Migrant Sex Workers and Intersectionality
By Rafaella Piyoti
Rafaella Piyioti is a part-time MA student at King’s College London, studying Conflict Resolution in Divided Societies. She is an Intersectionality and Gender Mainstreaming Student Representative. Currently she is a Staff Writer at the Strife and a Research Analyst at London Politica. Her current research interests are Intelligence, Human Rights and the MENA region.
Abstract
This article examines the intersectionality between migrants and sex work through the case study of Canada and Cyprus. Testimonies from migrant sex workers in both countries outline the failure of the ‘Nordic Model’, adopted in Canada in 2014 and replicated into Cyprus domestic law, to protect sex workers and the dangers it imposes to them. By understanding the links between socioeconomic status, language barriers, and race, this article highlights the detrimental laws of the ‘Nordic Model’.
Migrant Sex Workers and Intersectionality
Sex work has been a widely debated topic, often embedded in broader discussions of human trafficking for sexual exploitation. Human trafficking, according to the Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking in Persons is “the recruitment, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a person, by means of the threat of use of force or other forms of coercion” (Migration Data Protocol 2021). Human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation is known as sex trafficking, i.e. “the intentional movement of someone into sex work, with the use of fraud and coercion” (Sex Workers and Allies Network (SWAN) 2020). Sex migration could end up in a sex trafficking scenario if the migrant is mistreated or their rights are violated. Broadly defined, sex work is the “exchange of sexual services for money or goods” (SWAN 2020). The legal status of sex work varies among different states but the most known model for legal sex work is the ‘Nordic Model. The basic idea of the ‘Nordic Model’ is to decriminalise the sex workers and criminalise the action of paying for sexual activities, thus the client (Berlin and Spagnolo 2019). It has been introduced as a model that would prevent women from joining the sex work industry and offer an exit. However, in reality, the ‘Nordic Model’ has failed to protect the rights of women sex workers and it has led to additional risks of harassment and coercion. This article will focus on migrant sex workers and the issues women face in the sex work industry as migrants, based on their socioeconomic status, their language skills and their race. The main aim of this article is to explain the link between intersectionality and the sex work industry, and it will draw upon two case studies to do so: Canada and Cyprus. In both countries, sex work is legal; Canada adopted the ‘Nordic Model’ in 2014 and Cyprus has its own national law on prostitution - which is similar to the ‘Nordic Model’. This article will highlight the faults of the ‘Nordic Model’ to conclude that a new model of sex work is needed to ensure the protection and promotion of the rights of women who choose to work in the sex industry.
The ‘Nordic Model’ of sex work was firstly introduced by Sweden in 1999 and it is currently in place in Sweden, Norway, Iceland, France, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Canada (Chu and Glass 2013: 103-104). The main idea behind the ‘Nordic Model’ is to end the demand for sex workers by criminalising the clients of the sex work industry and decriminalising the sex workers (Chu and Glass 2013: 102). It is therefore a partial criminalisation of the sex work industry that aims to provide an exit for all those wishing to leave the industry. Instead of helping the sex workers, it pushes the sex work industry underground as it forces sex workers to work in isolated locations (Daley 2017: 94). In addition, the ‘Nordic Model’ of sex work does not guarantee the sex workers equal labour rights with people operating in other industries. This often results in the increase of sex trafficking and it exposes sex workers to additional risks of coercion and harassment. The Human Rights Watch (2019) has argued that the criminalisation of the sex work industry is a violation of the human rights of sex workers, as it limits their right to personal autonomy and privacy. The criminalisation of the sex work industry in many countries has led to an increase in the number of migrant sex workers. Migrant sex work ranges from 30% to the 90% of the overall sex work population within a country (Tampep 2009). What distinguishes migrant sex workers from local sex workers are primarily their lower socioeconomic status, their poor language skills, and their race.
Canada adopted the ‘Nordic Model’ of sex work in 2014 to decrease the number of sex workers in the country, but it failed to do so. As a matter of fact, Canada is one of the main destinations for migrant sex workers (Daley 2017: 2). The legislation aimed at the abolition of sex work, by policing and criminalising clients and third parties in the sex work industry. The Canadian authorities follow an immigration policy which aims to protect migrant workers from abuse and exploitation (Daley 2017: 95). Based on this policy, to prevent sex trafficking and protect women’s rights, the Canadian authorities classify women into different categories based on their socio-economic and racial background (Daley 2017: 55). Women who classify as ‘vulnerable’ under this categorisation won’t be allowed to work in the sex industry (Daley 2017: 5). Those who make it and work as sex workers, holding a visa, will face numerous struggles based on their race and language skills. Racial expectations in the Canadian sex industry vary based on the preference of the clients and the location the sex work is offered. According to an Asian sex worker in Canada, Asian sex workers are not considered upmarket and are working for less money compared to what Western, white sex workers earn (Ham 2020: 559). Ultimately, this reflects the way women are positioned not only in the sex industry but in the Canadian society as a whole. In addition, language barriers are often seen as a signal of lack of power against potentially abusive and disrespectful clients (Ham 2020: 556). As stated by Elli, an Eastern European sex worker, clients will view sex workers that don’t speak English as vulnerable: ‘they think they can scare you that you have nowhere to go’ (Ham 2020: 556). Clients tend to blame the language skills of migrant sex workers on their lower socioeconomic background. This is an indication on how migrant women are treated within the wider Canadian society. The ‘Nordic Model’ reinforces these difficulties instead of protecting the rights of sex workers. When clients fear arrest, they search for more isolated locations and the sex workers are inevitably rushed into quicker process of client selection and often find themselves unable to report abusive or aggressive behaviour against the clients because they don’t have enough details about them (Sex Worker Advocacy and Resistant Movement (SWARM) 2020). This is mainly the result of police raids, known in Canada as Operation Northern Spotlight, which aim to tackle human trafficking. Migrant sex workers are often deported as victims of sex trafficking even though they are not (RCMP 2018). The Canadian police, by assuming that foreign women are victims of human trafficking, repeatedly violates the rights of migrant sex workers (Zoledziowski 2020).
Cyprus has been criticised for reinforcing sex trafficking by offering a type of visa – known as the ‘entertainers visa’, for women migrants working as cabaret dancers (Philaretou 2007: 52). The main issue with this system, which was in operation until 2010, is that women applying for the ‘entertainers visa’ were not aware that their work as cabaret dancers would include offering sexual services to the clients (Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies 2007: 7). It should be noted, that under the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (2000), using coercion to force a person to engage in sexual activity classifies as human trafficking for sexual exploitation. In 2010, Cyprus prohibited the ‘entertainers visa’ and formed a new national law on prostitution similar to the ‘Nordic Model’ (Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia 2010). Cyprus has been criticised by domestic and foreign NGOs for its reluctance to adopt a clear policy on the sex work industry because of the economic benefits the country gets from sex tourism (Constantinou 2013: 289). In Cyprus, the majority of sex workers are Eastern European women migrants who joined the sex work industry for economic rewards (Philaretou 2007: 46). Indoors sex work is the main type of the sex work offered on the island, and there have been allegations that the owners of brothels or other places in which sex work is conducted, are withholding part of the workers’ income for their own benefit (Constantinou 2013: 285). This is a clear violation of the rights of sex workers and there isn’t any law to prevent such incidents from occurring. Similar to the situation in Canada, the linguistic difference is one of the major difficulties migrant sex workers face. Not being able to communicate in the Greek language, coupled with the fear of law enforcement, doesn’t allow migrant sex workers to access their legal rights and they often find themselves unable to report violent incidents and harassment. The best way to express how Eastern European women working in the sex industry in Cyprus feel is through the words of a 28-year-old Ukrainian sex worker: ‘Psychologically, I was a wreck. I started drinking a lot, before, during, and after work to numb the pain and the hell that I was in. At one point, I got physically sick from too much drinking. I couldn’t function at work. I couldn’t even deal with the customers anymore. The sight of them made me vomit. But there was nothing I can do about it. I found myself at a dead end’ (Philaretou 2007: 54)
Evidence provided by sex workers in Canada and in Cyprus are only a small sample of the failure of the ‘Nordic Model’ to protect the rights of sex workers. In most cases, as research has shown, it exposes migrant sex workers to additional risks. The question of what needs to happen about the sex work industry remains open. Radical feminists would argue that any form of sex work that exploits women’s bodies should be criminalised (Valadier 2018: 505). Liberal feminists, on the other hand, argue that women own their bodies, and if they choose to work as sex workers, they should be entitled to the same labour rights as workers in all other industries (Valadier 2018: 507). Whether decriminalisation of sex work is the right way forward is an open debate; yet, paying attention at the words of sex workers: ‘we want full decriminalisation and labour rights as workers’ could provide the answer (SWARM 2020). This article agrees with calls made by NGOs, like Amnesty International for the decriminalisation of the sex work industry to ensure the protection of the rights of sex workers (Amnesty International 2016). It should be made clear that the decriminalisation of the sex work industry does not equal to the decriminalisation of sex trafficking. All states must adopt adequate legislation to tackle all forms of human trafficking (UN OHCHR 2019). Finally, this article concludes that the ‘Nordic Model’, instead of protecting women in the sex industry, endangers their rights and safety.