Re: Amendments of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITPA)

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum,

This is in response to Sangram/VAMP's posting on Amendments of

Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITPA), October 17, 2006,

/message/6411

</message/6411> .

The issues raised in the posting are very contentious and remain

unresolved in feminist discourse with no simple Yes/No answer. Let me

fist make some general comments on this issue before I take up each

questions one by one. First of all, without being " moralist " or

right-wing fundamentalist, let's welcome the amendments for which we

have sufficient evidence from Sweden where criminalizing clients has

worked wonderfully (Ekberg, Gunilla, 2004, The Swedish Law That

Prohibits the Purchase of Sexual Services…, Violence Against Women,

Vol. 10, No. 10, pp. 1187-1218).

Proposing a legal framework for dealing with specific social issues does not

completely eliminate the probability of those events from happening. The

complete abolition would largely depend on the effectiveness of the law and its

implementation.

Where corruption is endemic within state-police-bureaucracy, a fair and

effective implementation of any law for that matter is far expected.

Though every society has appropriate legal framework in place for

dealing with crimes, they still take place -- the rate depending on how

effectively the law is implemented. Now to suggest that since crimes take place

anyway, let us withdraw the legal framework is a hollow argument. And the

current proposition that prostitution is here to stay even after criminalising

clients is coming from the same epistemological position that informs the

current debate.

I don't think everyone who opposes are necessarily moralists and

equate prostitution with trafficking, yet there is strong evidence that out of

total human trafficking (600-800,000) that takes place across international

borders every year, 80% are women and 50% are children (TIP Report 2005, US

Dept. of State, p. 19).

A vast majority of these trafficking takes place primarily with the motive of

prostitution, whereas forced labour and bonded labour consist of very small

proportion up to 10-15% of total trafficking (US State Dept. 2005, Country

Reports on Human Rights Practices; US Dept. of Labour 2006, India: Incidence

and Nature of Child Labor; HRW/ Asia 1999, Debt Bondage…; and Amnesty

International).

The Government of Nepal reports that some 5,000 to 12,000 Nepalese girls are

trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation annually, and as many as 200,000

trafficked Nepalese girls are estimated to reside in Indian brothels (Ministry

of Women, Children, and Social Welfare, 2001, National Plan of Action Against

Trafficking in

Children and Women for Sexual and Labour Exploitation, Govt. of Nepal,

Kathmandu, p. 5).

Bangladesh and Nepal together contribute somewhere between 10,000 to 20,000

young girls annually who are trafficked into prostitution in the Indian

subcontinent (US Dept. of Labour 2006). Thus about 80-90% of women in

prostitution in India are either forced or trafficked into prostitution.

Examples abound from other countries: In Italy, the demand for ebony prostitute

(women from Nigeria) has increased the trafficking of Nigerian women (Esohe

Aghatise, Trafficking for Prostitution in Italy, Violence Against Women, Vol. 10

No. 10, October 2004, pp. 1126-1155). In Netherlands, about 80% women are

trafficked from Central and Eastern European countries (Janice ,

Legitimating Prostitution as Sex Work, Sisyphe, October 1, 2003). In Australia,

trafficking is an ever growing business (Sheila s, The

Idea of Prostitution, Spinifex: Melbourne 1997).

Abolitionist approach has been advanced by other countries too – example, the

Lower House of the Czech Parliament on May 31, 2004 argued for complete

abolitionist approach (Donna M. 2004, Towards an Abolitionist Approach to

Prostitution and Trafficking).

India is a hub of sex trafficking – it is a sending, destination and a transit

country. Trafficking for sex is ever growing and apropriate legal framework must

be put into place to deal with the issue.

Having said that, let's us examine whether the " right to being

trafficked for prostitution " is a human right. The main argument

advanced by VAMP is that prostitution is inevitable, it is here to stay, and men

will always be men. It not only naturalises the men-lust but also proposes that

as a solution to the natural men-lust, women must be available in the market as

sexual commodities for consumption.

There are at least dozens or rigorous research that shows physical violence,

abuse, torture is endemic and normative experience for women in prostitution

which is in gross violation of their basic human rights (HRW/Asia 1995, Rape for

Profit…; Weisberg 1985, Children of the night…; 1999, Pimps and predators

on the Internet; Friedman 1996, India's Shame…; Dworkin 1997, Prostitution and

male supremacy…; Barry 1979, Female Sexual Slavery; MacKinnon 2001, Sex

equality; and 1997, In Harm's Way; Farley, et.al. 2003,

Prostitution, trafficking, and traumatic stress).

Instead of viewing prostitution and trafficking as a violation of basic human

rights, VAMP suggests us to view " right to be trafficked for prostitution " as a

human right. It comes from a neoliberal capitalist ideological strand advanced

by the ILO (Lim, L. 1998), whereby it proposes prostitution as a development

policy for newly industrialising countries.

We have not come across sufficient evidence to demonstrate that with

legalization, illegal prostitution comes down. Following legalization of

prostitution in , Australia, although the number of legal brothels

doubled, the greatest expansion was in illegal prostitution. In one year (1999),

there was a 300% growth in illegal brothels ( Farley, Bad for the Body,

Bad for the Heart: Violence Against Women, Vol. 10 No. 10, October 2004, pp.

1087-1125). Proposing legal framework then, for legalising sex

trade is a mythical proposition.

Now let us look at the questions raised by Sangram/VAMP:

Is making money from sex, exploitation?

There's no shortcut answer to this question. If we think of the

brothel keepers, pimps, madams, pornographers, traffickers, who make

money out of using other women's sexual labour could be termed as

exploitation. The agency in question, " female, " whose consent is

taken after terrible third-degree torture (Friedman, India's Shame,

The Nation, April 8, 1996), or women who " breaks-down " and

consent to prostitute when she has left with no other avenues of life

(HRW/Asia 1995, Rape for Profit…), is definitely exploitation. Those

who make money by " choosing " to sell sex, may not seem as

exploited, but those who " choose to " prostitute for making a

quick-buck are such a miniscule number anyway.

Why because of the material comfort of a few powerful elite prostitutes, the

daily suffering of a whole majority of impoverished women will not be seen as

exploitation? Those who think it is their right to decide what they want to do

with their body may view sex work as empowering.

Yet when sex is mediated trough money, men have all the powers to negotiate how

and what forms of sexual intercourse will take place. The distinction between

" exploitation " and " empowerment " gets blurred especially when the woman does not

want to perform certain kinds of sexual acts, yet she is either forced to do so

or consents to do so for a higher money.

Is the articulation of `dhanda' [business] as livelihood a disgrace

to society?

Yes, if we explicitly understand what you are saying dhanda as

prostitution. Prostitution as a livelihood option (in India) has

primarily been the means of impoverished, poor, gullible, deprived and

marginalised women. To articulate this as a livelihood option is to articulate

further gullibility, deprivation, and impoverishment.

Moreover, prostitution does not dignify woman or enhance her status in the

society. If a " livelihood option " can only humiliate and

degrade the agency herself, why should that " option " not be

treated as something that brings disgrace to the society? If we are

trying to enhance the status of women through prostitution, then I

don't see this forthcoming.

Do women in prostitution have rights?

Yes— every right of a citizen you can think of. Yet, the irony is

that they enjoy fewer or no rights at all because of our legal system

and its implementation. Our law has most often been used to punish the women in

prostitution and NOT the brothel owners, pimps, traffickers, pornographers or

customers. Women in prostitution must not be punished since they are already

marginalised. However, procurers, pimps, brothel owners, pornographers,

traffickers and customers must also not go scot-free.

Right to be a woman in prostitution?

Yes, but it poses another question in suffix. Do I have the right to be

trafficked for prostitution? (This question is not irrelevant since we have

already seen that a vast majority of women enters into prostitution from

trafficking). The epistemological position advanced by VAMP informs us to

distinguish between " free " versus " forced " prostitution, something like " free "

Vs. " forced " slavery or " free Vs. " forced " trafficking.

Whether all prostitution can be conceptually subsumed with " slavery "

exactly lies within this thin thread of language, because " free Vs.

forced " debate is a semiotic one. If slavery is conceptualised as

" unfree labour " then prostitution becomes " unfree sexual labour. " But

what if women and children " freely choose " to be trafficked for

sex from one place to another and what if the sexual labor is " free? "

That brings me to examine the definition and conceptualisation of

freedom in various societies and in the academia. If we look at the

social, economic, structural and political context under which women

make the decision to be a prostitute, then the question of " free

choice, " becomes seriously problematic. Under the given socio-economic,

structural and political context (including patriarchy), can we conceptualise

woman as " free " subjects?

Right to make money from sex?

Differ from society to society. There is no universal rule for this

right. And to propose for a universal rule is hegemonic. You have right to make

money from sex in most advanced neoliberal capitalism, where sex clubs, private

room, strip clubs, peep-shows, brothels, pornography are all legalised. There

" sexual entrepreneurs " can make money and their right to do so is guaranteed by

the State. Hence, women in such countries do not " choose " to be in prostitution

because they are impoverished, gullible, deprived or poor.

Is it a disgrace to buy sex?

This question presupposes that there should be women's bodies made

available in the market for natural and uncontrollable men-lust. The

concept of " buying sex " comes only when we conceptualise some

female bodies for sale in the marketplace for men's sexual pleasure.

Thus the more you make them available for sale, it further perpetuates

corresponding exploitative institutions and women's impoverishment.

Are men who buy sex, exploiting the woman by paying for it?

There is no direct linkage always. Men as consumers get linked to

women's exploitation in a chain with traffickers, brothel owners,

pornographer and such. It is something like buying rice as consumers

produced by bonded slave labour in UP; or buying bricks and rugs

produced by enslaved women and children in brickfields of Pakistan and India; or

buying sugar produced by slaves in Haiti. With capitalist market expansion,

every consumer gets connected to a chain of exploitation. In our daily living

and consumption pattern, we may not realise that we are indirectly linked to a

chain of exploitative institutions, similarly as clients who may not realise

that the woman she is having sex with may be a bonded slave labour who has to

purchase her freedom by 15 years of sexual labour (Friedman 1996, India's

Shame…). Ironically when she has purchased that freedom, she usually finds no

other places to turn into.

Does the status of sex increase or decrease by whether it is negotiated for free

or for a price?

Let us reverse this question for the purpose of getting an answer. Does the

status of women increase or decrease if she negotiates the sex for a price? As

said earlier, selling sex and money exchange for sexual

service does not enhance the dignity of a woman or her status in the

society. The status of a " prostitute " is ruined to such an

extent when sexual negotiation itself obscure the " free/force

boundary " and comes without a price-tag: example, the pimps/johns

may have sex for free, the police may have sex for free, the goondas may have

sex for free, the pornographer may have sex for free, where the question of

negotiating a price for sex, remain no more an issue.

Is it exploitation, when the man makes money from sex, from a woman/man?

From the standard definition of " exploitation " (unfair treatment

or use of somebody or something, usually for personal gain, English

Encarta North America, or the practice of taking selfish or unfair

advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain, Encarta English),

simple answer is YES. If someone wants to make money from sex, let him act as an

" agency. " Let him tolerate all that forms of sexual acts that woman go through.

Let him be penetrated by objects by a group of woman one from the front, one

from behind, two in the mouth, while five others are slapping him, spitting on

his face, or urinating on him, or forcing him to swallow the menstrual blood or

other vaginal discharge of 10 woman one after the other in a " gangbang. " In this

act of making money, the entrepreneur (man as per above question) does not go

through what a woman has to go through. If by putting others in an unfair

condition someone makes money (example, by putting women into sex trade,

traffickers, brothel keepers make money), I think this could be conceptualised

as exploitation.

Finally, prostitution has long been regarded as a social problem and

appropriate socio-legal framework has been put into place to deal with it in

every society. It is sad to think that a social problem now is being advocated

as a solution for humanity.

Sincerely

Subir K. Kole

Research Fellow, Education Programme

East-West Center

1601 East-West Road

Honolulu, HI, USA

e-mail: <mailto:subir@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum:

I think my fundamental contention in this whole debate has somehow

been misunderstood or misquoted. I never argued " for " right to make

money from sex in neoliberal capitalism and " against " this right in

socialism, Marxism or for that matter, in any other socio-economic

and political regimes. Similarly.

I never argued for a " state sponsored prostitution " in most advanced countries

as Mr Rajarethinam interprets. My only contention was to point out that right

to make money from sex is not universal and to argue for such a universal right

is hegemonic.

Women in advanced neoliberal capitalism is in no way " empowered " through

prostitution, because at the bottom-line, when sex is negotiated through money

exchange, men still possess all the " power " to dictate how, where and what forms

of sexual intercourse will take place.

I indeed appreciate the theory of (re)distributive justice to tackle

the twin problem of poverty and prostitution. Yet I fail to make

clear connections as to how by acknowledging (legalising) sex-trade

and its associated exploitative institutions, that (re)distributive

justice be ensured all over the globe!

I write in my own individual capacity and not to invigorate the

anti-prostitution lobby in India.

I wonder if anyone could interpret such criticisms as stimulating

" pro-prostitution, pro-trafficking lobby! "

Sincerely

Subir Kole

e-mail: Subir@...

[Guest guest]

Dear Subir K.Kole,

Your clarifications are well-taken. Yet, a couple of more points.

Thanks to HIV and other STI today, even men do not have " all the 'power' to

dictate to women how, where and what forms of sexual intercourse will take

place " . In a repressive culture, men shell out their hard-earned money, more as

victims of their bottled up emotions and not necessarily as superior, arrogant

and assertive individuals.

If money-exchange is a stumbling block to a fair and healthy negotiation of sex,

within a single instance of sexual agreement, the entire institution of marriage

in a patriarchal culture lends itself to even more disastrous consequences. No

research can exhaust the level of agonies involved in such traditional

contracts.

Again, the affected parties will be not only women, but even men when the entire

complexity of issues are taken into account.

My simple attempt has been to focus on the root-cause of poverty and

prostitution, which I have clearly stated as lack of norms towards

re-distribution of wealth generated under a universal law of injustice and

binding the sexual tendencies of people to one simple system, while honorable

multiple systems are required and are legitimately possible.

The responsibility of private affairs and private agreements should rightly be

in the hands of individuals involved and not in the hands of a universal marital

law, espoused by a state or religion.

No single principle can rule the complexity of sexual tendencies and the

complexity of human predicaments and circumstances. The role of a State or

Religion should be dressed down to the over-all guiding principles or the

arbitration of disputes arising within individual agreements.

Sincerely,

E.Rajarethinam

E-MAIL: <globalcitizens@...>