Legal and trafficking and data and sources …

A quick compilation in one place.

1 – Trafficking
 

Cho, Dreher, Neumayer, „Does Legalized Prostitution increase Human Trafficking?“ (Answer: Yes.) 

https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45198/1/Neumayer_Legalized_Prostitution_Increase_2012.pdf
The data is mostly from Germany and The Netherlands, which have legalised/ decriminalised prostitution.
 
And: 
 
 
 
Note: Dreher himself favours model of strict regulation, but that is besides the point. It’s one of the most important studies around.
 
And:
 
 
 
2 – Evaluations from Sweden:
 
Note – the pro sex industry lobby sometimes quotes the „Lansstyrelsen Report“ to claim that due to the internet, „clandestine“ or „underground“ prostitution has risen. The Report itself, however, which has been criticised by abolitionists for methodical problems, does not even say that, on the contrary. It actually shows that this is not true. So it says the contrary of what the pro-side says.
 
 
 
3 – Evaluation from Norway:
 
(Note the comparison in figures between Sweden/Norway and Denmark, a Scandinavian country where sex-buying is allowed. Denmark had a sharp increase in trafficking following the economic crisis from 2008, while the other two did not.)
 
 
 
Note – the pro sex industry side often quotes „dangerous liaisions“ – a report put together by pro sentret, a Norwegian pro sex industry group. The group withdrew the report after harsh criticism for lack of method, and it plays no role in Norway. It mixes data from before and after the introduction of the sex buying ban, mixes various definitions of violence and throws in problems due to immigration laws as problems tied to the legal status of sex buying. It has been debunked a few times, in English here (but Agnete Ström will have better sources): 
 
 
 
 
 
4 – Mary Honeyball report and resolution (find all EU languages here, too):
 
 
And the text of the resolution the EU Parliament passed in February 2014 (! It is not binding, but a strong recommendation/ statement of will):
 
 
 
 
5 – Experiences from Germany (as admitted by our government):
 
From the government evaluation in Germany regarding the effects of the Prostitution Act of 2001 (in effect since 2002), which tried hard to minimize any criticism:
 
„As regards improving prostitutes’ working conditions, hardly any measurable, positive impact has been observed in practice. At most there are first, tentative signs which point in this direction. It is especially in this area that no short-term improvements that could benefit the prostitutes themselves are to be expected. 
 
The Prostitution Act has not recognisably improved the prostitutes’ means for leaving prostitution. There are as yet no viable indications that the Prostitution Act has reduced crime. 
 
The Prostitution Act has as yet contributed only very little in terms of improving transparency in the world of prostitution.“ (p.79)
 
 
 
As a result the new law now is moving towards a regulatory model.
 
 
 
 
6 – A compilation of data and results on this idea of „legal“ making it safe:
 

(Data / sources etc. from Germany and The Netherlands)

https://banishea.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/legal-makes-it-safe-not/

 
 
And generally on the situation in Germany:
 
 
 
 
7 – Sanitizing of figures/ data re trafficking – in our (German) government’s words:
 
This depends how deeply you can or want to go into it, it needs careful reading. In practice: „exploitative“ has no legal definition, which restricts the possibilities for legal redress – how can you prove it, if there’s no definition (courts now decide that if a woman in prostitution hands over more than 50% of her money (after paying rent in brothels etc.) there might be exploitation.)
And  then she still has to prove absolute coercion. Which is very hard to prove, as the courts would have to accept that she never had a chance of running away. Very simply put, but that’s it. I have highlighted the important parts.
 
On the doctoring of language and redefinition of trafficking and procuring which serves to sanitize statistics, as offences are either defined out of existence or become impossible to prove, from the above evaluation, pp 42-43: 
 
Section 180a(1) Criminal Code in its amended version serves to protect prostitutes from exploitation in prostitution. According to the provision, those in charge of a prostitution establishment are liable to punishment if they keep prostitutes personally and financially dependent on the operation. 
 
At the same time the offence known as “procuring pimping” (kupplerische Zuhälterei) in accordance with the old Section 181a(2) Criminal Code was revised. The promotion of prostitution on a commercial basis by finding clients for sexual intercourse is now only punishable if it thereby restricts the prostitute’s “personal or financial independence”. The revised provision aims to ensure that the mere finding of clients for voluntary sexual intercourse itself is not punishable.
 
The Prostitution Act has also had an impact on the highest courts’ interpretation of Section 181a(1) No. 2 Criminal Code (so-called dirigiste pimping – “dirigistische/dirigierende Zuhälterei”). The Prostitution Act has not made any amendment to this alternative offence as per Section 181a. Accordingly, it is punishable, among other things, “for material benefit [to] supervise another person’s engagement in prostitution, to determine the place, time, extent or other circumstances of the engagement in prostitution…”. Attempts were already made during the legislative procedure to point out that “supervise” and “determine the place, time” here referred to actions on the part of the employer which, if they remained punishable, would contradict regulations under civil law and the legislator’s intention of protecting prostitutes by enabling them to enter into employment relationships. In the explanatory memorandum for the Act the legislator stated that “a voluntary agreement on the time and place for the exercise of prostitution, i.e. a consensually founded, legally effective employment relationship” did not constitute the offence of dirigiste pimping. Subsection (1) served to protect prostitutes’ financial and personal freedom of movement and was thus to be interpreted restrictively. For that reason it was not deemed necessary to amend Section 181a(1) No. 2 Criminal Code. 
 
By decision of the 2nd Criminal Panel of 1 August 2003 (ref. 2 StR 186/03; Decision of the Federal Court of Justice 48, 314 and NJW 2004, p. 81 ff.), the Federal Court of Justice readjusted the standards against which Section 181a(1) No. 2 Criminal Code was to be interpreted in consequence of the entry into force of the Prostitution Act: 
 
“Where a prostitute is working voluntarily in a brothel or brothel-like establishment, the mere fact that she is integrated into an organisational structure by rules governing fixed working hours, place of work and prices does not constitute “determining” her work within the meaning of Section 181a(1) No. 2, second alternative Criminal 42 The direct and indirect impacts of the Prostitution Act 43 Code. This not only applies to legal employment relationships within the meaning of Section 1 Prostitution Act, but also if the employment relationship infringes other legal provisions, such as foreigners law, tax law or the law concerning social insurance. (…) The brothel operator may not determine the nature and extent of the prostitute‘s work. The prostitute must have the right to terminate her employment relationship at any time, she must be permitted to refuse to perform sexual acts and may also not be subject to the employer’s right to issue directives to the effect that she must accept certain clients.” 
 
In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice, when interpreting Section 181a(1) No. 2 Criminal Code, the connection to the provisions in Sections 180a(1), 181a(2) Criminal Code, which have been amended with the introduction of the Prostitution Act, and the legislator’s objective of legalising prostitution as a job that is subject to social insurance and, at least in part, making it comparable to normal employment relationships, must be taken into consideration. This case law ensures that the founding of employment relationships in prostitution by mutual agreement will go unpunished at the same time as restricting the employer’s right to issue directives.
 
 
This is why „pimping“ went down 99% in Germany between 2000 and 2011 – it has become impossible to prove. 
 
This means: Legalising / decriminalising prostitution means de facto decriminalisation of what the sex industry terms „operational aspects of the sex trade“. This means a deliberate blurring of the lines between „business behaviour“ and „criminal behaviour“.
 

As a result, a case of trafficking, exploitation and rape / sexual violence in Germany was ruled a „work accident“ as the other charges could not be proven/ didn’t have a chance to be proven.

http://abolition2014.blogspot.de/2016/08/its-accident-stupid.html

 
 
8 – Data on New Zealand (which is touted as the true decriminalized model now that Germany has visibly gone to hell) begin to show a similar picture. The government evaluations, like the German one, end in positive resumes, but the data itself isn’t good.
Plus New Zealand is often criticised for simply not counting human trafficking within New Zealand (targeting the Aboriginal citizens) as no cross-border movement is involved. 
 
(However – recheck the texts, I’m not an expert on New Zealand at all.)
 
Trafficking New Zealand:
 
 
 
 
These are links to a petition in New Zealand about the Nordic Model, there is data in there:
 

 

 

Advertisements

Mein Kommentar:

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s