ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
Chairs Assembly and Directors Forum 2014
Sex work policy discussion paper
Amnesty International members and staff only
AI Index: ORG 41/014/2014
To:
Section and structure Chairs
Section and structure Directors
International Board
From:
SD Law and Policy
Date:
11 June 2014
Amnesty International
International Secretariat
Peter Benenson House
1 Easton Street, London WC1X 0DW
SUMMARY
This paper reviews the feedback received to date and presents the International Board’s proposed approach
based on recommendations from the International Secretariat to address the principal points that have come
out of the consultation undertaken to date.
DISTRIBUTION
This is an internal document, distributed to section and structure chairs and directors and the International
Board.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Please ensure this document is brought to the attention of the chair and director of your section or structure.
1
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
Sex work policy discussion paper
Contents
Summary and recommendations ........................................................................................................ 3
The consultation responses to date ..................................................................................................... 5
External feedback...............................................................................................................................12
Grave human rights violations faced by sex workers...........................................................................12
Sex work and gender inequality................................................................................ 12
Appendix 1: Proposed policy...............................................................................................................14
Terms used in this proposed policy ........................................................................... 14
What this proposed policy does not cover ................................................................ 15
Appendix 2: The context of sex work ................................................................................................. 16
The demographics of sex work ................................................................................. 16
The drivers of sex work ............................................................................................. 16
In July 2013, after discussion with the then International Executive Committee and
detailed consideration by International Secretariat (IS) staff, the IS circulated a
proposed policy position that would call for the full decriminalization of sex work.
Under the IS proposal, Amnesty International would call for the removal of all laws and
policies that make sex work a crime (such as laws prohibiting selling, buying or
facilitating sex work, living off the proceeds of prostitution, or soliciting). AI would not
call for the decriminalization of violence or other rights violations that occur within sex
work. The proposal would not change Al’s longstanding position that human trafficking
into forced prostitution, or any other aspect of non-consensual sex, must be
criminalized as a matter of international law. It would also not change Amnesty
International’s clear position that children involved in commercial sex acts are victims of
sexual exploitation.
The proposal is set forth in Appendix 1 and described more fully in the summary
document available on the policy consultation intranet space
(https://intranet.amnesty.org/wiki/display/PCDSW/Home).
2
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
The proposed policy was circulated to sections shortly before the 2013 ICM. There were
some informal discussions about the proposal at the International Council Meeting
(ICM) in August 2013, but the proposal was not officially tabled at that meeting. Section
consultation on the proposal has been ongoing since. This paper reviews the feedback
received to date and presents the International Board’s proposed approach based on
recommendations from the IS to address the principal points that have come out of the
consultation undertaken to date.
Summary and recommendations
As of 10 June 2014 just over 40% of AI sections had submitted written feedback on the
International Secretariat proposal. Of those that did, only four supported the
International Secretariat proposal in full.
In the submissions received, no section advocated the continued criminalization of sex
workers. Over half of the responding sections took the clear view that sex workers
should not be subject to criminal sanctions. These responses suggest that there is
consensus in the submissions received that AI should oppose criminalization of sex
workers themselves.
The responses are more divided on other aspects of the IS proposal, with most sections
taking no clear position on the criminalization or decriminalization of the buyer and
offering no clear views on the criminalization of other third-party offences. About 28%
of responding sections called for more Amnesty International research to inform our
position on these aspects of sex work. Eleven sections (just under 38% of those that
responded) urged that the consultation process be extended, and other sections
expressed regret at flaws in the consultation process.
There is no question that the consultation process could have been handled much
better. As noted above, the initial proposal was circulated to sections shortly before the
ICM. Sections were initially requested to provide feedback by 26 September, although
the date was subsequently extended to 31 March 2014. Concern was expressed that the
materials the IS sent to sections in September and October 2013 did not present the
rationale and evidence base for the proposal with sufficient clarity, nor did they
sufficiently consider the different perspectives and full complexities of the issues
involved. There was also disappointment at some of the comparisons used in the initial
documents. The IS provided a modified proposal in February 2014 in response to early
feedback, but many sections continued their consultations on the basis of the earlier,
superseded documents. The time for consultation was subsequently extended by two
additional months to the Chairs Assembly in 2014, with a request that sections provide
as much information as possible in advance of the Chairs Assembly to allow us to
prepare this paper.
3
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
Consultation to date has suggested a consensus view that AI can now oppose
criminalization of sex workers themselves. The consultation also suggests that some
sections would prefer to have more AI research before considering AI’s policy positions
on the criminalization of buyers, on other third-party offences, and on regulation of sex
work as a form of work.
The IS continues to recommend a final policy position that calls for decriminalization of
all aspects of sex work but acknowledges that there is more work to be done to enable
the movement to evaluate the competing issues. As an interim position, however, it is
the view of the IS that it is useful to confirm that AI opposes criminalization of sex
workers themselves to focus the consultation on the principal issues that have emerged
and to clarify that AI can make some meaningful recommendations when it documents
abuses against sex workers. Confirming AI’s position on this aspect of sex work should
not be seen as the end of this process. Instead, this approach should be seen as
allowing the AI movement to focus further consultation on the aspects of sex work
around which there are divergent views.
At this stage, based on recommendations from the International Secretariat, the
International Board is proposing the following approach:
 As there is general consensus in the submissions received that sex workers
should not themselves be criminalized, at its meeting in October the Board will
consider whether it is appropriate and necessary to adopt an interim policy
position to oppose criminalization of sex workers themselves. The Board will
then direct that further consultation and research be undertaken to determine
whether the policy should be further extended.
 With the benefit of the responses received from sections, the International
Secretariat will prepare an assessment of the human rights arguments and
evidence base for the various positions suggested in the International
Secretariat’s proposal and in sections’ submissions. This assessment will be
made available to sections in the fourth quarter of 2014.
 The International Secretariat will undertake research on abuses against sex
workers in four countries chosen to reflect the reality on the ground in different
parts of the globe and will make its findings available to the Amnesty
International movement by the first quarter of 2015.
 Sections will be engaged in further consultation in 2014 and 2015.
 The International Board will consider the issue further and the feedback
received. The issue will then come to the 2015 ICM for further consideration.
4
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
The consultation responses to date
A total of 29 sections submitted consultation responses to the International Secretariat
by 10 June 2014. (These responses are mapped in Table 1.) Nearly all responses were
from sections in Europe and North America. The IS received only three responses from
African sections (AI Côte d’Ivoire, AI Ghana, and AI Togo), three responses from Asian
sections (AI Hong Kong, AI Japan, and AI South Korea), and two responses from Latin
American sections (AI Argentina and AI Puerto Rico).
Only four sections expressed support in full for the IS proposal, which calls for the
complete decriminalization of all aspects of sex work.
But 15 of the 29 sections supported decriminalization of the sex worker her/himself, and
no section definitively called for the criminalization of sex workers.
The responses were more divided on other aspects of the IS proposal. Most of the
responding sections offered no clear view on these aspects of the proposal. Seven
sections supported decriminalization of the buyer; three sections supported the Nordic
approach, which aims to discourage demand for sex work by imposing criminal
penalties on buyers. Four sections supported decriminalization of other third-party
offences (such as brothel keeping and living off the proceeds of prostitution), while five
advocated the continued criminalization of such offences.
The IS proposal had not called for sex work to be ‘legalized’—that is, subject to labour
regulations (an approach that has been taken in countries including Germany).
Nevertheless, four sections supported treating sex work as a form of work subject to
labour regulation.
Individual members in several sections urged Amnesty International to take no position
on sex work. Nevertheless, ten sections explicitly rejected a “no position” approach,
and only one section definitively advocated such an approach in the responses
submitted to the IS.
Eight of the 29 responding sections called for further AI research before taking a final
position. Eleven sections called for further consultation.
Four of the 29 sections submitted information about the legal situation in their
jurisdictions without taking a position on the IS proposal.
A few common observations and recommendations emerged from the submissions:
 Sex workers’ human rights should be the key focus of the proposed policy.
5
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
 The draft policy should affirm the agency and decision-making capacity of sex
workers and that not all sex workers are victims of violence.
 Amnesty International should clearly reaffirm (at the beginning of the policy) its
ongoing commitment to opposing human trafficking, child prostitution, sexual
exploitation, and violence against women.
 The proposed policy should note that while decriminalization (and law reform
generally) is one component of promoting sex workers’ human rights, states
have broader obligations to respect and promote sex workers’ human rights,
address the underlying conditions that lead people into sex work (i.e. racial and
gender inequality, poverty, structural systems of oppression), and provide
meaningful opportunities for individuals to leave sex work.
 The proposed policy should include specific gender analysis that acknowledges
that the majority of sex workers worldwide are women, yet also acknowledges
that a wide range of men, women and transgender people engage in the sale
and purchase of sex, and facilitate sex work.
 Amnesty International’s approach to and work on sex work must align with its
past work on sexual violence, which includes supporting sexual assault law
enforcement and robust analysis of consent within sexual relations.
 Amnesty International lacks research on the human rights impact of different
legal regimes regulating sex work and dedicated work to combatting human
trafficking, and such research should be conducted before taking a policy
position.
 Amnesty International must consider the risks incurred by adopting a policy on
sex work, including with regard to the organization’s credibility, funding,
membership, and partner relationships. An assessment of these risks can be
included in the assessment that will be made available to sections in the fourth
quarter of 2014.
6
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
Table 1. Responses from Sections/Other AI Entities
Twenty-nine sections submitted consultation responses to the International Secretariat by 10 June 2014. Fifteen sections supported
decriminalization of the sex worker her/himself, while no section definitively called for the criminalization of sex workers. Seven sections
supported decriminalization of the buyer; three sections supported criminalizing the buyer (the Nordic approach). Four sections supported
decriminalization of third-party offences, while five advocated the continued criminalization of such offences. Four sections supported
treating sex work as a form of work subject to labour regulation. Ten sections explicitly rejected a “no position” approach, while one section
definitively advocated such an approach. Eight sections called for further AI research before taking a final position, and 11 sections called for
further consultation. This table reflects the IS’s best efforts to map the responses received according to the major points of feedback that
emerged.
AI Entity
Decriminalization
of sex worker
Decriminalization
of buyer
(‘no’ indicates
support for Nordic
approach)
Decriminalization
of third-party
offences
AI Argentina
Yes
Yes
Yes
AI Austria
Yes
Yes
Yes
Regulation
as a form
of work
Alternative
position
suggested
Maybe
No
Yes
Maybe
Yes
AI Canada (Fr)
AI Côte d’Ivoire
Further
research
Case-by-case
calls
No
Further
consultation
Yes
No
AI Belgium (Fr)
AI Canada (Eng)
No
position
(‘yes’
indicates
support
for no
position)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
7
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
AI Entity
Decriminalization
of sex worker
Decriminalization
of buyer
(‘no’ indicates
support for Nordic
approach)
Decriminalization
of third-party
offences
Regulation
as a form
of work
Alternative
position
suggested
AI Czech Republic
AI Denmark
Yes
No
No
No
position
(‘yes’
indicates
support
for no
position)
Yes
Maybe
AI Finland
AI France
Yes
No
No
Further
consultation
Yes
Yes
AI Germany
AI Ghana
Further
research
Yes
(1)
Yes
No
Yes
The proposed
AI Sex Policy is
a good idea,
but the timing
is very
inappropriate;
rather than
introducing a
specific sex
work policy, AI
should address
the rights of
sex workers in
the context of
a general and
universal
human rights
8
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
AI Entity
Decriminalization
of sex worker
Decriminalization
of buyer
(‘no’ indicates
support for Nordic
approach)
Decriminalization
of third-party
offences
Regulation
as a form
of work
Alternative
position
suggested
No
position
(‘yes’
indicates
support
for no
position)
Further
research
Further
consultation
framework
AI Greece
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
AI Hong Kong
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Maybe
Maybe
No
AI Ireland2
AI Israel
AI Italy
Yes
Prostitution is
not work and
is always
trafficking in
persons
No
Focus on wider
context
Maybe
Yes
AI Japan3
AL Netherlands
Yes
AI New Zealand4
AI Poland
AI Portugal
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
9
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
AI Entity
AI Spain
Decriminalization
of sex worker
Decriminalization
of buyer
(‘no’ indicates
support for Nordic
approach)
Yes
Decriminalization
of third-party
offences
Regulation
as a form
of work
Alternative
position
suggested
No
position
(‘yes’
indicates
support
for no
position)
Further
research
Further
consultation
No
AI Puerto Rico5
Analyze
consequences
of position and
consider
context
AI South Korea
AI Sweden
Yes
AI Switzerland
Yes
AI Togo
Yes
Is existing
policy
sufficient?
Yes
Maybe
No
Yes
No
Prendre en
considération
les aspects
moraux et
éthiques parce
que l’impact
est réel dans
certains pays
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
10
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
AI Entity
AIUSA6
Total=29
Decriminalization
of sex worker
Yes
Yes=14
(no section
definitively
advocated
criminalization of
sex workers)
Decriminalization
of buyer
(‘no’ indicates
support for Nordic
approach)
Decriminalization
of third-party
offences
Yes
Yes
Yes=7
No=3
Yes=4
No=5
Regulation
as a form
of work
Yes=4
No=1
Alternative
position
suggested
No
position
(‘yes’
indicates
support
for no
position)
Further
research
Further
consultation
No=10
Yes=1
Yes=8
Yes=11
Source: Section consultations on proposed sex work policy received by 10 June 2014.
1
A majority of members of AI France who took part in the consultation preferred that AI take no position on sex work. Nevertheless, AI France signed a joint letter indicating that
AI should take a position after appropriate consultation.
2 AI Ireland suggested additional areas for analysis and offered general comments on the proposal without offering a position on the questions reviewed in the table.
3 AI Japan submitted points raised by its policy specialists and group activists without offering a position on the questions reviewed in the table.
4 AI New Zealand provided information on the legal situation of sex workers in the country without commenting on the IS proposal.
5
AI Puerto Rico provided information on the legal situation of sex workers in the jurisdiction and also provided preliminary information on how that jurisdiction’s laws are enforced
in practice without commenting on the IS proposal.
6 AIUSA submitted the final report of its Priorities Subcommittee.
11
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
External feedback
In addition to the many responses received by sections, the IS received feedback directly from other
nongovernmental organisations and from members of the general public on the proposed policy. As
of 10 June 2014, this external feedback included 231 individual responses and 25 group letters signed
by a total of 188 organisations. This external correspondence reflected a range of views, but only 20
responses (or approximately 8% of the total of 256 responses) were against the proposed policy.
Examples of the correspondence, both for and against the policy, are available on the policy
consultation intranet space.
Grave human rights violations faced by sex workers
Several sections questioned whether the human rights violations suffered by sex workers are
sufficiently serious to warrant an AI policy position.
The IS proposed this policy position because its own research findings and that of other groups
indicate that the criminalization of sex work results in serious violations of the human rights to liberty
and security of person, to be free from torture and other ill-treatment, to the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health, to equal protection of the law and equality before the courts
(and associated fair trial rights). In some contexts, criminalization leads to violations of the rights of
sex workers to adequate housing and to protection of their family life, as well as the rights to social
security and political participation. In extreme cases, criminalization can lead to violations of the
right to life.
Sex work and gender inequality
As some sections noted, the most common concerns expressed in media and by some feminist
groups about sex work relate to its intersection with gender inequality and, in particular, whether sex
work is a by-product or driver of gender oppression. Feminist movements have been debating these
issues since the 1970s and have never reached a consensus.7
More recently, some in the feminist movement, together with some survivor groups, have adopted
this issue as a major focus of their work, arguing that sex work is principally an expression of
patriarchal domination, is universally harmful, and is inherently violence against women.8 This
paradigm, which calls for the complete abolition of sex work, has gained traction in popular debates
and has been supported by a number of governments in Western Europe in particular, including most
recently by the European Parliament.
These groups have also increasingly focused on the criminal law as the key mechanism to end sex
work through the policing, prosecution and punishment of sex work crimes, particularly as they relate
to third-party involvement and the purchase of sexual services.9 This model also places particular
emphasis on the use of the criminal law to communicate societal messages around the acceptability
of sex work and to establish social norms in gender relations.10
Approaches that are influenced by this model have been criticised on at least three grounds.
First, approaches that treat all sex work as forms of exploitation and trafficking in persons are at odds
with the principle of individual agency that is an underlying aspect of human rights.11
12
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
Second, they can lead to violations of human rights. For instance, “rescue” raids of sex
establishments can result in abuses against sex workers. In India and Indonesia, researchers have
found that sex workers who were rounded up in raids were beaten, coerced into sex by police, and
placed in institutions where they were sexually exploited and otherwise suffered physical abuse.12
Third, criminalizing those who purchase sex (as opposed to those who sell sex) is sometimes
proposed as a means to reduce violence, promote gender equality and reduce “demand” for
commercial sex. However, as the UNAIDS Advisory Group on Sex Work has noted, there is no
evidence that “end demand” initiatives—those that criminalise clients of sex workers rather than the
sex workers themselves—reduce sex work, improve the quality of life of sex workers, or tackle gender
inequalities.13
In fact, police in some countries do not distinguish between sex workers and their clients. Sex workers
are also often treated as accomplices or material witnesses to a crime. The targeting of clients also
works to encourage law enforcement officials to use condoms as evidence of involvement in sex
work.
13
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
Appendix 1: Proposed policy
Amnesty International opposes the criminalisation or punishment of activities relating to the buying or
selling of consensual sex between adults. This policy is based on the human rights principle that
consensual sexual conduct between adults—which excludes acts that involve coercion, deception,
threats, or violence—is entitled to protection from state interference (bearing in mind that legitimate
restrictions may be imposed on sex work, as noted below). This policy is also based on principles of harm
reduction: on balance, the available evidence indicates that the criminalisation of sex work is more likely
than not to reinforce discrimination against those who engage in these activities, to increase the
likelihood that they will be subjected to harassment and violence, including ill-treatment at the hands of
police, and to lead to the denial of due process and the exclusion from public benefits such as health
services, housing, education, and immigration status.
This policy recognises that legitimate restrictions may be imposed on sex work if they comply with
international human rights law. Such restrictions must be for a legitimate purpose, provided by law,
necessary for and proportionate to the legitimate aim sought to be achieved, and not discriminatory.
This policy does not change Amnesty International’s longstanding position that trafficking into forced
prostitution should be criminalised as a matter of international law.
Amnesty International considers children involved in commercial sex acts to be victims of sexual
exploitation, entitled to support, reparations, and remedies, in line with international human rights law.
States must take all appropriate measures to prevent violence and exploitation of children.
Amnesty International recognises that sex work is a sensitive issue in many of the countries in which we
work. In particular, individuals who engage in sex work often have limited choices. Guaranteeing human
rights without discrimination is the most effective way to ensure the empowerment of people involved in
sex work and the protection of all individuals from discrimination, violence, and coercion.
Terms used in this proposed policy
Sex work and sex worker. Amnesty International understands “sex work” to mean the exchange of
sexual services for some form of remuneration, in accord with the definition used by the Joint UN
Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).14 The terms used to refer to sex for remuneration varies across
countries and contexts. Notably, the terms “sex work” and “prostitution” are sometimes used
interchangeably. Many sex workers feel the term “prostitute” is demeaning or misogynistic, and
organized sex worker groups generally prefer the term “sex worker” or “person in the sex industry.”
Others use the term “prostitution” to reclaim and de-stigmatize the term and practice. Where
possible, Amnesty International uses the term “those engaging in sex work” or the prevailing
terminology used in a particular context; in more general discussions of this issue, as in this proposed
policy, Amnesty International uses the terms “sex work” and “sex worker.”
Criminalisation. State authorities use a variety of methods to discourage certain behaviour, ranging
from financial incentives to the imposition of criminal sanctions. For the purposes of this policy,
“criminalisation” means measures that seek to punish sex workers and clients through the threat of
sanctions such as detention, fines, or exclusion from benefits or care.
Child. A “child” is any person under the age of 18, regardless of the age of majority in a particular
country.
14
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
What this proposed policy does not cover
Under this proposal, Amnesty International would not take a position on whether sex work should be
regulated. However, if a state does regulate sex work, Amnesty International would call for any
regulation to aim at guaranteeing that individuals who undertake sex work do so voluntarily and in
safe conditions and are able to stop engaging in sex work when and if they choose to.
This proposed policy does not change Amnesty International’s longstanding position that human
trafficking into forced prostitution, or any other aspect of non-consensual sex, should be criminalized
as a matter of international law. Victims of such crimes are entitled to protection and remedies,
regardless of their sex, nationality, health status, sexual orientation, gender identity, prior work
history, willingness to contribute to prosecution efforts, or other factors.
As noted above, Amnesty International considers children involved in commercial sex acts to be
victims of sexual exploitation.
15
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
Appendix 2: The context of sex work
The demographics of sex work
It is extremely difficult to gauge a reliable global estimate of the number of individuals involved in sex
work because sex workers are rarely featured in official census and other labour data, given the often
illegal and unrecognised nature of their labour in most countries. Various studies have shown that
figures fluctuate significantly across countries and regions.15
National estimates on women involved in sex work vary widely; ranging from between 0.2% and 2.6%
of the population in countries across Asia; between 0.1% and 1.5% in the ex-Russian Federation;
between 0.4% and 1.4% in Eastern Europe; 0.1% and 1.4% in Western Europe, 0.2% and 7.4% in Latin
America and 0.7% and 4.3% in sub Saharan Africa.16 In most cases, researchers strongly underline the
limitations of their data and the challenges in measuring a population that is largely hidden and
marginalised. Sex workers’ omission from official data also contributes to their exclusion from social
policy making processes.
While reliable data are scarce, there is general acknowledgement that cisgender17 females account
for a majority of the sex worker population in most countries. This means that social policy responses
to sex work must consider the gender dimensions affecting women’s decisions to sell sex and/or their
reliance on commercial sex as a source of income. However, states must also take account of other
key drivers of sex work to insure that social policy responses are proportionate, effective, and
promote human rights.
The categorisation of sex work as a “woman’s issue” can obscure the significant numbers of men and
transgender people who sell sex around the world. A growing number of studies, mainly within the
HIV epidemiology field, have identified significant populations of transgender female and cisgender
male sex workers. For example, a 2011 study in Nepal mapped between 7,706 and 9,221 transgender
and between 10,450 and 12,302 male sex workers operating in the country.18 The female sex worker
population in comparison was estimated to be between 24,649 and 28,359.19 A 2007 study in Sydney,
Australia found that participation in sex work was reported by as many as 44% of the transgender
population.20
Despite accounting for a significant proportion of the global sex worker population, recognition of
transgender and male sex workers’ viewpoints and needs remain largely absent from public discourse
on sex work policy. In human rights terms this is of concern as transgender and male sex workers also
report high levels of vulnerability.21 One systematic review on HIV risk among transgender people, for
example, found that transgender sex workers were more than four times more likely to be living with
HIV than female sex workers.22
The drivers of sex work
Sex workers are not a homogenous group. People of different genders and socio-economic
backgrounds undertake sex work for a variety of reasons and report a diversity of experiences.23
For some sex workers the decision to sell sexual services is a matter of suitability or preference. For
example, for some it offers greater flexibility and control over working hours or a higher rate of pay
than other options, or it may be work that they enjoy. For others, the reasons for involvement in sex
work may be more closely linked to circumstances. For example, sex work may be one of a limited
number of options open to irregular migrants who rely on informal economies for work.24 In other
cases, individuals may turn to sex work as a means of basic survival because of extreme poverty or
other forms of social exclusion. For example, many transgender people report experiencing high
16
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
levels of discrimination in employment meaning that sex work may be one of very few viable options
to secure income.
In addition to interpersonal motivations, there are a range of social, political and macro-economic
drivers of sex work. For example, global economic, social and immigration laws and policies,
unemployment, work restrictions on migrants and discrimination within the formal economy, lead
women and other marginalised groups to rely on low paid work or struggle to find work at all.
Economic drivers are particularly relevant in the sex work context. Broadly put, so long as economic
inequalities exist, people will continue to choose to sell sexual services, regardless of the criminal
status of buying, selling, or facilitating sex work.
As referenced earlier, gender discrimination also undoubtedly plays a role in women choosing sex
work, as does demand for paid sex. However, characterising all sex work as a manifestation of gender
discrimination based on men’s demand oversimplifies a complex issue and ignores many of the other
important influences in an individual’s decision to undertake sex work.
It is important to acknowledge the diverse nature of sex workers’ choices and experiences, as well as
the various drivers of sex work, to conduct robust human rights analysis of sex work. While there can
be a tendency to characterize all sex workers as desperate, victimised, psychologically damaged
women, this can be harmful and disempowering to sex workers and does not provide a balanced view
of the issues.25
17
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
References
7
M. Liu, Migration, Prostitution, and Human Trafficking: The Voice of Chinese Women (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2011); L.
Duggan and N. D. Hunter, Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political Culture (New York: Routledge, 1995); S.M.C. Lozano, “Feminist Debate
around ‘Trafficking’ in Women for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation in Prostitution,” Desafíos, vol. 23, issue 1, pp. 217-257; J. Outshoorn,
“The Political Debates on Prostitution and Trafficking of Women,” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, vol.12
(2005), pp. 141-155.
8
See, for example, the justification of the European Women’s Lobby’s recent campaign, “Together for the Europe Free of Prostitution,”
available at http://www.womenlobby.org/spip.php?rubrique187 .
9
See, for example, Kathleen Barry, “Abolishing Prostitution: A Feminist Human Rights Treaty”, available at
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/Barry%20Abolishing%20Prostitution%20A%20Feminist%20Human%20Rights%20Treaty.pdf .
10
See, for example, Max Waltman, “Prohibiting Sex Purchasing and Ending Trafficking: The Swedish Prostitution Law” (2011).
11
Human rights law guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (ICCPR art. 18), the right to hold opinions without interference
and the right to freedom of expression (ICCPR art. 19), the right of peaceful assembly (ICCPR art. 21), and the right to freedom of
association with others (ICCPR art. 22) In addition, “[m]arriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses”
(ICESCR art. 10(1); accord ICCPR art. 23(3)), and states must ensure “on a basis of equality of men and women . . . [t]he same rights to
decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children” (CEDAW art. 16(1)(e); accord Beijing Platform for Action, ¶ 223).
Human rights treaties also guarantee individual agency, subject to reasonable restrictions, in matters as varied as the right to choose one’s
residence (ICCPR art. 12), employment (ICESCR art. 6(1)), and legal representation (ICCPR art. 14(3)(b)). Human rights law protects against
compelled self-incrimination (ICCPR art. 14(3)(g) and require “free consent to medical or scientific experimentation” (ICCPR art. 7).
Because persons with disabilities are too often denied individual agency, the principles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities include “[r]espect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices, and
independence of persons” (art. 3(a).
Children who are capable of forming their own views have the right to express their views freely in all matters that affect them and to have
those views be given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity (CRC art. 12(1)).
More fundamentally, the failure to respect the principle of individual agency denies the rights of everyone to recognition everywhere as a
person before the law (ICCPR art. 16) and to equality before the law (ICCPR art. 26) and disregards the principle articulated in article 1 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
12 See R.
Surtees, “Brothel Raids in Indonesia—Ideal Solution or Further Violation?” Research for Sex Work VOL. 6 (2003), pp. 5-7); Sangram,
Point of View, and VAMP, Rehabilitation: Against Their Will? Of Veshyas, Vamps, Whores and Women: Challenging Preconceived Notions of
Prostitution and Sex Work (2002).
13
See UNAIDS, The Report of the UNAIDS Advisory Group on HIV and Sex Work 6-7 (2011) [hereinafter The Report of the UNAIDS Advisory
Group on HIV and Sex Work].
14
See, for example, UNAIDS, “Sex Work and HIV/AIDS,” UNAIDS Technical Update (2002), p. 3.
15
Cusick et al. “Wild Guesses and Conflated Meanings? Estimating the Size of the Sex Worker Population in Britain,” Critical Social Policy
(2009), p. 29; Adebajo et al, “Estimating the Number of Male Sex Workers with the Capture-Recapture Technique in Nigeria,” African
Journal of Reproductive Health (2013); Vuylsteke et al., “Capture–Recapture for Estimating the Size of the Female Sex Worker Population in
Three Cities in Côte d’Ivoire and in Kisumu, Western Kenya,” Journal of Tropical Medicine and International Health (2010).
16 Vandepitte et al., “Estimates of the Number of Female Sex Workers in Different Regions of the World,” Journal of Sexually Transmitted
Infections (2006), p. 82, available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16735288 .
17 Cisgender can be defined as “denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their
biological sex; not transgender.” See www.oxforddictionaries.com .
18
HIV and STI Control Board (HSCB) and the National Centre for AIDS and STD Control (NCASC), Mapping and Size Estimation of Most-atRisk Populations in Nepal, 2011, Vol. 1, Male Sex Workers, Transgenders and Their Clients, vol. 1 (2011), available at:
https://www.unodc.org/documents/southasia//reports/MTC_final_report.pdf .
19
HIV and STI Control Board (HSCB) and the National Centre for AIDS and STD Control (NCASC), Mapping and Size Estimation of Most-atRisk Populations in Nepal, 2011, Vol. 3, Female Sex Workers (2011), available at:
http://www.unodc.org/documents/southasia//reports/FSWs_final_report.pdf
20
Hounsfield, V.L., et al., “Transgender People Attending Sydney Sexual Health Services over a 16 Year Period,” Sexual Health (2007), p. 4;
Schulden, J.D., et al., “Rapid HIV Testing in Transgender Communities by Community Based Organisations in Three Cities,” Public Health
Reports (2008), p. 123.
18
ORG 41/014/2014 Sex work policy discussion paper
21
See G. Sethi and B. M. Holden et. al., “HIV, Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviours in Male Sex Workers in London over a 10
Year Period,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, vol 82 (2006), pp. 5, 359–363, available at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563850/ ; McKinnon L.R. et al, “High HIV Risk in a Cohort of Male Sex Workers from
Nairobi, Kenya,” Sexually Transmitted Infections (2014), p. 90.
22 Operario,
D, et al, “Sex Work and HIV Status among Transgender Women: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis,” Journal of Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (2008), p. 48.
23
Weitzer, R., “The Mythology of Prostitution: Advocacy Research and Public Policy” (2010), available at http://chezstella.org/docs/Themythology-of-prostitution.pdf .
24
Those who migrate illegally to earn a better livelihood should not be conflated with those who are forced, defrauded or coerced to travel
to another country for work (i.e. human trafficking).
25
There appear to be a number of “accepted truths” about sex work that have entered public discourse in recent decades. In particular,
claims that suggest the majority of sex workers enter the sex industry as children, that most were sexually or physically abused as children,
are forced against their will to undertake sex work and/ or are addicted to drugs have been shown to be misrepresentative of a large
proportion of sex workers. See Weitzer, R., “Sociology of Sex Work,” Annual Review of Sex Work (2009); Vanwesenbeeck, I., “Another
Decade of Social Scientific Work on Prostitution,” Annual Review of Sex research (2001), p. 12, available at:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/Documents/Methodology/Another%20decade%20of%20social%20scientific%20work%20on%20sex%20w
ork%201990-2000%20Vanwesenbeeck%20Ann%20Rev%20Sex%20Res%202001%20242-89.pdf. There is evidence to suggest that some,
but crucially not all, street-based sex workers report higher levels of victimisation and/or drug dependency. See id. However, employing
claims such as those regarding high rates of childhood abuse, to characterise a uniform “sex worker experience” is not supported by
evidence.
19