Dr. Kathryn McGarry:

I thank the committee for this opportunity to present the findings of my doctoral research, which I hope will be of some interest to the committee. My doctoral research focused on the lived experiences of women involved in prostitution in Ireland and, in particular, on how their experiences were impacted by the context within which they negotiated their lives. In the next few minutes, I will argue that any consideration of policy change should seek to enable rather than disempower those engaged in negotiating risk within the sex work environment. I will briefly discuss some of the major findings of my research and their implications for policy.

As has been mentioned, sex workers are not an homogenous group. There is a variety of experiences of sex work and policy must account for this variability. Sex work is a complex social phenomenon and experiences, including of risk, differ among sex workers, even within the same context. Risk is not inherent - it is situational. Risks transpire differently for different individuals.

The women with whom I spoke as part of my study challenged the stereotypical notions of women and men in prostitution as passive or being vulnerable to risk. They were active risk managers in their everyday lives. However, their strategies or capacities for minimising risk were severely compromised within a criminalised regime, particularly so in the case of the most vulnerable people involved in prostitution. As mentioned, criminalising activities associated with prostitution primarily targets those who are most visible and, as such, has the greatest negative impact on the most vulnerable.

While I found evidence of positive relationships between sex workers and members of An Garda Síochána, many of the women with whom I spoke felt that, because they operated outside of the law, they did not have recourse to legal safeguards and could not report violent crimes. This serious issue is compounded by international evidence highlighting the impact of criminalised or partially criminalised environments on the capacities of sex workers to control where, under what circumstances and to whom they sell sex. This exposes them to violence and exploitation. The women with whom I spoke called for official recognition to ensure that their safety would be an institutional priority.

Proponents of the Swedish model seek to criminalise demands as a means of eliminating prostitution. While selling sex is legal in Sweden, there is a legislative limbo of sorts, as it is difficult for sex workers to do so and to do so safely. This is a concern. Furthermore, viewing sex work through a paradigm of violence against women and viewing all women involved in sex work as being at risk limits the capacity to distinguish between acts to which the women consent, however mistaken we believe their consent is, and acts to which sex workers have not consented and could leave them physically harmed or dead. As such, it limits the opportunity to intervene to ensure the latter type of violence is reduced.

An important issue has not been raised today, namely, that the Swedish legislation on banning the purchase of sex reduces sex work to a heterosexual exchange between a female seller and a male buyer. This ban ignores the reality of male prostitution. There is evidence in Ireland, particularly from the Gay Men's Health Project, of the lived realities and the issues impacting on the lives of male sex workers. This issue needs to be considered.

The ability to isolate and target victims of trafficking, coercion, exploitation and enslavement in the sex industry is severely compromised when all activities associated with that industry are regarded as exploitation. Evidence from Sweden suggests that sex work is becoming less visible rather than less common. Judging by presentations on a previous day, the issue of prostitution adapting to policy change needs consideration. Some commentators have regarded the Swedish model as impacting on the sex industry in such a way that it becomes a chameleon. Rather than retreating, it simply changes form to adapt to the new circumstances. This makes law enforcement unworkable and perpetuates risks for the most vulnerable, as they become less visible.

The criticism of the 2010 official evaluation of the Sex Purchase Act has been noted. Senator Zappone referred to the lack of scientific rigour. From a social science perspective, insisting that the purchase of sex needed to remain criminalised limited and weakened the integrity of the evaluative process.

There has been mounting public criticism of the Swedish model within Sweden despite the official line of widespread public support for the ban. The Swedish model, which has been described as a primarily male disciplinary model, does nothing to address gender inequalities and neglects other inequalities that can play important structural roles in prostitution, for example, class and race. Furthermore, such a system compounds the inequalities faced by an already disenfranchised group of individuals involved in prostitution.

Policies that solve problems need to be begin with pragmatic evidence-based data if they are to construct responses that do not start from ideological standpoints.

While there are arguments, ideological and otherwise, for and against the merits of different prostitution systems, as have been noted, what should be of greatest concern in any debate is the effectiveness of policy in safeguarding the health and human rights of sex workers. We do not know for sure what is valid and how much more needs to be found out, but much of the international evidence points to policies of decriminalisation rather than legalisation as being moves in the right direction.

While the exploitation and coercion of marginalised women, children and men into the sex industry needs to be the focus of criminal justice policy, structures of oppression and inequality that limit autonomy, particularly for women, cannot be addressed through prostitution law. Instead, they call for wider social policy interventions. Marginalising voices through exclusion and stigmatising through legislation compound some of the oppressive practices described at this meeting. Shifting the focus away from criminal justice and towards public health, social justice and social care enables those who work with the most vulnerable groups in the sex industry to provide optimum support. Safety for sex workers should be prioritised through harm reduction to protect those who are most vulnerable, to intervene for those who are at risk and to acknowledge those who do not conform to a victim identity.

While different perspectives have abounded and been aired at this meeting, perhaps we could find points of intersection concerning shared commitments to the safety, social justice and politics of inclusion for all, but particularly sex workers, in issues that will impact on their lives.