pret
7 mei 2023, 13:11
A report by the European Parliament calling for the regulation of sex work has divided EU lawmakers over the proposed regulatory model, wording, and the overall legitimacy of sex work.
The Parliament is currently working on a report “on the regulation of prostitution in the EU”, which asks member states to decriminalise people in prostitution while criminalising clients and third parties organising sex services in a bid to reduce demand.
The report is expected to be finalised in May and brought to the plenary vote in June, but it has divided EU lawmakers of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM), who are leading the work on the file.
Sex work vs prostitution
The draft report submitted by social-democrat MEP Maria Noichl refers to prostitution – not sex work – and is based on the notion of prostitution as a type of gender-based violence.
“I think we need a coherent policy, and this policy must be clear: prostitution is a form of violence against women,” she said, adding that sex work cannot be considered a job like any other as “it is not a free choice” and that legal prostitution “has built the infrastructure that is used to hide human trafficking.”
She believes the policy should include prevention, exit strategies and reintegration in society while also ensuring people in prostitution are not criminalised.
MEP Karen Melchior (Renew) told EURACTIV, “I think that is fundamentally flawed,” adding the report should better distinguish between sex workers and people forced into prostitution.
“Forced prostitution or sexual abuse can be gender-based violence, but selling sex as an adult that is doing this out of their free choice is not gender-based violence,” she said, adding that the definition of the draft report makes the conversation “very difficult”.
MEP Monika Vana (Greens) also opposed the report’s approach.
“If you say prostitution is gender-based violence, of course, you have to forbid it,” she told EURACTIV, adding that she is working to change the report’s language.
Towards a European model?
A similar view is shared by Sabrina Sanchez, director of the European Sex Workers Alliance, who also opposed the regulatory model proposed by the report – known as the ‘Nordic model’.
This model encourages member states to decriminalise sex workers while criminalising the clients and those organising sex work.
“This text is taking out the agency that we could have if our job was decriminalised and recognised and we had labour rights, instead of being criminalised or criminalising our clients or the third parties that we rely on,” Sanchez told EURACTIV, pointing at the Belgian model as one of the best.
Belgium is the only country in Europe where sex work is fully decriminalised, while Lithuania and Croatia have the strictest rules.
In most member states organising sex work is illegal, while sex work remains unregulated, meaning it is not taxed, and sex workers cannot receive social insurance or pension benefits.
According to the draft report, the Nordic model – currently used by countries such as Sweden and Ireland – would help reduce demand and end the “stigmatisation of people in prostitution […] ensure exit strategies and unconditional access to social security systems”.
However, activists warn that the criminalisation of clients might push sex workers to engage in risky behaviours to avoid being caught.
Sex workers working together also often fear being charged with brothel-keeping, which is illegal under the Nordic model. Moreover, as most sex workers are migrants, they also avoid relying on law enforcement, fearing it will negatively impact their migration status and chances of obtaining citizenship.
According to Melchior, criminalising the clients remains problematic as it does not eliminate stigmatisation. In her view, the report should acknowledge different approaches to sex work and adopt a “human rights-based point of view”.
Common ground
While MEPs are divided over whether sex work can be considered a job, many agree on the need to decriminalise sex workers to ensure they have access to healthcare and social benefits.
“We should concentrate on what we have in common and what we can do together, and we should focus on those concerned,” Christine Schneider (EPP) said during a committee meeting on 25 April.
“We should focus on exit possibilities, to make them easiest, we should tackle the causes of prostitution which force women into prostitution – drugs, poverty, coercion – and find ways to reduce demand in the online and offline world,” Schneider added.
The right time?
While Vana agreed on decriminalising sex workers, she said this is “not a good moment” for such a divisive debate.
“I’m not really happy that we have this on the table because there’s such a deep divide between the feminist communities in Europe,” she said, adding that such a divide risks backfiring ahead of next year’s European elections.
Other MEPs, however, disagree. Melchior, for instance, said EU lawmakers should not shy away from the debate, regardless of how divisive it is, while Noichl said the discussion should be part of the elections and the debate on the future of Europe.
At the same time, she acknowledged the discussion would be difficult.
“I think there is very little possibility to find a middle way, and I think it will come down to the voting result,” she said.
Euroactive
PN Ben vooral benieuwd welke model ze als standaar gaan hanteren als het überhaupt gestandaardiseerd zal gaan worden.
The Parliament is currently working on a report “on the regulation of prostitution in the EU”, which asks member states to decriminalise people in prostitution while criminalising clients and third parties organising sex services in a bid to reduce demand.
The report is expected to be finalised in May and brought to the plenary vote in June, but it has divided EU lawmakers of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM), who are leading the work on the file.
Sex work vs prostitution
The draft report submitted by social-democrat MEP Maria Noichl refers to prostitution – not sex work – and is based on the notion of prostitution as a type of gender-based violence.
“I think we need a coherent policy, and this policy must be clear: prostitution is a form of violence against women,” she said, adding that sex work cannot be considered a job like any other as “it is not a free choice” and that legal prostitution “has built the infrastructure that is used to hide human trafficking.”
She believes the policy should include prevention, exit strategies and reintegration in society while also ensuring people in prostitution are not criminalised.
MEP Karen Melchior (Renew) told EURACTIV, “I think that is fundamentally flawed,” adding the report should better distinguish between sex workers and people forced into prostitution.
“Forced prostitution or sexual abuse can be gender-based violence, but selling sex as an adult that is doing this out of their free choice is not gender-based violence,” she said, adding that the definition of the draft report makes the conversation “very difficult”.
MEP Monika Vana (Greens) also opposed the report’s approach.
“If you say prostitution is gender-based violence, of course, you have to forbid it,” she told EURACTIV, adding that she is working to change the report’s language.
Towards a European model?
A similar view is shared by Sabrina Sanchez, director of the European Sex Workers Alliance, who also opposed the regulatory model proposed by the report – known as the ‘Nordic model’.
This model encourages member states to decriminalise sex workers while criminalising the clients and those organising sex work.
“This text is taking out the agency that we could have if our job was decriminalised and recognised and we had labour rights, instead of being criminalised or criminalising our clients or the third parties that we rely on,” Sanchez told EURACTIV, pointing at the Belgian model as one of the best.
Belgium is the only country in Europe where sex work is fully decriminalised, while Lithuania and Croatia have the strictest rules.
In most member states organising sex work is illegal, while sex work remains unregulated, meaning it is not taxed, and sex workers cannot receive social insurance or pension benefits.
According to the draft report, the Nordic model – currently used by countries such as Sweden and Ireland – would help reduce demand and end the “stigmatisation of people in prostitution […] ensure exit strategies and unconditional access to social security systems”.
However, activists warn that the criminalisation of clients might push sex workers to engage in risky behaviours to avoid being caught.
Sex workers working together also often fear being charged with brothel-keeping, which is illegal under the Nordic model. Moreover, as most sex workers are migrants, they also avoid relying on law enforcement, fearing it will negatively impact their migration status and chances of obtaining citizenship.
According to Melchior, criminalising the clients remains problematic as it does not eliminate stigmatisation. In her view, the report should acknowledge different approaches to sex work and adopt a “human rights-based point of view”.
Common ground
While MEPs are divided over whether sex work can be considered a job, many agree on the need to decriminalise sex workers to ensure they have access to healthcare and social benefits.
“We should concentrate on what we have in common and what we can do together, and we should focus on those concerned,” Christine Schneider (EPP) said during a committee meeting on 25 April.
“We should focus on exit possibilities, to make them easiest, we should tackle the causes of prostitution which force women into prostitution – drugs, poverty, coercion – and find ways to reduce demand in the online and offline world,” Schneider added.
The right time?
While Vana agreed on decriminalising sex workers, she said this is “not a good moment” for such a divisive debate.
“I’m not really happy that we have this on the table because there’s such a deep divide between the feminist communities in Europe,” she said, adding that such a divide risks backfiring ahead of next year’s European elections.
Other MEPs, however, disagree. Melchior, for instance, said EU lawmakers should not shy away from the debate, regardless of how divisive it is, while Noichl said the discussion should be part of the elections and the debate on the future of Europe.
At the same time, she acknowledged the discussion would be difficult.
“I think there is very little possibility to find a middle way, and I think it will come down to the voting result,” she said.
Euroactive
PN Ben vooral benieuwd welke model ze als standaar gaan hanteren als het überhaupt gestandaardiseerd zal gaan worden.