@CardsforKittens
Thank you for taking the time to engage and (if you have time) read the report upthread. Really, all sex workers want is to be heard and to have a say in our own safety and livelihoods, so it’s appreciated when some people do take the time to do the reading and keep an open mind.
As for murder rates, it’s a difficult issue. There haven’t been any in depth studies done on the effects of the Nordic model on sex worker murder rates so there’s been a bit of statistical cherry picking on both sides of the debate.
Looking at murder rates is complex and problematic, the reasons for that being outlined in this review by Professor Sanders et.al. at the University of Leicester:
www2.le.ac.uk/departments/criminology/people/teela-sanders/BriefingPaperTheUseofSexWorkerHomicideStatsinCampaigning.pdf
In general, statistics around sex work are problematic and notoriously difficult to pin down because of the covert nature of the work we do. Most often, statistics only relate to street workers (who are a tiny minority of sex workers) and ignore the very large majority of indoor workers.
This is especially difficult when it comes to Swedish statistics. The Swedish have a desire to ensure the Nordic model appears a success on the global stage so their statistics are often insufficient at best or intentionally misleading at worst (and making sense of them tends to require an ability to understand Swedish!)
Here’s an example of that happening with trafficking statistics:
feministire.com/2011/10/04/swedish-police-stats-show-more-not-less-prostitution-and-trafficking/amp/
The Home Affairs Committee acknowledged the difficulties with statistics in their 2017 report. The conclusion was basically that there is not enough reliable information to base changing our laws on and we should wait to see how things pan out in Ireland with the Nordic Model.
(If you’re going to pick just one of my links to read, this should be the one.):
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/26/26.pdf
It's 2018 now, and things are not looking very good for Irish sex workers. Violence towards sex workers has increased by anywhere from 40-60% (depending on which set of statistics you look at.):
www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/03/does-nordic-model-work-what-happened-when-ireland-criminalised-buying-sex?amp
The reason for this is thought to be because the Nordic model works to increase stigma towards sex workers. With more stigma we become ‘othered’, seen as lower beings who are disposable, and who do not have the agency or rights of other women. This narrative creates a situation where we’re viewed as fair game for robberies, assault, rape, etc.
This is a fantastic article by Dr. Kate Lister (March 2018), where she discusses this in some depth:
inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/women/as-a-sex-historian-this-is-what-i-want-you-to-know-about-the-buying-and-selling-of-sex/
I’ll include an extract, for those who are unwilling to read my many, many links! I do thank you, if you’ve taken the time to read this whole post.
-----------------------
Walker celebrates the first anniversary of Ireland’s Sex Buyer’s Laws, the act that criminalises the purchase of sexual services, but not the selling. But when you actually ask sex workers and sex worker rights groups how they feel about the Nordic model, it’s hard to understand what Walker thinks is worth celebrating. In the year since Ireland brought in the Nordic model there has been a 54% increase in crime against sex workers reported to National Ugly Mugs Ireland, and violent crime is up by 77%. The Sex Workers Alliance Ireland (SWAI) strongly opposed the introduction of this law and rightly warned that it would lead to increased violence against sex workers. Walker claims she finds it ‘extraordinary that the purchase of a woman’s body for sex is legal in the UK’. I find it extraordinary that anyone would think a system resulting in a 77% increase in violent crime against the very people it claims to protect, is worthy of celebration.
The Nordic model does not work because by criminalising the client, you in turn criminalise the sex worker. How would you fair if the source of your income was suddenly criminalised? Research from the countries that have adopted the Nordic model shows again and again that ‘end demand’ legislation only place sex workers at significantly greater risk of harm. Criminalising clients may reduce demand from those not wishing to commit a crime, but it does not deter those who wish to hurt sex workers. Once demand has been reduced, competition for less desirable clients increases among sex workers, leading to an increase in risky, dangerous behaviour, such as unprotected sex, working in isolation or in deserted areas. As clients become less willing to directly approach sex workers, Sweden and Norway saw the use of third party negotiators (pimps and madams) increase dramatically.
As Walker’s article makes abundantly clear, the Nordic Model is simply a staging post on the road to abolition. It is part of a wider narrative that refuses to see the sex worker as anything other than a victim to be rescued. Despite excellent work done by sex worker rights groups this ‘sex-work saviour complex’ continues to dominate and shape modern narratives surrounding sex workers. By constructing the sex worker as a victim, she is subtly disempowered, stripped of her own agency, and tacitly presented as inferior. Whilst allowing the saviour space to validate their own moral agenda, it reinforces social hierarchy, and stigmatises the ‘rescued’.
Stigma kills
One of the mantras of the sex worker rights movement is ‘Stigma Kills, and the Nordic model directly re-stigmatises sex workers by moralising that selling and buying sexual services is wrong. In Sweden, this stigma is actually viewed as a welcome effect of the Nordic model as it may help put off potential clients, despite the fact that stigma places sex workers at significantly greater risks of violence (as seen in Ireland over the last year). In 2000, John Lowman identified a ‘discourse of disposability’ in media reports on sex workers, by analysing media descriptions of efforts to abolish sex work by politicians, police and local residents. Lowman linked this with a sharp increase in the murders of street sex workers in British Columbia after 1980. He argues that, ‘It appears that the discourse on prostitution of the early 1980s was dominated by demands to get rid of prostitutes from the streets, creating a social milieu in which violence against prostitutes could flourish. This is how stigma works. Once the sex worker is stigmatised as disposable, a message formed, shaped and deployed in debates around abolition, this discourse then influences how sex workers are treated. And they are not treated well under the Nordic model.
Why aren’t we listening to sex workers?
Why aren’t we listening to the sex workers themselves? Every sex worker rights organisation fights the Nordic model and seeks full discrimination, because it keeps people safe. In a survey of over 200 sex workers, researchers from the University of Northumbria found that 96.2% of respondents did not think people should be criminalised for purchasing sex.
The Nordic model and its supporters tacitly presents sex workers as degenerate, disposable victims in need of rescue. The evidence proves that criminalising clients causes significant harm to those in the sex industry. A central tenet of feminism is bodily autonomy, sexual agency, the right to say yes and the right to say no, and to have that respected. How can you seriously call yourself a feminist if you insist on denying those same rights to your sister sex workers?