Guest post: How the Nordic model protects the prostitute
Originally a comment by Freemage on Stop the woman who is speaking.
Axxyaan
August 1, 2018 at 12:56 am
@Freemage
As you explain the Nordic Model, my understanding of it, goes a bit as follows. The prostitute is allowed to accept money, and is allowed to let that influence her in being seduced by the person who tries to win her favors. However there isn’t any contract (not even a verbal one) involved, so he can’t buy her favors. She is never under any kind of legal obligation to perform any sexual service.
Also the handing over money to the prostitute is not illegal. It just doesn’t buy anything. (except maybe some good will)
Is this more or less correct?
Not quite. Under the Nordic model, classic prostitution still occurs. Clients (virtually all men) still give prostitutes (the vast majority of them women) money in exchange for sex. However, under the Nordic model, the prostitute has committed no crime–the procurer, and the pimp, if any, have. Now, as a practical matter, the prostitute usually makes no waves–the economic need to satisfy the customer still exists, as she most typically wishes to retain his custom in the future. But, if some cause arises that she does not wish to perform, then he has no legal claim against her, and indeed, cannot pursue her legally, since the initial transaction was not a legally binding contract. Furthermore, if he attempts to use force or other illegal means of coercion against her, she can go to the cops, say plainly what has occurred, and get the man arrested. She also has the right of self-defense.
Compare this to the effects of such a change of course under either prohibition or decriminalization:
Prohibition: While the man is just as confined in his response to her refusal (she cannot be taken to court for the money), he can escalate the encounter with threats of violence, without fear that she will alert the authorities, because to do so, she must first admit her own crime. Furthermore, since he is likely to be a first-time offender, while many prostitutes are arrested multiple times, it may very well be that she is sentenced under repeat-offender statutes, and end up facing a higher penalty than her attacker.
Decriminalization: Here, the prostitute is arguably unrestricted from seeking relief from the police if her attacker turns violent–but the customer’s ability to bring the force of the legal system against her is enshrined in standard contract law. In short, he can force her into court under suit for fraud, breach of contract, etc. In some cases, he might even be able to justify use-of-force in attempting to regain his money, on the grounds that the breach of contract is tantamount to theft. (As a point of reference, de facto decriminalization is the norm in many American cities–the cops only use laws against prostitution in cases where they are looking for an excuse to bust someone. In at least one case, the scenario I describe above led to the acquittal of the man who shot the escort in the back as she left with his money, because it was considered ‘robbery’, and thus self-defense. Weirdly, the defense centered around the fact that the incident occurred at night–under Texas law, that meant that her attempt to leave with his money constituted robbery, a crime that is considered justification of lethal force.)
Fascinating explanation. I didn’t quite understand the justification, but that clears it up.
So, NZ does have decriminalised sex work as I’ve noted before. In theory this provides for the application of our H&S laws, employment law and civil contracts law. A sex worker is explicitly allowed to refuse service or continued service, even after having accepted money. Rather than the dispute going to a full court, the buyer has to go to a Disputes Tribunal. This is a less formal, cheap and quick service administered by the Justice Department.
In theory this is all good. In practice there are still cases of under aged prostitutes. Girls and women still turn to prostitution because that is an occupation of last resort, not because they woke up one day and thought “I’d really like to fuck old men for a living”, prostitutes are still assaulted, raped and murdered. Street prostitution is still a problem in many areas and, reportedly, trans people figure disproportionately in that aspect of sex work (termed survival sex I believe). I’m not at all convinced that the authorities have truly got a grasp of just how common sex trafficking is, even though it is illegal for those on a visitors or student visa to engage in sex work or to come to NZ for the purpose of sex work. A quick google of escorts in NZ shows an awful lot of very young women who are not NZers, yet prosecutions of those arranging employment seems be almost non-existent and deportations rare.
Personally, I think there are no protections for sex workers that could not be built into a modified Nordic model. To claim that sex work is just work is meaningless while we live in a society that drives people into circumstances where they feel they have no option but to do something they would never willingly have done. To dress that up as ‘choice’ doesn’t wash.
@Freemage
IIRC, his defense was he was actually aiming at her vehicle’s tires, to stop her driving away, and did not mean to shoot her at all.
Oddly, I cannot find the story online. My Google fu is usually pretty good…
LM, I think you’re right. Your description of shooting out the tyres to stop a thief getting away rings a bell that didn’t ding with the story of a man shooting a woman. That says something sad about how often we hear “man shoots women” or “man shoots prostitute”.
@Lady Mondegreen This? https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php
Here is an article from today’s STUFF, that addresses trafficking and coercion in New Zealand…
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105972846/coerced-sex-work-a-significant-problem-in-new-zealand
The article doesn’t place numbers on the scale of the problem. What the quoted research does address though is that the most common form of trafficking is young women from disadvantaged and marginalised backgrounds.
The Prostitutes Collective (which represent some, but not all sex workers) says they are best placed to spot such girls and women. but it’s not at all clear to me how exactly they would do that and what they can or do achieve if they spot women in that situation. They are also deeply invested in the current legislation since they were critical activists in promoting the legislation in the first place and have actively campaigned against anything resembling the Nordic model. Similarly, it’s all well and good the Police saying that the women should come to them, but they are not a social agency. Unless a crime has clearly been committed the Police can do nothing. As long as the woman is 18 or over and direct force or stupefaction has not been used it’s hard to see how any charge could be made to stick against a pimp (of whatever relation to the woman). After all, pimping is now legal.
These are not easy issues to solve and the Nordic model or similar will not directly fix them either. What it would achieve is removing the fig leaf of legitimacy of anyone pimping women or providing a commercial brothel.
This research also adds more proof that it is a lie to claim that decriminalisation creates an environment free from abuse, coercion and criminality. As far as I can tell the only positive that has come out of decriminalisation in New Zealand is that Police don’t harass the sex workers themselves any more.
LM: It’s true he was shooting at the car (or at least, that’s what he testified), but the night-time aspect was also a key part of why whipping out his weapon was considered a legitimate response to a fleeing target at all:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted-texas-prostitute-death-article-1.1365975#
Also, folks, while I forget I tend to speak with a tone of authority, please note: I am NOT an expert on the Nordic model, and it’s possible I may have some aspects of it incorrect. However, this is my best understanding of how the law is supposed to work.
Skeletor: The issue is that, even under regulated legalization (let alone decriminalization), trafficking increases. There’s a reason for this, and Rob’s post points to it. There’s not a huge swath of women seeking to get paid for sex, if only the Ebil Gubmint would let them. There IS a considerable body of men who want to buy sex, though, if they can do so without legal consequence. The proof for this is very simply the mere existence of sex tourism, in which a would-be John travels to Nevada or Thailand or some other area of the world where sex work is legalized, or at least decriminalized to the point of not entailing the risk of arrest.
Expanding the areas where prostitution is legal means those men no longer have to spend money on travel and boarding. Even if no other men were brought in, those men would be spending money locally, and therefore expect to get even more sex in exchange for their cash. Furthermore, men who can’t find a way to justify a trip out of town just to get sex (note that this especially applies to married men who would find a weekend in Vegas harder to explain than getting home an hour late from work one night , as well as those who simply can’t afford the travel premium) will be added to the marketplace.
When you have a significant increase in demand, but lack a corresponding increase in supply, you increase the profitability of black market operations proportionately–and in the case of prostitution, ‘black market’ means ‘trafficking’. And since the johns have no means of telling a legitimate sex worker from a trafficked one (even assuming they care, which I’m sure is more of an assumption than can truly be warranted), you have no means of assigning blame for the subsequent rape (and trafficked sex, by definition, is always rape).
Since the Nordic Model doesn’t feed demand in the same way (there’s a slight increase, since the johns do know they are less likely to be busted in a sting operation, but this is relatively minor in comparison to what you get from decriminalization, and still has the advantage (ideally) of not punishing the prostitutes.
I’m not sure how this difference arises. Why is it necessarily a binding contract under decriminalisation? Seems like a grey area at best, and the decriminalisation law could easily be written to leave solicitation illegal.
This right here is the problem with most of the arguments in favor of decriminalization. People have not put this idea together…they assume that women getting paid for sex want to do that work. They choose it freely, not out of desperation or because no one else would hire them,or because they were forced to by a parent/boss/pimp/circumstance that left them no other choice. It’s the old whore-Madonna dichotomy. Some women want to be virginal, and some want to be “sluts”. And you can tell which is which, because those who are virginal want to be virginal, and those who are prostitutes want to be prostitutes.
The problem is, too many people see prostitutes as “bad girls”. The sex worker supporters want to change that, and they’re right. It should change. But they think anyone trying to work against the exploitation of women as prostitutes is perpetrating a morality that sees these women as “fallen women” or worse, and lay the burden of middle class morality on our shoulders because we don’t see things the way they do. For too many activists, in too many issues, things are black and white. We’re right, and therefore good. Even if you agree with us on most things, you disagree on this one thing, and so you are bad, and you want bad things, and must disagree on everything (hence the equation of people who support the Nordic model with sex-negative thinking).
I do wonder what is gained by making it illegal for the procurer to offer money for sex. It is my understanding that here in Belgium, organisations that try to support prostitutes suspect that this aspect of the Nordic model may drive part of it underground, because males will try to get the prostitutes to agree, to go somewhere secluded, so there are no witnesses of the money exchange and so no witnesses of a crime.
So what is gained by making this aspect illegal, instead of treating it as a gift in a game of seduction?