Sex workers in exile

Amsterdam has an image problem. Rather, Amsterdam thinks it has an image problem– one directly relating to its curated portrayal as a hub of tolerance and liberation. However, this focus on personal freedoms has in recent years become an issue to the government, which has been working to reel back, or contain, these freedoms. The recent decision to transfer sex workers outside of De Wallen reflects these growing concerns.

The current debates around marijuana restrictions and sex work relocation, at their core, are about paperwork decriminalization and legalization acting as a band-aid for a city not yet entirely caught up with the destigmatization of drugs and sex. ‘Tolerance’ policies are merely that– a blind eye and an allowance, rather than an informed dialogue about underlying conditions. Mayor Halsema’s proposal to move the hub of the sex work industry out of Centrum and to the outskirts of the city is proof of this continued stigma in action, albeit under the guise of progressive egalitarianism.

For the past two decades, sex workers in Amsterdam have benefitted from the legalization of their profession that has allowed them to benefit from tax benefits, legal assistance, support in the case of exploitation, and exit programs should they choose to switch careers. Of course, these benefits are limited to those who have registered as a self-employed professional or entrepreneur. Such advantages do not always extend to particularly marginalized and at-risk individuals, particularly BIPOC and LGBTQ+ individuals as well as migrants without EU visas. The next step the city must take to ensure the health, safety, and livelihood of its sex workers is not a relocation, but an increase in network transparency, individual privacy, and allocated resources like legal help, rent reconsiderations, and educational programs.

The Gemeenteraad largely backs up Mayor Halsema’s plan to take sex workers out of the center. Of course, they also cite rationale such as safety, exploitation, and agency. Their claim that a “firm approach has a defferent effect” further highlights the criminal aspects of sex work and continues to regulate it as an inherently illegal act, as opposed to approaching the topic from a stance of social welfare and workers’ rights.

The current government plans to relocate sex workers from De Wallen to the outskirts of the city only exacerbates the issues of unregulated, underground sex work. The number one priority should be the health and safety of the city residents, and relocating those already in potentially precarious living conditions away from a center hub of both business and accountability goes against that. The current plans are to build this hotel in Amstel III, although proposals to have it elsewhere in Zuidoost, Nieuw-West, or Noord are also under consideration. These locations are noticeably much more displaced from the center of the city; accountability decreases as does the amount of clientele. Since many sex workers’ clients are tourists or visitors, displacing them out of De Wallen would cause them to lose much of their income, which is already unstable and highly dependent on the conditions of any specific day.

Not only are the repercussions of such a move detrimental to the people this project ‘hopes to protect,’ they are also based in particularly stigmatizing and divisive rhetoric. The idea of trying to make De Wallen ‘more livable’ simply implies the attempt to turn it into an even more gentrified space– the livability is determined by the subject. In turn, the more the city can profit off of the subject, the more favorable they are to pander to when it comes to central locations like De Wallen. Luxury does not tend to look kindly upon sex work– only when in a particularly discreet way. It seems that the primary motivation behind this relocation might just be to gentrify the center for an increase in revenue.

The primary issue to solve here, however, is not one easily quantified– it is difficult to suggest ideal policies to put in place in terms of subsidies or legalizations; the approach is not political, but cultural. As a baseline, the consequences of illegal sex work– any sex work done unregistered or without a permit– should not be a criminal offense. Instead, these individuals should be aided with whatever resources they need to perform their work legally. At the moment, the fine for illegal sex work is up to €20.000 – an amount that no one working as an unregistered sex worker is likely to have on hand. While the rationale behind such fines is to avoid issues with exploitation and sex trafficking, the crime and the consequence don’t match up– why charge the individual already largely overlooked? This policy is not only discriminatory and actively detrimental to the safety and livelihood of sex workers, but also antithetical to Amsterdam’s supposed culture of freedom.

The government would also do well to extend more of its budget towards organizations already immersed in issues of sex workers’ rights. By allocating money to projects and foundations largely run by and for sex workers, the workers themselves can decide where it can best go, since they are much closer to the issues at hand. Organizations such as Proud, SAVE, Spot 46, P&G292, and Seksworks, as well as politicians and activists like Yvette Luhrs, who continue to provide aid and information, would be best equipped to determine further action– perhaps hiring these individuals and working closely with them within the governmental framework would be a solid first step.

Instead of allowing sex tourism in Amsterdam to lead to a further disenfranchisement of sex workers where their only wrong is earning their income from the clients they get, the policies should focus instead on providing a more robust legal framework for the treatment of sex workers by clients, creating career opportunities, and working directly with those in question to create policies better reflective of their needs as opposed to making lofty decisions from above.