As the UK creaks forward to its new normality, sex workers have been amongst those who will assess the risks of close contact working. Across the world sex workers were excluded from many of the support packages put together by governments in response to the coronavirus. Even the funds which sex workers were able to access often excluded the most marginalised, such as homeless, transgender, or migrant workers. These issues are not unique to the UK. Globally, the majority of what we call ‘direct sex work’ – by which I mean face to face sex work which includes stripping, penetrative sex work, working in a brothel, etc – had to cease because of physical distancing guidelines, self-isolation, travel bans and lockdown measures. Additionally, with many clients unable to work and having to renegotiate their own finances, they stopped paying for sex unable to justify the expense. Immediately, a marginalised and economically precarious community became more vulnerable.
Sex workers have received unprecedented attention from the press since the outbreak of Covid-19. Much of this has focused on how they are coping, what they are doing, how the pandemic affects their work, how it affects their clients, and whether the industry will be irrevocably changed. Without wanting to add more to the glut of writing about workers and the pandemic, I do want to highlight how a particular issue has come to light during the coronavirus – one which has been overlooked by mainstream press. This pandemic has, to quote SWARM, “illuminated the horror that is the Swedish Model”[1] Much has also been written about the Nordic Model, and the real and violent danger it causes sex workers. Here, I will focus on how UK based sex workers experienced the brutal realism of this law during coronavirus.
During Covid-19 the police, armed with new powers, increased their surveillance on those who breached lockdown. ‘Lockdown’ had a vague and non-committal definition and the police enforced it at their discretion. Not dissimilar to how police enforce prostitution laws in the UK, or in any of the countries where sex work is partially or wholly criminalised. SWARM and ECP heard reports from around the country of brothels being raided and closed down and of street based sex workers being shouted at, spat at and reported to the police by vigilante members of the community. In turn the police, instead of helping the most vulnerable people stay safe, flexed their carceral muscle and arrested or fined whoever happened to be visible.
In countries with the Nordic Model, sex workers, especially undocumented workers and people of colour, report the police having enhanced powers to racially profile and discriminate against them. Here in the UK, during the pandemic, sex workers face no protection from the state, while trans sex workers and workers of colour face heightened discrimination and violence.
Outreach programmes across the country reported that women were continuing to work. Though pro-Nordic model agencies such as Ruhama claim that it is pimps, traffickers and gangs forcing women onto the street the reality is much more banal: the need to pay rent and feed their families. Though Ruhama acknowledged “The impacts on women who decide to no longer see sex buyers will result in a drop in their income, which underscores the need for statutory exit resources… EU women [are prevented] from accessing social welfare. This must be waived!” – they offer no solutions, no direct funding for sex workers and no discernible support at a time when non-sex work jobs are scarce, and redundancies are being made. Under the Nordic Model, regardless of what is written into policy, people who sell sex need access to an income. Criminalising the purchase of sex has done nothing to remove the reasons why women sell sex in the first place, and neither did lockdown. If the UK is about to enter the biggest recession on record, closing off an avenue to earning money is not going to help.
It was the peer led advocacy and mutual aid groups who stepped in to offer material support. Across the world sex worker rights organisations reached thousands of sex workers putting money directly into their bank accounts. What makes mutual aid different to charities is, as Juno Mac says, knowing what is needed. Direct access and resources to capital, without conditions for engagement, is vital. Removing someone’s access to earn a living safety whilst offering no alternative only increases their vulnerability.
As with the Nordic Model, sex workers’ negotiation with clients is a heightened risk. Dangerous clients understand that with a drop in income, the power to negotiate condom use, location or price is in their favour. When there is no choice, sex workers “have to accept any kind of clients, even the ones that come to abuse you”, whilst the clients who respect the health and safety of workers will keep their distance.
When ‘non essential’ working was not permitted during the first weeks of lockdown, sex workers were hesitant to report crimes committed against them in order to keep themselves below the “police radar”. Clients could abuse and assault with impunity, and they knew it. Similarly, in countries with Nordic Model legislation, selling sex is not criminal per se but the body of a sex worker becomes a crime scene resulting in similar hesitancy to report dangerous or violent clients. If sex work were to be decriminalised the law could not bend to violent client’s favour.
The criminalisation of clients reinforces social stigma against sex workers but this was always one of the intended side effects of the Nordic Model: increased stigmatisation would deter people from entering the industry, so discrimination against sex workers is encouraged. Here in the UK, we saw how readily those who stepped out in public were condemned, and citizens were encouraged to do so. Vigilantism was on the up and those who were discriminated against the most under state-sponsored snitching were more likely to be racially minoritized, disabled or homeless.
MPs in this country are pushing for a Nordic Model approach to legislating sex work. We have seen first-hand in this country the ‘dire and desperate situation’ which would happen if stronger laws criminalising the purchase of sex were to be implemented. We must learn from what we have seen during this pandemic and consider sex work as work, and sex workers as workers, deserving of the same labour rights as everyone else.
[1] The Swedish Model, also known as the Nordic Model, the Sex Buyer Law or Abolitionism, is a law which ostensibly decriminalises the selling of sex and criminalises the purchase. I will use the phrase Nordic Model as though it was first used in Sweden, Sweden is not the only country to adopt this law. I do not wish to use Sex Buyer Law as sex workers are also criminalised with this legislation, and I will not use Abolitionism as to avoid confusion with prison abolitionism.