A case due to be heard before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg this week could have dire consequences for those campaigning to end prostitution.
The hearing is the first step in determining whether France’s prostitution laws – which criminalize paying for sex – are constitutional, or whether they violate the human rights of self-proclaimed “sex workers”.
France introduced the legislation, known as the abolitionist model, in 2016, joining a growing list of countries (Sweden, Norway, Canada, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Israel) where it is illegal to buy sexual services, shifting criminal liability to the buyer, who is fined if caught.
This has been controversial from the start, with sex worker rights activists saying a better solution would be to decriminalize all the sex trade, including pimping, owning brothels and exploring sidewalks.
But prostitution is dangerous and degrading for the vast majority of women concerned. The removal of laws relating to pimping and brothel ownership, and the legitimization of men who pay for sex, has the result of further entrenching the idea that prostitution is inevitable and, as I am told. said repeatedly, “the oldest profession”. I prefer to use the expression “the oldest oppression”.
In December 2019, a challenge to the law in France was filed with the French Constitutional Court, but the law was upheld. In their ruling, the judges said the law helps protect women “by depriving pimps of their profits” and “combats this activity and the sexual exploitation of human beings, criminal activities based on coercion and slavery ”.
The plaintiffs – 250 people involved in prostitution, supported by 19 French NGOs – are now bringing the case before the ECHR.
The fact that the plaintiffs are using human rights law to defend the “right” of men to pay for sex is astounding. Prostitution is a violation of the human rights of the women involved, and men are prohibited from paying for sex. In this case, the so-called “human right” of women to sell sex is being used as a smokescreen to protect men and their right to sexual access to the most vulnerable women.
The applicants claim that the law contravenes three articles of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to life; prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment; right to privacy. One of the arguments is that the law puts women’s lives in danger by pushing prostitution underground; that they are more likely to be abused by sex buyers because only “bad” bettors will take the risk; and that women have the right to make autonomous decisions about selling sex.
There is no evidence for these claims – on the contrary, research in countries that have adopted the abolitionist model has shown that the rates of violence and homicide perpetrated against women by pimps and gamblers are well below those of decriminalized regimes.
The implications are huge – if the plaintiffs win, all other countries with a similar law will undoubtedly be challenged by pro-prostitution lobbyists. If, however, they lose, it will further strengthen legality and underscore the successes of the abolitionist model. Much weighs on this case in terms of the direction other countries are taking when dealing with their own sex trade.
What are the alternatives to curb demand? Decriminalization or generalized legalization, as adopted by the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland.
But legalization has lack miserably. Under this regime, the demand for sexual services, trafficking in women and girls, and illegal brothels increased. There is no evidence of a decrease in violence, HIV rates, or killings of women in the legal sex trade, but there is evidence that the rights and freedoms pledged by lobbyists for legalization and decriminalization have been transferred to brothel owners and sex buyers.
Space International, a feminist NGO founded by survivors of the sex trade that advocates for the abolitionist model, has asked to intervene in the case and will present evidence on the benefits of the law. For example, that the law includes provisions for exit services for women who wish to leave prostitution, and protection against pimps and other exploiters.
If the candidates succeed, the judgment will become case law to rely on in the future and could lead pimps to fund major campaigns to repeal sex buyer laws in other countries to protect sex workers. profits.
Hopefully the judges see meaning and understand that a repeal of the abolitionist model will lead to more misery for women, and amnesty for sexual exploiters.
