are victims of an oppressive system and there is a way out, and the necessity of diminishing the demand for women being trafficked into the sex industry.
Looking into how the so-called Nordic model (prohibition against buying but not selling sex) is being practiced, it becomes clear that it is necessary to accompany police intervention against sex customers by social measures to support prostitutes in finding other ways of making a living. This will only work in countries where the authorities, and especially the police, are held strictly accountable for their conduct with respect to human rights and national law, and where there is a willingness to invest resources into assisting prostitutes who ended up in the sex industry out of need. In this respect, it may well be that in a majority of countries prohibition against the buying of sex will still lead to human rights violations and to making sex workers even more vulnerable.
The policy draft was also discussed at a number of meetings for Amnesty members (but which were also open to the genrral public) in all regions of Norway. The majority of members (in addition to many who were undecided) were opposed to Amnesty’s taking a general position against all criminalization of buying or selling of sex, mainly with the argument that it was the state’s obligation to intervene with business that promotes discrimination. Many also xpressed surprise that Amnesty International would engage in issues concerning the state’s interference with people’s private life and right to work, pointing out that there were a large amount of similar issues (like the criminalization of selling or possessing certain drugs) which would than stand in line to be taken up as well.
Response from the board of AI Norway to the draft policy on decriminalisation of sex work
AI Norway’s position
AI Norway does not support the proposed policy. Rather than choosing a one size fits all approach, we believe that Amnesty International should consider on a case-by-case basis whether legal actions by the state concerning sex work (where they constitute interference with people’s rights to privacy and work) are appropriate and proportional with regard to the state’s responsibility to protect citizens against abuse or discrimination.
Amnesty International should to a greater extent focus on the vulnerable situation most sex workers find themselves in, and demand that states increase their efforts to protect this group against abuse, whether or not their actions are in conflict with existing laws.
Process and reasoning:
The policy draft was considered by the board’s working group on international issues which both analysed it with regard to international human rights law and AI’s strategy and priorities, and considered the opinions of external Norwegian actors, both those in favour and against a decriminalization of the buying of sex. (There are no serious actors in Norway supporting a criminalization of selling sex.) In Norway, selling sex is not illegal but buying sex is.
Norwegian organizations representing the interests of sex workers are opposed to the prohibition against buying sex, arguing that it forces sex workers to act in the underground, making them more vulnerable. The Norwegian Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud, the Norwegian police and many Norwegian women’s rights groups on the other hand strongly support the legal ban, pointing both at its general effect in combatting discriminating attitudes (it should not be accepted to consider women as something you can just buy if you feel like it), the state’s obligation to intervene with a business that is inherently abusive and oppressive, the need of making it clear for people who end up in prostitution out of need that they are victims of an oppressive system and there is a way out, and the necessity of diminishing the demand for women being trafficked into the sex industry.
Looking into how the so-called Nordic model (prohibition against buying but not selling sex) is being practiced, it becomes clear that it is necessary to accompany police intervention against sex customers by social measures to support prostitutes in finding other ways of making a living. This will only work in countries where the authorities, and especially the police, are held strictly accountable for their conduct with respect to human rights and national law, and where there is a willingness to invest resources into assisting prostitutes who ended up in the sex industry out of need. In this respect, it may well be that in a majority of countries prohibition against the buying of sex will still lead to human rights violations and to making sex workers even more vulnerable.
The policy draft was also discussed at a number of meetings for Amnesty members (but which were also open to the genrral public) in all regions of Norway. The majority of members (in addition to many who were undecided) were opposed to Amnesty’s taking a general position against all criminalization of buying or selling of sex, mainly with the argument that it was the state’s obligation to intervene with business that promotes discrimination. Many also xpressed surprise that Amnesty International would engage in issues concerning the state’s interference with people’s private life and right to work, pointing out that there were a large amount of similar issues (like the criminalization of selling or possessing certain drugs) which would than stand in line to be taken up as well.