Survivors Question U.N. Focus on Legalising Sex Work

The two reports in question acknowledge the human rights of sex workers, be they current or former. The two reports attacked by Lauren Hersh and Equality Now do in fact deal with HIV, sex work and the law. The recommendation for decriminalising sex work is made in recognition of the fact that punitive laws, discriminatory and brutal policing, and denial of access to justice from people most at risk of acquiring HIV are fuelling the epidemic. These reports were written with extensive input from current sex workers – the people who are currently affected by the issues that the reports address. Contrary to Equality Now’s apparent disregard for the voices of current sex workers, we do not believe it is constructive to deny sex workers their agency and autonomy when it comes to policy making. Nor do we believe that current sex workers are not the experts on their own lives.

The charge that the UN is calling “for brothel-keeping” is an utter and deliberate
misrepresentation of the recommendation for decriminalising sex work in its
entirety. Equality Now would do well to study the UNAIDS Guidance Note on HIV
and Sex Work and Annexes 2012 and endeavour to understand its contents. It is
imperative that they do so before they embark on a campaign to undo ten years
of progress that the UN, other agencies and organisations on the ground who
work in the field of HIV have made. It is utterly irresponsible for Equality
Now to be wading into this global health issue and deliberately start
conflating sex work with trafficking in order to push an agenda which
ultimately seeks to eradicate sex work.

Equality Now cite figures suggesting that sex trafficking in Sweden decreased as a result of introducing the Nordic Model by enacting the Sex Purchase Act in 1999. The Swedish government collected no data on trafficking prior to the implementation of the law, and therefore it is difficult to know what the impact of the law has been on sex trafficking, not to forget that trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation accounts for 22% of all persons trafficked for exploitation in the private economies
according to 2012 ILO estimates. Furthermore, the claim that sex trafficking
has decreased in Sweden after the introduction of the law is premised on the
idea that a drop in ‘demand’ has taken place. Unfortunately there are no data
available on ‘demand’ prior to the law being introduced as the Swedish
government collected no such data. It is therefore, again, not possible to know
what the effect of the law has been. With regard to the number of sex workers
in Sweden pre and post introduction of the law, the Swedish government stated:
“we cannot give any unambiguous answer to [this question]. At most, we can
discern that street prostitution is slowly returning, after swiftly disappearing
in the wake of the law”. It concluded, “no causal connections can be proven
between legislation and changes in prostitution”. It is clear that to treat
this model as a success even on its own terms, by the admission of the
Swedish government itself would be a profound error. In the context of
evidence-based policy, a lack of evidence of success (or failure) of the Sex
Purchase Act should seriously draw into question the appropriateness of the
Nordic Model.

Finally, findings from the recent study from Asia and the Pacific referred
to by Equality Now appear to have been misinterpreted. The finding that men who
reported they engaged in some form of transactional sex (which is not limited
to sex with a female, male or transgender sex worker) were more likely to
report that they used violence against women. The higher likelihood of
committing violence against women is not caused by the fact that some men
engage in transactional sex. I.e. transactional sex (in whatever form) in
itself does not cause men to commit violence against women. The findings in the
report, the authors argue: “point to a need to address gender inequalities and
men’s sexual entitlement over women as part of a comprehensive response to
violence against women”.

We find it shameful that Equality Now would publically misrepresent evidence. By doing so they undermine not only the effort to stem the tide of gender inequality but
also the human rights of sex workers.