How the Nordic Model criminalises sex workers

A protest in France earlier this year as part of an international strike by sex workers.

The Nordic Model is touted as a way to abolish the sex industry without harming or criminalising sex workers. Under the Nordic Model, at least in theory, providing sexual services in exchange for money is not criminalised, but paying for sexual services or living off the earnings of another’s sex work are criminal acts.

In practice these laws endanger and even criminalise sex workers. Most industry groups, including the Scarlet Alliance in Australia, support full decriminalisation of sex work, as do the World Health Organization and the United Nations, because it has been shown to have the best worker health and safety outcomes.

Laws that criminalise living off the earnings of sex work are meant to prevent pimping but in reality they criminalise support networks and have even been used against sex workers.

These laws force sex workers to work alone, making it illegal to provide security or drive a sex worker in exchange for payment. Rather than being a pimp, a driver or security is often someone a sex worker has engaged to provide an extra level of safety while on the job. The same goes for engaging someone to handle the administration side of the work.

These people can be friends or co-workers or they can be people who do this as their career. Blanket criminalisation of living off sex worker earnings makes it harder and more dangerous for sex workers to do their job.

It makes renting out a property for the purpose of sex work illegal. This makes it more difficult for sex workers to rent suitable work spaces, reducing their options and leading to more outdoor work.

It also takes away the avenues available to sex workers if a tenancy dispute arises. If a landlord knowingly rents to a sex worker, they are breaking the law. If the landlord engages in unfair practices, the only avenue available is the police, and doing so will lose the sex worker their place of work.

Options like mediation or tenancy tribunals are not available if the rental agreement is illegal. This lets landlords who know that their tenant cannot lose their place of work by going to the police exploit them.

Prohibitionists claim the Nordic Model takes power away from the client and gives it to the sex worker, but in reality this is not the case. It is not a lack of laws that make it hard for sex workers to get legal justice against abusive clients — it is already illegal to commit sexual or physical assault. The barriers faced by sex workers in pressing charges and achieving successful prosecution of abusers stem from stigma and dehumanisation.

Laws criminalising all clients will not help this. Changes in attitudes towards sex work are what will give sex workers the power to achieve justice.

An alternative model that addresses violence against sex workers, without criminalising the purchase of sex or sex industry workers is the Merseyside Model, in which crimes against sex workers are classed as hate crimes.

The conviction rate for rape committed against sex workers has increased dramatically (up to 90% in 2009 and 67% in 2010 for reported crimes) in the parts of Britain that have adopted this model.

Of course, this model on its own is not enough and the statistics do not show how many sex workers were still not comfortable reporting rapes, but it is a model with proven results, that does not make sex work more difficult or riskier.

When clients fear arrest, and their arrest will lose the worker the money they need, sex works are forced to take measures that make the work more difficult and more risky.

Workers have complained of having to move around to avoid police detection, because no client will book them with police there waiting to pounce. This often means not working in better lit areas they know well.

They have complained about having to make the choice of whether to take the booking and get into the client’s car on the spot. When all sex work is decriminalised and clients aren’t under fear of arrest, workers have more time to talk to the client before deciding.

Decriminalisation also allows for the creation of safe houses, where outdoor workers can take clients for bookings, rather than doing the job in the car if the client has nowhere to take them. Not only is this a safer option, but with access to bathroom facilities and free condoms, dams and lube, it has health benefits too.

The Nordic Model is an example of ideology trumping real life. Whether you believe sexual services should be bought or sold, if you believe that the rights and safety of sex workers should be paramount then please listen to sex workers when we say that full decriminalisation is the model that best achieves this.


Yet again we have to hear a sex worker speaking on behalf of all people who have been in the sex industry.

Socialist Alliance needs to engage with survivor groups and not just pro-industry advocates. There are many people amongst the SA membership who support the Nordic Model and who have been involved in the sex industry.

The full decriminalisation model which has been seen in NSW, NZ and Germany has been a failure and there are numerous cases and reports showing that it has failed to curb violence against those in the industry, it has failed to stop under-age prostitution and it has failed to provide OH&S. Why is this you ask? because there are intrinsic links between crime and exploitation and there are numerous examples of criminals being brothel owners. When they are forced by law to provide safety for those working in the sex industry, they find ways to operate outside the system. Socialist Alliance siding with the capitalistic sex industry is a huge disappointment to the Left movement internationally which is moving in the opposite direction to the human rights based Nordic model.


Invite Survivors to be involved in your policy!


I know that Simone Watson, an Indigenous Australian woman who was prostituted has been closely associated with the Left and the Alliance, these are the voices we need to be listening to.

I found this quote from her online;

"As an exited prostituted person we have to say we like the work, talk about 'our regular clients' blah blah and you believe it because you WANT to- but prostitution is never consensual. One person wants ***, the other doesn't so they are paid which equals a circumvention of consent. It;s paid rape. Also the only link between trafficking in to prostitution and prostitution IS prostitution. The majority of women in prostitution (High-end, to street level) end up with a disability due to the "work" . We suffer PTSD- at the same rate of combat war veterans, torture victims and, tellingly, rape survivors. But if men need it well, I guess creating a disability in us is all fine? There is nothing harmless about having multiple numbers of men using you day in and day out. Johns are never harmless; if we're lucky, not spitting in our faces and being polite while violating us is considered decent then it's not aiming very high. Knowing men never question their right to buy us is disturbing and frightening."

If you like our work, become a supporter

Green Left is a vital social-change project and aims to make all content available online, without paywalls. With no corporate sponsors or advertising, we rely on support and donations from readers like you.

For just $5 per month get the Green Left digital edition in your inbox each week. For $10 per month get the above and the print edition delivered to your door. You can also add a donation to your support by choosing the solidarity option of $20 per month.

Freecall now on 1800 634 206 or follow the support link below to make a secure supporter payment or donation online.