[imagesource: Dean Mouhtaropoulos/Getty]

Amsterdam’s De Wallen red-light district has long been one of the city’s most infamous neighbourhoods because it’s home to the notorious ‘window brothels’.

In February, this was becoming something of a problem.

It was, as I’m sure you know, a massive tourist attraction, with millions flooding the streets year-round to take it all in. Many of those tourists, complained locals, were engaging in “disruptive behaviour”, with some displaying “disrespectful attitudes” towards sex workers.

The rise of camera phones and social media also contributed to the problem, as tourists filmed shows without the consent of performers, and posted those videos online. Tourists also didn’t seem to care that people lived in the neighbourhood.

Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema was considering a major overhaul of the district to protect sex workers, which was met with the enthusiastic support of red-light district locals.

Then, the pandemic hit, and workers in the area were faced with a different problem.

COVID-19 has affected the livelihoods of sex workers around the world, and those who work in the red-light district are no exception.

CNN reports:

When the lockdown began, many sex workers chose to return to their home countries in eastern Europe, according to Felicia Anna, a Romanian sex worker and founder of Red Light United, a trade union representing 110 women. Many of those who stayed worked illegally.

“They had no other option,” says Anna.

Although sex workers were eligible for government aid (well done, Amsterdam), the monthly stipend of €1 100 was not enough to cover the cost of living in the city centre.

Some workers quit the industry out of fear, and income insecurity, as the virus spread. Brothels were allowed to resume operations at the end of July, provided they adhered to strict screening and hygiene protocols.

At the same time, the empty streets in the red-light district showed residents what life could be like without tourists.

More than 30,000 residents have signed a petition titled “Amsterdam has a choice,” which urges city authorities to improve the quality of life for residents in the center and restrict the annual overnight tourist stays to 12 million.

Last year the total stood at 18.8 million.

While they aren’t against tourism as such (at least 70% of the district’s revenue comes from tourism), they want some sort of balance between quality of life and what some have called the “tourist Disney World”.

Sex workers say their industry has been unfairly singled out as the root of the problem. “The sex workers are not the cause of the disturbance. The bachelor parties are the problem and the fact that EasyJet flights are so cheap,” says Anita [a sex worker in the district].

They say that reforming the Red Light District will not solve the issue of overtourism.

“Tourists are going to visit anyway. You can’t stop tourism unless you put a wall around Amsterdam,” says Anna.

Mayor Halsema is considering a number of scenarios for the district, ranging from decreasing the number of brothel windows to moving some sex workers to a new location.

She has also suggested opening a “prostitution hotel” outside the center and said in May that the search for a new location was well under way.

New rules have already been introduced. Tour guides are no longer allowed to stop in front of the windows and tourists are banned from taking pictures of the sex workers.

For the record, it’s not ‘prostitution’, it’s sex work.

Sex workers are afraid that the district will be closed down and that they will be moved to a new, remote, location.

“That would be extremely dangerous. When you leave your shift at 5 a.m., the robbers will be lining up,” says Anita.

“We don’t want to move into a prostitution hotel. Here everyone can see us. That’s what makes our jobs safe.”

They are also concerned that the decrease in “walk-in tourists” could significantly impact their income.

It looks like the mayor has a tough job ahead of her.

Amsterdam has always been ahead of the game when it comes to sex work. This is not the time to go back on that.

[source:cnn]