Reject the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2005

[Guest guest]

Memorandum of Appeal to reject the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Amendment Bill,

2005

8th March 2006

Shri Manmohan Singh

Honb’le Prime Minister of India

Prime Minister’s Office

Gate No.5, South Block

New Delhi

Honb’le Prime Minister,

We write to you as members of the National Network of Sex Workers,

representing over one lakh female, male and transgender sex workers from across

the country. Though contextually different, our realities are bound by the

common thread of vulnerability and marginalisation.

The absence of social and legal protection for sex workers in India has led us

to experience intense repression, exploitation, violence, and ill health and

more recently the impending risk of HIV/AIDS. In particular, the legal framework

as set out in the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, (ITPA) 1956, which

ostensibly does not penalise prostitution, but punishes every aspect of our life

including home, work and earnings, has severed our ability to negotiate claims

and avert above mentioned harms.

Yet, through our resilience and collective strength, we have not only

withstood crises in our individual lives but also actively battled

afflictions that affect the larger community. Over the last decade, we have

come forward to work with the Government and civil society to prevent and

control the spread of HIV and AIDS.

This is evidenced in various behavioural surveys that note that condom use in

transactional sex is consistently higher than in regular/ non-paid sexual

relations. In recent times, we have

also taken the onus to restrict entry of underage and unwilling persons in sex

work and remove those who have been trafficked against their will.

We have clearly demonstrated that sex workers are a part of the solution and not

the problem, be it HIV/AIDS or trafficking in sex work.

Despite our many contributions, we remain excluded from political, legal and

policy decision-making. For long, we have demanded a re-examination of ITPA, an

enactment that has not only undermined our rights but also thwarted public

programmes to contain HIV and AIDS. We also sought the institution of a

comprehensive anti-trafficking legislation that addresses forced labour in all

sectors. Still, last year, when the Ministry for Women and Child Development

(WCD), (previously Department) formulated changes to ITPA, sex workers were left

out of the consultation process.

It was only by accident that we came to know of the WCD’s proposal to punish our

clients, which we vociferously protested against. Yet, the Immoral Traffic

(Prevention)Amendment Bill, 2005, was placed before the Union Cabinet for

approval, without bringing our objections to your notice.

The provision to punish clients visiting brothels under the new Section 5C

threatens our very survival. Having children and families to support, we will be

compelled to accept any client who comes our way, notwithstanding health and

safety concerns. Furthermore, sex work will be pushed underground, making it

difficult for us to access HIV prevention services.

Regrettably, the ITPA Amendment Bill in its present form ignores this simple but

profound realty.

Last week, after much remonstration and protests, we placed our views

vis-à-vis the Amendment Bill before the WCD Minister – Ms. Renuka Chowdhary.

Though sympathetic, the Minister failed to give us assurance that the Bill will

not be tabled in Parliament in its present form. The Minister also did not

indicate that the Bill would be discussed with health agencies within and

outside the Government that have been intervening in commercial sex settings for

prevention of STD and HIV.

In this backdrop, today, that is, 8th March 2006, over 4,000 sex workers from

across 16 states have congregated in New Delhi to oppose the ITPA Amendment

Bill, 2005.

Together, we appeal to you, as Head of the Government, to:

1. Stop the ITPA Amendment Bill 2005 from being tabled in Parliament

2. Call for a comprehensive review of ITPA from a health and human

rights perspective

3. Direct that all affected constituencies are accorded an opportunity to

present their concerns and recommendations for sex work law reform

Thank you.

National Network of Sex Workers

Cc:

Mr. Somnath Chaterjee Speaker, Lok Sabha

Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, Speaker, Rajya Sabha

Mrs. Gandhi, Chairperson, National Advisory Council

Mr. Shivaraj Patil, Minister for Home Affairs

Mr. A. Ramadoss, Minister for Health & Family Welfare

Ms. Renuka Chowdhary, Minister for Women & Child Development

__________________________

Tripti Tandon

Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit

1st Floor, 63/2, Masjid Road,

Jangpura, New Delhi - 110 014

Phone -91-11-24377101, 24377102, 24372237

Fax - 91-11-24372236

e-mail - aidslaw1@...

[Guest guest]

Dear all

Ref: Lawyerscollective posting " Memorandum of Appeal to reject the Immoral

Traffic (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2005 "

It is necessary to protect the rights of the disadvataged groups who are, in

most of the cases, victims of the environment.

Even when we do so, the society to which we all belong, has the duty to work

towards reducing the incidence (primary prevention - healthy environment) and

prevalence (maistreaming/rehabilitation) of these groups (in the present context

- sex workers).

Family is the primary unit of the society. Whatever happens in a family has

repercussions on the society. Most of the untoward happenings in the society

originate from families.

Sex workers are, in most of the cases, victims of broken homes. In some cases,

poverty leads them to resort to this profession. But at the same time we need to

note that not all poor resort to this.

When a law/Bill is brought forward, the intention is to reduce this unaccepted

profession in the society, more so in the wake of outbreak of HIV epidemic. In

social development work, it is high time, we need to work towards creating

healthy homes and upholding our rich Indian values and traditions.

If we don't aim at primary prevention, there is no way to curb the HIV menace.

Some times too much advocacy can have adverse effects, encouraging the

vulnerable/risk groups. Its a sensitive issue, and needs to be handled with

care.

Josy K.

E-mail:<josykadavil@...>