Dear Ash Regan, we are sex workers and we don't want your Nordic Model
You did not consult with any current sex workers before drafting this legislation, which should be unthinkable in our current climate. Policy and laws should centre those who will be most affected by them, as we are the experts on our own lives and on how this law would negatively impact us. Nothing about us, without us.
Sex workers don't want this bill, and neither do the Scottish public. When surveyed, 69% of Scots say the Scottish Government should focus on protecting the health and safety of sex workers, and providing support to people who want to leave the industry. This is compared to only 14% who support the government passing new laws to prevent people exchanging sexual services for money.
Your bill offers no support to people looking to exit the sex industry. It does not offer any financial backing to struggling organisations which provide services for sex workers, a sector and funding system which the [[Scottish Government]]'s own research has shown is not fit for purpose. The bill does not propose to change policies around benefits or housing to reduce poverty and make sure that fewer people are driven into sex work by financial need. This is despite the fact that 2019 Home Office-commissioned research identified that 'a substantial proportion of individuals … are selling sex to get by financially'.
In your bill consultation paper you included a quote which stated that anyone who sells sex is no longer a whole human being, and can never be whole again. This offensive language perpetuates stigma and violence against sex workers, and we reject it. We are whole, we are valuable, and we deserve to be heard.
Read more
Prostitution is not like Pretty Woman - it harms the most vulnerable | The Herald
Regan Nordic Model Bill 'targets demand, protects women' | The Herald
'Becoming a sex worker saved my life - don't take that away from us' | The Herald
Often the topic of sex work can be highly emotive and polarising. This is why it's so important to place both evidence, and the voices of current sex workers, at the centre of these discussions. All sex worker-led organisations in the UK support decriminalisation, and oppose the criminalisation of clients. The evidence is clear: the Nordic model, which criminalises the client, puts sex workers in more danger and does not decrease demand.
In Northern Ireland, a Ministry of Justice review found that violence against sex workers increased by 225% after similar legislation was passed. According to Ugly Mugs Ireland, crimes against sex workers almost doubled in the two years following the introduction of the law. A Medicins du Monde report found that similar laws in France have led to 42% of workers being more exposed to violence, and 63% experiencing a deterioration of living conditions. An Amnesty International report on the impacts of the Nordic model in Norway found that the police still primarily target sex workers for criminalisation, rather than clients.
Clearly, the Nordic model does not work. Public policy should not be based on ideological positions, but on the evidence of what will truly help those in need. This is why Scotland for Decrim calls for further measures to help those in poverty, as we do not want anyone to have to sell sex to survive.
We want to see the introduction of rent controls, further support for disabled people and an end to attacks on their rights and income, and the implementation of a Universal Basic Income. We want a reversal of the slashing of services designed to help those escaping abuse, and a complete overhaul of the immigration system to avoid keeping people in dire situations of poverty for long periods of time. These measures are what has been proven to effectively tackle exploitation according to academics at Dundee and Edinburgh Napier universities, not the further criminalisation of an already vulnerable group.
Ash Regan (Image: Newsquest)
Best evidence demonstrates that full decriminalisation is the most effective measure to ensure sex workers' ability to work in the safest ways possible. In New Zealand where decriminalisation was implemented in 2003, violence against sex workers has decreased, access to healthcare has improved, and relations with the police moved from being combative to collaborative. In Belgium, which decriminalised sex work in 2023, sex workers are now able to form trade unions and have won the right to maternity pay, which will decrease exploitation and child poverty.
Bellatrix, a sex worker from Scotland, had this to say to you: 'No matter your personal feelings on sex work, the evidence shows that decriminalisation is the safest for us. Not all issues are made better by involving the criminal justice system. Focus on how to help us avoid poverty, how to not lose our housing, how to find jobs that will actually work around our childcare responsibilities, and our disabilities. Do not criminalise us for existing within the margins.'
We call on the Scottish public to join us in the fight against this dangerous bill and for the full decriminalisation of sex work. Visit our website scotlandfordecrim.org or find us on Instagram at scotland4decrim to find out more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
'Vulnerability' left in UK constitution after UKIMA review
The Internal Market Act (UKIMA) faced fierce criticism from devolved administrations when it was introduced in 2020 to regulate trade within the UK following EU withdrawal. They argued it enabled Westminster to override devolved decision-making in areas such as public health and food standards in pursuit of a unified UK market. After winning power in 2024, the Labour Government announced it would be reviewing the legislation. The findings of the UKIMA review were published last Tuesday. The review introduced procedural changes – including a mechanism to fast-track exclusions from the act where the economic impact is less than £10 million per year – and pledged to prioritise the use of common frameworks, post-Brexit agreements intended to manage formerly EU-governed policy areas collaboratively. READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: I was steered by BBC bosses on how to report. I ignored it However, the review's changes are not legally binding and could easily be reversed, Professor Thomas Horsley, a constitutional law expert at the University of Liverpool, said. 'All they've done is said, 'these legal powers that exist, we commit politically to exercise them in accordance with what we agree in the common frameworks',' Horsley said. 'But that is a political commitment, and we all know that intergovernmental commitments can be – even the strongest ones – can be disregarded by a particular recalcitrant government in London. 'So the constitutional vulnerability, if you want to put it like that, remains.' He also said the £10m threshold below which UKIMA exclusions would be fast-tracked was a 'low bar', noting that it could be met by the turnover of a single company. Following the publication of Labour's review, both the SNP Government in Edinburgh and the Welsh Government in Cardiff welcomed changes to the exclusions process – but called for UKIMA to be fully repealed. Welsh Deputy First Minister Huw Irranca-Davies (Image: Welsh Government) Huw Irranca-Davies, the Deputy First Minister of Wales, said: 'We particularly welcome the commitment to implement any exclusions agreed via common frameworks, which should improve the functioning of the UK internal market. The common frameworks operate on a clear set of principles which fully respect devolution and include dispute resolution mechanisms. 'However, it is our long-standing and consistent view that the act should be repealed and replaced with a system, underpinned by legislation, designed around the common frameworks.' Scottish Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson hit out in stronger terms, saying UKIMA 'introduces radical new uncertainty as to the effect of laws passed by the Scottish Parliament and effectively provides a veto to UK ministers'. 'Nothing set out in the UK Government's response to the review changes this position, which is completely unacceptable,' he went on. READ MORE: Kate Forbes calls for Internal Market Act to be scrapped 'The conclusion of the review falls well short of our stated position of repeal and replace UKIMA, and indeed short of the legislative change required to mitigate the most damaging aspects of the operation of UKIMA.' Horsley said he could understand the argument being made by the devolved governments, that the 'common frameworks can do it all' and UKIMA is unnecessary. 'It is precarious because if things don't get agreed through the common frameworks – or a future UK Government decides, well, these political commitments we made, we're changing our mind – the legal powers are still there,' he said. 'This review doesn't change the legal framework, it just says, wait a minute, we're going to park it in the background and we're going to try and work using more intergovernmental political mechanisms, the common frameworks.' However, Horsley said that although the Labour Government's review has resulted only in political pledges, it was 'definitely a move in the right direction and a move that speaks to the ambition of the UK Government to reset relations'. He went on: 'There are other parts of UKIMA which are just not discussed. [The devolved governments] would like to reopen discussions around the direct payments that can be made from London in devolved areas. So there are things that are not so narrowly related to intratrade that are still rubbing up wounds. 'But in terms of just narrowly looking at UKIMA and the market access principles, there are some positive things there and some clear commitments from the UK Government towards more consensual policy making … which is very different to obviously the more abrasive approach which preceded under previous governments.' READ MORE: John Swinney sets out 3-point plan for fresh independence push In late 2024, Horsley was one of four constitutional legal experts to co-author a report on UKIMA which concluded that reform of the legislation was 'essential to restore intergovernmental trust'. Asked if Labour's review had provided that essential reform, he said: 'What this review shows is that there is more work to be done, but it's around those common frameworks. 'It's now shifting the attention to making the common frameworks work. These are not off-the-shelf things that are super functioning and solve all the problems. 'So the work between the governments now is going to have to be making those common frameworks work.' Douglas Alexander is UK Trade Policy Minister (Image: UK Parliament) After the review was published, UK Trade Policy Minister Douglas Alexander acknowledged there were 'real concerns' about how the laws have operated, and pledged "improvements'. Alexander stressed the importance of having a 'well-functioning UK internal market' as part of the Government's 'ambition to improve economic growth for the benefit of businesses and people in all parts of our country'. He added: 'Latest figures show that trade between the four nations of the UK is valued at £129 billion and that it is particularly important to the economies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.'
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
Backbench MPs should remain loyal to constituents, not parties
The very use of that term speaks volumes about how the party leadership may regard both its troops and any perceived dissension from the party line. This follows a year-long freeze of her Labour credentials dating from a letter Diane wrote to The Observer in early 2023. It also follows the suspension of seven other 'miscreants' who had the temerity to suggest the two-child cap should be history and had no place under a Labour Government. And, of course, the massive recent rebellion over changes to welfare eligibility. Featuring, among very many others, all of the latest MPs to lose the whip. READ MORE: 'Time to take action': What it was like at the national Palestine demo in Edinburgh At which stage, the Labour leadership earnestly assured its flock that it would listen more intently to its backbenchers and absolutely didn't regard the latter as mere 'voter fodder'. Abbott's letter said, not very controversially, that the kind of lifelong racism encountered by black and brown people, differs from the kind of prejudice suffered by Irish people, Travellers and Jewish people. 'Any fair-minded person will know what I meant,' she later said in a statement to BBC Newsnight. Indeed. Surely a textbook example of 'we ken whit she meant'. (Image: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire) In an interview for James Naughtie's Reflections programme last Thursday, she said she had no regrets about these remarks despite having apologised for them at the time. She reiterated that face colour is an immediate red rag to racists in a way that their identity probably isn't for other minorities. Cue portions of the Labour roof falling on her head. Again. It may be that her real crime was a historical closeness to former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. At any rate, the Mother Of The House has now been unceremoniously flung oot the Labour house. You might think that a government with a large majority of seats on under 34% of votes cast in a poll where fewer than 60% of electors bothered to use their vote might display some humility. Rather than take a sledgehammer to crack people denounced as irritating nutcases. Especially since their MPs – more than half of them in parliament for the first time – are there to represent a constituency where two-thirds of electors either didn't vote for them, or simply didn't vote. The Labour Party's draconian attitude to dissenters suggests complacency and a tendency for overreaction. It also suggests they hope their hardline stance will result in fewer Labour MPs willing to take risks. Not so much the firm smack of government as political punishment beatings. From a Scottish perspective, the most instructive victim is Brian Leishman, the luckless Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth. Grangemouth, you will know, was Scotland's solitary refinery, a place the Scottish Labour leader promised to save during the election campaign. Leishman, unsurprisingly, thought he would therefore be on safe ground when he vocally supported the workforce. Alas, that, plus his stance on welfare reform, meant he would instead get his jotters. Without warning. He said, thereafter, that he hadn't been elected to make people poorer. He also argued that he'd been elected 'to be a voice for my constituents across [[Alloa]] and [[Grangemouth]]'. Not, it seems, if that voice fails to chime with the latest stance of his leader. Anas Sarwar's silence on this matter, at the time of writing, has been positively deafening. READ MORE: 55 arrested in Westminster as protests grow over Palestine Action ban The [[Alloa]] and [[Grangemouth]] MP says that the Scottish Labour leader has not been in touch since a WhatsApp message last January. You might have thought he'd pick up the phone over Grangemouth at least, if not over the latest party row which saw one of his own Scots Labour representatives publicly humiliated. However, Leishman says he still supports Sir Keir's leadership and 'I will be out campaigning to get Scottish Labour candidates elected for Holyrood next year. I'll be doing everything I possibly can to get Anas into Bute House'. Each to their own and all that. Also interesting is the role and function of MPs of all parties. They don't have a statutory one, but they do have a code of conduct based on seven principles of 'selflessness, integrity, objectivity, honesty, accountability, openness and leadership.' However, the code also acknowledges the challenges faced by MPs when the needs and views of their constituents come into conflict with those of the party whose rosette they sported on election night. Or, as the code puts it: 'As members of a political party, MPs are expected to support and promote the policies and principles of their party. However, this should not come at the expense of their duties to their constituents or the wider public interest.' So let's suppose that the chap representing the workforce at Grangemouth was doing little more than exercising his duty to his constituents and the wider public interest. Not even to mention demonstrating integrity objectivity, and accountability. The code does understand the complexity of the MP's role in a way their parties may not: 'At times a constituent's demands may conflict with party policy and your MP will have to decide where their first loyalty should lie.' And woe betide any MP if their first loyalty is not to their party, it seems. Thus far, the people who found themselves minus the Labour whip were, to a man and woman, all demonstrating their commitment to what used to be thought of as traditional Labour values. For other quite mouthy MPs like the usually admirable Jess Phillips there was instead a plea for party unity and a respect for party discipline. So says the MP who resigned from the Labour front bench in 2023 over the carnage in Gaza, having backed an SNP-instigated vote on a ceasefire. Then she said: 'On this occasion, I must vote with my constituents, my head, and my heart which has felt as if it were breaking over the last four weeks with the horror of the situation in Israel and Palestine.' This time, the tune seems to have changed and she says: 'Constantly taking to the airwaves and slagging off your own government – I have to say, what did you think was going to happen?' Maybe, Jess, they hadn't realised voting for the wider public interest shouldn't be a hanging offence in a party which once described itself as 'a broad church'. Or, as Abbott wrote on a social media post: 'Silencing dissent is not leadership. It's control.' But voting with your constituents, your head and your heart is not apparently an option for others whose inner voice tells them their party has simply got it wrong. Angela Rayner, one time darling of the Labour left, confined herself to saying that the Abbott situation presented 'a real challenge for the party' (sure is)! READ MORE: The Chancellor's words don't line up with her actions Rayner is an enigmatic case in point. She was, after all, a prime mover in getting the party to admit Abbott as a Labour candidate after her last long suspension. Labour's very own working-class woman has obviously decided that she can exert more influence as a deputy leader than a serial rebel with a number of causes. You might think that she had rather more in common with Abbott than, for instance, the current Chancellor. But for heavens sake, don't say so out loud if you have a Labour Party card about your person. The moral of this latest debacle is that if you get elected to parliament as a Labour candidate, please be sure to check in your conscience at the door. It has no place in the chamber these days.
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
Rural Scots 'face major energy bills hike after RTS meter switch off'
RTS meters, which use long-wave radio signals to switch between cheaper and more expensive electricity rates remotely, are disproportionately common in off-gas-grid and rural areas. A full deactivation of the system was scheduled for June 30. But just 11 days before that deadline, the UK Government paused the planned blanket switch-off in favour of a phased approach, citing the fact that 314,000 households across the UK – including 105,000 in Scotland – were still using the meters. READ MORE: Dr Ron Mould: RTS switch-off will put vulnerable Scots at risk The Scottish Government had raised concerns that the shutdown could disrupt heating and hot water systems for those still relying on RTS meters, while potentially triggering steep hikes in energy costs. However, Shetland resident John Inkster said he is already feeling the impact after being moved off the RTS system by provider EDF Energy. He described the resulting rise in bills as 'unjust' and said it flies in the face of assurances given by Ofgem, the energy regulator. Ofgem has stated that consumers should be left 'no worse off' as a result of switching away from RTS meters. But Inkster said that for islanders like him – living in areas without access to mains gas – the reality is starkly different. 'I think we spend about £4000 a year heating our house at the moment, before the RTS meter changeover,' he said. 'I imagine that might go to £6000. 'You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out that people are going to be completely fleeced here.' READ MORE: John Swinney: Labour are ruling out all options to reduce energy bills Before the switch, Inkster had two meters: one charging 27p per unit of electricity for standard use (lights, appliances, sockets), and another offering a reduced 15p tariff for heating and hot water. Since EDF replaced his system, most of his heating, except for storage heaters and a portion of water heating, is charged at the higher rate. Based on his calculations, the change equates to a 74% increase in costs on around half of his heating and hot water use. That could see his annual bill rise from £4000 to around £5500. 'There are a lot of people who don't understand this who have it in their house, to be honest with you,' he said. 'It is a bit complicated. 'But it doesn't take any kind of a genius at all to work out that customers will be much, much worse off.' He went on: 'It's said people are dying in Scotland in the cold because they can't afford to heat their homes. You hear that, don't you? 'Well, how is this going to affect those statistics? Improve them or make them worse?' Inkster said he was aware of other Shetlanders who had already 'torn panel heaters out of their houses' in response to the soaring cost of using them under the new tariffs. He warned that many affected households might only realise the full extent of the change when their winter energy bills arrive. The Shetlander has enlisted the help of his local MP, LibDem Alistair Carmichael, who has written to EDF chief executive Simone Rossi with his concerns. The LibDem MP for Orkney and Shetland, Alistair Carmichael (Image: UK Parliament/PA Wire) 'Ofgem has stated that energy companies should give equivalent tariffs to RTS customers so that no one is left worse off as a result of switching,' the MP said. 'At best, what EDF is doing goes against the spirit of that commitment – at worst, it looks like an active attempt to evade the new rules. Ofgem and the Government must come down hard on this sly behaviour.' EDF did not respond to the Sunday National's request for comment. A spokesperson for Ofgem said: 'We have made clear to suppliers that we expect them to treat customers fairly – not only in terms of shielding households from unnecessary costs but also offering the same or similar tariffs after their RTS meter has been upgraded. 'It is crucial that customers are protected at every stage of the phased shutdown, and we are spelling out to suppliers key requirements that must be met before an area loses its RTS signal. 'While this carefully managed phaseout process should reassure customers, it remains crucial that these meters are replaced urgently so it's vital to engage with your supplier when offered an appointment.'
