Dealing with regulators with the sex industry: approaches in the world
Article: Luba Fine
Legislators all over the world recognize that the sex industry is a complex phenomenon that causes many damages to all stakeholders, first and foremost to those engaged in it. In more conservative countries, the "normative society" tends to be seen as a victim of the sex industry, while in the Nordic model countries (Sweden, France, Israel) the industry is seen as harming first and foremost the women caught up in it. The different perceptions regarding the identity of the victim and regarding the most effective way to minimize the damages have given rise to a variety of legal models. These models are many, but they can be sorted into individual categories. In this article, we will separate the countries that want to eradicate the prostitution industry from the countries that want to put up with its existence, regulate it and try to monitor its damages.
The countries seeking to regulate the sex industry
The countries that wish to give the sex industry legal status apply one of two models: Legalization or Decriminalization. The differences between these models are more conceptual than practical. Under decriminalization, the state permits all activities related to the sex industry and strives for minimal intervention in it, whether on the criminal or civil level. The countries that adopted this model: New Zealand [1] , the state of New South Wales in Australia [2] . Under legalization, the sex industry is legal and subject to state or municipal regulation. The countries that adopted this model are Germany [3] , the Netherlands [4] , Austria [5] , Greece [6] . In the media, in social networks and also in the literature in the Hebrew language, both models are sometimes referred to as "institutionalization" (there is no corresponding term in English). The meaning of the institutionalization is that all the commercial activities related to the practice of prostitution are legal, normalized and can exist under regulation.
Two separate aspects of these models can be criticized. The first is the normalization of the sex industry and its regulation, which occurs when the entire industry becomes legal. This may lead to an increase in demand for prostitution, trafficking in women and solicitation. The second is the imposition of regulatory restrictions on the population in prostitution. The restrictions may include the obligation of registration and licensing, reducing the practice of prostitution to certain areas and certain hours, enforcing the use of condoms, paying taxes, banning the practice of prostitution that applies to citizens of other countries, and more. This means that regulating the field and making it legal does indeed expand the rights of the "third party", such as brothel owners, but reduces the women's freedom of action in prostitution. It can be seen that these two types of arguments usually represent opposing ideological positions. Thus, in the book "Taking the Crime Out of Sex Work: New Zealand Sex Workers' Fight for Decriminalisation" [7] , all of whose editors have a liberal attitude towards the sex industry, one can find a sharp criticism of municipal restrictions on the industry, imposed by some of the authorities Locality in New Zealand. According to the notebooks, this is about introducing regulation through the back door, in a way that harms the population through prostitution. On the other hand, Inge Klein, a well-known feminist from Germany who supports the establishment of the Nordic model [8] , claimed that the lack of regulation in her country led to particularly severe exploitation of the most vulnerable women who are trafficked into prostitution. Tighter regulation, enforced in 2017, was in Klein's view a necessary step, even if not sufficient, to reduce exploitation and crime in the sex industry [9] .
The countries seeking to eradicate the sex industry: a prohibitive approach
To this category belong countries, which treat the sex industry as an offensive phenomenon to be discouraged. In this category there are two subgroups with different views on the phenomenon, which give rise to two types of regulation. The first group is of countries that see the "normative society" as the victim of the sex industry, while those involved (the women in prostitution, the pimps and sometimes also the prostitutes) are seen as offending. This approach gave birth to the prohibitive model (Prohibitionism).
Under the prohibitive model in its purest form, pimping, prostitution and engaging in prostitution are all defined as "offences". The model exists in various countries and regions of the world, including South Africa [10] , Iraq and most parts of the United States [11] . Of course, soliciting the act of prostitution is also prohibited - whether the woman in prostitution is the one who solicits or whether she is the one who solicits her. Concept of the offense, type Punishment and the effectiveness of enforcement vary from country to country. In some, engaging in prostitution itself constitutes a criminal offense (USA), while in others, enforcement is more lax (South Africa). In some countries, the ban excludes prostitutes, meaning that only pimping and engaging in prostitution are defined as a criminal offense. The model exists in various countries and regions of the world, including Russia, Suriname, Nepal and Vietnam. Even in these countries solicitation of prostitution is prohibited. In some of them prostitution is an administrative offense (Russia) [12] , while in other countries it is a criminal offense (Nepal) [13] . Also, in some countries the enforcement mechanisms are stricter with the women in prostitution, while in other countries the prohibition is hardly enforced, until they are considered sex tourism destinations.
There is widespread criticism of this model both from supporters of the sex industry and from its opponents. The former claim that the model limits the freedom of occupation and forces the women to live underground as prostitutes. The latter claim that the women in prostitution are an extremely vulnerable group that needs assistance or at the very least non-interference, and not persecution by the authorities. Also, the fear of punishment prevents the victims of trafficking from complaining about their traffickers and pimps and incriminating them.
The countries seeking to eradicate the sex industry: an abolitionist approach
The evolutionist approach seeks to recognize the population in the circle of prostitution as a victim, and to act against those who exploit it. In most countries, a partial abolitionism approach is currently implemented, which allows the practice of prostitution and the consumption of prostitution, but prohibits the actions and deeds that allow third parties to earn a living from prostitution, such as pimping, running a brothel, etc. This approach is implemented in one way or another in a variety of countries: Italy, India, Great Britain, Argentina, the Czech Republic. This model is also criticized by the supporters of the sex industry and by its opponents alike. The supporters of the sex industry criticize the ban on the activities accompanying prostitution. If prostitution is a legitimate occupation, then so is an ancillary occupation, such as managing an apartment Prostitution should be legal. Another criticism claims that these restrictions indirectly harm those who earn a living from prostitution: for example, a ban on maintaining a prostitution apartment may apply directly to a woman who engages in prostitution in her apartment.
Opponents of the sex industry claim that the partial criminalization of the exploitative parties does not achieve the goal. As long as the demand for prostitution exists, it is a profitable industry, and those involved in pimping and trafficking in women have an economic incentive to take the risk. In addition, the partial criminalization is unjust; If the sex industry constitutes a violent social phenomenon, which harms those who are in the circle, then legal responsibility should not be removed from those who finance the damage: the prostitutes [14] .
The abolitionist approach, also known as the "Nordic model" [15] , is a response to this criticism. Under the Nordic model, engaging in prostitution is legal, while pimping and prostitution are prohibited. The model creates a clear boundary between the victim (the woman in prostitution) and the victimizer (the fornicators and pimps). It is implemented in Sweden (1999), Norway (2009), Iceland (2009), Canada (2014), Northern Ireland (2015), France (2016), Ireland (2017) and Israel (2020). The countries that apply this model are not satisfied with the application of criminal prohibitions, but instead provide rehabilitation services and assistance to the victims of the sex industry in getting out of the circle of prostitution.
Prostitution Policy and Law: What are the Options? https://nordicmodelnow.org/2017/07/04/prostitution-policy-and-law-what-are-the-options/
[2] https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au
[3] https://nordicmodelnow.org/2019/01/13/prostitution-law-in-germany-regulation-for-taxation/
[4] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10610-018-9371-8 ; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234551
[7] Abel, G., Fitzgerald, L., Healy, C. & Taylor, A. (2010). Taking the Crime Out of Sex Work: New Zealand Sex Workers' Fight for Decriminalisation. Bristol: Policy Press
[8] Please link to the article on the Nordic model
[9] https://nordicmodelnow.org/2019/01/13/prostitution-law-in-germany-regulation-for-taxation/
[10] https://lawfulliving.co.za/book/text/law-enforcement--brothels.html
[11] https://prostitution.procon.org/us-federal-and-state-prostitution-laws-and-related-punishments/
[12] https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/276912
[13] https://www.lawcommission.gov.np/en/archives/12259
[14] https://nordicmodelnow.org/2017/07/04/prostitution-policy-and-law-what-are-the-options/
[15] Please link to the article on the Nordic model
Further reading
The report of the inter-ministerial team for examining the tools for reducing the consumption of prostitution led by Emi Palmer, 2017, https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/reports/18_1_10_3/he/reducing_feeds.pdf