Prostitution regulations will be a repeat of the “New AV Law”? …Discussions held behind closed doors without the parties concerned are a “road taken someday”…

Decisions can be made without the parties involved!

On February 10, the Ministry of Justice announced its intention to launch an expert panel by the end of March to discuss how sex trafficking should be regulated.

While the Anti-Prostitution Law has provisions to punish “sellers” for soliciting and waiting on customers, it has no provisions to punish “buyers. Therefore, only women who solicit are punished, while male customers who buy are not. Some have questioned the current law on the grounds that it is unfair in this respect.

The expert panel is expected to include criminal law scholars, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and others, and will discuss the ideal form of the Anti-Prostitution Law and the pros and cons of penalties for those who buy. The Ministry of Justice plans to revise the law in either the extraordinary Diet session in the fall or the ordinary Diet session next year.

When the author spoke to people involved in the sex industry about this, he heard them say , “It is unlikely that those who would oppose the decriminalization of prostitution (sex workers, sex industry operators, sex customers, etc.) will be invited to the discussion.

If this were to happen, it would mean that “the parties involved would be excluded” from policy making. Is it democratic decision-making to exclude women who work in the sex industry, store owners, etc. from the decision-making process regarding a major policy related to the sex industry, such as the introduction of penalties for prostitution?

Normally, sex trafficking is not supposed to take place in brothels. However, if the act of prostitution were to be punished, the number of customers of brothels would decrease, and the lives and safety of sex workers would likely be threatened. In order to realize effective measures to prevent sexual violence and sexual exploitation while protecting the stable lives of these women, it seems essential to reflect the voices of those who know the situation on the ground in policy.

Don’t decide about us without us. This was the slogan used by people with disabilities at the time of the enactment of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006. This should not be the case, as many sex workers are shouting these words. However, about four years ago, there was an example of this becoming a reality. The “New AV Law” was enacted only one month ago.

The “Failure” of the New AV Law

The “Law for the Prevention and Relief of Damage Caused by Performances in Audio-Visuals” (commonly known as the “New AV Law”) was enacted through legislation by lawmakers to prevent damage caused by adult video appearances and went into effect on June 23, 2010. The law was enacted without listening to the opinions of actresses and producers in response to the problem of forced appearances that had become an issue since around 2004 and the lowering of the age of majority to 18 in April ’22. The bill was passed in just one and a half months, an exceptionally fast turnaround time.

The bill’s provisions, which included a one-month filming ban after signing a contract, a four-month ban on publicity after the completion of all filming, and the possibility of unconditional contract termination for one year after publicity, did not match the actual conditions of production, resulting in a decline in the number of productions. As a result, some actresses have been forced to retire even though they entered the industry of their own volition.

It has also deprived new actresses of opportunities. Because of the high risk involved for the production side, only actresses who are popular and can expect to sell a large number of films are allowed to make their debut. In addition, films are not sold until about six months after the filming contract is signed. Since the makers decide on contracts based on sales, there is a delay in re-contracting, which creates a long gap before the next production. Of course, during that time, the actors cannot work.

In addition, if a cast member abandons a shoot due to illness or other reasons, it takes one month to re-sign a contract for a substitute actor, so there is no time to respond quickly. This means that the performers are forced to go through with the filming even if they are forced to. This is contrary to the purpose of the law, which is to protect performers.

As a result, performers are forced to enter the gray area of “doujin porn” produced by individuals or doujin circles that have not been certified by the former AV Human Rights and Ethics Organization (now the Association of Properly Conducted Video Businesses). It is said that companies that do not comply with regulations are attracting performers with enticements such as “pay-as-you-go” offers. It is also said that some actresses give up the porn industry and go abroad to work as prostitutes in dangerous foreign countries, because the more famous an actress is, the more demand there is for her and the higher her remuneration.

The new AV law has been called the “modern-day prohibition law” because of the rampant evasion of the law as a result of its strict restrictions on human desires. Manufacturers who must comply with the law are suffering from exhaustion and hardship due to the enormous increase in administrative and human resources required to comply with the law. There are also concerns that the industry may be tapering off.

Since the new AV law includes a clause in its supplementary provisions that states that the law must be reviewed within two years, industry representatives, greatly dissatisfied with the law, marched in front of the Diet in March 2012 to demand a revision. The Democratic Party of Japan and The Japan Innovation Party, taking the opinions of the industry seriously, jointly submitted a draft amendment to the House of Representatives in June 2012. However, more than three years have passed since the amendment went into effect, and still no amendment has been made.

Prostituted Women = “Victims of Society”?

Behind the calls for the enactment of a new porn law and the decriminalization of prostitution, there is a common goal of “helping victims. There is the view that “porn stars = “poor victims” forced to appear in adult videos” and “women in prostitution = “victims of society” forced to sell their sex. This is a prejudice.

This is prejudice. There are many women who have chosen to perform in adult films and illegal sex trafficking as their “work”. This is why there are so many women in the marches calling for the revision of the new porn law and against the laws against sex trafficking in France and South Korea.

Before enacting laws to fix and support these women as “objects of protection,” it is important to listen carefully to their various voices, identify the needs they have, and think together about what the government can do to help them.

To this end, it is necessary to bring the women concerned to the table not only as “victims” but also as “workers” in order to make policy proposals. It is only natural that the discussion on the pros and cons of decriminalizing prostitution should include not only those involved in the adult entertainment industry, but also those who are involved in sex trafficking of their own volition.

Behind the new AV law’s hasty enactment without the parties involved, there seems to be “ignorance and stigma (a negative brand) toward the industry” on the part of the legislators. It seems essential to change the biased perception that “porn = evil” and revise the law in an appropriate manner.

What the Public “Can Do

Regulations under the new AV law have had a certain degree of effect , such as “making it easier for those who have suffered from having appeared in porn to speak out” and “giving new actresses a chance to make careful judgments. However, more consideration should have been given in the legislative process to the disadvantages and harm suffered by the parties involved.

Regulations on sex trafficking should not be a repeat of the new pornography law.

At present, it seems that many people are watching the situation with a wait-and-see attitude. Many of them are against the decriminalization of prostitution, but do not want to be stigmatized as a “friend of prostitutes,” or are passive, thinking that “it can’t be helped” or “things will turn out the way they are supposed to turn out.

Looking at the examples of the new AV law and sex trafficking regulations overseas, they may have resigned themselves to the idea that “it will be decided in the end” and “it is futile to try” even if they try to prevent the enactment of the law through signature drives or demonstrative marches. Others may say, “I want to take action to show my opposition, but I don’t know how to do it.” On the other hand, brothels operating in the gray zone of the law are basically unable to defy the government, so they are expected to remain silent.

However, if they do not raise their “voice of opposition,” the decision may be made unilaterally and in a short period of time behind closed doors by some people who promote the decriminalization of prostitution, just as was the case with the new AV law. This is something we want to avoid at all costs.

If prostitution is decriminalized, women who “work” as sex traffickers will be shunned as “troublesome people” who “don’t want to be involved” and will find their working environment difficult. The law to protect women sex traffickers would, in turn, cause them to suffer.

In the February election for the House of Representatives, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi won a landslide victory, saying that she would “ask the people for their trust. However, as far as the author is aware, no candidate in this election loudly asked the public about the regulation of sex trafficking.

The author believes that the public as a whole should take sufficient time to discuss and deliberate on the pros and cons of decriminalizing prostitution, and then make a careful decision. If the Anti-Prostitution Law is to be revised, I hope that the government will take the attitude of “asking the public for their trust” in advance to determine whether the content of the revision is the best possible.

FRIDAY Digital welcomes information and tip-offs from everyone. Please send your information to the following information form or to the official X.

Information form: https://friday.kodansha.co.jp/tips
Official X: https://x.com/FRIDAY_twit