Is prostitution the world’s oldest profession or its oldest oppression? While it has too often been both, I’m proud to be from the country that was first to decriminalise it. New Zealand took this step in 2003 and with over ten years of decriminalisation behind us we provide an example the world can study and build upon.
The New Zealand Model
It will surprise no one to hear that the Prostitution Law Reform Act was hotly debated. The New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective, who I’m sure know more about the industry’s workings that I ever can, were one of its strongest champions. As the Bill went through the stages required to become law, a rousing speech from Georgina Beyer, the world’s first transsexual Member of Parliament and a former sex worker, was rumoured to swing several votes in favour of reform.
Of course, it is still illegal to coerce someone into providing sex for money. Those on temporary visas are not permitted to work in the sex industry and it is illegal to immigrate for the purpose of engaging in sex work. The Prostitutes’ Collective have actually criticised this aspect of the law as they say migrants simply attempt to work outside the law, placing themselves at greater risk.
Work and Income New Zealand, which provides jobseekers’ benefits, is unable to advertise sex work positions or suggest clients take up sex work.While the reform act takes a neutral view of prostitution, it also supports the promotion of exiting the industry for those who wish to do so. Prior to decriminalisation Police held records of those in the industry which would be found when a sex worker applied for another job requiring Police screening. This information has largely been destroyed, and represents one of several steps towards making the transition to other forms of employment easier.
Legalisation has meant the industry must operate under set health and safety rules including a requirement to practice safe sex and the ability for employment and contract disputes to be referred for mediation. While many problems of the past persist, decriminalisation has brought positive changes. Now, rather than wasting time persecuting sex workers, Police are able to focus on protecting them. Issues of violence are much easier to address as sex workers are able to make complaints, and have the Police take action without worrying about losing their income. In 2009, a Police officer was jailed for blackmailing a sex worker into providing free sex. Brothel operators have also been ordered to compensate workers’ for sexually harassing them or breaching their employment conditions.
In a 2008 media statement reflecting on a further report conducted by an independent review committee Tim Barnett, a Member of Parliament who sponsored the reform bill made the following remarks:
"The law went through rigorous Parliamentary and public scrutiny, and fundamentally rebuilt the whole legal environment around prostitution. It increased penalties for genuinely harmful activity and protected sex workers from criminalisation, which trapped people in sex work rather than deterring them… I have been happy to step back and see the operation of the law on the ground examined by researchers and other experts. They have produced an outstanding report which will be gold-dust for the very many countries searching for sensible researched and proven law in this area. This we now have."
The report found that 90% of sex workers felt they had legal rights under the Reform Act, and 60% felt they were more able to refuse to provide services to a particular client since the Reform Act came into force. The Committee found that street-based workers made up 11% of the industry and suggested that local councils and territorial authorities take measures to address this in their communities, such as by providing well lit areas and introducing by-laws to control the areas where street prostitution is allowed. 3.9% of sex workers involved across all sectors of the industry reported that they had been coerced into working, with less than 1% of those not involved in street-based sex work saying they had been coerced. The Committee found that 1.3% of workers were underage, and there was no evidence that underage participation in prostitution had increased since the Reform Act was instituted.
While it was found that many who want to leave the industry find it difficult it was also recognised that many do not want to leave the industry, and find it offensive to be presumed to require help to leave a job in which they are satisfied. A quarter of those surveyed said they did not want to do any other work and over a third said they remained in sex work as they enjoyed the sex. Along with loss of income, not wanting to lose their flexible working hours was cited as a common reason for not exiting sex work. One sex worker surveyed commented:
"I don’t have a problem. I can come and go as I please. I’ve got qualifications, BSc, MA. I’ve developed good skills from being a sex worker too - empathy, good phone manners. I think anyone can get out if they want to. But I’d rather do two clients a day, earn $200 and be able to watch TV for the rest of the day."
A great benefit of legalisation has been the ability to carry out studies like this where the Committee provided a list of several recommendations intended to improve the safety and employment conditions of New Zealand’s sex workers to the Government for consideration.The evidence shows that legalising prostitution has not had a negative effect and that the industry has begun moving in a more positive direction. It seems clear that the easiest system from which to identify and address issues of safety is the legal one. We can refine the law, we can work to make sure better policies to address crime are introduced and well implemented. The remaining arguments against decriminalisation seem, rather than being based on evidence, to be founded on a view of sex work as something no woman would ever choose and sex itself as something to be kept hidden and sacred. Such views should be a personal matter determining one’s own conduct and not something to be imposed upon others.
The Swedish Model
At the time of New Zealand’s law reform and since, there have been a few calling to move to the Swedish Model, where the purchase of sexual services is illegal. Proponents view this model as a way to protect workers while minimising harm caused by the sex trade and conveying that sex work is not an acceptable job choice. The situation differs from country to country, with other countries that have legalised prostitution having less success than we have had in New Zealand. Most European countries seem to have a bigger issue with sex trafficking than we do, so each country needs to tailor its approach. In France, where this model of client criminalisation was recently introduced, reports indicate the majority of sex workers have been coerced in some way. Many tragically lead a life amounting to that of a sex slave. Nonetheless, there are always still those who choose this form of work and it is my position that they should have that right. A woman in the New Zealand study completed in 2008 said:
"It’s a right to be able to be a sex worker. We don’t need rescuing. For some it is just three to five years for an average career - a means to a goal. Get the money for the degree and then move on."
People who express such sentiments likely represent a privileged facet of the industry but are still consenting adults who deserve to have their choices respected. Or should they not have agency? Should we be telling them they are too oppressed or exploited to determine what is right for their individual circumstances? With thoughtful and creative policy makers it should be possible to address issues of sexual exploitation and violence without penalising business owners, sex workers and clients who operate within the law. I cannot buy arguments that all sex work is inherently oppressive or violent towards women. The Swedish model, while often lauded as a feminist system, cannot truly be considered one as it strips women of their autonomy and stigmatises all clients as merely creeps who would put them at risk.
If successful, a law criminalising clients would bring about the end of the sex industry. To many people this may seem a good thing. However, it should not be up to us to tell others what they cannot do because it offends our moral sensibilities. Why should people not have the ability to sell and purchase sexual services (a very different thing from purchasing a person) within as safe an environment as possible?
In reality, client criminalisation does not bring an end to the sex trade but keeps it underground. It really is not too different from total criminalisation as it still involves authorities persecuting those involved, and spending their time making arrests and handing out fines rather than focusing on punishing those responsible for causing genuine harm. If the clients have to hide, the sex workers must also hide in order to do business with them. In 2014, 560 organisations and 94 researchers asked the European Parliament to reject a report promoting the criminalisation of clients. The coordinator of the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers remarked:
"The Swedish Model of criminalisation of clients is not only ineffective in reducing prostitution and trafficking, it is also dangerous for sex workers. it increases stigma which is the root cause of violence against us. It is a failed policy denounced by all sex workers’ organisations and many women’s, LGBT and migrants’ organisations, as well as many UN bodies."
Since the law was enacted, a reduction in the number of those trading in sex or involved in sex trafficking in Sweden has not been proven. The Government can show a reduction in street-based prostitution but has little visibility over what goes on indoors. The National Police Board has found it difficult to estimate how many people are victims of human trafficking. Meanwhile, Swedish sex workers live under threat of eviction as landlords can be charged for collecting money earned from sex work. The Rose Alliance conducted a 2014 study in which they interviewed 124 sex workers. 36 of those reported being attacked by a client yet only nine felt comfortable reporting the incident to the police. Of those nine, just two felt they would report a future attack. It’s easy to see why Swedish sex workers are often the model’s biggest critics. One thing that does seem to have increased is the stigma against sex workers and their clients. Unsurprisingly, this hasn’t been shown to reduce the demand for sex. Indeed, when has stigmatising a sexual practice ever reduced the demand for it?
When we examine the lack of good evidence, it becomes apparent that while laws criminalising the purchase of sexual services no doubt sound good to many in theory, in practice the Swedish model has been a failed experiment. Abusive practices and sex trafficking are abhorrent realities that must be combatted. This takes time and money. Why waste either chasing consenting adults and often inadvertently putting sex workers at greater risk? Decriminalisation provides the best framework from which to work towards greater safety for sex workers, without penalising those who choose this line of work or their lawful clients.
Follow Emma Gorowski on Twitter and YouTube
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author's alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ora Media, LLC, its affiliates, or its employees.
Continue the Discussion
![Rene Gonzalez on Art and Secularism in Latin America [Full Interview]](http://vidthm.ora.tv/assets/prod/resize/fixed/220/125/5677563-Thumbnail%20Rene-0.jpg)
