Amnesty International - Entkriminalisierung von Prostitution

Leider habe ich keine Deutsche Übersetzung für das Amnesty-Strategiepapier gefunden, das von den Promidamen mit den üblichen Prostitutionsgegnerinnen-Parolen kritisiert wird. Daher zur besseren Lesbarkeit eine 1:1 Kopie des sehr lesenswerten verlinkten PDFs.


​

Summary: proposed policy on sex work​

This document outlines the proposed policy on sex work and summarises the background documents that review the terminology used in discussions of these issues, the principal justifications advanced for the continued criminalisation of sex work, the applicable human rights law, the consequences in practice of criminalisation and decriminalisation, and the approaches taken by other organisations and experts.


Contents
Proposed policy......................................................................................................................... 1
Terms used in this proposed policy........................................................................................... 2
What this proposed policy does not cover................................................................................ 2
Laws and practices addressed by this proposed policy........................................................... 2
The principal justifications for criminalisation............................................................................. 3
Applicable human rights law....................................................................................................... 3
The consequences in practice of criminalisation and decriminalisation..................................... 4
The approaches taken by other organisations and experts..................................................... 5


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 ofsexual exploitation, entitled to support, reparations, and remedies, in line with internationalhuman 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).1 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 clientsthrough 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.

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.

Laws and practices addressed by this proposed policy

People who engage in sex work are subject to criminal sanctions in three general ways. This proposed policy covers each:
· First, states criminalize the selling of sexual services, with the imposition of penalties upon sex workers themselves.


· Second, and more commonly, states impose criminal or other sanctions on activities related to sex work. Such sanctions are applied to those who keep a brothel, procure or buy sexual services, recruit for or arrange the prostitution of others, live off the proceeds of sex work, or facilitate sex work through the provision of information or assistance. Sanctions are often attached to the act of solicitation, rather than the selling of sex itself.
· Third, authorities use other laws, not specific to sex work, to harass, intimidate or justify the use of force against or exploitation or arrest of individuals engaged in sex work. Laws on vagrancy, public lewdness, public nuisance, homosexuality, cross- dressing, and gender expression are all used against people engaged in sex work. In many cases, the mere existence of these laws—even if they are rarely applied—is used to justify the harassment and extortion of sex workers both by police and others. Those individual sex workers who are non-gender conforming, or who work in public spaces such as on the street or in bars, are at increased risks of being targeted for harassment or extortion.

The principal justifications for criminalisation

The traditional bases for criminalising sex work are morality and, to a lesser extent, public health grounds.2 Proponents of these traditional grounds of criminalisation argue that criminal measures protect society by creating deterrents to sex work.
More recently, the criminalisation of sex work is sometimes justified as a means of protecting sex workers themselves. One argument is that sex work, or prostitution, is inherently a form of violence against women that must be eradicated.3 The rationale for this argument is that those who claim to sell sex voluntarily are coerced to do so by circumstances or by structural disadvantages such as poverty or gender inequality. Consequently, the men and women who buy sex are seen as perpetrating abuse through maintaining unequal power-structures that keep sex workers disadvantaged, whether or not they are aware of it or believe themselves to be doing so.

Applicable human rights law

Human rights law does not explicitly require either the criminalisation or decriminalisation of sex work. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women requires states to protect women and girls against exploitation in the context of prostitution, but does not prohibit prostitution or sex work itself.4 The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has consistently expressed concern regarding the criminalisation of women engaged in sex work.5
Similarly, the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, or receipt of persons by means such as force, fraud, or deception for the purpose of sexual exploitation is trafficking in persons, prohibited under international law,6 but sex work that does not include these elements is not trafficking. International authorities and UN agencies have consistently criticised approaches that treat all sex work as trafficking, concluding that the conflation of sex work and trafficking is mistaken as a matter of international law and counterproductive in practice.7
Human rights law does require states to respect, protect, and fulfil the right to the highest attainable standard of health. These obligations require states to refrain from “interferingdirectly or indirectly with the right to health.”8 States must also afford everybody the right to liberty and security of person, the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, and the


right to be free from torture or other ill-treatment.9 States must observe the principle of non- discrimination10 and, more generally, the reminder in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”11

The consequences in practice of criminalisation and decriminalisation

Public health research, the work of human rights organisations, and UN experts have found that the criminalisation of sex work exacerbates the risks sex workers face. For example:
· Raids, cautions, arrests, and the use of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) against sex workers in the United Kingdom have been found to shift sex workers toward unsafe areas and to diminish sex workers’ ability to choose clients and negotiate condom use.12
· In Russia, where soliciting for money in exchange for sex is an administrative offence, sex workers have been arrested for “petty hooliganism” or for not possessing the correct documents. “This system is open to abuse by the police, who use the ambiguity of the legislation to enrich themselves financially through bribes or by taking sexual services,” three public health researchers concluded.13
· Two studies in 2003 and 2005 found that most instances of harassment, assault, rape, kidnapping, and murder of street-based sex workers in Vancouver and New York City were not reported to police. When such incidents were reported, police often did not register them; when they were registered, these reports were rarely investigated.14
· Elsewhere, as well, where sex work is criminalised, sex workers commonly report that they feel unable to report crimes against them.15 They are vulnerable to harassment, humiliation, extortion, summary punishment, and rape and other forms of violence by police.16
· In a particularly notorious case in 2004, police in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, raided a guesthouse known to be used by women who sold sex. They rounded up all of the girls and women present, beat them, covered them with food and spit, and raped at least one woman. More than twenty girls and women were forced to chew and in many cases to swallow condoms. They were then forced to blow up condoms like balloons and hold them as they were marched through the streets, while police and bystanders hit them, threw objects at them, and jeered them.17
· Clients may threaten sex workers with criminal sanctions to control and exploit them.18
· Criminalisation leads to restrictions on travel, employment, and housing, increasing sex workers’ dependence on others. Criminalisation also results in restrictions on parenting.
· In the U.S. cities of Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, police treat the possession of condoms as evidence of prostitution, targeting people for stops and searches on the basis of who they are, what they are wearing, and where they are standing rather than any observed illegal activity.19
· Amnesty International found that transgender women were at particular risk of arrest and detention in several U.S. cities on the presumption that they were sex workers.20
· Possession of condoms has also been treated as evidence of sex work elsewhere in the world, including Kenya, Namibia, Russia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe.21
· The Independent Commission on AIDS in Asia’s 2008 report notes that “thecriminalization of [sex work] clearly neutralizes otherwise supportive HIV policies,unless law enforcement agencies and the judiciary can be persuaded to cooperatewith such policies.”22 Criminalisation has been found to increase vulnerability to HIV


and sexually transmitted infections and is linked to depression and other adverse mental health conditions, drug use, poor self-esteem, loss of family and friends.23
· Where sex work is criminalised, health outreach workers have been subjected to arrest and beatings by police.24
The negative health consequences of criminalisation are such that Anand Grover, the UN special rapporteur on the right to health, concluded in his 2010 report to the Human Rights Council, “The decriminalization or legalization of sex work with appropriate regulation forms anecessary part of a right-to-health approach to sex work, and can lead to improved health outcomes for sex workers.”25
The criminalisation of clients but not the sex workers themselves is sometimes put forward as a way to avoid the negative consequences summarised above. But the UNAIDS Advisory Group on Sex Work has noted that there is no evidence that “end demand” initiatives—those that criminalise clients of sex workers rather than the sex workers themselves—reduce sex work, or improve the quality of life of sex workers.26 Specifically:
· Police in many countries do not distinguish between sex workers and their clients. Even if they do, it is easy in practice to circumvent the distinction between buyer and seller by treating sex workers as accomplices or material witnesses to a crime. And targeting clients sometimes encourages law enforcement officials to use condoms as evidence of involvement in sex work, as noted above.
· Outside Sweden and Norway, the application of “end demand” approaches has resulted in grave consequences for sex workers. For example, “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.27 Such findings strongly support the conclusion that “end demand” approaches are not suitable policy calls in the vast majority of countries in which Amnesty International works.
· Even in Sweden, these approaches have not been shown to change the behaviour of clients or to encourage sex workers to find other means of earning a living.28
In contrast, sex workers in states that have decriminalised sex work report that they are less likely to suffer violence and are more able to engage in behaviours that reduce health risks. For example, New Zealand decriminalised sex work in 2003 in order to safeguard the human rights of sex workers. A literature review prepared for the New Zealand Ministry of Justice found that sex workers were less willing prior to decriminalisation to disclose their occupation to health care workers or to carry condoms.29 Following decriminalisation, sex workers reported that they were more able to refuse particular clients and practices and to negotiate safer sex.30

The approaches taken by other organisations and experts

The UN special rapporteur on the right to health has called for comprehensive decriminalisation of sex work, as noted above.31
The final report of the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, an independent body convened by the UN Development Programme (UNDP) on behalf of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), also made such a call.32


The UNAIDS Advisory Group on HIV and Sex Work has recommended:
States should move away from criminalising sex work or activities associated with it. Decriminalisation of sex work should include removing criminal penalties for purchase and sale of sex, management of sex workers and brothels, and other activities related to sex work. To the degree that states retain non-criminal administrative law or regulations concerning sex work, these should be applied in ways that do not violate sex workers’ rights or dignity and that ensure their enjoyment of due process of law.33
UN Women has confirmed its support for decriminalisation of sex work “in order to ensure the access of sex workers to all services, including HIV care and treatment.”34
The World Health Organization calls for all countries to “work toward decriminalization of sexwork and elimination of the unjust application of non-criminal laws and regulations against sex workers.”35
The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Human Rights Watch, the Kenya National Human Rights Commission, the Open Society Foundations, and the South African Commission on Gender Equality, among other groups, have called for the decriminalisation of sex work.36

 

Ergänzend die dort verwendeten Quellenangaben:

Mehr ->

References



1 See, for example, UNAIDS, “Sex work and HIV/AIDS,” UNAIDS Technical Update (2002), p. 3.
2 See, for example, J.A. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) (finding that modern laws criminalising prostitution have their origin in medieval canon law); B.M. Hobson, Uneasy Virtue: The Politics of Prostitution and the American Reform Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). See also M.H. Sommer, Sex, Law, and Society in Late Imperial China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), pp. 210-303.
3 See, for example, the European Women’s Lobby’s recent campaign, “Together for the Europe Free of Prostitution,” at http://www.womenlobby.org/spip.php?rubrique187 (accessed on 8 January 2012).
4 See CEDAW, art. 6; UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, Anand Grover, UN Doc. A/HRC/14/20 (2010), ¶ 30.
5 See, for example, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Concluding Observations on Fiji, U.N. Doc. A/57/38 (2002), ¶¶ 64-65; Concluding Observations on Hungary, U.N. Doc. A/57/38 (2002), ¶¶ 323-324; Concluding Observations on Kenya, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/KEN/CO/6 (2007), ¶¶ 29-30; Concluding Observations on Republic of Korea, 31 July 2007, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/KOR/CO/6 (2007), ¶¶ 19-20; Concluding Observations on France, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/FRA/CO/6 (2008), ¶¶ 30-31; Concluding Observations on Germany,
U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/DEU/CO/6 (2009), ¶¶ 49-50; Concluding Observations on Japan, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/JPN/CO/6 (2009), ¶ 39.
6 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, art. 3(a) (defining trafficking as ““the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power
or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation”).
7 See, for example, Human Rights Council, Report of Anand Grover, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/14/20, ¶ 33; UNAIDS, UNAIDS Guidance Note on HIV and Sex Work (Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, 2009), pp. 5-6; UN Women, Note on Sex Work, Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking (2013) (“The conflation of consensual sex work and sex trafficking leads to inappropriate responses that fail to assist sex workers and victims of trafficking in realizing their rights. Furthermore, failing to distinguish between these groups infringes on sex workers’ right to health and self-determination and can impede efforts to prevent and prosecute trafficking.”).
8 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4 (2000), ¶ 33.
9 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts. 9, 7.
10 For a useful overview of the principle of non-discrimination, see Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 20: Non-Discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, U.N. Doc.
E/C.12/GC/20 (2009).
11 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 1.
12 See, for example, K. Blankenship and S. Koester, “Criminal Law, Policing Policy, and HIV Risk in Female Street Sex Workers and Injection Drug Users,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, vol. 30 (2002), p. 550.
13 C.M. Lowndes et al., “Injection Drug Use, Commercial Sex Work, and the HIV/STI Epidemic in the Russian Federation,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases, vol. 30 (2003), p. 47.
14 World Health Organization, “Violence against Sex Workers and HIV Prevention,” Information Bulletin Series, No. 3 (2005), pp. 1-2 (citing L. Cler-Cunningham and C. Christerson, “Studying Violence to Stop It,” Research for Sex Work, vol. 4 (2001), pp. 25-26; J. Thukral and M. Ditmore, Revolving Door: An Analysis of Street-Based Prostitution in New York City, USA (New York: Urban Justice Center, 2003)).
15 A. Crago, Our Lives Matter: Sex Workers Unite for Health and Rights (New York: Open Society Institute, 2008), pp. 31-32; I. Pauw and L. Brener, “‘You Are Just Whores—You Can’t Be Raped’: Barriers to Safer Sex Practices among Women Street Sex Workers in Cape Town,” Culture, Health & Sexuality, vol. 5 (2003), pp. 465-81.
16 UNAIDS, HIV and Sexually Transmitted Infection Prevention among Sex Workers in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, UNAIDS Best Practice Collection (2006), p. 15; T. Rhodes et al., “Police Violence and Sexual Risk among Female and Transvestite Sex Workers in Serbia: A Qualitative Study,” British Medical Journal, vol. 337 (2008), pp. 813-14; A. Crago et al., “‘The Police Will Beat You Up, Demand Money, and Will Detain You until You Pay’: Police Violence against Sex Workers in Eleven Countries in Europe and Central Asia,” Research for Sex Work, issue 12 (2010), pp. 3-5; C. Jenkins, “Female Sex Worker HIV Prevention Projects: Lessons Learnt from Papua New Guinea, India and Bangladesh,” UNAIDS Best Practice Collection (2000).
17 Human Rights Watch, “Making Their Own Rules”: Police Beatings, Rape, and Torture of Children in Papua New Guinea (2005), p. 42. See also C. Stewart, “‘Crime to Be a Woman?’ Engendering Violence against Female Sex Workers in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea,” in M. Jolly and C. Stewart, eds., Engendering Violence in Papua New Guinea (Canberra: ANU E Press, 2012), pp. 213-38.
18 Global Commission on HIV and the Law, HIV and the Law: Risks, Rights and Health (2012).




19 Human Rights Watch, Sex Workers at Risk: Condoms as Evidence of Prostitution in Four U.S. Cities (2012);
M.H. Wurth et al., “Condoms as Evidence of Prostitution in the United States and the Criminalization of Sex Work,” Journal of the International AIDS Society, vol. 16 (2013), p. 18626.
20 Amnesty International, Stonewalled: Police Abuse and Misconduct against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People in the United States (2005).
21 A. Shields, Criminalizing Condoms: How Policing Practices Put Sex Workers and HIV Services at Risk in Kenya, Namibia, Russia, South Africa, the United States, and Zimbabwe (New York: Open Society Foundations, 2012). 22 Commission on AIDS in Asia, Redefining AIDS in Asia: Crafting an Effective Response (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 5.
23 J. Godwin, Sex Work and the Law in Asia and the Pacific: Laws, HIV and Human Rights in the Context of Sex Work (Bangkok: UNDP, 2012), pp. 1-3; M.L. Rekart, “Sex-work Harm Reduction,” The Lancet, vol. 366 (2005),
p. 2124; I. Vanwesenbeeck, “Another Decade of Social Scientific Work on Sex Work: A Review of Research 1990- 2000,” Annual Review of Sex Research, vol. 12 (2001), pp. 242-89. See also A.N. Morton et al., “Will the Legalisation of Street Sex Workers Improve Health?” Sexually Transmitted Infections, vol. 78 (2002), p. 309.
24 See, for example, Human Rights Watch, Epidemic of Abuse: Police Harassment of HIV/AIDS Outreach Workers in India (2002).
25 Human Rights Council, Report of Anand Grover, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/14/20, ¶ 46.
26 UNAIDS, The Report of the UNAIDS Advisory Group on HIV and Sex Work, December 2011, p. 6-7.
27 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).
28 “Purchasing Sexual Services in Sweden and the Netherlands,” a report by a Working Group on the legal regulation of the purchase of sexual services (Oslo: Ministry of Justice and the Police, Norway, 2004), pp. 9-14, 18-19; S. Dodillet and P. Ostergren, “The Swedish Sex Purchase Act: Claimed Success and Documented Effects” (2011); A. Jordan, “The Swedish Law to Criminalise Clients: A Failed Experiment in Social Engineering” (2012). 29 J. Jordan, “The Sex Industry in New Zealand: A Literature Review” (New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 2005), p. 65.
30 New Zealand, Report of the Prostitution Law Reform Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act of 2003 (Wellington, 2008), pp. 46-47, 50. See also C. Harcourt et al., “The Decriminalisation of Prostitution Is Associated with Better Coverage of Health Promotion Programs for Sex Workers,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 34 (2010), pp. 482-86.
31 Human Rights Council, Report of Anand Grover, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/14/20, ¶¶ 46-50.
32 “Rather than punishing consenting adults involved in sex work, countries must ensure safe working conditions and offer sex workers and their clients access to effective HIV and health services and commodities. Countries must: ¶ 3.2.1 Repeal laws that prohibit consenting adults to buy or sell sex, as well as laws that otherwise prohibit commercial sex, such as laws against “immoral” earnings, “living off the earnings” of prostitution and brothel-keeping. Complementary legal measures must be taken to ensure safe working conditions to sex workers.” Global Commission on HIV and the Law, Risks, Rights and Health, p. 43.
33 The Report of the UNAIDS Advisory Group on HIV and Sex Work, p. 8. The report makes clear that its recommendation relates to buying as well as selling sex. Id. n.17.
34 “UN Women also supports the regulation of sex work in order to protect sex workers from abuse and violence.” UN Women, Note on Sex Work, Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking (2013).
35 HIV/AIDS Programme, Prevention and Treatment of HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Infections for Sex Workers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Recommendations for a Public Health Approach (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2012), p. 8.
36 Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Sex, Work, Rights: Reforming Canadian Criminal Laws on Prostitution (2005); Wurth et al., “Condoms as Evidence of Prostitution,” p. 18626; Global Commission on HIV and the Law, “Fact Sheet on HIV and the Law: Risks, Rights and Health,” n.d. (noting that the Kenya National Human Rights Commission called for the decriminalisation of sex work in 2012), available at http://hivlawcommission.org/resources/report/HIV&Law-Factsheet-EN.pdf (last viewed 1 February 2014); Shields, Criminalizing Condoms, p. 29; South Africa Commission on Gender Equality, Decriminalising Sex Work in South Africa: Official Position of the Commission on Gender Equality (2013).

 

Erschreckend wie die Behauptungen der Fem-Aktivistinnen sogar im Ausland völlig unreflektiert übernommen werden. Frei nach dem Motto: Wer am lautesten schreit, hat Recht.

Tatsächlich lassen sich diese Behauptungen nicht mit Fakten untermauern, eher im Gegenteil:

http://menschenhandelheute.net/prostitution-und-menschenhandel-faktencheck/

 

Kampf gegen eine gefährliche Doppelmoral

Kampf gegen eine gefährliche Doppelmoral

Amnesty International will Entkriminalisierung von einvernehmlicher Sexarbeit

http://www.wdr3.de/literatur/biermann-prostituierte-und-ihre-kaempfe-100.html

 

Die vor allem US-amerikanischen Damen wissen ja garnicht, worüber sie reden. Und die deutschen - wie A.S. - wissen das genau, haben aber ihre eigene verdeckte Agenda.

Der o.g. Text ist eigentlich nicht besonders interessant.

Wesentlicher sind m.E. die Quellenangaben.

Ich beschäftige mich nun schon seit ewigen Zeiten mit Datenanalyse und Statistik. Und da hat es sich - wie bei allen anderen wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten auch - bewährt, die Quellen so gut es geht zu überprüfen.

Auch wenn es Mühe macht, besorge ich mir also das Primärmaterial und schlage nach. Und in überraschend vielen Fällen gibt es relevante Abweichungen zwischen Originaltext und verwendeten Daten. Das beginnt bei einfachen Zahlendrehern und endet damit, dass die zitierten "Fakten" überhaupt nicht im Primärmaterial vorkommen. Und diese Abweichungen hat man sogar dann, wenn es eigentlich kaum weitergehende Interessen gibt.

Ganz anders bei der P6-Diskussion. Ich verfolge dieses Thema nun schon einige Zeit und kenne auch einen Teil des oben zitierten Materials.

Aber in noch keiner dieser Arbeiten habe ich irgendwelche verläßlichen Daten zu Frauenhandel, Kinderprostitution und Zwangsprostitition und ähnlichen "heißen" Themen gefunden.

Praktisch immer zitieren sich Interessengruppen gegenseitig und tun so, als wenn das bereits ein Beleg für den Wahrheitsgehalt der Aussagen ist.

Ein schönes, wenn auch einigermaßen dümmliches Beispiel dafür ist das Buch von A.S. zur Prostitution, das jetzt preiswert über ebay angeboten wird.

Genauer gesagt: Es gibt natürlich verwendbare seriöse Ergebnisse. Sie sind jedoch nicht so dramatisch wie benötigt und deshalb werden sie nicht zitiert.

Auch für diesem Bereich gilt: Nur schlechte Nachrichten sind gute Nachrichten. Die Dramatisierung hat System. Ohne Dramatisierung keine wachsenden Spendengelder oder keine feste Stelle beim Staat.


Mir scheint, die entscheidende Schwäche der Gegenpositionen besteht darin, mit A.S. und den anderen einfach zu diskutieren, ohne zu verlangen, dass strikte Beweise für die Behauptungen vorgelegt werden müssen.

In den meisten anderen Bereichen ist das auch der Fall. Bei der P6-Diskussion akzeptieren wir seit Jahren ein Gemisch aus Ideologie in der Öffentlichkeit, dreister Lüge der Lobbyisten und politischer Unfäigkeit und Dummheit.

 

@Glasperlenspiel

Bereits die Zahl der angeblichen Zwangs-Prrostituierten in Dland ist offenbar eine "Erfindung" des rechts-konservativen "Hunt Alternative Fund", einem amerikanischen NGO, das mit Sicherheit auch mit "EMMA" und A. Schwarzer in Verbindung steht, wie öffentlich auf 3Sat bei Scobel gesagt wurde.

> Links hier weiter folgen <

Man muss daraus schlussfolgern, dass diese ganze Kampagne "von außen" zumindest gepusht wird!

Mit den selben Methoden wurde versucht, den Deutschen einzureden, die "bösen Russen" und die "faulen Griechen".
Wahrheit wird massiv verzerrt.

Kann man > hier und weiter den Links folgen < nachlesen.

Raffinierte Stimmungsmache ... und europäische und deutsche Medien und Politik machen da mit.

 

Amnesty International

Jetzt nimmt die Diskussion Fahrt auf.

Anbei die aktuelle Webseite von der Veranstaltung:

www.amnesty.ie/news/global-movement-votes-adopt-policy-protect-human-rights-sex-workers

 

Faktencheck Amnesty International: Entkriminalisierung von Sexarbeit

http://www.voice4sexworkers.com/201...ernational-entkriminalisierung-von-sexarbeit/

 

.... danke Kollega ... und hier auf deutsch:

 

"Die spinnen die Ammiehs!!"

​

Zu deutsch "Huren für Hillary" ...

Letztere iss Hillary Clinton, die wo der Eheman sich im "Oval-Office" (deutsch "Ohwähll-Ohffiss") von seiner Praktikantin Monika Lewinsky hat einen Blasen lassen.

Sie will ja Präsident(in) werden und bekommt nun Unterstützung von Äkspährtinnen!!!!

Würde sagen das passt, wenn noch ne Lektion in "Blasen" abfällt ...

> Mehr dazu <

 

Hier noch ein instruktiver Artikel in der "Zeit", der nicht gar so eindimensional argumentiert:

http://www.zeit.de/kultur/2015-08/prostitution-legalisierung-amnesty-international-kommentar

Besonders interessant sind die vielen Kommentare. Ein größerer Teil davon stammt sicher von Parteien, Gewerkschaften u.a. Interessengruppen, bei denen Angestellte die Aufgabe haben, Online-Diskussionen entsprechend zu beeinflussen.

Aber darüber hinaus scheint es auch viele Leute zu geben, die sich ehrlich dafür interessieren und sich eine Meinung bilden wollen.

Hier tauchen immer wieder 2 Argumente auf:

1. Prostituierte sind in Clubs usw. weisungsgebunden. Das Weisungsrecht wird von den Clubbesitzern (hier meist "Zuhälter" genannt) ausgeübt. Die Ladies müssen auf jeden Fall mit allen interessierten Kunden verkehren usw. usf.

Nichts mit "selbständigen Unternehmerinnen".

2. Man nimmt immer wieder Bezug zu den Aussagen von verschiedenen Hilfsorgansiationen (meist kirchlicher Art). Also in der Art: mehr als 70 % sind in ihrer Kindheit oder Jugend sexuell missbraucht worden und deshalb traumatisiert. Oder ein bestimmter (zahlenmäßig stark wechselnder) Prozentanteil der Frauen wird gegen ihren Willen zu sexuellen Handlungen gezwungen usw.

Der Hauptpunkt ist hier allerdings, dass nie klar gesagt wird, wieviele verschiedene (!!) Leute überhaupt befragt wurden und welchen Anteil vom Gesamtgewerbe sie repräsentieren. Aus diesem Umfeld kommen dann auch die "Zwangsprostitutionszahlen", wenn sie nicht einfach vollständig erlogen wurden.

Na, und dann merken natürlich viele schon, dass es eigentlich keine zuverlässigen Daten gibt.

Insgesamt bin ich mir garnicht so richtig sicher, wem in Deutschland die Diskussion um AI genutzt oder geschadet hat.

 

Streitgespräch: Prostitution legalisieren – Ja oder Nein?

http://dbate.de/videos/prostitution-legalisieren-ja-oder-nein/

 

Sehr lesenswert und informativ.

http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2015-08/prostitution-justiz-fischer-im-recht/seite-4

 

Ausdrücklichen Dank für diese Quelle.

Ich verweise der Vollständigkeit halber auf Seite 1 des Artikels, der so in etwa das beste darstellt, was ich überhaupt jemals zu dem Themenkomplex Prostitutionsgesetz gelesen habe.

http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2015-08/prostitution-justiz-fischer-im-recht

 

Um den bisherigen Nicht-Lesern Appetit zu machen:

Thomas Fischer ist Bundesrichter in Karlsruhe und schreibt für ZEIT und ZEIT ONLINE über Rechtsfragen.

Herr Fischer schreibt wirklich pointiert, mit Hintergrundwissen, kann auch gemein sein und bringt manchen Schmunzler und Brüller - selbst in dieses "verkorkste" Thema - ein.



Wirklich lesenswert!

Benutzt den Link von Al und blättert beim Lesen weiter.

.

 

Danke @Albundy für die Verbesserung des links.

 

Ich habe das jetzt gerade gelesen. Ein außerordentlich instruktiver, polemischer, fast schöner Artikel von dem Bundesrichter Herrn Fischer.

Ich bin natürlich kein Jurist. Aber, was ich mich bei dieser Gelegenheit immer wieder frage: Warum wollen die alle überhaupt ein neues Gesetz machen?

In dem Bereich, in dem ich mich bewege und auch etwas auskenne (Umwelt usw.), arbeitet man vor allem mit Verordnungen (also Rechtsvorschriften, die von einem oder von mehreren Ministern erlassen werden). Z.B. Trinkwasser-Verordnung, Abwasser-Verordnung, Klärschlamm-Verordnung, Abfall-Verordnung, verschiedene Verordungen zur Luftreinhaltung usw.

Das darf man nicht unterschätzen. Solche Verordnungen regeln wirklich große Gebiete unseres Lebens hier.

Man muss ein Gesetz haben, auf das man sich beziehen kann und dann geht es los. Die Verordnungen sind aber sehr konkret formuliert. Wenn es also zu Rechtsstreitigkeiten kommt, dann geht es nicht um die juristische Würdigung und Interpretation von einzelnen Paragraphen, sondern einfach um deren konkrete Anwendung.

Warum haben also Herr Gröhe als Gesundheitsminister und Frau Schwesig als Frauenministerin keine "Prostituiertenschutz-Verordnung" erlassen?
Eine ganze Reihe von grundlegenden Aspekten hätte man dort klar formulieren können (Pflicht zu med. Untersuchungen, Kondompflicht usw.)

Vielleicht läuft die Antwort darauf hinaus, dass alle anderen Aspekte so unklar und windelweich sind, dass man sie schlicht nicht in einer Verordnung fassen kann. Wie soll man z.B. die "Zwangsprostitution" unterbringen, wenn man sie praktisch garnicht richtig identifizieren kann? Das gilt auch für die "Armutsprostitution". Wie soll das Betreten von Arbeitsräumen von Prostituierten geregelt werden? Und viele andere Aspekte noch, z.B. die Flatrate-Clubs und GB-Parties.

Und so sieht es also aus, als ob sie alle lieber auf die Regulierung von naheliegenden Problemen verzichten, um die "Welt als Ganzes zu verbessern".

Und diesen Aspekt hat der Bundesrichter einwandfrei herausgestellt.

 

Also den Unterschied zwischen Verordnung und Gesetz findet man bei Wikipedia > hier <

Ich bin zwar kein Jurist, habe aber einschlägige "Erfahrungen" mit dem "ganzen System"

Ich denke es gab deshalb 2 Gründe:

1. Das Vorhaben steht ganz oben in der politischen Agenda der rechts-konservativen Kreise und ist Bestandteil des Koalitions-Vertrages der Groko und deshalb will man natürlich nichts der Exekutive überlassen (=> Verordnung), die im Falle einiger Dienststellen schon ihren Unwillen über den zusätzlichen Murks geäußert hat. Mit anderen Worten, weil die Exekutive unter Umständen nicht so mitspielt, wie diese Leute wollen, macht man lieber ein Gesetz. Dann kann die Verwaltung nicht anders ...
2. Gegen eine Verordnung kann man auch als einfacher Bürger einfacher gerichtlich vorgehen, als gegen ein ganzes Gesetz!