Laws around sex work in Britain have been remarkably unchanging since the 19th century; the language and technicalities have shifted as our society has, but all in all those in the industry are controlled by the same repressive measures as their Victorian predecessors. However, as we Brits look to Amsterdam’s red-light districts and coffee shops across the North Sea, calls to ‘legalise it!’ amongst uninformed progressives have permeated conversations about changing our own prostitution laws. What is evident from this model, however, is that legalisation is a different system of exploitation and, though it may sound like a step towards protecting sex workers, does not help women.
The United Kingdom’s legal framework around sex work is what Juno Mac and Molly Smith, both British sex workers themselves, call a ‘Victorian Hangover’, in which the act of exchanging money for sexual services is perfectly legal, but every other practice around it is criminalised. This prevents a sex worker from advertising their services, soliciting in public where a client can be properly vetted, and perhaps most importantly from working with others, the principal way for a woman to keep safe.
This strange system of partial criminalisation works to socially isolate sex workers from each other, with comraderie between workers in a premises viewed by the law as ‘brothel-keeping’, and pushes them into the most vulnerable positions, alone without protection. The fines and prison sentences which accompany convictions of prostitution trap women in cycles of debt that push them into evermore risky scenarios, blocking the possibility of sex workers saving enough to leave the game altogether.
So, if Britain’s current legislation fails to help people who sell sex to work safely, or to reach a financial position where they can move into other work, what are we supposed to do? This is where suggestions of legalising sex work, following models in the Netherlands, Nevada and Germany usually pipe up in the conversation, without a full appreciation of what this would mean for the people it would affect. The English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) have discussed this widely, assessing the Dutch model as having ‘too much power over sex workers’ livelihoods’, controlling registration and licensing so tightly that many are forced to practice illegally anyway. The same has been said of Germany’s system of registering workers with ‘sex worker IDs’ which denies them the anonymity of a deeply stigmatised profession, and risking their identities falling into the hands of dangerous clients. The organisation, established in 1975 to campaign against the legal and social maltreatment of sex workers and for decriminalisation of prostitution, have recognised the exploitative frameworks many legalised brothels operate in, allowing the government to profit from and control sex workers in ways they cannot in other industries. Rather than a system that gives the police increased power to repress working women, and institutionalises ‘state pimping’, ECP spokeswoman Nikki Adams states:
‘We want decriminalisation, like in New Zealand, so we can work together collectively and independently and to be in control of our earnings and working conditions’.
Decriminalisation may sound like an interchangeable concept with legalisation, but in reality, it removes the power of the state to regulate where and how sex workers can make money, allowing them greater independence and freedom to leave ‘the game’ when they can, without a criminal record. The English Collective of Prostitutes has long argued for decriminalisation for the safety of sex workers, who are forced into isolated areas and quicker solicitations which result in violent attacks, against legally vulnerable people unable to rely on police protection without fear of arrest.
New Zealand was revered by sex worker organisations globally in 2003 as it withdrew any legal restrictions on sex work, whilst constructing a framework to protect sex worker rights, welfare and safety. This extraordinary move has allowed sex workers to operate under the same laws which govern the rest of society, working safely and independently from exploitative third parties, and leave when they want without a stigmatised and criminalised record against them. Its success is apparent: whilst numbers of sex workers working in New Zealand has not increased, 90% have said they recognise a rise in their employment and safety rights.
By listening to the voices of sex workers themselves, rather than inexperienced policymakers, it becomes obvious that legalisation is not the right solution for sex workers in the United Kingdom, or anywhere else. For the large majority of this group, prostitution is a choice made to escape poverty, needing to earn more than other jobs they are qualified for can provide. It is only by allowing sex workers to work safely, without legal restrictions, that they can then leave the industry and find other opportunities. Legalisation is not the solution to help the sex worker population in the United Kingdom; giving them the power over their own work and livelihood is.