The “No Nordic Model” briefing brings together statistical evidence and narrative to show how criminalising clients undermines sex workers’ safety. It also answers the ideological argument put forward by proponents of the Nordic Model that prostitution is inherently and distinctly more harmful than other work and therefore must be banned, and provides evidence of the success of decriminalisation as introduced in 2003 in New Zealand. Prostitution has always been connected to women’s poverty, which is why most sex workers (88%) are women and most clients are men. This briefing argues that to support women and reduce levels of prostitution, politicians should reverse austerity cuts and ensure that women, particularly mothers, have viable economic alternatives.
Who sex workers are
Prostitution has always been connected to women’s poverty – that’s why most clients are men and most sex workers are women. Politicians who want to support women and reduce levels of prostitution should address government policies which promote prostitution. 89% of austerity cuts have fallen on women.[iii] As poverty rises, more women, particularly single mothers, turn to sex work to survive and feed their families. In some cities massive rises in prostitution are being directly attributed to benefit sanctions.[iv] Measures that would help women exit prostitution include: repealing universal credit, benefit sanctions, the benefit cap and bedroom tax, and reinstate Income Support for single mothers.
Criminalisation, of sex workers or clients, undermines safety
Sweden – Criminalised the buying of sex (Sexköpslagen law) in 1999. This law known as the “Nordic Model” is touted as feminist because it criminalises men (i.e. the clients) rather than women (i.e. the victims). But its effect on women has been disastrous. Since 1999 sex workers face increased stigma, are more at risk of violence, and are less able to call on the protection of the police and the authorities[v] as this can lead to police harassment, the loss of custody over children, or deportation.[vi]
In a 2014 survey, 63% of sex workers said the sex purchase law had created more prejudice from the authorities; over a quarter (29%) had reported violent attacks from clients but only two said they would report an attack in the future.[vii]
Comprehensive field work and research over three years,[viii] reported that there is “no convincing empirical evidence that the law has resulted in a decline in sex work in Sweden” — which was the law’s principal ambition. It also countered the claim that sex workers have been decriminalised: sex workers can be prosecuted under procuring laws when they band together for safety. Migrant sex workers have been deported for ‘not supporting themselves in an honest matter’[ix], even though their work is not illegal. Landlords have been pressured by police to evict sex worker tenants under threat of being prosecuted themselves.[x]
Harm reduction work like giving out rape alarms and condoms is opposed by the authorities on the grounds that it encourages prostitution and is futile because sex work is considered to be immutably dangerous.[xi]
Norway – Criminalised clients in 2009. Amnesty International’s 2016 research[xii] found that sex workers are still criminalised, including for working together for safety. Forced evictions, investigations, surveillance, prosecutions and increased stigma are prevalent with migrant workers particularly targeted: “police are using sex workers’ reports of violence and crimes against them as evidence to facilitate their eviction and/or deportation”; “sex workers were routinely evicted from their homes under so-called ‘pimping laws”.
France – Criminalised clients in 2016. Medecins du Monde’s 2018 report[xiii] found that since the law was introduced: 63% of sex workers have experienced deterioration of their living conditions, more isolation and greater stress; 42% are more exposed to violence (sexual violence, theft, and armed robbery); 38% have found it increasingly hard to demand use of condoms.
Ireland – Criminalised clients (Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill) in 2017. Attacks on sex workers have increased dramatically. Reported incidences of violent crime against sex workers, from threats to assaults with weapons, have risen by almost 50% — from 900 in 2016 to more than 1,300 since.[xiv] Sex workers are now less likely to report dangerous clients to Gardaí.[xv]
Criminalising clients does not reduce trafficking – Claims that violence, particularly trafficking, can be reduced by criminalising clients were disproven by a 2014 Vancouver study which found that “criminalisation and policing strategies that target clients…profoundly impacted the safety strategies sex workers employed.”[xvi]
Sex workers continued to mistrust police, had to rush screening clients and were displaced to outlying areas with increased risks of violence, including being forced to engage in unprotected sex.
The most reliable recent research found: less than 6% of migrant sex workers in the UK have been trafficked; many said they prefer working in the sex industry than the “unrewarding and sometimes exploitative conditions they meet in non-sexual jobs”.[xvii]
The Home Affairs Committee (HAC) recommended decriminalisation
In July 2016 HAC recommended[xx] that: “… the Home Office change existing legislation so that soliciting is no longer an offence and so that brothel-keeping provisions allow sex workers to share premises.” It called for “previous convictions and cautions for prostitution [to be deleted] from the record of sex workers”.
Government research commissioned as a result of the HAC report found that financial need and criminalisation create the “perfect cocktail of conditions” for undermining sex workers’ safety.
New Zealand – Decriminalisation promotes rights and safety
The New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective spearheaded the coalition which won the decriminalisation of prostitution in 2003 (although migrants were excluded from protections). The Prostitution Reform Act distinguished between violence and consenting sex; removing prostitution from the criminal law and allowing people to work together collectively. It reinforced offences against compelling anyone into prostitution, stating a specific right for sex workers to refuse any client. A comprehensive five-year government review[xxi] found: no increase in prostitution; no increase in trafficking; drug users treated as patients not criminals; sex workers more able to report violence and leave prostitution if they choose.
Since decriminalisation, over 90% of sex workers said they had additional employment, legal, health and safety rights. In the 12 months prior to decriminalisation 47% of brothel workers had refused to see a client; after decriminalisation 68% had refused. 70% said they were more likely to report incidents of violence to the police.[xxii]
New Zealand did not decriminalise exploitation, rape, extortion, threats, trafficking and other violence. Pimping, commonly understood as taking money from sex workers with threats and violence, is still a crime.
Do we not count?
The Nordic Model has a detrimental impact on women working in the sex industry – how can it be considered feminist? Sex worker organisations the world over are campaigning for decriminalisation – why are we being ignored or dismissed? Do we not count as women and as workers?
DOWNLOAD: No Nordic Model
[i] Brooks-Gordon, B., Mai, N., Perry, G., Sanders, T. (2015). Calculating the Number of Sex Workers and Contribution to Non-Observed Economy in the UK for the Office for National Statistics.
[ii] Home Office. (2004). Paying the Price: A Consultation Paper on Prostitution
[iii] The Guardian, 9 March 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/09/women-bearing-86-of-austerity-burden-labour-research-reveals
[iv] Doncaster reports a 60% increase with charities saying: “Women are being forced to sell sex for £5 because of benefit sanctions” (The Star, 19 March 2014), Sheffield reports a 166% increase (The Star, 1 June 2014) while charity workers in Hull report: “ . . . women who are literally starving and they are out there to feed themselves.”
[v] Levy, J. and Jakobsson, P. (2014). Sweden’s abolitionist discourse and law: Effects on the dynamics of Swedish sex work on the lives of Sweden’s sex workers, Criminology and Criminal Justice. http://lastradainternational.org/lsidocs/3049-Levy%20Sweden.pdf
[vi] English Collective of Prostitutes. (2016). Decriminalisation of Prostitution: the Evidence. https://prostitutescollective.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Online-Symposium-Report.pdf
[vii] Jakobsson, P. & Edlund, C. (2014). Another Horizon; Sex Work and HIV Prevention in Sweden. http://www.hiv-sverige.se/wp-content/uploads/En-annan-horisont-webb.pdf
[viii] Levy, J. (2015). Criminalising the Purchase of Sex: Lessons from Sweden.
[ix] Fuckförbundet, (2019). Twenty Years of Failing Sex Workers – A community report on the impact of the 1999 Swedish Sex Purchase Act. https://www.sexworkeurope.org/sites/default/files/userfiles/files/FF19%20-%20INTERACTIVE%20%281%29.pdf
[xi] Levy, J. (2015). Criminalising the Purchase of Sex: Lessons from Sweden.
[xii] Amnesty International. (2016). The Human Cost of ‘Crushing’ the Market: Criminalization of Sex Work in Norway. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur36/4034/2016/en/
[xiii] Medecins du Monde. (2018). What do sex workers think about the French Prostitution Act? http://www.sexworkeurope.org/sites/default/files/userfiles/files/EN_synthesis_SW_final_2.pdf
[xv] The Irish Times, 4 September 2017. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/dramatic-rise-in-attacks-on-sex-workers-since-law-change-1.3208370
[xvi] Krüsi A, Pacey K, Bird L, et al. (2015). Criminalisation of clients: reproducing vulnerabilities for violence and poor health among street-based sex workers in Canada—a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2014. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/6/e005191
[xvii] Mai, N. (2011). Migrant Workers in the UK Sex Industry: ESRC Full Research Report. https://archive.londonmet.ac.uk/iset/research-units/iset/projects/esrc-migrant-workers.html?8810F8AC-060C-A7FC-7F15-A583EB86BCE8#report
[xviii] A systematic review of all sex work research conducted in 33 countries from 1990 to 2018, found that criminalisation of sex work is linked to ‘extensive harms’ among sex workers. Sex workers are three times more likely to experience sexual or physical violence where the trade is criminalised. Platt L, Grenfell P, Meiksin R, Elmes J, Sherman SG, Sanders T, Mwangi P, Crago AL. (2018). Associations between sex work laws and sex workers’ health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies. https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2018/criminalisation-and-repressive-policing-sex-work-linked-increased-risk
[xix] A 2014 survey found that w only 5% of sex workers who were victims of a crime reported it. This compared to 46% of victims in areas where police adopted a harm reduction approach. Data provided by National Ugly Mugs (UKNSWP). (2012-2015).
[xx] Third Report from The Home Affairs Select Committee Session. -17 HC 26: Prostitution. (2016). House of Commons. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/26/2602.htm
[xxi] Ministry of Justice. (2008). Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003. https://prostitutescollective.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/report-of-the-nz-prostitution-law-committee-2008.pdf
[xxii] Abel, G., Fitzgerald, L. & Brunton, C. (2007). The Impact of the. Prostitution Reform Act on the Health and Safety Practices of Sex Workers. https://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/otago018607.pdf