WEEK 6: Public Policy: Solutions?

Over the past few weeks, we’ve been reading and talking about the various forms that sex work takes, the working conditions of sex workers at various levels of the trade, the historical evolution of the global sex industry, and its enormity and ubiquity. This week, Week 6, we’re going to be focusing on the good, the bad and the ugly of the various public policy options that are being considered globally regarding the sex industry, particularly prostitution. By the way, the global public policy focus on prostitution, particularly street prostitution, is why there’s a widespread belief that “sex worker” always equals (street-level) “prostitute” (i.e., the “bad whore”).

Before I get into the details of this week’s materials, though, I thought you might be interested in these two discussion of the links between sporting events and sex tourism, focusing on the 2010 Vancouver Olympics:

The Elusive Link Between Sex Trafficking and Sporting Events

Sex, Lies and Olympic Games

Three public policy approaches

Let’s step back and review the three broad options that currently exist for solving the “problem(s)” caused by the availability of (overwhelmingly) women’s bodies for sexual services:

1.      CRIMINALIZATION: This public policy approach seeks to make prostitution illegal. It targets prostitution specifically, arguing that the increasing sale of women’s bodies to men for sex is a leading cause of sex trafficking globally. So, to stop sex trafficking, prostitution must be made illegal. Feminists who advocate this approach believe that prostitution is inherently harmful to women in a patriarchal society, and that it thus constitutes a form of violence against women. The problem here, according to feminists, is that CRIMINALIZATION tends to affect the sex workers quite negatively, as they are disproportionately charged by police and face a high risk of violence.

2.      LEGALIZATION / STATE REGULATION / LICENSED PROSTITUTION: This public policy approach, of which we have an historical example in South Korea (see Lee’s article re. U.S. military prostitution) and contemporary examples in Nevada, the Netherlands, Germany, New Zealand, and Victoria and Queensland in Australia, seeks to put the state in charge of regulating the sex industry. The argument for this approach is that since prostitution and other related sex work will always exist (because men need sex biologically), then the best solution is to make sure the industry is as safe as possible, not only for those who work in it (workers, pimps, johns, etc.), but also those who do not (the general public).

This approach is rarely advocated by feminists, who tend to support either CRIMINALIZATION or DECRIMINALIZATION, which I’ll discuss next. The reason for this is that, historically, the state (a patriarchal institution no matter which specific state you’re talking about) has not been kind to women, and feminists of all ideological positionalities are critical of state control of women’s bodies. There are all kinds of examples, from forced sterilization of women of colour to tax incentives for bearing a certain number of children to medical research, that have made feminist wary of the state.

And when it comes to LEGALIZATION, the issue of solving the “problem” of prostitution and sex trafficking is no different, because, feminists argue, LEGALIZATION, has nothing to do with advocating for the rights of women. Rather, the government takes control of women’s bodies to serve its own aims, which are: to increase municipal revenue, sustain public health, and promote tourism. Achieving these goals requires at least three basic things:

• Gov’t regulated “red-light” districts where sex workers live and work; the legalized sex industry is confined to within this geographically separate area and cut off from the “civilian population.”
• Registration of sex industry businesses; registration of sex workers. 
•  Regular mandatory health checks of sex workers to ensure control of STIs and other communicable diseases.

Key to helping you understand why governments implement LEGALIZATION and why feminists are quite critical of this public policy approach is Jeffreys’ chapter 8, in which she argues that states that legalize prostitution “become pimps and procurers in the global sex industry” (173). So, for next week, be sure you understand her argument here, and why the three requirements of ELGALIZATION enumerated above are each so objectionable to feminists, whether they employ an abolitionist or sex work framework.

3.      DECRIMINALIZATION: This public policy approach tends to be advocated by sex work feminists and feminist whores, largely because it leaves decisions about their bodies largely in the hands of the sex workers themselves rather than the state. As Friney pointed out last week, it’s a bottom-up approach focusing on the agency of sex workers, and not a top-down approach imposed by the state. DECRIMINALIZATION does three basic things:

• It removes criminal penalties for all activities related to the sex industry.
• It acknowledges that sex work is not inherently harmful, should no longer be criminalized, or is otherwise not a matter to be addressed by the criminal justice system.
• And since the whole thing’s removed from the criminal justice system, nothing needs to be regulated by the state beyond what’s normal: health benefits, pension, workplace safety standards, etc.

The argument here is that if the state regulates the industry just as it would any other industry, then sex workers would, for example, have access to health care and be able to take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing (rather than having the state impose health checks on them, which are only about STIs and not about holistic health and wellness). Sex work would be a regular job, just like any other, so that the sex worker could pay taxes into social insurance systems, have access to a pension, etc.

But, as Jeffreys points out, there are problems here too, not least of which is the assumption (also found in arguments for LEGALIZATION) that men biologically need sex in order to function. Not only is this assumption biologically essentialist and insulting to men, but it is also a clear fulfillment of the SEXUAL CONTRACT (Jeffreys 178) by patriarchal states within the broader context of neoliberal economic globalization.

For next week

Is your head spinning yet? If it is, that’s okay; let it spin. Be patient with yourself and with the materials and trust that confusion and curiosity is the place from which learning happens!

The thing to do for next week is to take all this info about the three different public policy approaches and try to get a grip on the basic gist of each: What is X approach supposed to do? Who/what advocates it? Why? Who/what benefits? To sort through all this, you might check out http://www.shiftcalgary.org/Past_Events.html.

As you’re sorting through all this, be sure, also, to pay attention to Jeffreys’ argument against LEGALIZATION and DECRIMINALIZATION. What’s her problem with each? Why does she argue that both cause harm not only to women, but to civil society as a whole? Why doesn’t she like HARM MINIMIZATION? And what does she advocate instead (see chapter 9)?

After you tackle Jeffreys, I suggest turning to Alexander’s piece, “Feminism, Sex Workers and Human Rights” in Nagle. Because she situates her discussion within a global context, Alexander’s chapter is a nice complement to Jeffreys and will, I think, help you to sort through some of the politics and debates surrounding the three dominant policy approaches to the “problem” of the global sex industry. She argues that rather than claiming that sex work is always already a human rights violation, feminists should acknowledge sex workers and call for the prevention of human rights violations against them as workers.

After Alexander, I suggest turning to Leslie Ann Jeffrey’s (not the same person as Sheila Jeffreys, who wrote The Industrial Vagina) piece, which offers a brief legal history of prostitution policy in Canada. As I mentioned in class last week, as of this moment, prostitution in Canada is legal, but all related activities, such as maintaining a brothel, living off the income earned from prostitution, and soliciting, are not. For more info on this, check out  http://www.shiftcalgary.org/Prostitution_Laws.html. The CRIMINALIZATION in Canada of most activities surrounding prostitution make actually engaging in it next to impossible.

That being said, however, in September 2010, a Superior Court judge in Ontario struck down three of the four criminal laws, thus potentially paving the way for other provinces to follow suit, so public policy regarding the sex industry in Canada is up for grabs. For more info, check out the story in the Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/judge-decriminalizes-prostitution-in-ontario-but-ottawa-mulls-appeal/article1730433/

Turn, then, to Quan’s article in Nagle linking the supposedly-innocent girls’ toy Barbie to the global sex industry via her little-known sordid past as Lilli, a German whore cartoon character. As you read this article, think about Jeffreys’ argument in The Industrial Vagina about the PORNOGRAPHICATION OF CULTURE. When even little girls are playing with sex objects, is it any wonder that the global sex industry has become “normalized?”

Lastly, check out Queen’s chapter in Nagle in which she discusses the ongoing tension between feminists and sex workers and deconstructs the whore stigma (which doesn’t go away in the event of LEGALIZATION or DECRIMINALIZATION).

A Reminder

Don’t forget to keep track of your CRPs, which are due at the start of class on Mondays. Details about the assignment can be found here. Be sure to include all the required components as described and also remember to bring a copy to submit to me as well as a copy for yourself so that you can refer to it during class.

I’ll see you all in class! In the meantime, happy reading, and please don’t hesitate to stop by during my office hours or e-mail me at kawilliams(at)mtroyal.ca if you have any questions.

Week 5: Sex Trafficking

This week, Week 5, marks the second-to-last week of the second part of our course, which as you know from the syllabus is entitled “What Counts as Sex Work.” In this section, we’ve been reading and talking about the various forms that sex work takes, the working conditions of sex workers at various levels of the trade, and the enormity and ubiquity of the global sex industry. So, as always, please be sure to keep in mind as you’re preparing for class on Wednesday that Jeffreys seems to be right: The global economy as it currently exists (i.e., neoliberal capitalism via the processes of globalization) cannot exist without the global sex industry, and vice versa. They each depend on the other for their survival.

Also keep in mind the equation that I wrote on the board during the first week of class:

SEX TRAFFICKING does not (necessarily) = SEX WORK

In other words, while those who are trafficked (whatever that means?) for work in the global sex industry do often (but not always) end up in prostitution (but not necessarily street level), those who are SEX WORKERS of whatever sort are not necessarily the “victims” of trafficking.

This is a key point to understanding the material reality that, yes, the (sometimes) forced migration of human beings is one of the largest money-making ventures in the world, third only to drug and weapons trafficking. However, the above equation is also key to unpacking some of the panicked rhetoric around trafficking, which when discussed by/in the popular media – and even (as you’ll see in your reading of US and Canadian government documents this week) by state and international governing bodies – tends to focus solely on SEX TRAFFICKING to the exclusion of other, more frequent forms of HUMAN TRAFFICKING for agricultural, domestic, or industrial labour.

We’ll talk more about this latter point after the break when we return to a discussion of trafficking by reading Doezema. But for the time being, I want us to focus on the material reality of the existence of SEX TRAFFICKING and what feminists are trying to do to solve the problem(s), one of which is that there’s simply no way to tell for sure how widespread the problem really is. The reasons for this are something that we’ll talk about on Wednesday.

U.S. TVPA and the annual TIP

One thing you’ll learn from reading my article is that the 2000 U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), which follows the abolitionist UN Palermo Protocol, has become the global model for anti-trafficking legislation, and governments around the world (including Canada) have passed similar federal legislation. The three main goals of the legislation are nick-named “the three Ps”: prosecution, protection, and prevention. The problem, though, as Jeffreys and I point out, is that the U.S.’s objective in passing the original legislation was to protect U.S. sovereignty and keep out illegal immigrants engaged in transnational organized crime networks (which, as you you’ll read this week, have become identified as the primary perpetrators of all kinds of trafficking, human or otherwise).

As a result, the TVPA is not, at its foundation, about helping to end sexualized violence against women; in fact, since its implementation in 2000, the TVPA has enabled increased funds to law enforcement while actually cutting funding to feminist community-based organizations in the U.S. such as domestic violence emergency shelters and related services to which “victims” of trafficking might turn to seek help. Thus, the focus is clearly on the first P – prosecution – rather than on the other two, protection and prevention. Lots of U.S. feminists have critiqued the TVPA for this major flaw, but it continues to be used as the model for anti-trafficking legislation globally. Obviously, this is hugely problematic if you’re a feminist and your goal is to draw attention to and hopefully solve the problem of SEX TRAFFICKING, which usually (but not always) involves the exploitation of women’s bodies.

The TVPA established the U.S. State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons and mandated that new office to, among other things, research and publish a Trafficking in Persons Report (TIP) each year. In this report, which has been published annually since 2001 and is considered one of the best global resources on global anti-trafficking efforts, the U.S. ranks countries in tiers according to how well (or not) each country is enforcing the TVPA on its own soil. Tier 1 represents “countries whose governments fully comply with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act’s (TVPA) minimum standards,” and that’s where Canada is. Tier 2 is a list of countries whose “governments do not fully comply with the TVPA’s minimum standards, but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards.” The Tier 2 Watch List represents those countries that have been placed on Tier 2, but there seems to be an alarming increase in trafficking “victims,” there’s been a failure to provide specific evidence of anti-trafficking efforts, and/or the country knows things aren’t going well, but has made promises to improve over the course of the next year. This is where Russia is. Tier 3 is a list of countries that “do not fully comply with the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so” (2011 TIP Report, http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2011/ 164228.htm).

An interesting component to all this is that the TVPA is a U.S. law, yet the U.S. finds no conflict or problem in its insistence that other countries adhere to it, which is why so many countries have adopted similar legislation. They’re trying to get/stay on Tier 1 because once a country gets placed on Tier 3, they lose all U.S. aid monies. And this is, in part, how/why the abolitionist anti-trafficking framework came to dominate international politics. It’s also why the U.S. instituted the Tier 2 Watch List, because there are lots of countries on the 2WL that probably should be on Tier 3, but the U.S. needs them as allies for political purposes. Think Russia, for example. It’s a fascinating process having to do, again, with the primary goal of protecting U.S. sovereignty and preventing illegal immigration.

Another interesting little factoid is that up until 2010, the U.S. didn’t include itself in the annual TIP Report! It does now, and places itself, rather predictably, on Tier 1. Fun stuff, no?

Canada’s anti-trafficking law closely resembles the U.S. TVPA in its focus on the three Ps of prosecution, protection, and prevention. But, as you’ll see from the Department of Justice webpage, it adds a fourth P to the mix: promoting partnerships. This is a laudable and necessary goal, one the U.S. actually did incorporate into the TVPA when the legislation was renewed a few years ago. Unfortunately, as you’ll read in the RCMP report, this fourth P, like the others, is easier said than done, so be sure for Wednesday to figure out what challenges Canada faces in the enforcement of its anti-trafficking law.

Also, as you’re reading for Wednesday, be sure to pay attention to how important language continues to be in talking about and trying to solve the problem of trafficking. Even the notion of “trafficking” is, itself, potentially problematic. So, taking the lead I set in my article, do a feminist analysis of the RCMP document: Who are the “victims?” Who are the “villains?” Who are the “johns?” Why? What can you tell from the language used by the Canadian Department of Justice and the RCMP about the positionalities (review Agustin on this), theoretical frameworks, and ideologies that might be at the foundation of Canadian attempts to end human trafficking?

And lastly, compare the U.S. State Department’s assessment of how Canada’s doing with the RCMP’s own self-assessment. Are there agreements? Disagreements?

A Reminder

Don’t forget to keep track of your CRPs, which are due at the start of class on Mondays. Details about the assignment can be found here. Be sure to include all the required components as described and also remember to bring a copy to submit to me as well as a copy for yourself so that you can refer to it during class.

I’ll see you all in class! In the meantime, happy reading, and please don’t hesitate to stop by during my office hours or e-mail me at kawilliams(at)mtroyal.ca if you have any questions.