by Sophie Reeve-Foster
Sex workers are some of the most vulnerable members of society and the way different governments handle sex work is a cause for much debate and criticism.
In England, Scotland and Wales at the moment selling and buying sex is legal, but under certain conditions. Sex work outdoors such as curb crawling and soliciting sex work is a crime and working in the same indoor space as others comes under a criminal offence of brothel keeping. So, legal environments are generally limited to isolated indoor spaces. It is also illegal to cause, incite or control sex work for personal gain, to avoid pimping. “Gain” can include managing and renting. There is a huge variety of people involved in sex work, from different socioeconomic areas, which is where much of the confusion lies. The sex positivity movement carried a judgement-free attitude towards selling sex among other things, emphasising how it can feel empowering. However, there is a danger of dismissing the vast majority of sex workers with this attitude, who are not in such a financially comfortable position. This article concerns this majority, who are 80% women, lack such a clear definition of choice and are often acting because they feel it’s their only option. Of this group, single mothers constitute the largest proportion, and many women who pursue it have been homeless during the job.
Sex
work is often mixed up with sex trafficking, but there is a huge and important
distinction. There is an image of sex trafficking in most people’s minds which
entails being kidnapped from a third world country and shipped overseas, and of
course this needs to be dealt with, but the vast majority of sex trafficking is
very different. When fleeing a country, many individuals aren’t in a stable
position to pay money to those who smuggle them across and are given a sex
contract instead. However, once they have crossed the border, the terms often
change and become much more threatening with poor working conditions and longer
hours. If the victims of this trafficking were to go to the police, they would
be deported, so to stay in a safer country many withstand the treatment. Human
trafficking is utterly indefensible, and it is different to sex work.
Criminalising Sex Work
Under
laws that criminalise sex work, it’s a crime to buy or sell sex in any
scenario. This law tries to avoid legitimising exploitation and moral ambiguity
associated with sex work. People who support it often talk about how many women
come from disadvantaged backgrounds such as care, or deal with drug and alcohol
abuse. They also talk about the ambiguity of “consent” when workers are
financially dependent on clients, and the inherent power a client has over a
worker, which can easily be abused. Drug and alcohol dependant sex workers
maybe be coping with trauma which occurred prior to or during the sex work, and
many argue that those dealing with substance abuse and mental illnesses are not
in a position to provide informed consent. The job carries a high risk of
sexual assault, verbal abuse and social contempt. However, many don’t take into
account that the abuse and assault is illegal already, and criminalising sex
work only makes it harder for the perpetrators to be found, because sex workers
also feel unable to approach the police. They become an easy target for abuse
and, as history has repeatedly told us, murder. They can also face
discrimination by health workers. Managers exploiting workers for a large
proportion of their earnings is a huge problem, but when workers are made more
vulnerable by the law, they are more reliant on the protection that having a
manager can provide.
Additionally,
making sex work a crime means police officers are given the power to judge each
woman. In the 1970s black women were seven times more likely to be arrested for
prostitution related reasons than white women. This statistic alone
demonstrates the discrimination that has come with giving police power in the
past.
The Nordic Model
Originally
introduced in Sweden, the Nordic model uses partial decriminalisation. Under
this law, it is not a crime to sell sex, but it is a crime to buy it. The model
aims to reduce sex work by reducing its demand.
This
model seems, in theory, and perhaps symbolically, fitting. To blame the men who
sexualise women and ultimately benefit from it, rather than the women who feel
they have to sell. But if it’s closely examined, the practicalities are far
more damaging. By scaring off clients, the pool of clients for a sex worker
becomes significantly smaller. This limits their choice of clients and
increases competition between workers. Where before they had more options, now
they are forced to be more lenient with the clients they take on if they want
an income. The standards have to be lowered. Under more financial pressure,
they are left having to accept clients they’re more uncomfortable with, who may
be more threatening, abusive and violent. Furthermore, by nature, if buying sex
is made a crime, those who continue to pursue it will care less about the law,
be more risk taking, and possibly have less to lose. So, not are there limited
options, but the clients themselves are more likely dangerous. Buyers may ask
workers to meet them in more dangerous locations to avoid being caught, and to
refuse would be to decline much needed money.
There
is no sufficient evidence to suggest that on a scale, this Nordic model works.
In fact, when it was introduced in France and Ireland, instances of violence
towards sex workers heavily increased. The law fails to tackle stigma as the
work is associated with crime, and it is also harder to predict sex workers
health.
Legalisation
Legalisation
and decriminalisation are different: Legalisation involves regulation where
decriminalisation removes all laws and regulation. Regulation can include
zoning requirements, mandatory STD tests and protecting minors who could become
involved. While legalization has potential to work, the human rights of sex
workers can be challenged by introducing certain policies. The government would
need to ensure their policies were not invasive, and these policies often
exclude a significant proportion of marginalised sex workers who may still be
left operating outside of the law, such as drug dependant sex workers. In
Tunisia, when sex work was legalised, those working in brothels had to obtain
authority from the police before leaving their jobs, to demonstrate they could
earn a living through “honest” means. This impeded on their rights and allowed
for blackmail by police.
Decriminalisation
Since
decriminalising sex work in 2003, New Zealand found no increase in the
number of sex workers. They found, instead, that sex workers were more able to
report violence and abuse to the police. They introduced a model that revolves
around consent and emphasises the free choice of workers. Decriminalisation
does not mean removing the laws around human trafficking, sexual abuse and
violence. There is no evidence to suggest that decriminalisation encourages
human trafficking, and the movement is supported by many organisations such as
Amnesty, Freedom Network USA, the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women and
La Strada International.
Criminalisation
does not mean an activity disappears; it makes those who partake in it more
vulnerable. If we want to eradicate sex work among those who feel they have to
other option, we have to eradicate the circumstances under which they start the
job: poverty. In the meantime, we must support them as much as possible.
Sources:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/prostitution-and-exploitation-prostitution
https://www.amnesty.org/en/qa-policy-to-protect-the-human-rights-of-sex-workers/
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments with names are more likely to be published.