Debaters Gillian Abel, an associate professor and head of the Department of Population Health at the University of Otago in Christchurch, New Zealand, researches the way decriminalization of sex work affects health, safety and human rights.

Taina Bien-Aimé, the executive director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, was formerly executive director of Equality Now, an international organization dedicated to the promotion of the rights of women and girls.

Legal Prostitution Is Still Dangerous and Exploitive Amnesty’s proposal would decriminalize pimps, brothel owners and buyers of sexual acts — the pillars of the multi-billion dollar global sex industry. This is not the best way to tackle the violence and exploitation inherent to prostitution. Decriminalization serves to expand and normalize the sex industry, and its implementation has been linked to higher rates of human trafficking. I agree that commercially sexually exploited individuals, who are overwhelmingly women, are among the most marginalized groups and must not face criminalization or abuse by law enforcement. However, Amnesty’s call to legitimize their exploiters effectively eliminates accountability for the untold violence they exert through power and control.

Decriminalization Makes Life Safer for Sex Workers Sex work is an occupation that many women voluntarily choose. To deny that prostitution is work not only infringes on women’s right to choose their work, but also on that of men, transgender and gender-diverse individuals. And denying sex workers the right to do their work legally infringes on other rights, such as their access to legal aid and recourse. In 2003, New Zealand was the first country to decriminalize sex work for the workers, their clients and third parties (minders, pimps, landlords, or anyone else who may receive money from sex workers’ earnings). This move allowed sex workers to operate under the same legal and labor rights as any other occupational group, and makes them less vulnerable to exploitation. New Zealand sex workers are now able to govern their own work, collaborating with their peers or electing to use third party management, such as a brothel operator. Sex workers can now request police assistance if they are exposed to violence, report crimes without fear of being held accountable for involvement in the illegal acts themselves, and seek support services. This has already begun to play out. A police officer went to jail in 2010 for coercing a sex worker into providing free sex by threatening her with traffic fines. In another case last year, a sex worker was awarded $21,000 after successfully bringing a sexual harassment lawsuit against the operator of the brothel where she worked. (The sex worker liked her work but objected to the manner in which the operator of the brothel was treating her.) Prior to decriminalization, it would have been impossible for a sex worker to legally challenge bullying and exploitative behavior.

Penalize the Buyers, Who Fuel Demand for Prostitution But decriminalizing the roles of the people who exploit and harm prostituted individuals is severely misguided. Amnesty should promote a legal framework known as the “Nordic Model” (or the “Equality Model”) that exempts those who sell sex from criminal liability — and affords them services — while penalizing the buyers of sexual acts (“johns”) who fuel the demand for prostitution. Amnesty need not green light this larger system of exploitation in the name of protection. The premise tramples on the very human rights values Amnesty was established to protect.

Sex Work Is Not Always Coercion The premise that all who work in the sex industry are sexually exploited is pejorative to say the least. New Zealand is no different from many other developed countries in that most sex workers are adamant that it is a personal choice. This is not to deny that some sex workers do have less access to social resources (due to poorer education or family support) and therefore, fewer alternative occupational choices. Some sex workers are more vulnerable to exploitation than others — but the law does not condone forced labor. Exploitation is present in other occupations, as well. It is not unique to sex work. Working conditions under any system that criminalizes sex work — even semi-criminalized systems, such as the Nordic model — make sex workers vulnerable to greater coercion.

An Absence of Choice for Many Young Women No one is denying a woman’s choice to sell her body. But the concept of “choice” cannot be divorced from the socio-cultural bedrock of gender-based inequality. Many prostituted people enter the sex trade as children (those under the age of 18 are legally sex-trafficked victims). “Choice” is not the coming-of-age prize they magically earn when they enter adulthood. The results of decriminalization of the sex trade are catastrophic for women and girls. Since New Zealand’s controversial 2003 Prostitution Reform Act (P.R.A.) passed by only 1 vote, the New Zealand government found that street prostitution increased in Auckland, with an overrepresentation of Maori and Polynesian women and girls. The government even has an "Occupational Health and Safety" manual for what is inherently hazardous work for women. Manukau City Councillor Colleen Brown lamented the law's effects on the ground, including in addressing street-based prostitution: “Whoever passed this legislation just didn’t think this through.”

Protect Young People, Don’t Prosecute Them People with a personal antipathy to sex work make unsubstantiated claims about the impact of the “New Zealand model.” There is no evidence to show that the numbers of sex workers are dramatically different since decriminalization. It makes sense that prostitution would become more visible — It may not be a doubling of prostitutes, but a glimpse into the now legal reality of what it already looks like. When it comes to the reality of children in sex work, the “New Zealand model” is working to reorient the approach to youth involvement in sex work, away from one of prosecuting young people to one of protection. That’s not to say it should happen. But in a recent survey of 772 sex workers, only 17 percent had entered sex work under the age of 18. But sex workers, clients, and third parties such as brothel operators are now able to provide information about suspicious activities and what they see happening in relation to trafficking. Decriminalization enables whistleblowers to speak out about exploitation — and they do. Sex industry workers expect their competition to comply with the law.

Human Traffickers See A Market in Legal Prostitution Assuming that brothel operators will freely provide information about trafficking in their establishments is trusting the fox to guard the chicken coop. The current trafficking law in New Zealand has weak tools to investigate domestic sex trafficking, including of minors, and New Zealand survivors testify that their lives in prostitution were violent, extremely dangerous, and peppered with constant abuse and fear. The U.S. State Department reports that New Zealand is a destination country for trafficked women from China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam, and children from indigenous populations there are at risk for sex trafficking. What's more, New Zealand, as an island, is a physically isolated country with extremely strict immigration policies. So imagine the effects decriminalizing the sex trade can have on trafficking elsewhere in the world, where borders are more porous. In certain Asian countries, the sex trade has been calculated to account for 4 to 14 percent of the G.D.P. Cultural norms are also critical. Decriminalization of sex buyers and pimps signals to men that women are commodified objects they can purchase — and to traffickers, that the “market of flesh” is open for business. If you replaced prostituted individuals with a particular ethnic or religious group in this situation, there would be an international outcry against racial or religious exploitation, abuse and discrimination. The second-class status of disenfranchised women sadly exempts society from the same level of outrage.