Nordic model in Northern Ireland

The Nordic model has been in place in Northern Ireland since 2015. This is supposed to criminalise men who pay for sex. Now there is a study which shows how effective it has been in reducing demand. The data shows that there has been an increase. "On the contrary, we found that the supply of commercial sexual services appears to have actually increased in the period following the implementation of the legislation." page 164

The study is called A Review of the Criminalisation of Paying for Sexual Services in Northern Ireland by Graham Ellison, Caoimhe Ní Dhónaill & Erin Early and it came out in September of this year. It shows that the Nordic model has not worked in Northern Ireland, neither has it worked in Sweden.

Other important statements from Chapter 10: Conclusions are

• none of the foundational claims of the Nordic model can be supported
• it is difficult to argue that Article 64A has had any noticeable effect on deterring sex workers from working or limiting their availability in the jurisdiction.   
• sex-purchase legislation is not particularly effective at reducing either the supply or demand for prostitution
• there have been few arrests, prosecutions and convictions under Article 64A and the two convictions that have ensued have had nothing to do with either human trafficking for sexual exploitation or prostitution
• an increase in anti-social, nuisance and abusive behaviours directed to sex workers
• purchase legislation in Northern Ireland has not significantly altered client behaviour
• the evidence base from Sweden and the Nordic countries generally is simply not strong enough to support the proposition that sex purchase legislation has led to the massive decreases in prostitution and human trafficking that are alleged to have occurred in those jurisdictions
• Article 64A has had minimal to no effect on the demand for prostitution, the number of active sex workers in the jurisdiction and on levels of human trafficking for sexual exploitation

I have copied-and-pasted the final paragraph of the conclusion at the end of this post.

Some people will say that I don't want the Nordic model to come to Britain because I fear conviction. There have been only two convictions so far, but neither of them were men who paid for sex. Both men were said to have offered payment for sex to females who weren't prostitutes. You have to wonder what is wrong with them. Were they just trying to be offensive? Were they drunk? Did they have a psychological problem or a learning disability? I don't proposition women in the street.

There are a couple of things that I found disappointing in this report.

Firstly, I would have liked to have seen data on who is prosecuted for brothel keeping. Are they mostly male or female? Are they young or old? I think that it will be mostly young women, this seems to be the case in the Irish Republic. I suppose the study is about demand, but the Nordic model is supposed to reduce demand and stop the criminalisation of prostitutes.

"The sex worker has to fear being recorded as a prostitute in police records, possibly being prosecuted for brothel keeping, losing her accommodation, stuff around immigration and so on. Remember even EU workers can be refused entry at airport/port once they are recorded as a prostitute by police." page 154

So no man has been convicted of paying for sex. Yet women are convicted of brothel keeping, evicted and deported. So much for 'shifting the burden'. That's the Nordic model for you. They say prostitution is violence against women but they do that to women. What bastards.

Secondly, the study doesn't point out that surveys in Sweden show an increase in active sex buyers after their 1999 law, from 1.3% in 1996 to 1.8% in 2008. It really does seem that the Nordic model increases demand, and if there is a decrease later it is because of other factors, such as the 2008 financial crisis.

"It may be disappointing for proponents of this legislation that the research did not uncover more evidence of a reduction in prostitution in Northern Ireland, particularly since this was hailed as such a success in Sweden, and one of the main reasons why the Nordic model (so termed) has been exported internationally.  However, we would respond by suggesting that the evidence base from Sweden and the Nordic countries generally is simply not strong enough to support the proposition that sex purchase legislation has led to the massive decreases in prostitution and human trafficking that are alleged to have occurred in those jurisdictions.  We noted in the Introduction that we are not aware of any prevalence studies from the Nordic regions relating to before and after the legislation was introduced, nor are we aware of any trend analyses of administrator data from ASWs that operate in these regions which would provide a clearer indication of prevalence rates. Certainly, the evidence from Northern Ireland based on a comparison of the before and after data suggests very strongly that Article 64A has had minimal to no effect on the demand for prostitution, the number of active sex workers in the jurisdiction and on levels of human trafficking for sexual exploitation."

A new law in Northern Ireland criminalises sex work – and endangers sex workers

Doing Money

On the 5th of November there was a drama shown on BBC Two which told the story of a woman involved in prostitution. It was called 'Doing Money'. The drama is based on a book that claims to be a true story, called 'Slave' by Anna (not her real name).

This is what is printed on the back of the book:-

"This is the heart-breaking true story of one of the UK's most shocking modern-day slavery cases.
Anna was an innocent student living in London when she was kidnapped, beaten and forced into the sex slave industry. Threatened and tormented by her pimps, she was made to have sex with thousands of men."

This book has nothing to say about the sex industry in Britain. She was taken from London to Ireland, and put to work in Dublin, Galway and Belfast. Some women were also taken to Sweden.

This is curious, because there are many brothels in London. Why were women taken to Ireland and Sweden? Could it be that gangsters like Ionut and Schwarz thrive in areas where prostitution is underground?

Swedish authorities say that Sweden is less of an attraction to traffickers now because of the law they have had since 1999 which criminalises men who pay for sex. That can only be guesswork though, and this book seems to be saying that Sweden is more of an attraction than than London or Manchester.

If this is true then having the same law in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland will be counter-productive. Anna helped to bring this law about in Northern Ireland.

If you want to learn about one aspect of prostitution in Ireland and Sweden then you can watch Doing Money. If you want to learn about prostitution in Britain then A Very British Brothel and First Time Call Girl. They are both documentaries and they are consistent with my experience of prostitution.

Since I have read Rachel Moran's book Paid For I am struck by the differences between the two books. They can't both be 'the reality' of prostitution. Perhaps prostitution in Ireland in the 1990s was different to what happens now. Moran's book, together with three studies of Dublin sex workers, paint a picture of Ireland where things got more violent after the 1993 law. It seems that after the 2017 law things are getting even more violent. Yet this book helped to bring in the 2017 law.

These are the three studies of Dublin sex workers

• The Health Needs of Women working in prostitution in the Republic of Ireland 1994 O'Connor 
• Women Working in Prostitution: towards a healthier future 1996 O'Connor O'Neill Foran 
• Drug using women working in prostitution 1999 O'Connor O'Neill

Neither Moran's book nor these three studies say anything about women being kidnapped from the streets by violent pimps and raped. What one of the studies says is this

 "Three (17%) of the women felt very strongly that the new law is leading to the emergence of pimps (male protectors) and therefore, an increase in violence and intimidation on the streets. One said "anyone with enough money to rent an apartment and a mobile phone can go into business as a pimp. These men are offering protection and a "safe house" to women who are working. "They leech (latch) onto the women providing protection and paying bail, that's when the violence comes in"." O'Connor, A.M. (1994)

 It was the 1993 law which created the world that Anna experienced. Well-meaning but counter-productive laws create the problem and don't solve it. The 2017 law in Ireland as far as we can tell is like the 1993 law in that it will and has created more problems than it solved.

 Now we have an up to date study of prostitution in Northern Ireland. It is A Review of the Criminalisation of Paying for Sexual Services in Northern Ireland 2019 by Ellison, Ní Dhónaill and Early. It doesn't confirm what Anna, Rachel Moran and Lord Maurice Morrow have said about prostitution in Northern Ireland. If you want to know the reality of prostitution in Northern Ireland I suggest you read this report.

I have been following the case of Karl Ring and Ivett Szuda. Ring was sentenced to four years imprisonment with Szuda sent down for six and a half years. They were found guilty of human trafficking, controlling prostitution for gain, and 'money laundering'. They were not violent, and the most coercive thing they did was to take away some women's passports. This is not acceptable, but happens with migrant workers in different industries.

They rented flats in Chelsea Cloisters in London to women who wanted to work as prostitutes. They organized air travel between Eastern Europe and London. This is probably the reality of traffickers, at least in London. What happens in Ireland and Sweden could be different.

Below is one woman's experience, you couldn't get further from Anna's:-

"She showed me around the flat and she offered me two rooms. The smaller room was £60 per day and the bigger one for £80 per day." She explained that Szuda gave her a key to the flat at Chelsea Cloisters, which operated like a hotel. "The hotel had a reception and it worked like a hotel system but the rooms had kitchens and bathrooms,' she said. "They were basically hotel apartments. There was another girl when I arrived and she was doing sex work and there was another one who was just doing massage only. Everyone had their own rooms." But she said business was so bad for her that she went back to Hungary after six days. Another woman working for the couple went on holidays with Szuda and other prostitutes to the Bahamas and Miami as "team building exercises".

One woman said "On a good day I would see three to four clients a day, I earned £60 from each." So she earned £240 per day for what sounds like four hours work. She could stop anytime she wanted - like the woman who went back to Hungary after 6 days. She didn't have to do anything she didn't want - like the woman who was just doing massage only. Does this sound anything like the situation that Anna was in?

I think that the prohibitionists should think very carefully about what they want. Britain might become like Ireland and Sweden where the criminals reign. Just like in prohibition America where the do-gooders thought they were getting rid of a problem - alcohol - and they were just making it worse. Much, much, worse. Be careful what you wish for.

Novelist Liz Jensen said that men who use prostitutes should watch the drama and end up "squirming and feeling deeply regretful". I haven't watched the drama but I have read the book, and Rachel Moran's book. I have read the three reports on prostitution in Ireland in the 1990s. I have also kept up to date about trafficking through recent research and news reports. My conclusion is that it is abolitionists who have created this problem not people like me. Caring about people means looking at all the evidence and thinking about it deeply. It doesn't mean getting caught up in a drama. Don't think you can watch a drama and then you're an expert.