End of move to criminalise sex work..?

[Guest guest]

With the 14th Lok Sabha adjourned sine die, it will be the end of bills pending

in the House.

This list includes the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2006,

seeking to criminalise sex work. On Monday, 23rd February 2009, the Union

Cabinet failed to approve official amendments to the original bill, which is now

set to lapse. As per the Constitution, a

bill pending in the House of People or having passed by the House of People but

pending in the Council of States, shall lapse on dissolution of the House. The

ITPA bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in May 2006.

This is a major victory for sex workers and sex work rights advocates, who have

been lobbying against the bill since its conception by the Ministry of Women and

Child Development ( " WCD " ) in 2005.

The bill intended to shift legislative policy on sex work from tolerance to

prohibition. This was sought to be done through the introduction of a new

offence of visiting a brothel, which would penalise clients. It also sought to

broaden the meaning of prostitution to include all transactional sex, as opposed

to acts involving exploitation on a commercial scale.

By inserting a definition of trafficking for prostitution, the bill attempted to

criminalise poverty induced sex work. Other changes included lowering rank of

Police authorized to arrest, search and raid brothels and extending detention of

sex workers to seven years. Sex workers vehemently opposed these measures which,

they believed, would offset any positive effect of decriminalizing soliciting.

After its introduction in the Lok Sabha, the ITPA Amendment Bill was

referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee. The Committee submitted its

findings in November 2006 after consulting with NGOs, lawyers, Women's

Commissions, and sex workers themselves. It suggested further changes besides an

overhaul of the entire law.

In May 2007, WCD moved additional amendments, which were referred to a Group of

Ministers (GoM) after objections by the Health Minister, who apprehended that

the bill would push sex work underground and weaken efforts to prevent HIV. The

GoM concluded its deliberations in April 2008, amidst dissent from two

Ministers.

The bill not only divided the political class; it also saw polarization within

the U.N. While UNAIDS denounced the move to criminalise clients, the UNODC,

under its anti human trafficking programme, distributed posters to punish

clients to end demand for sex work.

The Commission on AIDS in Asia, which presented its report to the Prime Minister

last year, recommended decriminalsation of commercial sex to reduce sexual

transmission of HIV.

The campaign to repel the ITPA Amendment Bill is not insignificant.

Modeled in Sweden, law penalizing purchase of sex is being adopted in many parts

of the world, particularly Europe and America. In Asia, South Korea criminalized

buying or attempting to buy sex in 2004.

In 2007, Nepal approved criminal sanctions against prostitution and last year,

Cambodia witnessed serious abuse of sex workers' rights under the Law on

Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation. India would have gone

the same way but for the resilience of sex workers.

For more information, visit

http://www.lawyerscollective.org/hiv-aids/campaigns/sex-work

The struggle against criminalization continues; the bill may have faded, but not

mindsets that propagated it.

Tripti Tandon

Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit

e-mail: <tripti.tandon@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear FORUM,

Re: /message/9978

Let us not rejoice too prematurely. There is every possibility that the

dispensation that comes back after the general election will resurrect the bill.

And bad luck if that dispensation is the fascist NDA. Their bill will likely be

worse than the present avatar that lapsed.

- Aditya B

Aditya Bondyopadhyay

e-mail: <adit.bond@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear FORUM,

Re: Aditya Bondyopadhyay 's posting re: End of move to criminalise sex work.?

/message/9985

No. I do not worry about our government. I Think that the Indian

government has enough sane heads... whichever party. The problem is pressure

from the US. With a new administration hopefully we will move away from

criminalisation as a construct to deal with issues arising out of HIV.

The anti- trafficking advocates who have mixed up sex work and trafficking are

the main proponents of the ITPA amendments. We need to help them understand that

this conflation is not only problematic it is result less.

Today on Sex Worker's Rights Day I would keep the caution aside and

congratulate all HIV/AIDS and sex work activists and advocates on the

effective advocacy with the government and I feel proud of the sex workers who

made it possible. Victory to us.- however small and transient.

In solidarity,

Meena saraswathi seshu.

SANGRAM/VAMP.

e-mail: <sangram.vamp@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum,

/message/9985

 

I think there is a need to understand a lot of grassroot realities before one

becomes an advisor to any advocate:

 

-If among the prostituted women a large percentage of them are there due to

force or deception then there is a dire need to look at the complicated chains

of so called " sex work " and trafficking.( I am wary and reserved of this term

sex work...I don't think there is anything like that in the law).   

 

-Among the significant number of so called 'willing' persons if there is

majority who opted for this simply because there was no option,then there is a

dire need to look at the inadequate state and system and relook how this kind of

optionlessness can be permanently plugged.

 

-I also feel there is a need for all of us who are advocates of something or

other to really introspect whether it is good idea to legitimise a forced option

or invest our energies demanding options that are not demeaning either to the

body or the self. 

 

-Also it is important to understand the proposed ammendments in its entirety and

understand the spirit behind it.

 

-Finally if people think there is not a connection between so called 'sex work'

and trafficking I strongly would reccomend them to listen to the prostituted

women & girls more carefully especially on how they landed there.              

 

We as anti trafficking advocates continue to be a small minority voices as most

of us not only we face threats and intimidation from traffickers but also from

groups who support the perpetrators to legitimise this human rights violation

and thus less people opt to be doing what we are doing.Ofcourse it goes without

saying less money is here.  But the truth in our voices will continue to be a

strong force which will act as detterent for many.   

 

In solidarity with all those who believe that no human being deserves to be

sexual slave in any domain. 

 

Regards,

Dr Sunitha Krishnan

Prajwala      

e-mail: <sunitha_2002@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

/message/9998

*I totally agree with sunitha *I think there is a need to* `understand a lot of

grassroot realities before one becomes an advisor to any advocate’: *

*To assume that we who advocate for rights of sex workers are not able to

understand grassroot realities is not correct.*

*-If among the prostituted women a large percentage of them are there due to

force or deception then there is a dire need to look at the complicated chains

of so called " sex work " and trafficking.( I am wary and reserved of this term

sex work...I don't think there is anything like that in the law).

*I actually challenge the assumption that a `large percentage of them are there

due to force or deception’ But that is not the central issue here.

Even if one woman is there due to force, deception or debt bondage – for me that

is a problem. That is the reason why we are arguing for sex work to be declared

as work such that we can eliminate or work towards the elimination of `force,

deception or debt bondage’. To argue that if it exists in law only then it is

recognized is problematic.

*-Among the significant number of so called 'willing' persons if there is

majority who opted for this simply because there was no option, then there is a

dire need to look at the inadequate state and system and relook how this kind of

optionlessness can be permanently plugged.

*I totally agree. We really need to clean up the system such that only those who

are `willing’ to be in sex work - join or continue to do sex work. The problem

is that those that were willing are being unnecessarily penalized because of the

perception that `majority who opted for this simply did so because there was no

option’. Again I would argue that even if one person wanted to do sex work we

should have a fair system that allows for just that. *

-I also feel there is a need for all of us who are advocates of something or

other to really introspect whether it is good idea to legitimise a forced option

or invest our energies demanding options that are not demeaning either to the

body or the self.

*Herein I have a problem. The discourse is very subjective. Who am I to decide

that sex work is `demeaning either to the body or the self’? Actually the truth

is I was socialized to believe this too but when I came across women who told me

categorically that they did not think sex work is demeaning either to the body

or to the self I learnt to accept their point of view. *

-Also it is important to understand the proposed ammendments in its

entirety and understand the spirit behind it.

*I sincerely think that by penalizing demand we would have fallen into the trap

of gifting the `business’ of sex work into the control of clients and actually

defeat the spirit behind the proposed amendments.

*-Finally if people think there is not a connection between so called 'sex work'

and trafficking I strongly would reccomend them to listen to the prostituted

women & girls more carefully especially on how they landed there.

*The argument is not that there is no `connection’ between sex work and

trafficking. It is the `conflation’ of sex work and trafficking. Trafficking is

a criminal offense and we should root it out of this world. Exchanging sexual

services for money is not the problem – being forced to do so, deceived, debt

bonded, slavery like practice abuse violence within sex work is the problem. The

sex workers are competent to deal with all this if we can give them the support

to do so. *

We as anti trafficking advocates continue to be a small minority voices as most

of us not only we face threats and intimidation from traffickers but also from

groups who support the perpetrators to legitimise this human rights violation

and thus less people opt to be doing what we are doing.Ofcourse it goes without

saying less money is here. But the truth in our voices will continue to be a

strong force which will act as detterent for many.

*The issue is well laid out here. I also see my self as an anti –

trafficking advocate. The difference is I do not mix up trafficking and sex

work. For me trafficking is a abuse on all persons and should be done away with.

I agree. `In solidarity with all those who believe that no human being deserves

to be sexual slave in any domain’.

In solidarity,*

*Meena Saraswathi Seshu*

*SANGRAM/VAMP*

e-mail: <sangram.vamp@...>