ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ

During an online meeting on November 6, organized by and supported by the Utrecht Centre for Global Challenges, parliamentarians, academics, sex workers, police, representatives of emergency and health services and other parties involved discussed the bill (Bill Regulation Sex Work). This bill, launched end  2019, proposes to criminalize all sex workers, including independent workers (‘ZZP-ers’ in Dutch), unless they are willing to register nationwide and have a license.

Moral beliefs

Sex industry policy choices are often inspired by moral beliefs on the (un)desirability and supposed exploitative character of sex work. A deep insight in how sex work ‘works’, and sound scientific data often play second violin – if they play a role at all. The Swedish criminalization model is an example of this:  the client is criminalized in order to ‘protect’ women in prostitution and eliminate the entire sex industry, which is believed to keep women in a subordinate position. Thereby, it forces sex workers underground, with all due consequences. The Swedish policy, however, has huge moralistic appeal and it is gaining popularity worldwide.

More repressive approach

The Netherlands opted for legalisation of the sex industry in 2000. However, with the fear of human trafficking getting an ever firmer grip on sex work policies, the Dutch approach tends towards a more and more repressive approach. The Wrs is an example of this. Whereas its intention is to improve the position of sex workers and to combat exploitation and human trafficking, there is no evidence that a registration system helps to combat abuses. On the contrary. A recent study in Germany, where experiments with a registration system were carried out, showed that 83 percent of sex workers refused to be registered – and, thus, ended up working illegally while they used to work legally. Fear of loss of privacy was an important reason. This fear is directly linked to the ongoing stigma of sex work.

New Zealand model

In New Zealand, on the other hand, new legislation was never inspired by a ‘let’s-get-rid-of-prostitution’ motivation. In 2003, the New Zealand Parliament accepted the Prostitution Reform Act (PRA) by which the entire commercial voluntary sex industry was decriminalized, meaning that sex work was now considered like any other legitimate service occupation, operating under the same legal rights, with a minimum of state interference. Its focus on improving sex workers’ opportunities to claim human rights  – promoting their welfare and occupational health and safety, protecting them from exploitation and improving their access to justice – substantially improved sex workers’ labour and living conditions and had a positive impact on their self-esteem and self-respect. Moreover, the emphasis on harm minimization and the collaboration between (local) government, law enforcement, social welfare and sex workers promotes public health and contributes to destigmatization.

Although this ‘New Zealand model’ is well referenced and in line with sex workers’ call for decriminalization, for some reason it is not picked up by politicians as easily as the Swedish model. Apparently, it has more popular appeal to govern repressively and to propagate ‘saving’ women from human trafficking rings, than to listen to the experiences of those working in this industry. It takes courage to step away from underbelly feelings and ‘soft facts’, and understand sex work ‘from within’ and from sound empirical studies. The challenge now, for governments in general and the Dutch government in particular, will be to understand the destructive impact of stigma on sex workers and to listen to their voices instead of deciding over their heads.

Dr Joep Rottier & Dr Brenda Oude Breuil