In addition to her daily pimping duties
At the Faber & Faber blog, Kat Banyard tells the story of a trafficker who is also VP of an organization that heavily influenced the UN and Amnesty International in their moves to decriminalize pimping.
On Thursday 12th March 2015, 64 year old Alejandra Gil was convicted in Mexico City of trafficking and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Gil reportedly controlled a pimping operation that exploited around 200 women. Known as the “Madam of Sullivan”, she was one of the most powerful pimps of Sullivan Street, an area of Mexico City notorious for prostitution. Gil and her son were connected with trafficking networks in Tlaxcala state – site of Mexico’s “epicenter for sex trafficking.”
…
In addition to her daily pimping duties, Alejandra Gil side-lined as President of Aproase, an NGO that supposedly advocated for the rights of people in prostitution, but in practice functioned as a useful cover for her pimping operation. And until Gil’s arrest last year, the “Madam of Sullivan” was Vice President of an organisation called the Global Network of Sex Work Projects (NSWP).
NSWP is no fringe group. In 2009 it was appointed Co-Chair of the UNAIDS ‘Advisory Group on HIV and Sex Work’. UNAIDS is the international body responsible for leading global efforts to reverse the spread of HIV, and the advisory group was established to “review and participate in the development of UNAIDS policy, programme or advocacy documents, or statements.” Alejandra Gil is also personally acknowledged in a 2012 World Health Organisation (WHO) report about the sex trade as one of the “experts” who dedicated her “time and expertise” to developing its recommendations. NSWP’s logo is on the front cover, alongside the logos of WHO, UNAIDS and the United Nations Population Fund.
So that’s how it’s done. Just set up a right-on-looking NGO and you can lobby for the sex industry while raking in the profits from trafficking.
Amnesty International also reference NSWP and the Advisory Group it co-chaired in its draft policy calling for brothel keeping to be decriminalised – a proposal that has been condemned by prostitution survivors and equality groups around the world, including SPACE International, Women’s Aid and the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. Amnesty’s policy, due to be finalised this month, cites “human rights organisations” that endorse their proposal: “Most significantly,” they write, “a large number of sex worker organisations and networks, including the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, support the decriminalisation of sex work”.
Well they would, wouldn’t they. They don’t do the “sex work” themselves, and they take the profits generated by people who do.
As Esohe Aghatise, Anti-Trafficking Manager at Equality Now, says, “It is shocking that a convicted trafficker would influence policy, which is, in itself, incompatible with human rights and international law. We need to end the demand which fuels sex trafficking, rather than decriminalise those who benefit from the exploitation of others. UN agencies need to urgently clarify their position on the sex trade – particularly in light of this new damning evidence”.
Without question, those who are paid for sex should be completely decriminalised. But those who sexually exploit – pimps, brothel keepers and sex buyers – should not. They are perpetrators – not entrepreneurs or consumers. Mia de Faoite, a survivor of prostitution, told me, “I left prostitution utterly destroyed as a human being and I cannot fathom how that level of violence could ever be sanctioned and classed as ‘work’.”
That convicted trafficker Alejandra Gil and her group have been so closely involved in UN agencies’ policy making on prostitution is nothing short of a human rights scandal. Clearly, UNAIDS must urgently conduct a thorough, transparent review of all policies NSWP has advised it on and investigate how this could have happened. As for Amnesty International, it would be abhorrent to see the organisation proceed with its call for full decriminalisation of the sex trade – because it really doesn’t take a conviction for trafficking by a leading proponent to work out who benefits most when states make brothel-keeping and pimping legal.
By Kat Banyard, author of Pimp State: Sex, Money and the Future of Equality, published in 2016.
And maybe drop Amnesty International a note expressing concern.
I always thought that the people who were supportive of sex workers were AGAINST pimping?
(it seems kind of… necessary, to me, to be anti-pimping in order to be pro-sex worker…)
It seems about as logical to me as deciding to support organized labor by lobbying on behalf of corporate HR departments.
This is a scandal but irrelevant to the arguments for the decriminalisation and protection of sex workers. All movements attract unsavoury supporters, but their support does not weaken the arguments. The people who most benefit from brothels being illegal are those who exploit women and men in the sex trade. I have yet to see a single argument that shows how the life of a sex worker is made in any away better by having his or her trade made illegal.
Pinkeen:
You don’t seem to give any weight to Ophelia’s opening sentence: “At the Faber & Faber blog, Kat Banyard tells the story of a trafficker who is also VP of an organization that heavily influenced the UN and Amnesty International in their moves to decriminalize pimping.”
Seriously, if this policy is indeed sought-after by a trafficker, then you still don’t think that relevant?
This is an entirely new contention, and independent of the previous.
(Appealing to your personal lack of perception is not compelling)
One of the primary arguments for decriminalization is that trafficking is reduced because it becomes unprofitable.
In the case of drug prohibition, the idea is that packets of cocaine will be available in every Walmart next to the cigarettes for about $10/gm. That will badly undercut the black market price of $50/gm and upwards, and renders drug smuggling unprofitable. Instead, the economics of coca farming become similar to tobacco or coffee farming, and drug cartels working outside the law are supplanted by legal farm operations operating within the law.
I won’t state the parallel case for sex trafficking, because women aren’t a product. I’m not competent to judge whether there’s any truth to their reasoning. One major factor is whether local women are willing to work in a brothel for whatever is on offer. The economics of poverty are such that minimum wage plus some premium will no doubt attract some people whose other options earn less, but it’s far from clear whether, after the dust settles, the pay is low enough to undercut trafficking women and then keeping them in what amounts to slavery.
As I have discussed before New Zealand has followed the decriminalise and regulate model. The consensus seems to be that by and large sex workers are better off and safer, although it is clear that problems still exist. Ms Berns noted in her election response that decriminalisation has not stopped violence or murder being perpetrated against sex workers in NZ. That is perfectly true. What it has done is increase co-operation between sex workers and the police to investigate and achieve prosecutions. It certainly appears (to me anyway) that it is easier for the police to publicly justify the effort put into both keeping sex workers safer and investigating crimes against them.
I’m aware of two major issues That are a source of shame in any modern society. Firstly that in at least one area of our major city there is/has been a significant problem with many under aged sex workers (the legal age is 18). The change to the law decriminalised the sex workers, but I point out that the act of buying sex from an under aged person was and still is illegal. Police actively engage in trying to deal with this. The fundamental issues remain ones of poverty, education and opportunity. The other issue is much more underground. It is the fetishisation of asian women. New Zealand has a relatively small population of asian women in a demographic likely to be open to sex work. This has created demand leading to illegal trafficking from south east asia. Undoubtedly some of the women come willingly (it is perceived as a better choice than sex work at home I guess) and are well treated. Undoubtedly some also come willingly and are then treated appallingly and are in fact little more than slaves. There have also been rumours and allegations of outright forced immigration under duress to work in brothels. I’m not aware of this having been proven though. Legal brothels can therefore act as a screen for such activity because the assumption from casual observers is that whatever is going on behind that door is legal.
Decriminalisation was so controversial and fraught in the first place I cannot see any Government here revisiting the issue unless someone can point to an overwhelmingly bad state of affairs that can be fixed by a law change that can be demonstrated not to introduce new issues.
Rob, where have you discussed it before? (I would like to have a look.)
I noticed indeed that New Zealand is sometimes given as an example of successful decriminalization; on the other hand, Germany is usually invoked in such discussions as a negative model. I remember reading somewhere that in Germany decriminalization didn’t “increase co-operation between sex workers and the police” – that although the legislators had such hopes, they were not realized (fear of deportation is cited as one of the reasons). If this is true – if indeed these two countries fare so different with respect to the decriminalization policy – I wonder what accounts for it. Any ideas? Is it mainly about the geographical location (reaching Germany is relatively easy and cheap, unlike reaching New Zealand)? Is it about demographics? Or maybe it is something specific about New Zealand’s law?
(Yes, I know, I can use google, but perhaps it’s something you’ve already thought about?)
Ariel, The majority of my comments on that topic will be here at B&W (and the FTB version of B&W), although I think there may have been some at other FTB blogs in the days when I felt secure enough to post there. I don’t bookmark or save my posts. Does it seem rude to say google them, since that’s what I’ll have to do anyway? I’m flattered that you are interested in following them up.
I would not argue that NZ has the perfect or even the right balance. Mind you, I’m also not sure what I would replace our framework with. As to differences to Germany, I am speculating, but here goes. New Zealand, to state the blindingly obvious, is a looooong way from pretty much anywhere. This makes control of immigration a relatively simple matter physically. We also set very strict criteria on who we accept as immigrants and as refugees. I suspect this massively reduces the pool of people (mostly women) who are wanting to enter sex work or likely to find there way into that through lack of options. The major area of abuse does seem to be women from SE Asia arriving on visitor or temporary work visas, who then ‘disappear’. Exactly how big is this issue? I’ve never seen any numbers. Just an acknowledgement from Police and Immigration that it happens.
Because the majority of sex workers are working legally there is little impediment to co-operating with police, although that is obviously subject to personal experience and view. From outside the situation does seem to have improved and both Police and sex worker collectives seem to acknowledge an improvement.
The flaw in our system of course is that the most vulnerable sex workers (under age and/or illegal immigrant) are less likely to seek help from authorities because while they have not committed a criminal offence there will inevitably be consequences of coming into the system. Illegal immigrants (those working when on a tourist visa, or working in a job not listed on their visa category, or having overstayed their visa) face the likelihood of deportation. Those who are under aged will inevitably end up in State care, which by all accounts is often an incompetent and sometimes dangerous shambles.
So, tl;dr our system works ok because of our particular circumstances re isolation, not too many gaps for people to fall through and demographics. We are lucky.
Not at all. I simply thought that you were mentioning a specific, concrete post.
Anyway, thanks for the answer. It’s one of the issues I’m trying to make my mind about, although – as it seems – at the moment in my country questions about sex work are generally considered unimportant and neither our law nor the politicians want to have anything to do with them. There was some discussion a couple of years ago, provoked by a remark of a well-known politician who publicly asked “But how is it possible to rape a prostitute?” (oh, he was just asking questions, right?) but that’s about all as far as high-profile debates go.
At the moment I’m very suspicious about solutions motivated by general ideological standpoints (yes, either way) and I’m inclined to think that the efficacy of a given proposal will indeed depend on social, economical and geografical factors – in short, on your “particular circumstances”. I’m too much of a pragmatist to believe that there must – just must! – be “the” solution, ideal for everybody. Your remarks seem to go in this direction… or that’s at least how I read them.
You read correctly.
[…] [8] tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/a-human-rights-scandal-by-kat-banyard/ http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2015/in-addition-to-her-daily-pimping-duties/ […]