Tasmanian Times


Women forced into sex industry – Abbott must fund Exit Programs

*Pic: Photo credit: Lynn Savarese. Ruchira Gupta is the Founder and President of Apne Aap Women Worldwide – a grassroots organization in India working to end sex trafficking by increasing choices for at-risk girls and women. She has striven over her 25 year career to highlight the link between trafficking and prostitution laws, and to lobby policy makers to shift blame from victims to perpetrators.

The Abbott government’s budget attack on welfare recipients, particularly young disadvantaged persons, will see an unwelcome surge in the number of young unemployed women and single mothers moving into prostitution as a means of supporting themselves and their families.

Prostitution will become an option of last resort for unknown numbers of young people – men, women and children – if Mr Abbott’s proposed cuts to welfare are successful. Rather than looking at ways to legalise or decriminalise prostitution, the government needs to address the underlying disadvantage that forces people sell their bodies for money.

Prostitution and sex trafficking are booming worldwide, with the average age of young girls entering prostitution often being as young as 13 or 14. We need to support these women and girls and give them options other than prostitution. This means access to well-funded social and educational programs and adequate welfare.

They shouldn’t be at the mercy of pimps and brothel owners whose only interest is in the almighty dollar.

Mr Abbott needs to answer to some serious questions about the consequences of his budget:

• Is his government’s budget going to increase the ranks of the prostituted class in Australia, cost cutting/competition in the prostitution market, and the illegal brothel sector and trafficking?
• Does he accept that unemployed people should prostitute themselves in order to survive, especially those he intends to cut off from Newstart or single mothers benefit or any other benefit?
• Will he fund exit programs in all states to help women out of the most high risk and harmful industry to girls and women (mainly), an industry that is now considered to be out of control in Australia?
• Mr Abbott, would you want one of your daughters to have no choice but to prostitute herself in order to survive?

The Abbott Government needs to urgently allocate funds to properly resource Exit Programs in all states of Australia to enable women (mainly) who want to leave the sex trade to do so safely.

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Bronwyn Williams

    July 23, 2014 at 9:19 pm


    8. ‘Even the Swedish Government admits the law criminalising clients increases stigma against sex workers, yet perversely calls this increase in stigma a good thing’. Calum, you appear to be hanging your opposition to NORMAC and the Swedish policy model and your support for decriminalisation squarely on the peg of this supposed feature of the Skarhed review of the Swedish legislation. The sentence you refer to is at page 130 of the original report, published in Swedish. Unless you speak Swedish, I assume you are referencing the English translation. (Both the Swedish original and the limited English translations are available online as secured pdf documents).

    The relevant section is reproduced below in its entirety from the English translation.

    ‘4.6.4 The view of exploited individuals with regard to criminalization
    It is clear, and appears to be logical, that those who have escaped from prostitution are positive to the criminalization, while those who are still being exploited in prostitution are against the ban. This pattern is reflected in many reports and is also confirmed by the contacts this inquiry has had with the members of PRIS and the Rose Alliance.

    People who are currently being exploited in prostitution state that the criminalization has intensified the social stigma of selling sex. They describe having chosen to prostitute themselves and do not consider themselves to be unwilling victims of anything. Even if it is not forbidden to sell sex, they feel they are hunted by the police. They feel that they are being treated as incapacitated persons because their actions are tolerated but their wishes and choices are not respected. Moreover, they state that there is a difference between voluntary and forced prostitution.

    Those who have left prostitution say that the criminalization of the buyer’s actions has made them stronger. They were able to stop blaming themselves and to feel instead that it is the buyers who are in the wrong and who are responsible for the emotional scars and painful memories they must deal with for the rest of their lives. This is why people who managed to escape prostitution are consistently positive to the ban. In particular, they point out that the buyers are the ones who entice young people into prostitution, and that there is no voluntary prostitution, the buyer always has the power and the people selling their bodies are always being exploited; however, no one wants to see it that way as long as they are still being exploited.

    For people who are still being exploited in prostitution, the above negative effects of the ban that they describe must be viewed as positive from the perspective that the purpose of the law is indeed to combat prostitution.’

    Translations are notorious for distorting meaning, so I ran the original Swedish through the Microsoft translator and came up with this –

    ‘When it comes to the people who are still exploited in prostitution, the above mentioned negative effects of prohibition They describe almost regarded as positive seen from the perspective the purpose of the law is to combat prostitution’.

    Perhaps those who are still in prostitution commented that the government would consider the ‘negative’ effects they document to be positive. Maybe, the report is NOT suggesting that stigmatising prostitution is a good thing, but those in prostitution THINK that is the government’s position.

    Basing an entire argument on one sentence in a 256-page report written in a foreign language is not convincing. Extrapolating that argument to an assertion that a group supporting the Swedish model, like NORMAC, agrees with your interpretation of a single statement in a very lengthy report – a statement which is open to different, equally plausible interpretations – is both rationally and academically unsound.

    Further, you neglected to mention the report’s account of those who have left prostitution – ‘the criminalistion of the buyer’s actions has made them stronger’.

    As noted previously, I have seen or heard nothing about NORMAC that suggests they want those working in prostitution to be further stigmatised, and I doubt the constant posing of your baseless question will change that.

  2. Bronwyn Williams

    July 23, 2014 at 9:09 pm

    Calum, after taking the time to further investigate your comments, above, the following points arose:

    1. Ad hoc ‘averaging’ of figures, particularly figures that are not inherently reliable in the first place, does not support a valid argument. I think we can agree that solid data for the sex industry is impossible to obtain. Even one of your references in opposition to the Swedish policy model, Jay Levy acknowledges as much – ‘Due to the clandestine nature of sex work, measuring levels of these populations is difficult if possible at all’ (Levy, J. 2011, Impacts of the Swedish Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex on Sex Workers, p. 13).

    2. ‘There are numerous studies that tell you what sex work is really like, and numerous books written by sex workers that tell what it is really like.’ Similarly, there are numerous studies, and books written by survivors of prostitution that ‘tell what it is really like’. Why are the books and studies you refer to, non-specifically, any more representative of the truth than those that paint a less attractive picture of the industry?

    3. ‘You will find that sex worker organisations give a more accurate picture of what sex work is really like than abolitionist groups who trot out a former sex worker who only had bad experiences’. Again, exactly the same thing could be said about sex worker organisations who trot out a sex worker who speaks of having good experiences. Why are they any more representative of the millions of women working in prostitution worldwide?

    4. Your extrapolation from percentages of ill people in a hospital to the general population makes no sense. The reference to one or two nurses being assaulted being extrapolated to the entire nursing population makes some logical sense, but we both know that, first, the percentage of assaults on sex workers is far higher than those on nurses, second, people working in a relatively secure environment cannot be compared to people working in an inherently dangerous environment, and third, assaults on nurses would be carefully documented and the figures reliable – this is not so with those working in prostitution.

    5. You reference two instances of prostitutes making complaints to the police and claim they are not isolated events. Do you have any broader figures to support the assertion that ‘(d)ecriminalisation has allowed sex workers to make complaints to the police if something goes wrong.’?

    6. ‘Swedish sex workers continually state they would never go to the police if they were the victim of an assault’. The references to the 2011 article by Jay Levy used to support this assertion are inaccurate and misleading. To begin with, you have put your own words into the author’s mouth, and the ‘several’ respondents you refer to are, in fact, two brief anecdotal reports in the text of the essay – not the words of the author. The reference to authoritative harassment of prostitutes in Mr Levy’s paper is followed by a quote from the National Rapporteur for Prostitution and Trafficking expressing a lack of knowledge of what you claim is a routine consequence of the Swedish legislation. Perhaps, you, like Mr Levy, found this ‘surprising’, so you chose to ignore it.

    7. Interestingly, Mr Levy is a known supporter of the decriminalisation of prostitution – he is a member of the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers on Europe (ICSRE) and has co-authored articles on the subject with Ms Pye Jakobsson, the current president of the Global Network of Sex Work Projects (NSWP) and the founder of Swedish sex work lobby group, the Rose Alliance. Can you honestly guarantee his objectivity?

  3. Megan Tatham

    July 20, 2014 at 3:44 am

    Calum, since you insist that NORMAC state their reasons for supporting so-called ‘stigmitisation’ of sex workers.

    I would insist that you respond and tell us why you support decriminalisation which has silenced those exploited in the industry and has increased trafficking. Calum, Why do you support silencing those exploited in the sex industry?

    Germany has been the achilles heel for full decriminalisation.

    In a 2007 report official figures looking at the effects of decriminalisation led the government to concede that the outcome had been disappointing and the legal change did not “actually improve the welfare of prostitutes”.

  4. Isla MacGregor

    July 17, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    The debate [i]In Committee from the House of Commons[/i] in Canada following on from the Bedford v Canada decisions last year, will provide some answers to those who wish to be more informed about the rationale being used in a growing number of countries worldwide behind the Nordic model laws:


  5. Isla MacGregor

    July 16, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    It is naive to believe that if you raise the [i]stigmatise[/i] flag you can derail or silence debate with survivors of prostition and their growing number of supporters worldwide who are working towards the end of sexual exploitation and trafficking of women (mainly).

    To take a broader perspective, one which the sex trade will go to any lengths to avoid, a look at the other side of the coin on [i]stigmatisation[/i] is illuminating:

    To acknowledge who is doing the [i]stigmatising[/i] about women (mainly) in the sex trade and the commodification of womens (mainly) bodies one only needs to read

    [b]The Invisible Men
    The Punter
    Let’s talk about his choices[/b]


  6. Calum Bennachie

    July 15, 2014 at 9:46 pm

    NORMAC supports and lobbies for the Swedish laws in Australia – an abolitionist stance.

    Sweden has admitted their laws stigmatises sex workers.

    As NORMAC supports the Swedish law, therefore NORMAC supports stigmatising sex workers.

    Why does NORMAC and its supporters believe that stigmatising sex workers is a good thing? If they did not, they would not support the Swedish law.

    Is it wrong for women being to make a choice over their rights to their body, or should these decisions be taken away form women and given to others? The Swedish Law does not do so, and the slogan used was “Our women are not for sale”, indicating that someone, other than the women themselves, owns Swedish women. Indeed, many different Swedish laws do not allow women to have a choice over their own bodies.

    I support women, and men, and transgender people, having the right to choose what they do with their own bodies, whether that is becoming a mother, having an abortion, getting married, modifying their body by choice, having sex reassignment surgery, without the imposition of laws saying, “you can’t do this, because I say it is immoral”.

    So why does NORMAC believe that women are incapable of choice, and that it is correct to stigmatise sex workers, as the Swedish government has admitted their law, which NORMAC lobbies for, does?

  7. Simone

    July 15, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    Calum Bennachie. The continued posting of -“Why does NORMAC believe that stigmatising sex workers is a good thing” is statement from you and those who deliberately misrepresent NORMAC and their supporters. NORMAC don’t stigmatise “sex workers” and ending every piece of misinformation you post will not make it so. The argument that sex is wrong and that’s why abolitionists want to stop prostitution is archaic and disingenuous. Call off your old tired ethics of anti-woman rhetoric. Why do you assert men’s inalienable right to buy human beings for sex?

  8. Calum Bennachie

    July 13, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    Your figures still do not make sense. Also, the figures for 2012 are for 12 months, the earlier figures are for a lifetime. Even is a sex worker had been working in the sex industry for only 2 years, her “lifetime” experience of violence would be less than the 12 months of the 2012 study. Yet most sex workers work in the sex industry for 3-5 years, therefore making the average lifetime experience of violence even lesser.

    There are numerous studies that tell you what sex work is really like, and numerous books written by sex workers that tell what it is really like. But sadly abolitionists prefer to ignore these, as they, or rather, people like you, tend to ignore these claiming they are not representative. That is false. Yes, there is violence in sex work, but there is also violence in taxi driving, more than in many other occupations – should the clients of taxi drivers be criminalised because taxi drivers are at risk of violence, including rape?

    You will find that sex worker organisations give a more accurate picture of what sex work is really like than abolitionist groups who trot out a former sex worker who only had bad experiences. That’s like saying “I went into the hospital today, and 75% of the people there were ill, therefore 75% of the population are ill”. Or going to see one or two nurses in a hospital, working in accident and emergency, find out out that these nurses had once upon a time been assaulted, and then claim that all nurses get assaulted.

    You claim that disadvantaged people in a decriminalised environment are not likely to complain to the police. Yet, oh, look at this, a street based worker complained to the police who then helped her get the money owed to her: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/strange-but-true/news/article.cfm?c_id=500835&objectid=11292537

    This is not an isolated incident, and has happened before. Street workers in Wellington were being threatened once by someone with a piece of 4×2. One of them called the police. Brothel workers make complaints to the police if they have been assaulted. They even make complaints to the Disputes Tribunal and the Human Rights Review Tribunal: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11212075

    Decriminalisation has allowed sex workers to make complaints to the police if something goes wrong. In most cases, the sex workers who have had something go wrong have said they would not complain to the police if sex work were still illegal, or if their clients were illegal.

    Swedish sex workers continually state they would never go to the police if they were the victim of an assault. For example, Levy (2011: 11) reports “Sex workers additionally experience difficulties when attempting to report violent crime and rape, in the context of their sex work, to the police. An idea held by some police officers, that sex workers cannot be raped, was mentioned by several respondents as being the justification for such difficulties”, and “In spite of the apparent immunity of sex workers from authoritative harassment in the context of the sexköpslagen, the law has been used to directly destabilise some sex work. Police have been noted to report sex workers to hotels or venues, with the sex worker then barred from returning. Police have additionally been noted to inform sex workers’ landlords that their tenant sells sex, thus forcing the landlord to evict the sex worker.”

    Is that what NORMAC really want?

    As I said above “even the Swedish Government admits the law criminalising clients increases stigma against sex workers, yet perversely calls this increase in stigma a good thing (Skarhed, 2010: 130)”. It is the Swedish Government’s official “evaluation” of their law, which criminalises clients, that specifically states their law stigmatises sex workers. NORMAC supports and promotes the Swedish law criminalising clients. The Swedish government admits their law stigmatises sex workers. Therefore NORMAC seeks to impose a law that stigmatises sex workers. Why does NORMAC believe that stigmatising sex workers is a good thing.

  9. Bronwyn Williams

    July 11, 2014 at 2:14 am

    Well, Calum, let’s examine your grasp of basic mathematics.

    You take issue with Miss Tatham’s figures as follows:

    ‘The flat figure for rape in 12 months in 2012 was 15%, while for *lifetime* experience in 2008 was 29%. This is not the reduction of 48% claimed by Tatham.’

    Follow this carefully – if you subtract the percentage of prostitutes reporting rape in 2012 (15% or 15 out of every 100) from the percentage reporting rape in 2008 (29% or 29 out of every 100) you get a reduction, in gross terms of 14%, or 14 out of every 100. The reduction of 14%, in comparative percentage terms, is 14 out of 29, or 48%.

    The same mathematical logic applies to the reduction in assault (struck with a fist) figures – 29% in 2008 reduces to 18% in 2012, a comparative reduction of 11 out of 29, or 38%.

    But nitpicking about the figures is somewhat irrelevant when we’re talking about a ‘job’ where appalling numbers of ‘workers’ are subjected to rape and assault – where workers are so inured to the routine abuse that incidences of rape are significantly underreported.

    Mr Bennachie, in the midst of your passionate and vocal commitment to the total decriminalisation of prostitution, and your vehement opposition to the criminalisation of those procuring and buying sex, have you stopped to consider who is committing these assaults, and who is profiting from the misery of those being assaulted?

    You can argue all you want about the minutiae of the figures, but you can’t escape the fact that prostitutes are raped and assaulted in numbers that would cause mass outrage if they were to occur in the general population. Shouldn’t those committing the rapes and assaults – the johns – and those facilitating the offences – the pimps and brothel owners – be criminalised, as they are in Nordic model legislation?

    And, as for your persistent question – why do NORMAC and its supporters think stigmatising sex workers is a good thing – I can find nothing, anywhere, in the published NORMAC position that suggests any such thing. Making false assertions about opponents and their policies is a lazy debating tactic, and about as academically sound as your mathematics.

    Prostitution is a massive social issue, and even you have referred to figures indicating it is dangerous and potentially damaging for prostituted persons. NORMAC supports the Nordic model because focusing legislative attention on the buyers and procurers of sexual services is the only approach that makes any sense. Despite your blatant misrepresentations, the Nordic model approach to prostitution policy is firmly committed to decriminalising prostituted persons and providing adequate exit programs.

    If you claim to represent prostitutes, why are you content to support a policy regime that allows those committing abuses against prostitutes to persist totally unregulated? And don’t tell me that prostitutes are free to report assaults under your favoured system – we both know that is not the reality of prostitution. How many teenage Korean prostitutes working long hours in Australian brothels have the support or the knowledge or even the language skills to report an assault?

    In your previous comment, you claim that the Nordic model stigmatises ‘people’ (who, exactly?) and is an offence against common decency and human rights. But what do you call a punter insisting on unprotected sex with a prostitute, and getting violent when she (or he) refuses – a celebration of human rights and decency?

    You may be tired of being stigmatised, but some of us are tired of so-called ‘sex-worker’ groups misrepresenting the grim realities of prostitution. Why don’t you tell it like it REALLY is?

  10. Calum Bennachie

    July 10, 2014 at 5:00 pm

    Well Megan, let’s examine your claim. You claim that it is selective reading. Bjørndahl, (2012) compared their recently completed research, that covered the year, that is 12 months, since Norway criminalised the client, with an earlier study that included the all the violence that had happened in a sex worker’s working life. This period of time could be 1 year, it could have been 5 years, or 10 years, or 20 years. Studies show that people generally stay in the sex industry for an average between 3-5 years. So dividing the *lifetime* experience by 3-5 years does indeed indicate that violence has reduced.

    59% of respondents stated they had been subjected to violence in the *one year* since Norway criminalised the client. 52% reported violence in the *entire* time they had been working in 2008. 59% reporting in one year, 52% reporting in a lifetime. Even if that lifetime in the sex industry is only 2 years, that’s more than twice as many incidents of violence in a year.

    Looking at the rape statistics now, at point 2.2.5 Bjørndahl, (2012) states: “Rape we chose to ask about in two ways: rape and threatened/forced into sex that was not agreed to. We know that many of the women call rape something else: that they were forced into sexual acts that were not a part of the agreement they had made with the customer. Legally this is rape, but many of the women associate rape with assault and will therefore not call force by the customer they have made an agreement with rape. Table 10 shows this clearly. As many as 27% reported that they had been threatened/forced into sex that was not agreed to, while 15% said they had been raped. We have looked at how many checked both answers which could mean that they define both these categories the same way. Only 6 people have done this, which confirms our suspicion that many of the women would not characterize actual rape as rape. This also means that the actual frequency of rape is considerably higher than what is shown in table 10. If we combine the amount that checked these options and then subtract those that checked both we see that as many as 34%(25 people) of those that have experienced violence in the last three years have been raped/threatened into sex that was not agreed to.”

    The flat figure for rape in 12 months in 2012 was 15%, while for *lifetime* experience in 2008 was 29%. This is not the reduction of 48% claimed by Tatham. Even when adding “forced into sex that was not agreed to”, (27% for 12 months in 2012; 35% for lifetime in 2008), it is *not* a 48% decrease as claimed by Tatham. Then if you divide by 2, as we did before for the lifetime experience, it is still less than the total of 34% as noted by Bjørndahl earlier.

    Taking any of the figures in an even dividing them by 2 (despite the average lifetime in the sex industry being longer – between 3-5 years), shows that the average amount of violence has increased per 12 month period since Norway criminalised clients.

    Tatham should note that Table 12 in Bjørndahl, (2012) gives the comparison figures. Struck with a fist: 2012 (last 12 months) – 18%; 2008 (lifetime experience) – 29%. Difference is *not* 38%. *Nowhere* in the report does it state physical violence decreased by 38%.

    Oh, by the way, still waiting on an explanation from NORMAC and its supporters as to why stigmatising sex workers is a good thing.

  11. Megan Tatham

    July 10, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    This is so typical of Calum Bennachie, he is misleading with the data he is using to promote his ideology.

    Bennachie has stated that Research from Norway (Bjørndahl, 2012) shows that violence has increased.

    This is a very selective reading of that research!

    The 2012 (post – Nordic Model Laws) research is compared to 2008 (pre – Nordic Model Laws) research and the conclusion drawn is that in 2008 52% of prostitutes in Oslo said they had experienced violence compared to 59% in 2012.

    The actual evidence if Calum bothered to read this research is included in the text.


    Will Calum please state why he has chosen to mis-represent this data to promote a pro-industry stance.

    If anything, this report you quoted has shown that the Nordic model laws in Norway have lead to more people involved in the sex industry feeling safe to report all abuses against them including verbal abuse.

  12. Pro Balance

    July 9, 2014 at 11:27 pm

    Women in Australia are not “forced” into the sex industry, it is a conscious choice they make. When faced with difficult or even desperate circumstances, everybody has a choice about how they respond. There are always alternatives to prostitution which do not compromise one’s morals.

  13. Calum Bennachie

    July 9, 2014 at 9:15 pm

    TV Resident.

    Nowhere does Holloway mention in his article a difference between the legalised, the decriminalised, or the criminalised “sex trade”. In fact he specifically states “in all states of Australia”, and as Australia has legalised (QLD, VIC, ACT), decriminalised (NSW), and criminalised (everywhere else) forms of regulation of sex work, it is clear he is talking about *all* forms of regulation. Why else mention “all States”? So yes, as you can see, I did read, and understand the article, so your quip is pointless, and a mere attempt to distract.

    Furthermore, the claim he makes about the starting age is supposedly “worldwide”, yet is from a small study of less than 50 people in the US.

    Studies in Australia (Donovan, various years; Perkins, various years, etc.) yield similar results to those in New Zealand in relation to starting age, etc. For example, Perkins and Lovejoy (2007: 34) found that 60.8% of sex workers started between the ages of 19 and 30. Again, this makes the claim by Holloway false.

    Numerous studies in countries from all the Americas, throughout Europe, Africa and Asia yield similar results. As I said “If you only ask people under 18 when they started sex work, of course they would have a lower average age of entry.”

    As an Australian living overseas, I can see how bad the Abbott budget is, and I have similar fears that people will be made to do things they are not suited for, or do not want to do, or are not capable of doing, or may even end up starving or committing suicide because of the way Abbott has gone about this budget. It is an immoral budget. However, if people are going to start work in the sex industry, criminalising their clients and making it dangerous for them is counter-productive, and is similarly immoral. If you want to protect sex workers and make it easy for them to exit, then decriminalise – provide sex workers with rights so they have the ability to deal with problems. Stigmatising people, as Sweden has done, (and as Norway is having second thoughts about, and the French Senate has realised), is against common decency, basic human rights, and causes more harm rather than reduces harm.

    I really would like NORMAC and its supporters to explain why stigmatising sex workers is a good thing.

  14. TV Resident

    July 9, 2014 at 8:01 pm

    Calum Bennachie… Matthew Holloway was not nessessarily talking about the ‘legal’ sex trade…If you read the article properly, you would have understood that. The liberals do the same thing, they turn a blind eye to the things that they don’t really want to see.

  15. TV Resident

    July 9, 2014 at 6:00 pm

    I honestly believe that Abbott and co don’t give a damn about the way their ‘underlings’ are supposed to survive…They’re OK, so why on earth would they worry about us peasants or what we would be forced to do to survive. They are renown for looking after themselves and their mates and bugger the rest of us. Why the large percentage of the public gave this creap and his cronies their votes will baffle me for a long time, they appeared to lap up every lie told to them. I sincerely hope that the current senate are strong willed enough to pull Abbott and co up short and not allow them to get away with their blatant lying.

  16. Calum Bennachie

    July 9, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    Your claim “Prostitution and sex trafficking are booming worldwide, with the average age of young girls entering prostitution often being as young as 13 or 14” is FALSE.

    The above claim is from a small study of people under 18 who started sex work before the age of 18. If you only ask people under 18 when they started sex work, of course they would have a lower average age of entry.

    On average, for all sex workers, the average age of entry is between 18 and 21. In New Zealand, 35.6% of sex workers started between the ages of 18 and 21, and a further 27.1% started between the ages of 22-29 (Abel et al, 2007: 61, table 4.6, available from http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/commercial-property-and-regulatory/prostitution/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/impact-health-safety/documents/report.pdf). As this is 62.7% (and doesn’t include all those who started after the age of 29), your claim is shown to be false.

    Why do you put statements that are easily proven false in your claims?

    How many of the Nordic countries have exactly the same law? Only 2, Sweden and Norway (which adopted the Swedish model about 3 years ago). Finland and Iceland have different laws to Sweden, and Denmark has completely different laws. So why call something, that isn’t even supported by the majority of Nordic countries, the “Nordic Model”?

    Research from Norway shows that violence has increased (Bjørndahl, 2012: 22), the Swedish Police have stated brothels are increasing (Swedish National Police Board, 2012: 13), and even the Swedish Government admits the law criminalising clients increases stigma against sex workers, yet perversely calls this increase in stigma a good thing (Skarhed, 2010: 130).

    Would Holloway and NORMAC please explain why stigmatising sex workers is a good thing.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive our newsletter

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top