The Feminist Sex Wars: the Battle for Impact on European Prostitution Policy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fall 08 The Feminist Sex Wars: The Battle for Impact on European Prostitution Policy Astrid Zwinkels (6125182) [email protected] Research Master Social Sciences Jonathan Zeitlin (first reader) Conny Roggeboom (second reader) Final version 30 June 2016 University of Amsterdam Table of Contents List of abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 3 Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 4 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4 2. Theoretical framework ............................................................................................... 5 2.1 The EU institutions and reasons for interacting with academia and advocacy groups ............................................................................................................................................ 5 2.3 Advocacy groups and reasons for lobbying the EU institutions .......................... 6 2.3 Possible factors affecting the level of influence in the EU institutions ............. 8 2.4 The case study .................................................................................................................... 10 2.4.1 Case study design and case selection ................................................................................ 10 2.4.2 A pan-European approach to prostitution? .................................................................... 10 3. Methods ......................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 The Survey ........................................................................................................................... 12 3.3 Expert interviews .............................................................................................................. 13 3.4 Documentary literature: Content analysis ............................................................... 13 4. Results ........................................................................................................................... 14 4.1 The EU institutions ........................................................................................................... 14 4.1.2 Influence on the European Commission .......................................................................... 14 4.1.3 Influence on the European Parliament ............................................................................. 17 4.2 Influence of academics on the EU institutions ........................................................ 21 4.2.1 Preferred approach: abolitionist vs. anti-abolitionist ................................................ 21 4.2.2 Advocacy and academia .......................................................................................................... 22 4.2.4 Networks of academics: personal relations and email lists .................................... 22 4.3 Influence of advocacy groups on the EU institutions ............................................ 24 4.3.1 The main advocacy groups .................................................................................................... 24 4.3.2 Factors of influence ................................................................................................................... 26 5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 31 5.1 Summary of findings ........................................................................................................ 32 5.2 Recommendations for advocacy groups ................................................................... 33 5.3 Recommendations for future research ..................................................................... 33 6. Discussion and reflection ........................................................................................ 34 6.1 Problems with generalizing from interview data .................................................. 34 6.2 Problems with gathering respondents for survey and interviews .................. 34 6.3 Practical and Theoretical Recommendations ......................................................... 35 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 37 2 List of abbreviations ALDE Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (European Parliament) CATW Coalition Against Trafficking in Women CCME Church Commission on Migrants in Europe DG Directorate General DG HOME Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs DG Justice Directorate General for Justice and Consumers DG SANTE Directorate General for Health and Food Safety EC European Commission ECDC European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control ECR European Conservatives and Reformists Group (European Parliament) EFD Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group (European Parliament) EMCDDA European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Addictions EP European Parliament EPP Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) (European Parliament) EU European Union EWL European Women’s Lobby FEMM Committee Committee for Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (European Commission) Greens/EFA Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (European Parliament) GUE/NGL Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left (European Parliament) ICRSE International Committee on the Rights of Sex workers in Europe IDU Injecting drug uses MEP Member of European Parliament MSM Men having sex with men NREM National Rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms OHCHR United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner PICUM Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants S&D Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament STI Sexually Transmitted Infection TAMPEP European Network for HIV/STI Prevention and Health Promotion among Migrant Sex workers TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 3 Abstract Based on a case study of advocacy groups that aim to influence the EU institutions in relation to prostitution or sex work policy, this study aims to explain the relative effectiveness of advocacy groups lobbying the EU institutions for topics where the EU has no official competences. Through the use of interviews, a qualitative survey and documentary analysis the study confirms multiple existing hypotheses. Advocacy groups are more likely to influence the EU institutions if they have access to financial and personal resources; have a physical presence in Brussels; if their position confirms the status quo in the EU institutions; if they are institutionalized; and if they are part of strong lobbying coalitions. Furthermore, two new explanations are found that explain why some advocacy groups are more influential than others in relation to a topic where the EU has no formal competences. First, successful advocacy groups seem to take a position that EU officials can express support for without much risk. Secondly, successful advocacy groups reframe their issue in such a way that it connects to a topic where the EU has official competences. By doing this, they are able to circumvent the prerequisite that advocacy groups can only lobby the EU on topics where the EU has competences and furthermore can increase their area of influence. 1. Introduction At the beginning of 2014 The European Parliament (EP) adopted Mary Honeyball’s ‘Report on sexual exploitation and prostitution and its influence on gender equality’. Adopting this report means that the EP advises all member states to follow the Swedish policy framework on prostitution policy and to implement the Nordic model. In the Nordic model it is legal to sell sexual services but it is illegal to buy them. The adopted report stands in sharp contrast to the position Amnesty International adopted a year later. Amnesty argues that the best policy for sex work and the one that is best suited to protect the rights of sex workers is decriminalization, in which neither selling nor buying of sexual services is illegal. They speak out against the abolitionist standpoint. Ones preference for policy is often linked to the terminology one uses (prostitution or sex work), which will be elaborated upon in section 2.4.2.1 below. At the level of international agreements and transnational advocacy networks, the abolitionist perspective has shown remarkable success, whereas at the local level of NGOs working with sex workers, the perspective of decriminalization seems to be more popular (Mattson 2015: 172-73). In general, one can say that advocacy groups dealing with prostitution policy at a European level disagree about what the best prostitution policy would be. Furthermore, even among women who define themselves as feminists there exists disagreement. Since these groups are not in agreement, the question arises how the EP has been able to adopt a position that endorses so clearly one side of the debate. Especially interesting here is the fact that the EU has no official competences in relation to prostitution or sex work policy. Every member state decides by itself what legislation it feels is most appropriate. For these reasons, this study aims to explain the reasons for the success of abolitionist advocacy groups at the level of