Jeremy Corbyn now supports the Nordic model

If you want a holistic approach you would have to do much more than simply implement a legal approach. No matter which someone thinks is the best, or ‘least worst’, approach re law that is true surely?

Whatever legal approach taken cannot do away with the stigma though can it? The stigma comes from cultural misogyny.

All it can do is help reduce it. Criminal law cannot possibly undo the harm done to all women and the most vulnerable women either. As you said it needs more attention than simply a criminal law policy.

If the measure of reduction in stigma is increased reporting (which I doubt, it’s more complicated and not necessarily related to stigma) and you have increased reporting in the Nordic model and decriminalisation what’s the logic in decriminalising?

Especially in the light of evidence from around the world where decriminalisation has happened and it has opened up sex work as a means of laundering money and legitimising trafficking.

This affects all women, not just ones who are currently selling sex.

All laws should be made in consultation with the electorate though.

Best news I've heard all year. Maybe longer.

Until Corbyn comes out in favour of women = adult human female and says what he’s going to do to increase sex based protections and safeguarding of children I’m staying firmly in the ‘Corbyn can go fuck himself’ camp.

I do support the Nordic model.

Ah, well IMO it's not possible to stigmatise the purchaser without continuing to stigmatise the seller. I'm also deeply pessimistic that the existence of laws against buying sex will actually protect vulnerable women who are stigmatised by prostitution.

It is not possible to have decriminalisation and address the objectification of women as sexual objects IMO.

I agree that poverty, low wages and inequality need to be addressed (the reasons women choose sex work and find it hard to leave when they want) alongside addressing criminality. The point of the Nordic model is to a. Work to reduce demand and b. Shift the stigma the purchaser.

If somewhere has the Nordic model but no purchasers are actually prosecuted then what they actually have is decriminalisation in effect isn’t it?

Thanks for all the links and explanations.

I read the Home Office Committee report on prostitution that Brazenhussy linked. I think it does a good job of outlining the complexities of the various positions. It's rather long, but worth the read.

However, I still think none of the models offer a 'solution' to the 'problem'. Like many feminists, I think that prostitution is a form of violence against women. I don't think it's a free choice, and I don't think that consensual sex between adults should always be free from state interference. So I'm in the same camp as most abolitionists.

Nevertheless, I think the solution is to tackle poverty and sex inequality. I'm very pessimistic about the prospect that any model of prostitution policy will have the benefits that are claimed for it.

I think decriminalisation is the 'least worst' approach. But it would need to be accompanied by broader social change that alleviates women's poverty and addresses the ubiquitous sexualisation of women by men.

Absolutely consult... most consultations are not considered reliable if they are conducted by interested lobby groups though.

Also consultation doesnt mean following exactly what an interested group want to happen.

It also requires careful analysis of the construction of the consultation.

And yes, agree re the hyperbole accusation.

The claim that increased reporting in both Nordic model and full decriminalisation = two different things by the same organisation shows this is ideological.

Increased reporting means increased reporting and needs further investigation. Reporting of violence and assault on sex workers only is only a very small piece of the picture anyway.

But surely you should at least consult the people those laws are going to affect? Especially if it puts them in significant danger?

What about the communities living in a ‘decriminalised’ zone? Do they get a say?

But surely you should at least consult the people those laws are going to affect
They have been
Especially if it puts them in significant danger
This is hyperbole.

The vast majority of sex workers who respond to surveys of sex workers may support full decriminalisation, it’s not really that relevant because we’re not making laws for sex workers here, we’re making criminal laws for all of society.

But surely you should at least consult the people those laws are going to affect? Especially if it puts them in significant danger?

Isn't that the argument for consulting women before any changes to the law regarding self-ID? That women should be listened to because it negatively impacts them?
That we don't throw the rights and safety of one group under the bus to give another group what they want?

As I said before, the hypocrisy here would be funny if the issues weren't so serious.

Even when there's a willing seller and a willing buyer, perhaps not everything should be for sale.

Exploitation and human dignity have to come into it somewhere. Some people draw the line at zero hours contracts as being too exploitative . Some people draw the line at selling organs. It's okay to draw the line at selling some types of sexual services.

That doesn't get us any closer to a system that's safe for women and girls.

The majority of us who work indoors and are happy with what we do are very rarely taken into account because we don't come into contact with charities running exit programmes
Well the term "bully for you" comes to mind. You probably have no real reason to access exit programmes. Probably had no real reason to get help.
The Nordic model will not prevent people like you from making an income. Your clients are not all going to get arrested at your door. You need to report them to arrest them.
This helps you.

Thank for the links @Brazenhussy0

I know the Home Affairs Committee report Keith Vaz was chairing the Committee when it published that report. He later resigned for engaging the services of a prostitute. Sadly, his actions tainted the report. I don't think we can see it as a reliable source.

It sounds like the government promised to publish figures in June 2017 but the election got in the way and there's been nothing since.

Looking at the different evidence, it seems that there's no model that will protect the women from harm.

The ECP campaign mirrors that of MSP Jean Urquhart who, backed by sex worker organisations and health charities, is calling for sex work to be decriminalised in Scotland

Thankfully Jean Urquhart's half - baked proposals don't seem to have got any traction.

I will stick my head over the parapet here and offer a minority opinion - not because of anything that Brazenhussy0 has to say - but out of my own principles.

What I would like to see is the end to forced prostitution and the trafficking of women and children. Those who perpetrate those activities should be punished severely.

However, I do not believe that prostitution should be stigmatised or made illegal. I do believe, however, that it should be checked and licensed by the state with strict regulations regarding who, how and where.

The difference between "decriminalisation" and "legalised" is like splitting already split hairs.

Some clarification: under legalisation, sexwork is controlled by the government and is legal only under certain state-specified conditions^- so brothels and pimping (with pimps re- branded as "agent" or "security") are legal and being a prostitute is just another job.

Decriminalisation involves the removal of all prostitution-specific laws, although sex workers and sex work businesses must still operate within the laws of the land, as must any businesses^- so brothels and pimping (with pimps re-branded as "agent" or "security")are legal and being a prostitute is just another job.

Simply for prostitution-specific criminal law to be dropped and sex work treated as any other business so brothels and
pimping are legal and being a prostitute is "treated as any other business".

Just as sex workers would be protected by labour, health and safety, human trafficking and other relevant law, so they would have to abide by it - so effectively normalising one of the most abhorrent commercial transaction it is possible to devise.

Imagine being told your benefit will be cut if you don't want to fill the vacancy in your local brothel. The pro prostitution brigade regularly tell us how being a prostitute is better than working in McDonald's. Very few people would support a young fit and healthy benefit claimant thinking they were too grand to work in McDonald's so if being a prostitute is a legitimate job like any other why would anyone be allowed to refuse it and retain their benefits?
(For the avoidance of any doubt no slight is intended to either McDonald's or their employees- they are being used for purpose of example only)

NUMs who cite on the one hand that increased reporting in places where there is decriminalisation is unequivocal evidence that full decriminalisation protects sex workers by reducing stigma and therefore encouraging reporting but also claims increased reporting re the Nordic model is unequivocal evidence that that the Nordic model increases violence and stigma?

Yes, exactly. See also, prostitution is a perfectly reasonable lifestyle choice that any woman might make and a totally acceptable job because it's so empowering but also that women are in mortal danger if the clients are criminalised.

Thing is it’s not only sex workers that matter, it’s all women. The vast majority of sex workers who respond to surveys of sex workers may support full decriminalisation, it’s not really that relevant because we’re not making laws for sex workers here, we’re making criminal laws for all of society.

Well said.

But equally a central tenet of feminism is that women should not be objectified nor treated as sexual objects for the male gaze. How does this reconcile with the ability to order up a woman in the same way you would a pizza?

I’m glad for those people who are happy with sex work. However, the thing about ‘what would you do if your occupation became illegal?’ - take up a different occupation TBH. The fact that this is hard for many sex workers is one of the reasons why this choosey choice narrative is quite simply a lie...

Not too many facts there TBH... quite a lot of ideology from people with various interests in full decriminalisation...

Exactly, NUMs who are part of an international organisation whose primary aim is to lobby for full decriminalisation. NUMs who have managed to become the providers of all sex worker testimony, who sex workers have been made dependent on for reporting bad punters to each other. NUMs who cite on the one hand that increased reporting in places where there is decriminalisation is unequivocal evidence that full decriminalisation protects sex workers by reducing stigma and therefore encouraging reporting but also claims increased reporting re the Nordic model is unequivocal evidence that that the Nordic model increases violence and stigma?