Political theater was at its finest on October 18, when a slew of third party candidates joined Democratic nominee, Andrew Cuomo and Republican nominee, Carl Paladino for what might be New York State's only gubernatorial debate this campaign season. Former Manhattan madam, Kristen Davis, contributed to the farce as the gubernatorial candidate for the newly created anti-prohibition party.
Ms. Davis believes that prostitution should be legalized so that New York State can increase revenue by taxing the commercial sex industry and, also, for the overall "benefit of society." Davis' candidacy may be just another publicity stunt in our reality show driven culture, but her inclusion in Monday's debate gave her pro-legalization stance on prostitution a legitimate platform. Ms. Davis' quaint vision of legalized prostitution fails to recognize the connection between legal sex markets and human trafficking.
Coerced prostitution is one of the primary forms of exploitation that trafficked women and girls are subjected to in the developed world. Legalized prostitution allows traffickers to hide victims in plain sight as consenting sex workers. Legal or decriminalized pandering makes a portion of a sex trafficking victims venture legitimate. In recent decades, several countries have changed their policies and laws on prostitution. Because there is a positive correlation between commercial sex work, human trafficking and organized crime.
In 2000, the Netherlands, historically one of the most hospitable countries for commercial sex, formalized its prostitution policy by lifting its ban on brothels. At the time, advocates felt that regulating brothels would provide better protection to vulnerable women, particularly migrant trafficking victims. Unfortunately, regulating brothels was not enough to stymie the impact of global human trafficking on prostitution in the Netherlands. Instead, licensed brothels became a magnet for human trafficking. Having found that regulation had not curbed trafficking the city of Amsterdam decided to purchase former brothels, and in some instances loan them out to up and coming designers and photographers. In 2008, Job Cohen, Mayor of Amsterdam, told The New York Times, "We've realized this is no longer about small-scale entrepreneurs, but that big crime organizations are involved here in trafficking women, drugs, killings and other criminal activities." Amsterdam has a reputation as an open-minded city. Its traditions may be too avant-garde for some, but Amsterdam's regulated sex industry was attracting a criminal element that was beyond the scope of the atmosphere of tolerance that it is famous for.
Amsterdam's experience has shown that regulation of prostitution is not an effective means of cessation against global human trafficking. In contrast, Sweden's method of decriminalizing prostitution while criminalizing the purchase of sex and pimping has lead to a decrease in the number of human trafficking cases. The criminalization of the purchase of sexual services was made into law in 1999. In the decade since the law was enacted, reports indicate that Sweden appears to be the only country in the European Union where sex trafficking and prostitution have not increased. By criminalizing the purchase of sex, and decriminalizing prostitution authorities show that the law is on the side of the victim who is exploited in the process. In Sweden, prostitution is considered to be a form of violence against women. Under the Swedish law, jail terms are permitted. Although, to date most purchasers have been punished with fines. The primary deterrent of the law is being publicly labeled as a john.
When johns fear the loss of their privacy, prostitution becomes less profitable for traffickers. Sweden's model shows that criminalizing everything about prostitution except for the prostitutes themselves, works. Variations on Sweden's prostitution decriminalization model have been adopted into law in Iceland and Norway. In spite of this trend, a recent court ruling in Canada may legalize brothels and pimping. Prostitution is legal under Canadian law. However, in September an Ontario justice ruled that Canada's laws against pimping, brothels and communicating for the purposes of prostitution violated women's rights to "freedom of expression and security of the person." Canada's federal government has filed an appeal against this ruling.
The fight against global sex trafficking is counterproductive if countries label prostitution as degrading work, while attempting to normalize and regulate the process. Many traditional red light districts were set up in order to discourage deviants from raping upstanding women in other parts of town. The bottom line is, if so- called sex work is not appropriate for ones own daughter or sister; it is not appropriate for anyone. Whether or not anyone would willingly choose to prostitute themselves is a separate debate. To the extent that legitimized prostitution increases the demand for human trafficking, a contemporary form of slavery, it must be condemned.
Follow Chelsea-Lyn Rudder on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChelseaLynR
When prostitution is illegal, there is still demand. Legalizing it may increase that demand but there is no reason to believe that the demand for trafficked prostitutes will increase - as that is a category that generally remains illegal. The supply might increase as johns are unable to tell the difference between willing and coerced prostitutes. But this is an issue of trafficking enforcement.
Based on your argument, you should advocate for the forced elimination of the male sex drive for it is the demand for sex that drives the demand for prostitutes. The demand for sex exists even when prostitution is illegal so its influence on trafficking is not particularly curtailed.
Increasing the penalty for being the john can influence the level of demand by increasing the true price. But when the activity has to go deeper underground to avoid detection, you empower the criminal element who are most proficient at such covert activity. And this criminal element is the one engaging in the trafficking you seek to avoid.
Don't blame the clients unless you can prove they are knowingly engaging in the subjigation of those trafficked. Target the actual activity you seek to eliminate which I assume to be trafficking, not prostitution. Prostitution is only one of a number of professions I want my daughter to avoid - some of them now legal.
The prohibitionist argument is irrational, ignorant and based on paternalism which is anything but liberal in it's attitude about the treatment of individuals. Why the post puts up with this is a mistery.
Where is the disconnect here? I am arguing that the prostitutes themselves should be decriminalized so that the trafficking victims among them, who have been coerced into prostitution are in a better position to seek help vs. being further victimized through the criminal justice system. It's all there in the text.
As for your idea that decriminalization increases "trafficking", New Zealand says you're wrong: http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy-and-consultation/legislation/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/report-of-the-prostitution-law-review-committee-on-the-operation-of-the-prostitution-reform-act-2003
Rogead, Sweden has become a less appealing destination country for human trafficking, If some of the activity that might have occurred there was deterred, that shows the success of the law.
"...maybe even educate themselves in another trade that might provide an alternative to sex work" TinaGirlia, I didn't say or imply that all sex workers are uneducated, I simply stated that they many might want to gain other education that might provide them with additional choices and opportunities in life.
Oldscrappy, I can't find any evidence that Obama's administration has disavowed the foreign policy on prostitution as it relates to human trafficking. It is still on literature on the Department of State's website. If you have other written information please let me know.
http://prostitution.procon.org/sourcefiles/USStateHumanTraffickingReport.pdf
http://www.fpif.org/articles/sex_trafficking_the_abolitionist_fallacy
The trafficked are a microscopic percentage of sex workers in the US:
"Human Trafficking Evokes Outrage, Little Evidence" Washington Post, 2007:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201401.html
There ARE women who choose it and ENJOY it:
http://suburra.com/blog/2009/08/16/pink-nipples-meet-a-hooker-who-enjoys-her-job/
Criminalizing a consensual adult activity because you wouldn't want your daughter to do it is antithetical to a free society.
The question is how to identify consumers of consensual sex vs. consumers knowingly paying for non-consensual sex. If the sex 'worker' is a child, the determination is obvious, but how would you protect the right of an adult to consent while ensuring that all participants are indeed willing.
The demand is always there, and no one is arguing that consenting adults shouldn't be able to engage in sex, just that, like religion, it shouldn't be forced on anyone.
For those not being trafficked, those that are involved in sex work out of circumstance or choice, this industry often provides the best outlet to make a living, also providing more scheduling flexibility for other duties or pursuits. Criminalizing the client hurts a workers ability to earn income, and in essence, punishes us too.
I dispute the idea that we should just accept exploitation as an element of society. Those who are socially responsible should at a minimum be mindful of the inequalities in this world. Even this acknowledgment is a small first step in the fight against the often discriminatory nature of society.
There is no legitimate evidence that the Swedish law has done anything to control prostitution or human trafficking. In fact, one of the biggest complaints from Swedish prostitutes is that their activities have now been driven underground. This has led to a much more dangerous situation for the prostitutes. Those few clients who may be abusive can now be so with less likelihood of being caught. Those individuals who are engaging in human trafficking have merely moved out of sight or to other countries. The very people who were in the best position to notice and inform on suspected cases of human trafficking were the clients themselves. They are now afraid to do so.
The United Kingdom is discussing a law that would go even further than does Sweden’s: criminalizing prostitution ONLY for males who purchase sex from females. Male/male prostitution would remain legal, as would any prostitution in which the customer is female.
It isn’t for us to control or judge the sexual behavior of willing adults. We need to remove feminist politics and religious-based "morality" from the issue of prostitution. Prostitution should be legalized, with the understanding that that working conditions and circumstances should be controlled by the prostitutes themselves; and not by pimps, customers, or the state.
You have painted human trafficking and people engaged in sex work in the United States with the same brush, and it's just way too broad. This is a really complex issue, and it doesn't sound like you have had a lot of exposure to narratives of empowered, non-exploited women in the sex industry.
Exploitation happens when there is an imbalance of power, and criminalizing sex work takes away the power of ALL workers, whether they are there by choice, circumstance or coercion, to stand up for themselves against violence and other crimes committed against them. We often stay hidden, fear reporting, and don't testify against abusers because we face harassment and other repercussions if we come forward. It is only logical that giving us equal protection and equal rights would only HELP find those that are trafficked or targets of other violence and exploitation.
Decriminalization is not a magic pill to fix the ills within the sex industry, but it is a key component to identifying and rescuing those that are truly victimized in sex trafficking, while also honoring the value sex work has elsewhere that has nothing to do with human trafficking.
On another note, I am surprised by the fact that this of all articles seems to have generated the most calm and collected discussion I've seen on this site, at least so far.
Under our law, adults are responsible for their actions. If prostitution is a criminal enterprise, than the prostitutes and the Johns are equally guilty. This article, and you, are suggesting we treat adult women as though they were little children, not responsible for their actions.
Now, if you have adult Johns who are buying sex from minors, you have a very different scenario. I am all for throwing the book at the one, but not the other. But adults have responsibility to avoid breaking the law. That goes for both the prostitutes and the Johns.