Amnesty PR machine in overdrive

Amnesty International, the world’s leading human rights campaigner, claims to have over 7 million members and supporters across the globe, but it seems those countless regular donors are nothing more than a funding source.

From its relatively humble beginnings as an advocate for political prisoners, the organisation has grown into a bureaucratic juggernaut that more closely resembles a large corporate or a government department than the grass roots campaigner it once was. The ‘membership’ has been left behind as the executive, based in the UK, uses their money to formulate policy and set up campaigns.

Recently, for reasons that are not entirely clear, Amnesty decided to draft a policy advocating the decriminalisation of ‘sex work’. A process – described as ‘consultation’ – began and an initial draft policy document was made available in Australia in late February 2014.

Not that it was easy to find. Members were not notified of its existence and it could only be accessed via the Activist Portal on the Amnesty International Australia website. A request for feedback on the policy was sent to members on 2 April 2014 accompanied by a brief Q&A document.

Feedback was open until 21 April 2014 – less than three weeks.

The Q&A document was blatantly supportive of ‘sex industry’ interests – it could have been written by UK sex worker/escort service owner Douglas Fox who has, on more than one occasion, claimed credit for Amnesty’s decriminalisation policy direction for ‘sex work’. The Nordic Model alternative for legislation – where those selling sex are decriminalised and offered support to exit prostitution, and those who buy sexual services or procure the purchase of those services – the johns, pimps and brothel owners – are criminalised – is comprehensively dismissed as unworkable.

Similarly, the more lengthy draft policy document was based in notions of ‘sexual autonomy’ and ‘choice’ and clearly dismissive of the Nordic Model (or Swedish Model). In fact, the document specifically notes that ‘the organisation is opposed to criminalization of all activities related to the purchase and sale of sex. Sexual activity and desire are a fundamental human need. To criminalise those who are unable or unwilling to fulfill that need through more traditionally recognized means and thus purchase sex, may amount to a violation of the right to privacy and undermine the rights to free expression and health’ [1].

Note the emphasis on the purchasers of sex – those poor, unfortunate people (mostly men) who have a basic human need and must be allowed to satisfy it, even if it means women are used and abused in the process. And let’s not kid ourselves – use and abuse is what prostitution means for the overwhelming majority of prostituted women.

Quite intentionally, this gem was included as a footnote to the draft policy document – only to be read by those who could find the document in the first place, and then be bothered reading past the overview, and then be diligent enough to check footnotes.

Like many paid up Amnesty members, I missed the opportunity to offer my feedback – it was only when alerted to the policy by local members bitterly disappointed by its content, that I found and read it. Rather than actively promoting their new policy on a hugely contentious issue, Amnesty International did as little as possible to engage its paying donors – a bit like the way governments take your tax money and then formulate policies you would never support.

In mid-2014 the Amnesty Chairs Assembly and Directors Forum decided the draft sex work policy would be reconsidered after further consultation and research, and finally determined at the 2015 biennial International Council Meeting (ICM). A number of Amnesty ‘sections’, including Australia, expressed a preference for this option. (Incidentally, at this point readers may be getting a feel for the labyrinthine nature of Amnesty’s structure and governance.)

Some months later, days before the Australian Amnesty branch AGMs in May 2015 an internal ‘briefing paper’ was provided to branch presidents for selective dissemination. This paper outlined the text of a resolution regarding Amnesty’s sex work policy that was apparently released in the previous March by the Amnesty International Board (IB) and affirmed the organisation’s intention to persist with a decriminalisation policy – to ‘fill an AI policy gap’ [2], or so they said.

With the ICM coming up in early August, the IB released – internally, on 7 July – an updated draft policy on sex work to ‘sections and structures’ (are we completely confused, yet, about how this NGO works?) It is 15 pages of dense, repetitive prose that sounds sort of okay, although the author was obviously chosen more for their command of ponderous obfuscation than their knowledge of the issues. Amongst other things, the overt rejection of Nordic Model laws apparent in the 2013 draft policy has been replaced by a negative assessment of legislative regimes that impose ‘indirect criminalisation’ on ‘sex workers’ [3], or are an ‘overbroad criminalisation of operational aspects of sex work’ [4].

The policy is biased, unadulterated nonsense, passed off as a sound, impartial, well-researched guideline for action.

And it was withheld from the general membership.

Australian Amnesty members were asked, via email on 10 July 2015, to provide feedback on the revised draft policy without being given access to the entire policy document. The research supposedly undertaken over the preceding year is also unavailable to members.

With 17 days to submit feedback, I availed myself of the opportunity immediately – aided by a ‘leaked’ draft policy document.

Little did I know there was yet another internal document – issued on 9 July as an aid for Amnesty Australia section officers fielding questions about the ‘sex work’ policy. This so-called ‘Sex Work Policy Q&A’ has a distinct – ‘no need to worry, everything’s fine’ – vibe. ‘Trust us, we’re Amnesty and we know best’.

There are claims of extensive consultation with prostitution survivor groups, and feminist groups – all stakeholders, in fact – but no supporting details. There’s an explicit, but unconvincing, denial of Douglas Fox’s influence on the ‘sex work’ policy, and a firm dismissal of the Nordic Model – it was ‘comprehensively’ rejected at the Amnesty Australia AGM in 2014, according to the Q&A.

Bizarrely, this document, dated 9 July, notes that ‘To date, 62% of respondents’- presumably to the online survey – ‘have endorsed the adoption of a policy advocating decriminalisation’[5]. The online survey was emailed to members on 10 July.

Amnesty’s agenda is unmistakable – there will be a ‘sex work’ policy, and it will be full decriminalisation, including a regulatory hands off approach to johns, pimps and brothel owners.

By its own admission, Amnesty has a ‘flexible approach in its policy making and is not bound to a formal consultation and decision making processes on all issues’[6], meaning ‘we’ll do what we like and we don’t give a toss about member opinions’.

In Tasmania this year, several ‘sex work’ supporters attended the branch AGM to express their views. When challenged by an Amnesty member and Nordic Model advocate about a possibly supportive relationship with the Scarlet Alliance (the self-proclaimed peak body for sex workers in Australia) a high ranking Amnesty Australia office holder threatened the challenger with a defamation action. That same member subsequently received correspondence from the Tasmanian branch president admonishing them for spreading lies about others.

And that’s how it seems to be working at Amnesty – introduce draft policy informed by interest groups, but deny their influence, ignore members and key stakeholders, withhold information, and threaten anyone who challenges the organisation’s, or individual officer’s, independence.

And make sure the PR spin swirling around the bullshit is the best in town.

[1] Draft Sex Work Policy for Consultation 2014 p.6 – https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YW1uZXN0eS5vcmcuYXV8YWlhLWFjdGl2aXN0LXBvcnRhbHxneDo2ZDZhNzFmOTc5YmU1Njhk

[2] Australian BAGM Briefing Paper 2015 p.1 – http://www.filedropper.com/filemanager/public.php?service=files&t=4d456124e641fbbb1ecc2ab7b06f9b29

[3] ICM Circular: Draft Policy on Sex Work 2015 p.7 –
http://www.filedropper.com/filemanager/public.php?service=files&t=4d456124e641fbbb1ecc2ab7b06f9b29

[4] ibid p.5

[5] Updated Sex Work Policy Q&A p.2 –
http://www.filedropper.com/filemanager/public.php?service=files&t=41581a1f2873fdb8947a8398b96702fa

[6] ibid p. 4

DOCUMENTS

• 2014 Draft Sex Work Policy – https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YW1uZXN0eS5vcmcuYXV8YWlhLWFjdGl2aXN0LXBvcnRhbHxneDo2ZDZhNzFmOTc5YmU1Njhk

• 2014 Q&A – https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YW1uZXN0eS5vcmcuYXV8YWlhLWFjdGl2aXN0LXBvcnRhbHxneDozOGNkZjFkMjlkZjZmZTU4

• Chairs Assembly/Directors Forum Report 2014 – http://www.amnesty.org.uk/sites/default/files/board_paper_-_chairs_assembly_and_directors_forum_-_kate_allen_june_2014.pdf

• Revised Draft Sex Work Policy 2015 – http://files.ctctcdn.com/54482ed6201/46da8bac-36d7-4a59-b9e0-fd79b1aec409.pdf

• Amnesty Australia Branch AGM Briefing Paper 2015
http://www.filedropper.com/filemanager/public.php?service=files&t=4d456124e641fbbb1ecc2ab7b06f9b29

• Q &A 2015
http://www.filedropper.com/filemanager/public.php?service=files&t=41581a1f2873fdb8947a8398b96702fa