Re: 91% respondents in Delhi want prostitution legalised

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum Members,

Who is this " third-rate writer? " Ms Purnima Sharma of Times of India

essentially wants the nation to swallow that " 91 percent respondents

of Delhi and 84 percent respondents in Mumbai want prostitution to be

legalised. " And the proof she refers to is " 8888 poll. " Is this to be

interpreted that 91 percent " residents " of Delhi want prostitution to be

legalised?

Ridiculous! The whole nation is being taken for a ride by imposing such a

violent interpretation of " purposefully misleading " statistics! And she

concludes that the policy-makers should listen to such cruel jokes with the

nation because " 8888 poll " has revealed this!

Well, having said this, will you now advocate for legalising pornography, strip

clubs, live sex shows, and buying and selling of women for sex in the

marketplace Ms Sharma? Why not have a " 8888 poll " on legalising selling of women

in Delhi Haat Sharma Ji?

Legalising prostitution is exactly that! It is a " state-sponsored

prostitution " legitimising buying and selling of women's bodies as

commodities in the marketplace for men's sexual pleasure. It

segregates women from the economic mainstream as a " class " set aside

for sexual servitude. It reinforces the definition of women as

providers of sexual service, and legitimises and strengthens men's

ability to put women's bodies at their absolute disposal.

I was concerned when barely two weeks ago this Forum carried a news

item titled " Planning Commission's Plea to Legalise prostitution, "

/message/5093 .

More than the issue itself, I was wondering " what " and " who " constituted the

" Planning Commission " and what was the power-dynamics of passing one's own

agenda by swindling a group of " futuristic, ill-informed bureaucrats " by a band

of powerful, urban NGO-elites. What is more disturbing is how over the years,

prostitution and commodification of women has been made more acceptable, normal,

fashionable and even a respectable job by these NGOs.

And anyone who raises criticisms against it, is immediately labelled as

" moralistic, cultural police, Hindu fundamentalist, Sanghis, or orthodox " as if

being " moralistic " itself is " immoral " and not asserting one's own moral right

is the key to measure " progressiveness. " Interesting Charlie!

Legalising prostitution is certainly not the answer for India.

Empirical evidences from countries that have done it (e.g.,

Netherlands) indicate that with legalisation, there has been a

tremendous increase in number of brothels, pornography, sex-bars,

strip-clubs, live-sex-shows, and women trafficked for prostitution,

including child trafficking.

The goal of any industry is to expand and if prostitution is legitimised as an

industry (as the ILO suggests in its 1998 Report), its only purpose will be to

" expand. "

How then, the advocates of legalising prostitution raise this wired

argument that legalisation will control and regulate the sex-trade

and prohibit the entry of minors? While this is empirically/

statistically not supported, overnight, there will be hundreds of

fake procedures to prove one's own age and an entire channel of pimp-

police-bureaucracy will benefit from the legalised sex-industry.

Criminals, exploiters, perpetrators of violence against women who

were earlier termed as " pimps " will now be termed as " sexual

entrepreneurs. " In India, has the arms trade legalisation solely by

the state been able to control and regulate illegal trade in arms?

Second comes the " choice " argument: " it is women's right to decide

what she wants to do with her body – choosing sex work as a

legitimate profession empowers and liberates women. " Why this same

logic can not be applied to slavery? Legalised prostitution is not a

question of women's choice: when the government can not expand

economic and social opportunities for our women, legalising

prostitution is the only " choice " it can offer to its citizens, and

by selling its women's bodies in the national and international

market, state enjoys a huge revenue. Where is the difference between

the " state " and a " pimp? "

The fundamental principle for not legalising prostitution is that it

is an oppressive, exploitative institution, and legalising it only

reinforces sexual violence against women thereby increasing gender

inequality. Why did we not legalise slavery instead of abolishing it?

We could have easily opted for legalising slave trade by eliminating

the abusive and exploitative slave owners and restricting the entry

of adult slaves in the business and not minors or children. We did

not legalise slavery because we knew that slavery itself is an

oppressive and exploitative institution. And what we are legalising

here is women's sexual slavery, exploitation and abuse. Sexual

exploitation violates the human rights of anyone subjected to it.

What if a slave, " by choice, " wants to be a slave and earns more

money than any other gainful employment government can offer him?

Why did the state jump into abolishing an institution of slave trade in the

twentieth century?

The fact that any woman's body can be sold for sex in the marketplace

legitimised by the state reduces " all " women to sexual objects and instruments

thus defining " what a woman is in this society " and " what is she made for? "

Legalisation reinforces the idea that women are just made for providing sexual

service for men.

In many countries, legalisation has brought in a tremendous increase in

pornography (and other sex-based services for men, you name it!) including

sexual violence against women. Many women both in the East and West today find

it difficult to have a meaningful emotional-sexual relationship with their

husbands because they can not act as women in pornography.

For men, the only place to enact these sexual fantasies and violence

with live-women, is prostitution. The sex industry expands to

accommodate all tastes and all demands from men thereby reducing

women to just sexual objects and instruments.

There is absolutely no evidence that legalisation stops/reduces

trafficking of women for sex. In Netherlands, 80 percent women in the brothels

are trafficked from Central and Eastern European Countries.

There is also very little well-researched evidence that legalisation

brings down the spread in HIV epidemic or rate of infection. There

are other countries in the world today that have refused to recognize

prostitution as work and giving it a legal status. Two important examples are

Sweden and Venezuela. In May 1998, Sweden prohibited the purchase of sexual

services with punishments of fines or imprisonment up to six months. Sweden

declared that prostitution is not a desirable economic and labour sector.

Similarly in 1998, the Government of Venezuela turned down the proposal of a

powerful sex-lobby to register a legal union of sex workers. The Venezuelan

Ministry of Labour ruled that " prostitution cannot be considered work because it

lacks the basic elements of dignity and social justice. "

What has happened to the Indian intelligentsia that we are now

advocating for legalising prostitution forgetting the fundamental

principles of human rights, dignity, equality and social justice?

For many years, all around the world, powerful sex-lobbies have been

advocating for recognising sex work as a legitimate industry and the

ILO Report of 1998 was one of the latest ones in which it urged the

four poor nations of South East Asia to take advantage of the booming sex sector

and raise its capital by taxing the prostitutes. Probably, the ILO argument was

based on the fact that " state " should play the role of a " pimp " by letting its

women citizens to be sold as commodities in the national and international

market for sex;

instead, state will get a part of their " earning " as " revenues. "

For an excellent criticism of the ILO 1998 Report, see

http://action.web.ca/home/catw/readingroom.shtml?x=16741 . Those

interested to see how Sweden has effectively criminalised and

implemented law against buying of sexual service can visit this URL:

http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/Ekberg.pdf .

I am writing this today because I am not represented in the " 91

percent " figure for Delhi that Ms Sharma quotes in her " 8888 poll. "

And I am sure, there are millions of Indians like myself who feel

deceived, cheated and being swindled by a purposefully constructed

jumble of statistics. Let there be a national debate whether India

wants prostitution to be legalised.

I would urge the feminist scholarship in the country to take the lead in both

organising and pursuing a national debate around this theme. Till then, let

there be no more " 8888 poll " on an issue like this. Considering the scientific

validity of " 8888 survey, "

I would ask Ms Sharma, " should the policy-makers ever listen to such cruel jokes

with the nation? "

Sincerely yours

Subir K. Kole

Research Fellow, Education Programme

East-West Center

1601 East-West Road

Honolulu, HI, USA

E-mail: <subirkole@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum members,and the writer of this article,

I am really appreciating Subir K. Kole's criticism on this above topic that

enlightening many social activists like me in India and around the world on the

move to make social policy like this.

It is, as you (Subir) perceived, all the Indian's and Third world

country people should perceive on this topic as you perceived. Your high lights

on experiences of various countries would be a definite learning to all policy

makers and agencies working on women empowerment and issues related to women and

sex, HIV/AIDS and human

rights.

It is really a ridiculous statement or a ridiculous study with ridiculous data (

validity and reliability). And it can not be generalized to the whole of the

Indian society as many are still love to say that they are from such a decent

society.

It is the interest of the people who would really want to make money out of sex

trade and not the Delhi respondents.

It is good to have a forum like this to clarify such stupid statements (

findings?) and reopen the heads of these irresponsible advocacies.

At this junction, I express my best whishes to you (subir)to respond in an

informative mannar to this topic and I request you to kindly make this same

article to appear in a Newspaper and all media.

Thanking you

wilfred

A Humanist from Chennai,India.

E-mail: pwilfreds@...