‘We shouldn’t be treated as second class citizens’

Sex workers argued a ban on strip clubs would affect access to employment rights and put people at risk of exploitation and job insecurity.

During a panel discussion in Bristol University’s Wills Memorial Building, a collective of dancers, union representatives and academics presented evidence they gathered on the impact of a nil-cap policy.

There was consensus that sex workers deserve employment protections that would be unavailable to them if the nil-cap was imposed, with one researcher arguing the policy is inherently “anti-worker”.

A nil cap policy would effectively mean the closure of Bristol’s two sexual entertainment venues (SEVs) – Urban Tiger and Central Chambers – and no further premises would be allowed to open.

Wednesday’s panel discussion follows a 12-week public consultation that ended in December, in which Bristol City Council sought the views on proposals to ban SEVs in the city.

It is a policy backed by some politicians and women’s rights campaigners, including Bristol Women’s Commission, who argue that SEVs “reinforce gender stereotypes and normalise the objectification of women”.

The panel presented the findings of a number of research projects.

These included:

• Research by Amélie and Scarlett, both members of United Sex Workers, who worked alongside Dr Jessica Simpson, a lecturer in sociology in the Centre for Applied Sociology Research at the University of Greenwich.
• Research by Dahlia, a dancer and masters student at Goldsmiths whose work looks at the position of sex workers in the media.
• Work by Dr Katie Cruz, a senior lecturer in law at the University of Bristol and co-director of the Centre for Law at Work.
• Findings from Tess Herrmann, a PhD candidate at the social policy and social work department, University of York.

…………………………………………

Read more: ‘A nil-cap would help women reclaim the night’

…………………………………………

The panellists argued that SEV licensing, and decisions to implement a nil-cap policy would affect the lives of workers and their access to employment rights.

Tess’s research found that strippers will continue to stay in the industry as the income potential is a lot higher than in other gig economy jobs. This is despite the precarity, competition and job insecurity within the industry.

The researcher described SEV legislation as a “circular process” in which legislation designed to “protect” women actually makes it more dangerous for women to operate in SEVs and leaves sex workers at risk of exploitation and job insecurity, which in turn fuels further legislation against SEVs.

From left to right: Tess Herrmann, Scarlett, Amélie and Dr Jessica Simpson – photo: Mia Vines Booth

In her participatory action research into the effect of SEV legislation on sex workers, Jessica found that stripping was a “safety net” for many respondents, especially during the pandemic, and within a wider precarious job market. Respondents argued stripping offered a higher income, more freedom and flexibility in comparison to other forms of employment.

59 per cent of respondents said stripping was their main source of income, of which 15 per cent of those were primary income earners. A number of respondents also commented that they felt that legislation against SEVs had made their jobs more insecure, adding to their mental and physical stress.

The research found that reducing job opportunities or banning the regulated stripping industry does not remove “the problem of sex work” but instead makes it more dangerous for sex workers.

Dahlia added that media representations of sex workers created a culture of stigmatisation and harassment towards sex workers, who are repeatedly “blamed” for male violence against women.

The panellists held an online zoom meeting to share their findings with the public – photo: Mia Vines Booth

United Sex Workers say they have still not seen the results of the council’s public consultation, despite “multiple attempts” to contact the council, including submitting a Freedom of Information request and extending an invitation to councillors to listen to and contribute to the panel on Wednesday.

“Six months later and we are still waiting on a response,” said Amélie.

Katie argued that the nil-cap legislation is inherently “anti-worker” due to the fact that increasing restrictions on SEVs moves towards a Nordic model that criminalises sex workers and pushes them underground.

The academic argued that instead legislation should be introduced to give sex workers basic employment rights that are seen across all other industries, such as a guaranteed minimum wage, holiday pay, whistleblowing protection and paternity leave.

Katie said: “Dancing and any other form of sex work should not be seen through rose-tinted specs. It can and does challenge and uphold sexism, racism and capitalism. But the fact that dancing reproduces these power relations doesn’t mean that dancers aren’t workers.”

Amelie, who is a member of Bristol Sex Workers Collective, added: “Sex workers are not ‘collateral damage’, we cannot end violence against women by reproducing violence against sex workers.

“We shouldn’t be treated as second class citizens.”

Central Chambers is one of Bristol’s two strip clubs – photo: Central Chambers

Main photo: Martin Booth

Read more: Should Bristol ban strip clubs?

Listen to the latest Bristol24/7 Behind the Headlines podcast: