by Taruna Hariparsad
Growing up in a fairly conservative Indian household, sex was something not really spoken about. Sex work, well that was taboo. I had never really given much thought to it, other than what I had been taught as a kid “prostitution is bad”.
During my brief stint working for a political party, we looked at advocating for the decriminalisation of sex work in South Africa. We met with a few members from the Sex Workers Education and Advocacy Taskforce (SWEAT) to discuss their experiences. The stories were truly horrifying and highlighted some of the worst abuses experienced by women in our country today.
What was even more shocking, was that a large proportion of these abuses were suffered at the hands of law enforcement. I was told stories of how police officers would confiscate the sex workers’ condoms, arrest them and then sometimes rape them in holding cells. These women knew of further abuses, such as human trafficking and abuse of minors, but were too afraid to go to the police because of how they were viewed and treated.
After these meetings, I was forced to interrogate my views and opinions on the issue of sex work. When I thought about why “prostitution was bad”, it was difficult to divorce it from any moral views that were passed down to me. I was confronted with the fact that I was speaking to women who knew what they were doing and what they wanted- enhanced legal protection, and at the very least, decriminalisation.
Now, there are many issues here that require a more in-depth discussion, but as a policy practitioner, I suppose this major question bothers me: When the evidence for action or strategic shift points to an improved outcome for vulnerable groups and the increased realisation of human rights, why do we not pursue them?
National government, and many local governments have embraced the practice of evidence-based policy making[1]. However, reconciling this with political will and appetite, and public opinion or “saleability” can sometimes be a challenge. When political priorities, align with evidence, this is simple enough. However, the issues are more controversial in nature, this is a bit more difficult. Public participation is a vital component of the policy making process, and cannot be dismissed. However, public and political morals and values and their impact on evidence-based policy options is something that requires more reconciliation.
A number of countries such as New Zealand, Australia, the Netherlands and a number of Nordic countries have legalised sex work, and have seen positive impacts in terms of the protection of sex workers, improved health and safety outcomes and reducing stigma. Women are encouraged to report abusive behaviour and There are case studies and the evidence is available, however we have not pursued this with any real effort.
Now, South Africa is not New Zealand or Australia, and the context is very different. South Africa has high rates of Gender Based Violence and femicide, and the concern for the health and safety and sex workers in prohibiting sex is not unfounded. However, the demand for sex workers is not going to decrease, and the only way to improve conditions is to give participants legal protection, social benefits and recourse.
Even though there have been many successes in legalising sex work across the various countries, there have also been a number of challenges, which are important to consider. However, the decriminalisation has been overall positive.
Legal protection reduces stigma and enables the regulation of the industry to ensure health and safety protocols are implemented. More than this, it is what sex workers want, and have been asking for. In addition to national groups such as Sonke Gender Justice and SWEAT advocating for decriminalisation as well as legalisation, international groups such as Human Rights Watch and Harvard Civil Rights have made a strong case for this as well.
Decriminalising sex work in South Africa, and taking it further to legalisation is an important step towards enhancing gender equality, and the protection of women and other participants in the industry. These women are no longer viewed as criminals and have access to legal and social systems from which they are currently excluded. As Annamarie Forestiere (Harvard Civil Rights, 2019) puts it, “telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies does not come from a place of morality: that comes from a place of control”.
The evidence is there, and the women are asking. The question is, when do our moral objectives and concerns bend to the need to protect the vulnerable in our society? When does political will and saleability yield to the needs of those who experience these injustices and abuses?
[1] Evidence-based policy-making (EBPM) helps policy makers and providers of services make better decisions, and achieve better outcomes, by drawing upon the best available evidence from research and evaluation and other sources (Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, 2014).
