Take note of structure
Con is disallowed to rebuke Pro in this Round, this means that all ‘head-on collision’ between Con’s opening points are coincidental and not angled against Pro’s case itself but against the resolution as a whole.
Con does not seek to take the typical counter-plan to the Nordic Model. Con seeks to legalise and enable prostitution in two ways:
- The legalisation of prostitution done by the self, for the self or a group with no apparent Pimp or hierarchy that is more of an ‘escort collective’ of sorts. In this scenario Pimping would be illegal as would owning an official brothel.
- The legalisation of Pimping with business in the industry officially getting licensed, audited and paying tax.
Con is fully aware that plan 1 would have plan 2 outlawed but both plans are ones that Con is going to use in arguing against the Nordic Model in both:
- Its means of tackling abuse of women and pressuring into prostitution.
- The end-goal being to end prostitution.
In handling these 2 angles of the Nordic Model Con may very well accidentally rebuke Pro’s current Round 1, it should be noted that this is not rebuttal and is a necessary component of the opening case against the Nordic Model.
What would porn be without cameras? Lap-dancing and stripping what would it/they be if able to become more?
The angle Con wishes to take here isn’t one of ‘porn is legal, so prostitution should be’ in itself. Rather, Con would like us to agree that there are industries that do everything except the behind-the-camera direct sex that prostitution would do (not does, would do if a legally conducted business in the areas where it’s outlawed).
The notion that 'it can't work because it's barely legal anywhere in the world' fails to support the end-goal of the Nordic model being sufficiently held against the following concept:
In decriminalising the market, many of the barriers sex workers face are removed. Facing no legal comeuppance, there would be no reason for sex workers not to seek assistance from the police. There would be an incentive to provide better infrastructure, such as increased security measures, when the threat of a police raid on the brothel is removed.
Other cases of decriminalised sex work have warranted such positive results. Perhaps the best (and most obvious) example of this is the Netherlands, who famously take a very tolerant, laissez-faire approach to prostitution. There, sex workers operate in an environment of security cameras, police patrols, and other safety measures. What’s more, is that workers have access to healthcare and STD checks. In bringing the market to the surface, the Netherlands has done a fantastic job of protecting the well-being of sex workers and their customers.
Decriminalisation has also helped the Dutch economy. The revenue of the Dutch sex trade stands at around $800 million (€625 million) a year. As a visible, regulated market, this money goes to the workers and businesses themselves (as well as 33 per cent in tax revenue for the Dutch government), rather than into the pockets of criminals and human traffickers.
Despite the success of the Dutch market, as well as the other evidence supporting the benefits of a legalised sex trade, some are already calling for an end to the aforementioned Leeds red light district. Locals complain about the increase in sexual activity, as well as other negative externalities such as discarded contraceptives or drug paraphernalia. Politicians argue that decriminalisation has not done enough to protect sex workers from coercion, drug addiction, or STDs.
However, many of these negative externalities do not stem from the existence of a free sex market in itself, but from illegal activity. According to the local paper Leeds Live, the rules of the district state that the sale and use of drugs remain prohibited, as does public sex, littering, and other forms of anti-social behaviour. Meanwhile, common complaints from locals revolve around discarded needles and other unsavoury litter, as well as misbehaving patrons causing disturbances.
Many of the issues posed by the district do not seem to stem from the free market itself, but from generally antisocial, illegal behaviour. As such, to blame the hands-off approach is something of a fallacy, and a better solution would be to iron-out these issues, rather than simply shutting the district down.
As an alternative to the laissez-faire approach, some propose a Nordic model whereby sex work itself is decriminalised but purchasing sex remains an offence. The idea behind this is to protect the workers while deterring consumption, which would theoretically reduce the size of the market over time.
Yet this model lacks many of the advantages of a well-implemented legal market, and would bring with it a far greater deal of restrictions on consumer choice, as well as potential risks for further harm against sex workers. After all, the kind of person who would knowingly harm a sex worker is not the kind to be dissuaded by criminalisation; if buying sex is criminalised, then only criminals will buy sex.
This is precisely what we have seen happen in Ireland, where the Nordic model was introduced in 2017. Since then, violent crime against sex workers has almost doubled. Consumers, sceptical of potential intrusions from the Gardai, make sure to check that the worker is alone before engagement.
Let’s not give up on laissez-faire. While the Leeds trial was far from perfect, the idea behind it has been seen to function well, protecting the well-being of sex workers and customers without the need for paternalistic intervention as in the Nordic model. Our first red light district might need some reform, but there’s no reason to throw away the free market model just yet.
- 1
The reason Con quotes the argument there is it truly cannot be worded better other than superficially paraphrasing for the sake of avoiding plagiarism. The fact of the matter is that when illegal, it is obvious that the type of women (and men, for that matter) who end up in prostitution are going to feel victimised and brutally at a loss, like their body is an object for others to use since the entire concept involves blackmail and 'don't you dare tell' strategy that drives the Nordic Model forth.
The Nordic Model is rooted in a false concept of what prostitution could be by relaying stories of women traumatised by the unregulated, non-tax-paying prostitution rings that require human trafficking and all the horrors involved with it in order to maintain themselves.2.3
It's true that the Nordic Model does a good job of making a legal loophole that enables snitching from prostitutes to come far easier. It does this especially well when the one abusing them has broken the law of even hiring them in the first place.2 On the other hand, while the prostitute is completely entitled to opt out of snitching on their Pimps, but then why would they be snitching to the cops when the Pimp can get enforcers to discipline the abusive 'John'?1,3
The Nordic Model is entirely dedicated to rooting out abusive Johns from the equation but when Brothels, Pimping and everything involved with prostituting is illegal then what's left to stop the Pimps needing to clamp down, blackmail or outsource and human-smuggle (AKA human trafficking) to get their 'products'?
Self-employment already exists and under plan 1 of Con, this would work perfectly well. For this Round, this should be a fairly obvious fact, Con will provide more sources for this and the viability of it in later Rounds as needed.
Businesses are ultimately either LLC or Corporation. For small-scale brothels an LLC would suffice but you could even start to see proper corporations form once the societies begin to accept it. Sex is taboo, that's half the reason it's hot, there's no need to criminalise the selling of oneself for it when all the harms come from the illegal nature of it and the blackmailing involved in keeping the prostitutes quiet. Sourcing for this, will have the same approach as the above point.
In fact this one angle 'what is porn without the cameras and lapdancing with a little more on top?' is very significant to understanding how it all would work. It's a service industry. The morality of it should be the same as the morality of anything that disgusts but only harms due illegality; people should learn to get over themselves and the activities that disgust perhaps should stay behind closed doors (unless it's a voyeur fetish hiring of prostitutes as in-house long-term kinky maids or something, then closed doors can be further 'out'... lol?)
The Nordic Model is pseudo liberalism designed to make everything about hunting down people who hire prostitutes and maybe even the Pimps handling them, much easier as you reduce the prostitutes' fear (of going broke by losing their profession or having threats acted upon if they snitch). Con stands here very simply saying, that the following practises on the legalised self-employment plan (the first one) or the organised business legalisation plan (latter plan) would include the following:
Thorough, Regular Audits
Among many factors (like keeping track of transactions) this would most importantly include:
Speak with employees regarding their impressions of the company's commitment to ethics. Take this opportunity to ask them to share their experiences about co-workers, managers and executives. Make sure all employees know their interviews are confidential and that honest answers will help to improve their organisations. Insiders know a large amount of information that the public, the press and government regulators are not aware of. Not every breach of ethics is illegal, either, and employees can be an insightful source of information on legal breaches of ethics occurring on a regular basis.
To make this information more quantitative, look for patterns in the responses you receive and record the number of times specific issues come up. If you find employees frequently speaking about management's rude treatment of females, for example, note the number of times the issue came up and calculate the percentage of interviewees who mentioned it.
- 4
Ethics Audit
An investigation into how well (or poorly) a company conforms to the ethical standards of its industry or society generally. An ethics audit may consider the company's own practices, how it redresses grievances, how it discloses its finances, whether it punishes whistleblowers, and even the general cultural surrounding its business dealings. Some companies may formally adopt a code of ethics and conduct periodic ethics audits to see how closely they follow their own rules.
- 5
Professional 'whore-training' programs (this is not a joke)
The Nordic Model's framework of ethics counters legalisation prostitution primarily by saying that even if prostitution was made entirely legal then the exploitation would still happen and that all women are the 'type of women' who get traumatised by the very objectification of their bodies alone. This bare assertion is based on the idea that in the realm of legal prostitution there wouldn't, or couldn't, be proper training not just of how to please men but how to ensure you as a worker are being treated ethically and are healthy mentally. There could be not only regular highly encouraged (if not mandatory) shrink/therapist sessions for the workers (as it is such a demanding walk of life, which Con concedes to Pro) but if you truly have the right kinks, psychology and outlook on the profession and life it should not be an outlawed profession. After all, is there some healthier way for the men to get their rocks off than hiring consenting adults? Do you think a 'date' where the entire motive is to have orgasms is going to end well?
Prostitution is not an unhealthy profession, illegal gangsters and those who work with them are always psychologically unhealthy professions. When it's legal and fully regulated, with the correct information going out and such, there's little room to keep asserting that the women will stay traumatised, but the stigma against the profession is not going to 'disappear' and it will indeed require a thick skin but that's a given with many professions, such as being a cop for some, being an attorney for others, being a rapper for some and being a fast food restaurant worker for others. Stigma exists against some jobs but Con firmly asserts that this shouldn't be reason to make the jobs illegal.
