election results in central Bristol

It just goes to show how little the Nordic model is important to the British public. We've just had a general election and it wasn't an issue at all as far as I can see. Even though an active supporter of the Nordic model has been displaced by someone who (possibly) believes in decriminalization. So I'm not worried that the Nordic model might come to Britain as it has in Ireland.

Thangam Debbonaire is not only a supporter of the Nordic model she has called on Bristol City Council to stop issuing licences to strip clubs in the city. She was Labour MP for Bristol Central and has been replaced by Carla Denyer of the Green party. Carla Denyer opposed the strip club ban. I don't know what her views on the decriminalization of sex work. I do know that leading  members of the Green party believe in it eg Natalie Bennett, and Caroline Lucas too.

Thangam Debbonaire was vice-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group 'Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade'. They all believe in the Nordic model there.

Curiously, I have just been looking at some research in Inner-city Bristol. I read in one study that in the UK up to 46% of female sex workers report anxiety or depression. This study gives as reference another study, of sex workers in Inner-city Bristol. However, I can't find this 46% figure here, not about anxiety or depression. All I can find is 'When asked the reasons for going to a GP, the commonest reason was depression or anxiety, given by 34% (24/71)'. So the figure is 34%, not 46%. They were a small group (71) of drug-addicted street-based sex workers ('Those sex workers who work on the street, rather than in premises such as massage parlours, appear to be the most at risk.'). They are not representative of sex workers in Britain.

I can't understand how this mistake has happened. It might be because 46% had been screened for sexually transmitted infection in the previous year (somehow this number got used instead of the correct 34%). It might be because 46% is a figure used for the general population. "A Eurobarometer survey conducted in June 2023 revealed that almost 1 in 2 people (46% of the EU population) had experienced emotional or psychosocial problems, such as feeling depressed or anxious, in the previous 12 months."

So sex workers have less anxiety or depression as the general population? No, of course not. It just goes to show that there's a lot of misinformation out there.

That doesn't mean that the first of the two studies was rubbish. I shall quote the important conclusions below. It is saying that the Nordic model harms women.

"How effective are different international approaches at addressing any harms associated with buying and selling sex?

As mentioned above, studies highlighted that in Sweden and Canada, criminalisation of clients did not improve access to services nor reduce sex workers’ experiences of violence. Evidence included in our qualitative synthesis clearly shows that criminalisation of clients does not facilitate access to services, nor reduce violence against sex workers. This is supported by the epidemiological evidence from Vancouver that showed that the introduction of more severe laws against the purchase of sex alongside fewer sanctions for sex workers (modelled on the Swedish Law) did not result in reduced violence from clients.

Despite the fact the Swedish Law was motivated by a desire to end the demand for sex work, findings from our qualitative synthesis suggest that these enforcement strategies that seek to reduce the numbers of sex workers or clients are unlikely to achieve these effects, since the economic needs of sex workers remain unchanged, resulting in sex workers having to work longer hours, accept greater risks, and deprioritise health. There is no reliable evidence from Sweden that the numbers of sex workers have decreased since the law changed in 1999.

In New Zealand, following decriminalisation, sex workers reported being better able to refuse clients and insist on condom use, amid improved relationships with police and managers. However, migrants continue to be excluded from this system. Studies in Guatemala, Mexico, Turkey and Nevada, US showed how regulatory models exacerbate disparities within sex worker communities. They enabled access to safer conditions for some, but excluded the majority (including the most marginalised).  Under these models non-compliance with regulatory systems including working in tolerance zones, regulator venues and/or mandatory registration at a health care facility and mandatory HIV/STI testing results in criminalisation.  

In conclusion, the public health evidence supports decriminalisation, when coupled with inclusive policies to protect the safety and health of sex workers, including the funding and scale-up of specialist and sex-worker-led services that help address the multiple and diverse health and social care needs of people who sell sex."

I think I spoke too soon. Jess Phillips is now Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office. She is a supporter of the Nordic model and has been a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group 'Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade'. Diana Johnson is another one to look out for.

This Guardian article makes so many mistakes it is difficult to know where to start. It is about prostitution and the murder of women. Curiously, there is a link at the side of this page to a page about murdered women. I say curiously, because none of them seem to have been murdered by a pimp or a punter. Fifty women killed by men this year so far and not one was a sex worker. As far as I can tell, I haven't bothered to read it through.

Soho is a hotbed of prostitution yet no sex worker has been murdered there since the 1940s. That's probably because each sex worker has a 'maid' which means they are never alone in a flat with a man. So if you really want to reduce murder of women then change the law so that women can work together.

I've just been looking at the Jess Phillips new book. I looked in the index for 'prostitution', 'sex work' and 'Nordic model' and it seems there is nothing in there about any of them.

New Zealand decriminalisation model

I have just been reading a blog written by a sex worker in New Zealand. I think that what she has to say is so important I want to repeat it here. This comes from the post What the NZ model cheer squad get wrong on the Dollar Girl Diaries blog.

If what she is saying is true then it seems that the decriminalisation of sex work has succeeded even better than expected. Sex workers are turning away from pimps because they don't need them. I have always said that sex workers don't need pimps, they can work for themselves.

"So, what happened when we introduced decriminalisation? Something totally unexpected. The paradigm shifted and it shifted radically. The brothels and agencies got wiped out, they were forced out of business. Nobody predicted it. But why did it happen? Despite decriminalisation, the casual independent contractor model for brothel work stayed. The owners had no reason to change it, there was a lot of very good employment case law from around the world saying this was legal and changing would both increase their costs and reduce power over the workers. So they didn’t change it. Decriminalisation however meant you could work outside the brothel system without fear of arrest of police harassment. Suddenly independent work was every bit as safe from arrest as the brothel work. The PRA also includes a provision allowing up to four sex workers to work out of a single location and share the costs equally without a license. Only restriction is all have to control their income independently, you can’t pool the takings and share them out. Gives the safety benefits of a brothel without the exploitation of a manager. Of course this means you’re self employed, with all the issues that brings, but without half your income going into somebody else’s pocket, you can put aside for those things.

Now for the first time, brothel workers had a choice. They no longer needed the brothels and agencies to be safe from arrest. They could stay on in the brothels as self employed independent contractors, with the owners taking around half of what they earned and imposing shift fees, late penalties, controlling their shifts to keep them from complaining, pressuring them to take clients they didn’t want etc. Or they could cut out on their own as an independent worker, maybe get together with a couple of other workers and form one of those new fangled small worker collective brothels. Of course that meant facing the perils of self employment, but they were being treated as self employed in the brothel system anyway. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority elected to cut out on their own. The old brothel system very simply collapsed as the workers found they no longer needed it’s protection. The entire industry paradigm changed. The sex industry in New Zealand is now dominated by independent workers and small worker collectives. Before 2003 there were over 400 hundred brothels and agencies in New Zealand, there are 45 left."

This shows that the proponents of the Nordic model have got it wrong when criticising the New Zealand model. Finn Mackay in her book Radical Feminism on page 211 writing about the English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) and the International Union of Sex Workers (IUSW). "Both groups commend the approach taken in New Zealand, where brothels of varying sizes from small owner-operated ventures to larger chains are allowed to operate legally, though the ECP favour small owner-operated ventures over larger big business brothel chains. The latter are thriving however under this regime."

Mackay also writes that there had been plans for a 15-storey brothel in Auckland that didn't go ahead. Three brothels in Queensland closed complaining about unfair competition. That doesn't sound as if big business is thriving.

People who believe in decriminalisation are not the pimp lobby. The last thing that pimps want is the decriminalisation of sex work just like the last thing that drug dealers want is the decriminalisation of drugs.

There are some people who will tell you that the amount of prostitution increased in New Zealand after decriminalisation. Mellissa Farley has said this, and so has Samantha Berg. They are both wrong, and I shall show why below. In the case of Samantha Berg, she doesn't seem to understand how statistics work. Just as with her examination of the statistics to do with Norway, she doesn't understand you have to compare like with like. If you have two statistics related to different time periods then they are not comparable. Christchurch had 100 street prostitutes in 2006 and 121 street prostitutes in 2007. However, we're talking about different time periods and different times of year.