For most countries, health care is often a costly component of national budgets. That being said, the sheer volume of federal money spent on a nation’s health care system does not necessarily predict its efficacy. For example, the American health care system–with its rising premiums, drug costs, and glaring loopholes–could certainly be more efficient. The U.S. system has consistently ranked poorly among other industrialized nations, despite having the most expensive health care system in the world–17 percent of its GDP. As the White House grapples with how to handle health care under the new Trump Administration, American politicians may look to other countries for guidance.

One such country potentially worth emulating is the Netherlands. According to the global Prosperity Index, the Netherlands has one of the best health care systems in the world based on the country’s basic mental and physical health, health infrastructure, and availability of preventative care. Could this country’s critical health care reform and system structure be advantageous for the U.S.?

Netherlands Health Care Reform

In 1941, the Netherlands introduced a mandatory health insurance plan for low and middle income citizens. It provided most of the country’s population with basic health insurance, while wealthier citizens purchased private plans. But as the program grew, so did spending. In an effort to protect access to health care, the government passed the Health Care Prices Act in 1982 to control physician fees and revenues. Over the following decades, the Dutch started working toward creating a system that merged competition with universal access to health care.

Then, in 2006, the Netherlands passed the Health Insurance Act of 2006. This broad health reform law was intended to improve the health care system’s quality and efficiency by introducing uniform health insurance. Prior to the 2006 health insurance reform, the Netherlands health care system was comprised of four parts: long-term care insurance, supplementary private health insurance, social health insurance, and alternative private health insurance. After the reform, a new universal “private” social health insurance emerged, and long-term care and supplementary private insurance were maintained.

“Holland” Courtesy of Moyan Brenn : License (CC BY 2.0)

All people who legally live and work in the Netherlands are mandated to buy health insurance from a private insurance company. All insurers are required to accept each applicant, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Moreover, the plan is financed with individuals’ annual income-based contributions. Over half of all Dutch households also receive a subsidy from the government based on income. Since the system relies solely on a flat tax related to salary, the Dutch government does not have to shell out many resources to provide individuals with subsidies.

Today, the health insurance system appears to have more transparency than before. Consumers also have unrestricted choice between all insurance companies on the market. Interestingly, the Dutch approach is not a single-payer system. Instead, it combines mandatory universal health insurance with competition amongst private health insurers, creating more of a “risk equalization” system

Netherlands Health Care Structure

The Dutch do not aggressively regulate health care prices; instead, they’ve chosen to hone in on risk selection and primary care.  By tracking a myriad of factors such as: age, sex, pharmaceutical history, and hospital use, the government is able to determine which individuals are more risky to insure and how much it will potentially cost to cover them in the future. The government then pays more money to insurance companies taking on sicker patients. In an effort to offset these costs, each citizen is required to sign up for a general practitioner who acts as a “gatekeeper” to more expensive care and services. This allows the Dutch to cut back on unnecessary–and often costly–visits to specialized doctors. Individuals who are unhappy with their care have the option to change their insurance policy each year.

Insurers are also mandated to place all profits into a shared fund. That money is then distributed to other insurance companies whose patients are sicker than anticipated. Essentially, the Dutch have made insuring only the healthy a less viable and effective business strategy for insurance companies. The government has also set aside a health care budget, and still sets the price on most services. Since physicians are paid a lump sum each year–rather than fee-for-services–there is less incentive for them to overprescribe medications.

But no health care system is completely free from flaws. Cost-related access problems–not filling prescriptions, skipping recommended tests or treatments, or not visiting a doctor because of cost issues–still plague the Netherlands. However, timely access to health care, including elective or non-emergency surgeries, is much easier to receive in the Netherlands.

In many ways, the Dutch health care system is now an efficient “managed competition.” According to the United Nations’ 2017 World Happiness Report, the Netherlands ranked an impressive sixth out of more than 150 countries. While many factors were considered, health care coverage and life expectancy were integral in determining the overall happiness rankings.

What Can the U.S. Do?

In 2008, researchers noted that implementing a Dutch-like system in the U.S. could be attractive to many American citizens in an article entitled “Universal Mandatory Health Insurance In The Netherlands: A Model For The United States?” Consumer choice, in particular, is an aspect of the Netherlands’ health care overhaul that is incredibly desirable to Americans. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) may have been the U.S.’ first step toward implementing a health care system similar to the Dutch (insurance policy choices for consumers, attempts to insure more of the population, and coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions), but the system still has its glaring issues.

In 2014, the Commonwealth Fund produced a report that ranked the U.S. third out of 11 wealthy nations in timelines of care and effective care overall.  The Dutch, on the other hand, can provide universal coverage with very low out-of-pocket costs, while still maintaining speedy access to services. According to the study, the U.S. also ranked last on measures of equity; Americans with low incomes are far more likely than counterparts in other countries to not visit a physician when ill. Poor rankings in equity, efficiency, healthy lives, and cost-related access problems contributed to the U.S. ultimately ranking last overall in the study for the fifth time.

While the Dutch have managed to create an institutional framework to deliver universal access to health care along with market competition and consumer choice, the researchers found that the system still struggles to provide the most high-quality care. Meanwhile, the U.S. has integrated many high-caliber delivery systems, but fails to provide universal access to basic health insurance at an affordable rate. U.S. health care still remains the most expensive in the world, and yet it manages to underperform relative to other countries.

The U.S. and the Netherlands are perhaps most divided in the regulation of insurance companies. The ACA left a significant amount of diversity in the insurance marketplace, making it nearly impossible for the program to be fully transparent and simplified with the vast amount of choices. Obamacare offers four different varieties of insurance packages, while the Dutch program offers only one–which is probably most comparable to the Obamacare silver plans. Insurers in the U.S. are able to charge older customers up to three times as much as younger ones, adding even more complexity to the American system. Other researchers note that America’s “spend more, get less” model is tied to other issues–safe, affordable housing; employment prospects; reliable transportation; and consistent, well-balanced meals–that may be even more important to a population’s overall health than just specific medical care.

Conclusion

Building a perfect health care system is downright difficult, regardless of the country or government structure. However, the efficacy and success of the Netherlands’ universal system may be something the U.S. can learn from, and perhaps even integrate into its own system. While there is a lot of support for single-payer (“Medicare for all”), the Dutch system of health care isn’t too far removed from what President Barack Obama attempted to implement through the ACA. With more efficiency and management of the health insurance market, it’s possible the U.S. could save billions of dollars following a more Dutch-like system of health care.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could America Learn a Thing or Two From the Netherlands’ Health Care? appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday morning thousands of Twitter users, including verified accounts like BBC North America, Forbes, and tennis star Boris Becker, saw their accounts tweeting out a message in Turkish along with images of swastikas. Someone hacked Twitter and gained access to the accounts through the third-party app Twitter Counter, an analytics service.

The message that was sent out was propaganda in support of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and translated as “#NaziGermany #NaziNetherlands, a little #OTTOMAN SLAP for you, see you on #April16th.” The tweets also contained a link to a pro-Erdogan video on Youtube.

My twitter account was hacked !!! I never posted this as I obviously don’t speak Turkish…. pic.twitter.com/G7pNuH1UFj

— Boris Becker (@TheBorisBecker) March 15, 2017

The message was accompanied by emojis of swastikas and on some accounts the hackers had changed the user’s profile pictures into a Turkish flag or other Turkish symbols. April 16 is referendum day for Turkey–voters will be deciding whether or not to give the president even more power.

The Germany and Netherlands hashtags are referring to Erdogan’s recent beef with leaders of the two countries, he recently called them “Nazi remnants” and “fascists.” Erdogan had sent government officials to countries with large Turkish populations to rally support ahead of the referendum vote, which Germany and the Netherlands resisted.

Earlier this morning our Twitter account was hacked. We’ve now deleted the hacked tweet and investigating what happened. Apologies & thanks

— AmnestyInternational (@amnesty) March 15, 2017

Twitter Counter is based in Amsterdam and was also hacked in November, when some verified accounts like PlayStation and the New Yorker started sending out spam tweets telling users how to gain more followers. “We are aware of the situation and have started an investigation into the matter,” its chief executive, Omer Ginor, said. Twitter said in a statement that the hack was limited only to accounts that use Twitter Counter. “We removed its permissions immediately. No additional accounts are impacted,” the statement said.

We identified an issue affecting a small number of users. Source was a 3rd party app and it has been resolved. No action needed by users.

— Twitter Support (@Support) March 15, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hackers Tweeted Swastikas and Turkish Message From Thousands of Accounts appeared first on Law Street.

The 2017 French Presidential Elections are quickly approaching and Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right Front National (FN), leads in the polls. Like much of the western world, France has seen an upsurge in far-right, nationalistic sentiment. When comparing the 2017 race to French and European elections gone by, it is difficult to envision Le Pen’s path to the presidency. However, even if she is defeated, Le Pen’s far-right platform will remain a definitive political force in France for the foreseeable future.

The Situation in France

According to recent polls, Le Pen leads a handful of candidates with 26 percent favorability. Assuming polls hold steady, Marine Le Pen will win the first round of voting, scheduled for April 23, but will not accrue the majority required to win the election outright. Le Pen will have to compete in a run off election against the second most popular candidate.

This will not be the first time a Le Pen reaches the run off round of a presidential election. Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s father, came second in the first round of votes to earn one of two places in the run off round of the 2002 election. In the first round of voting, Jean-Marie Le Pen earned 16.9 percent of the vote compared to the center-right Jacques Chirac’s 19.9 percent. In the run off, Le Pen lost in a landslide. Le Pen was barely able to improve his 16.9 percent share, while Chirac’s share of the vote soared to 82.2 percent. Chirac was scandal ridden and highly unpopular. However, his left wing opponents backed him in the second round, calling on the French public to “vote for the crook, not the fascist.” Chirac won because he was seen by a Le Pen-fearing coalition as the lesser of two evils.

It is important to note that Jean-Marie Le Pen was an underdog, whereas his daughter is expected to win the first round. It is therefore unlikely that Marine Le Pen’s fate will perfectly map that of her father. However, Le Pen’s defeat to an anti-right wing coalition in the run off still seems imminent. If results in Austria’s 2016 presidential election are anything to go by, even the most popular of right wing politicians can struggle to overcome a two-round electoral system.

Lessons from the Rest of Europe

Like France, Austria’s elections make use of the two-round system. In the run-up to Austria’s first round of voting, Norbert Hofer, a far-right nationalist, held a sizable lead over his competitor. The Austrian nationalist ended up winning the first round by 13.8 percent. However, after an annulled run off election that was too close to call, Hofer lost the rerun by 7.6 percent. Hofer’s lead going into, and coming out of, the first round of voting was considerably greater than the lead Le Pen currently enjoys. Hofer’s first round victory was not particularly shocking. However, even with his sizable first round victory, the Austrian nationalist was unable to overcome the the anti-right wing coalition that formed in the second round.

Over the last few years, there have been a slew of analyses discrediting the viability of a right-wing populist movement. Such predictions were almost invariably disproven. While a Le Pen victory might be unlikely, it would be hardly come as a total surprise considering the state of contemporary western politics. Regardless of whether Le Pen overcomes a prospective anti-FN voter-bloc in the second round, her style of right wing nationalism will demand a response from whomever holds power. In France and elsewhere, far-right mobilizations have now entered the political mainstream.

Though Hofer was unable to win the largely ceremonial presidency, the centrist-controlled Austrian Parliament has already begun to pander to the far-right. In January, the parliament passed laws that would require asylum seekers undergo an “integration year” during which they would be expected to learn German. Austria has also become the latest European country to ban Muslim women from wearing full-face veils in public spaces–a entirely symbolic move considering only about 150 women in Austria wear such veils.

In the UK, the center-right Conservative Party has similarly worked to appease nationalists. Former Prime Minister David Cameron made the decision to call a referendum on EU membership that was seen by observers as a way of appeasing the far-right UK Independence Party and the more conservative members of his own party. Cameron expected the referendum to fail and hoped the public’s support would neutralize his far-right opponents. His plan backfired. The public voted to leave and Cameron resigned. In spite of the fact that a majority of parliamentary conservatives wished to remain in the EU, Theresa May, the new conservative leader, claims she is firmly committed to imposing the type of hardline immigration policies demanded by British nationalists.

The Netherlands has a general election scheduled for March 15 and the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) is scrambling to maintain control of the government. Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) leads in the polls. Though Wilders’ PVV will not win enough seats to form a government outright, his party is currently projected to win the greatest number of seats. Though Mark Rutt, Prime Minister and Leader of the VVD, has ruled out the possibility that his party would form a coalition government with the far-right PVV, he has been pandering to an increasingly nationalistic public. Last month, he ordered immigrants to “act ‘normal’, or go away.”

What Does this Mean for Far-Right Movements?

Far-right mobilizations have gained, and will likely continue to gain, power, irrespective of whether or not they win elections. Marine Le Pen’s run for the presidency could very well fall short, but her surge in popularity over the past few years is indicative of France’s entrenched far-right movement. Assuming Le Pen loses, the party that achieves power will not have done so by inspiring a united support base or platform. The party in power will reflect a disjointed majority that will collectively disagree with Le Pen but might not agree on that much else. A fragmented leadership will only favor the far-right. As France’s far-right continues to voice their concerns, those in power will be forced to respond. This response will never disarm the far-right if those delivering it are politically impotent and ideologically incoherent.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Even if Marine Le Pen Loses, French Nationalism Will Still Win appeared first on Law Street.

For much of civilized history, borders were constantly in flux; empires expanded and dissolved, nations fractured into smaller states. Now we live in a world where borders are seemingly fixed lines on a map, bolstered by fences (or perhaps walls) and patrolmen on the ground. But not so for Belgium and the Netherlands. On Monday, with the swish of a royal pen, the two countries swapped a total of about 42 acres of land, settling a 55-year-old territorial quandary.

In 1961, authorities raised the riverbed of the Meuse river, which intersects Belgium’s northeast border with the Netherlands, in order to aid ship navigation. The move inadvertently shifted land belonging to the Belgians to the Dutch and vise versa. Brokered last June, the new deal will redraw the squiggly border from 1843, which will be straightened out to run parallel to the Meuse, effectively swapping about 35 acres total from Belgium to the Netherlands, and about seven acres from the Netherlands to Belgium.

Read more on treaty on border correction with #Netherlands, signed by MFA @dreynders & NL MFA #Koenders: https://t.co/k6wjGTziOF #BELNL2016 pic.twitter.com/1dCVmD970p

— Belgium MFA (@BelgiumMFA) November 28, 2016

It all started with a headless body. About three years ago, Dutch citizens stumbled upon a decapitated corpse rotting on one of the parcels of land that was then under Belgian jurisdiction but located on the Dutch side of the river. Because it belonged to Belgium, Dutch authorities were not allowed to investigate the small pocket of land, which has been described as a refuge for wild sex parties and drug-related activities. The body’s unfortunate location–on a peninsula surrounded by a strong river current and on land connected to one country but belonging to another–put Belgian officials in a bind.

“So we had to go there by boat with all that was needed–the prosecutor, the legal doctor, the judicial lab–we had to do round trips over the water. It really was not very practical,” Jean-Francois Duchesne, police Commissaire of the Lower Meuse region in Belgium told the Associated Press last year when the land-swap deal was brokered. The episode triggered both sides to face their impractical reality and spurred a movement to hammer out a new border.

Free from the typical bloody border disputes peppering world history textbooks, Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders said the deal is “proof that borders can be redrawn in a peaceful way.” Both countries benefit from the fact that all of the land concerned in the deal is barren: nobody lives there, and no buildings of any sort have been built. The new border is set to go into effect on January 1, 2018.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Holiday Miracle: Belgium and the Netherlands Willingly Trade Land appeared first on Law Street.

A new Dutch probe into the downed Malaysian Airlines passenger jet that crashed in Ukraine in 2014, leading to the death of all 298 passengers, concluded that the missile used to shoot it down was Russian in origin. Investigators also said that Russia participated in the cover-up afterwards. The report mainly confirmed existing speculation that Russia was somehow linked to the attack and is part of international investigators’ attempts to collect enough hard evidence to build a case against Russia.

“Possibly they will bring charges of murder–and possibly even charges of war crimes,” said al-Jazeera’s Neave Barker who was at the news conference in Nieuwegein, Netherlands.

The incident only increased tensions between Russia and the West, and victims’ families are impatient for details about the truth.

“As a family we are impatient. We want to know what happened, how it happened and why? We want those responsible to face justice,” said Silene Fredriksz to media before the news conference. Her 23-year-old son and his girlfriend were on the plane.

The Evidence

The jet had taken off from Amsterdam and was heading toward Kuala Lumpur when it was unexpectedly shot down in July 2014. Though investigators didn’t say explicitly that Russia ordered the attack or named any individuals, the results of the probe show that the missile system, called Buk or SA-11, was delivered from Russia after a request from Russian-backed separatists just hours before it was used. After a missile had been fired and the plane wreck crashed in a field, the missile system was returned to Russia. Investigators made it clear that their intention is to find who is responsible, name suspects and potentially press criminal charges.

All 298 people on board, most of them Dutch citizens, were killed https://t.co/kBSIRtDuJ9

— Al Jazeera News (@AJENews) September 28, 2016

Among the evidence in the report was the testimony of a Russian rebel who allegedly guarded the missile system when it was sent back to Russia after completing its mission. The discovery of a missile nose cone and fin was also an important factor. One piece of evidence that was revealed last year was a piece of shrapnel in one of the pilots’ bodies, with characteristics unique to the exact type of Buk missiles that Russia uses; that particular model is not used by Ukraine.

In phone conversations included in the evidence, separatists were heard requesting the missile system because they wanted to defend themselves against Ukrainian air attacks. They received word that they would get it the same night. The Buk system was brought in by trucks across the Russian border. Prosecutors have figured out the exact route the missile was transported, where it was fired, and how it got back to Russia.

Russia’s Stance

Additional recordings of phone conversations showed the reaction from a militant to his superior when he realized it was not a Ukrainian plane but a passenger jet: “It was 100 per cent a passenger aircraft…there are civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper.”

Shortly after the plane was downed, a separatist leader named Igor Girkin appeared to be boasting about having shot down a Ukrainian military plane on a Russian social media website. He also wrote “We warned them–don’t fly in our sky.” The post was soon deleted.

Russia denies all involvement with the crash and calls the accusations “speculation, unqualified and unprofessional information.” Russian officials also have some interesting versions of what they think happened, including a theory that the CIA stuffed some hundred bodies in a drone and crashed it in Ukraine to discredit Russia. Another one is that Ukraine aimed to shoot down Russian president Putin’s plane but accidentally hit the Malaysian Airlines plane instead.

But even if prosecutors find the responsible individuals, what can they really do about it? Russia’s government prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens to trial in foreign countries. It is also unclear where, if any specific suspects are found and named, they would go to trial.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Probe Shows Missile that Downed Malaysia Airlines Flight is Linked to Russia appeared first on Law Street.

The concept of a “basic income” style welfare program has been talked about for years. There are a number of variations, but it’s based on a pretty simple concept–we can replace most of the current welfare benefits given by a country by instead guaranteeing everyone a set amount of money per month. If people want to work more to add on to it, they can, if they choose not to or are unable to, that is the money they live with. The concept of a basic income has received both criticism and praise from individuals on almost every part of the political spectrum. But as much as a basic income program has been talked about, no one has really given it a serious try, until now. Finland is launching an experiment to put the basic income program to a test.

The government will essentially select 2,000 individuals who are already receiving some version of unemployment benefits. They will be given roughly $630 in American dollars each month; a control group will remain on their existing unemployment benefits. This program will take place sometime in the next few years, and money is being set aside in the budget specifically for this purpose.

Finland’s experiment with a basic income is being called historic, and the first of its kind. That’s mostly true, although basic income experiments are gaining ground elsewhere as well. While Switzerland rejected a referendum that would test a similar program, the city of Utrecht, Netherlands is starting an experiment in January, and a private organization called Y Combinator is running a pilot program in Oakland, California. Still, Finland’s experiment appears to be the broadest currently in the works.

There are a lot of outcomes that people who support a basic income program are hoping to see happen. For one, there are hopes that it will reduce unemployment rates, because it will allow people who are currently on unemployment benefits to take on low-paying, seasonal, or part-time work without fear of losing those benefits. There are also hopes of long term benefits. According to NESTA, a UK-based science and technology think-tank quoted in Forbes:

A basic income can provide a safety net for people wishing to retrain, which is worth considering given the massive technological changes that we anticipate in the decades ahead. It can enable citizens to make greater unpaid contributions to their communities, strengthening the fabric of social relations and reduce the burden of professional care. And the reduction in poverty brought about by a basic income can provide children with a much better start to life.

Right now though, all of these hopes are just theories–no one knows exactly how a basic income will play out in practice. That’s why all eyes will be on Finland’s experiment.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Finland Will Launch Basic Income Pilot Program appeared first on Law Street.

Attitudes toward prostitution in the United States have long been based on the Judeo-Christian tradition arguing that selling sex is immoral; however, global trends arguing for sexual self-determination and changing attitudes toward the sex industry have become more popular. The United Nations Secretary General has even called for the decriminalization of sex work. These changes pose the question: how should the United States address the issue of prostitution?

The U.S. still criminalizes sex work, but the urgency of making changes in this sphere is evident in the growing sex worker rights movement that strives to define the legal status and rights of prostitutes. Read on to learn more about different models of regulating prostitution, and the arguments for and against them.

What are the real numbers behind prostitution?

Prostitution is “the act of offering one’s self for hire to engage in sexual relations.” In other words, it’s an exchange of a sexual act for money.

It’s hard to determine the real numbers behind prostitution due to the fact that sex work is criminalized in the United States. As most of the actors involved in this business operate underground, statistics are rather scarce. Some estimates of the current number of prostitutes range from 230,000 to 350,000, but others put the number closer to one million.

Prostitutes come from a variety of backgrounds. Indisputably, there are those who come from marginalized and impoverished environments, were sexually abused, homeless, poorly educated, or drug addicted. In addition, some women and men are coerced or trafficked into prostitution. Every year thousands of people are trafficked for the purposes of exploitation, including sexual exploitation. However, this doesn’t mean that all prostitutes are forced or trafficked. There are also those who chose to become involved in sex work of their own volition. These people can have different motivations to enter the sex industry, citing high earnings, flexible work hours, or genuine passion for this line of work.

Should prostitution be decriminalized, legalized, or none of the above?

Generally, you hear about three distinct approaches to prostitution: criminalization, decriminalization, and legalization. All of them are rooted in different ideological perspectives and include diverse goals and contrasting methods of achieving their desired objectives. Watch the video below to learn more about the ongoing debate over prostitution.

Criminalization

Prostitution is criminalized in most parts of the United States. Proponents of this view often believe that prostitution is immoral, and therefore label it as a criminal behavior. In their view, prostitution endangers marriages and is simply wrong. Prostitutes are viewed as criminals who behave illegally. The rhetoric of those who support criminalization is often centered on the notion that such alternatives as legalization will have devastating consequences on the American morale.

The supporters of criminalization also connect legal prostitution with increased sex trafficking, the spread of STDs, and a greater number of children being coerced into the sex industry. Watch the video below to learn more about Catharine MacKinnon’s arguments against the legalization of prostitution and its connection with human trafficking.

Decriminalization

Decriminalization means the removal of certain criminal laws related to the operation of the sex industry. When prostitution is decriminalized, consensual adult sexual activity in a commercial setting is no longer viewed as a crime. Decriminalization can be considered a half step toward legalization as individuals engaged in the business can be required to obtain a special permit or be subjected to penalties. Essentially, if a person is caught in the act, his punishment will be no more than a fine, something along the lines of speeding or a parking ticket.

At the same time, decriminalization doesn’t legalize sex work, but does instruct law enforcement to give low priority to prostitution cases. This approach intends to use the already existing legal mechanisms to support the health and safety of prostitutes. Many advocates of decriminalization cite labor and anti-discrimination laws as arguments to grant prostitutes certain rights, including freedom of choice and self-regulation.

Decriminalized systems often still impose criminal penalties for all other actors involved in the business, including clients and pimps. This perspective is rooted in the abolitionist movement that historically rescued women from prostitution and trained them for alternative careers. In this view, prostitutes are victims of male exploitation and supporters of this approach often consider prostitution demeaning to women.

The ultimate goal of decriminalization is to uproot the profession by targeting those who purchase sex in the first place. It’s believed that by eradicating the demand, the supply will subside on its own. The advocates of this form of decriminalization usually strongly oppose legalization that will make the sex business flourish instead of extinguishing the industry.

The Swedish Model

The Swedish model is the most influential decriminalization example. Since 1999, buying sex in Sweden is a criminal offense punishable by fines or up to six months imprisonment. Contrarily, selling of sexual services is not a criminal offense, meaning that prostitutes are not subjected to criminal law proceedings. The law is popular in Sweden–80 percent of the Swedish population supports the initiative, but many are still skeptical of its effectiveness.

The Swedish model was also adopted in Norway and Iceland. In 2014, Canada moved to this model of controlling public solicitation of prostitution and restricting demand on sexual services. In addition, similar decriminalization models were adopted in Nepal, India, American Samoa, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Fiji, Guam, Republic of Korea, Palau, and Taiwan.

What are the arguments in favor of decriminalization?

Decriminalization of prostitution can arguably decrease violence against prostitutes. A study in San Francisco found that 82 percent of prostitutes have been assaulted and 68 percent were raped during their time working in the sex industry. Another study in Colorado Springs found that prostitutes were 18 times more likely to be murdered than non-prostitute women of their demographic. If sex work is criminalized, prostitutes are reluctant to ask for help or go to the police if victimized. If decriminalized, prostitutes and law enforcement will have an avenue for communication, and if a prostitute is victimized she can report the crime to the police without the fear of being charged and detained for prostitution.

Decriminalization can also benefit the investigation of sex trafficking cases as prostitutes can aid law enforcement with information from the inside. In addition, law enforcement can save valuable resources as police departments won’t need to deal with as many prostitution cases. In 2011, Texas alone spent $8 million on prison expenses related to prostitution. Decriminalization won’t eliminate the financial burden completely as pimps and johns are often criminalized in those countries who adhere to decriminalization model, but it can decrease expenses overall and re-direct resources towards other crimes.

What are the arguments against decriminalization?

Criminalization of sexual services for clients, and not for prostitutes, can be challenging as both those who purchase and provide sexual services are unlikely to admit to the transaction. Clients will be reluctant to do so due to the existing criminal laws, while prostitutes can lose their income and clientele if they aid law enforcement. In fact, several independent studies have shown that current laws have pushed some Swedish prostitutes underground, resulting in an increased danger of victimization.

Those who oppose the Swedish approach to prostitution are also concerned with its unintended consequences of stigmatization and marginalization of those who enter the sex industry of their own volition. The Swedish model doesn’t acknowledge that prostitutes can choose this occupation out of their free will, but view all prostitutes as passive victims of violence and abuse.

Overall, there isn’t much evidence that this approach improves the quality of work and life of sex workers, or decreases HIV or STD transmissions. Even through the Swedish model is popular around the world, both the Swedish and the international experiences don’t provide enough indications of decline in prostitution.

Legalization

Legalization usually involves a system of laws and government regulations that define the operation of the sex industry. Such a system can be highly regulated or merely define the legal conditions under which prostitutes can operate. Legalization is often accompanied by strict criminal penalties for those who operate outside the established framework. Prostitutes are often required to pay special taxes, can work only in specified zones, and to register with the government. In addition, prostitutes are often obligated to regularly undergo health checks, and to obtain special licenses to legally operate as a sex workers. Thus, the legalization of prostitution seeks to control, regulate, and define the rules of the sex industry.

The legalization model emphasizes freedom of personal choice and regards prostitution as a form of work. The supporters of this approach maintain the belief that sexual relations between two consenting adults should’t be criminalized as those who engage in this type of relations do so voluntarily. This rhetoric is centered on the notion that people are free to choose what to do with their bodies and, therefore, entering into contracts to provide sexual services is their right that shouldn’t be undermined by the views of those who don’t agree with their decision. At the same time, advocates for legalization acknowledge that people can be forced or coerced into prostitution. They also acknowledge the existence of trafficking and exploitation, but don’t believe that all women are victims, and that prostitution automatically leads to violence.

European Experiences

The Netherlands and Germany are, probably, the most prominent examples of legalization. The Netherlands legalized prostitution in 2000, and it’s now regulated by the country’s labor laws. Germany followed in 2002 by providing prostitutes with legal protections and social insurance. In both countries the sex industry boomed, resulting in increased numbers of legal brothels and prostitutes, but also prompted concerns over increased cases of human trafficking.

Nevada’s Legal Brothels

The state of Nevada has a long history of regulating prostitution in some counties, starting in  1937 when a law was enacted to require weekly health checks for all prostitutes. In 1971, Nevada began taxing brothels, thus legalizing the sex industry in rural counties of the state. As of now, there are around 500 prostitutes who are working in 30 brothels. A recent study found that 84 percent of the surveyed prostitutes in Nevada felt safe working in the legal brothels, and were not trafficked or coerced into prostitution. Contrary to the European countries that have legalized prostitution, Nevada’s sex workers are considered independent contractors. Consequently, they don’t receive unemployment, retirement, or healthcare benefits.

What are the arguments for legalization?

All arguments cited earlier in support of the decriminalization model, such as decreased violence, better cooperation with police, and re-direction of valuable law enforcement resources, can be relevant when taking about legalization, as well.

The advocates for legalization argue that such a model of regulating prostitution can provide even more safety for prostitutes. Legal brothels are often closely observed and monitored by the law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with safety regulations and to prevent sex trafficking cases. Legalization can also completely eliminate  the financial burden from police departments as there will be no prostitution cases to pursue. It’s estimated that in 2010, California alone arrested 11,334 people for prostitution. In Texas, an average of 350 prostitutes are sentenced to serve time in state prisons yearly. Proponents argue that legalization can decrease the prison population and save state resources that otherwise would be used to investigate, prosecute, sentence, and house those who are charged with this “victimless” crime.

In addition, legalization advocates argue that condom requirements and mandatory HIV and STD testing can reduce health risks for prostitutes and clients alike. If sex work is criminalized, fewer prostitutes will have access to testing services and fewer of them will practice safe sex. It was found that in the United States only three to five percent of STDs can be attributed to prostitution, supporting the argument that prostitutes are not vehicles of HIV and STD transmissions. The number of prostitutes infected with STDs in New Zealand and New South Wales, where prostitution is legalized, is very low or non-existent. In Nevada, there were no registered cases of HIV among legal sex workers. Watch the video below to learn more about Nevada’s health regulations and condom requirements for legal prostitutes.

Another argument is the revenue that legalized prostitution can bring in the form of income taxes. According to some estimates based on the current income of Nevada’s legal prostitutes, legalization can generate $20,000 in federal income taxes per person per year. Not only could this money be used to provide more social and health services for prostitutes, but could be spent on other governmental needs as well.

Perhaps the biggest and the most controversial argument in support of legalization of prostitution is the extension of labor rights and other occupational benefits to prostitutes. If prostitution is treated as any other profession, legal sex workers can be entitled to minimum wage, freedom from discrimination, and safe work environments. They can claim benefits, form or join unions, and get access to medical insurance and pension plans.

Lastly, supporters of legalization believe that prostitution is no different than pornography, lap-dancing, tobacco, alcohol, and gambling, which are all legal in the United States.

What are the arguments against legalization?

The most common argument against legalization of prostitution is its close connection with human trafficking and organized crime. The Netherlands’ legalization of sex work is cited as an example of a failing experiment as Amsterdam became a hub for traffickers and organized crime groups. The Dutch Justice Ministry closed over 320 prostitution windows as a part of the initiative to curb violence against migrant women, who are often forced by traffickers and pimps to work as window prostitutes in the city’s Red Light District.

The increase in child sexual exploitation is another point of concern for those who advocate against the legalization of prostitution. The adult sex industry is viewed as perpetuating the recruitment of children as sex workers, who also could be trafficked and coerced into sexual exploitation.

Prostitution is also thought to increase crime rates as it is a magnet for ancillary crimes, including drug, sex, and violent crimes. In this view, with any form of legalization those crimes can only increase as pimps and traffickers would have more legal avenues to conduct their illicit businesses.

Together with increased crime rates and  human trafficking, legalization can give more power to pimps as they are transformed into businessmen. According to this assumption, working in legal brothels can increase the likelihood of victimization as women spend their time in closed spaces and have fewer resources to ask for help or seek protection against abuse. Prostitutes in one of Nevada’s brothels compared their working conditions to a prison environment as most of the time they were locked inside their rooms waiting for clients and could leave the premises only with their male pimps.

Those who oppose legalization of prostitution also state that prostitutes will continue to spread diseases, even if their services are legalized. As it can take up to two weeks to process STD tests, sex workers can continue to infect their clients, prompting the spread of infections and STDs, regardless of their legal status.

Conclusion

How to deal with prostitution is an endless topic of debate. As decriminalization has its benefits and pitfalls, so does legalization. Even though each model has a different set of goals, both converge on the opinion that prostitutes shouldn’t be criminalized. The United States needs to start participating in the international discussions and may soon consider an alternative to the outdated criminalization model.

 Resources

Primary

UNODC: Human Trafficking

Additional

RNW: FAQ – Prostitution in the Netherlands

Alternet: Should Prostitution be Legalized?

Business Insider: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Prostitution in Nevada

Business Insider: Seven Reasons Why America Should Legalize Prostitution

California State University Northridge: Should Contractual Sex Be Legalized?

CBS News: Prostitution Laws: Europeans Debate Whether Criminalization or Legalization Works Better

Difference Between Net: Difference Between Legalization and Decriminalization

Digital Journal: Amsterdam Courts Ready to Clean Up Red Light District

The New York Times: Labour Laws, Not Criminal Laws, Are the Solution to Prostitution

The New York Times: Legalizing Prostitution Leads to More Trafficking

The New York Times: Nevada’s Legal Brothels Make Workers Feel Safer

The New York Times: Nevada’s Legal Brothels are Coercive, too

Prostitution Education Network: Prostitution Law Reform: Defining Terms

The NAYked Truth: Prostitution: The Economic and Criminal Justice Benefits of Legalization

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prostitution: Should it be Legalized or Criminalized? appeared first on Law Street.

This just in: prostitution is now very much legal in Canada.

In the Great White North, the actual physical exchange of money for sexual acts has always been legal. However, most prostitutes still broke the law because many prostitution related activities, such as solicitation, keeping a brothel, or living on the avails of prostitution were against the law.

For years, advocates hoping to improve the living conditions for sex workers have been arguing that these laws violates the guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and security. Thirty-four years ago, the last time such a suit made it to the Supreme Court, the justices ruled that the prostitution laws should stay in place.

But today, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the laws did in fact violate the Canadian Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedom, and they were struck down, making it much, much easier to take part in legal prostitution. The challenge was brought to the court by three women who formerly participated in the sex trade. It made it to the Supreme Court as the result of a ruling in an Ontario-based court last year. The Supreme Court upheld the decision. The logic behind the Court’s ruling is that the laws in place endanger the lives, health, and safety of the women who make their living doing an activity that is, in itself, legal.

The counter argument to that point of view was that it is a given woman’s choice to engage in prostitution, and so the laws should not be written to protect her for her own choices. But the justices strongly disagreed with that argument. Justice Beverly McLachin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada stated, “whether because of financial desperation, drug addictions, mental illness, or compulsion from pimps, they often have little choice but to sell their bodies for money”. As a result, the choice argument was simply not valid.

It’s important to note that the decision does not allow prostitution permanently. It gives the Legislature one year to draft replacement laws that are not as sweeping and protect the men and women who work in the sex trade.

Among Canada’s peers and allies, there are a wide range of prostitution laws. Some nations, like the United States, flat out ban prostitution and any related activities (with the sole exception of some jurisdictions in the state of Nevada). In contrast, nations such as the Netherlands and Germany have legalized prostitution by women who are of a consenting age. Prostitutes are recognized as legitimate workers, and they are registered.

It’s pretty much accepted that prostitution will happen–there’s a reason that it is called the oldest profession in the world. Whether or not legalizing prostitution has beneficial or negative effects is hotly debated. While legalizing prostitution may lead to more human trafficking, and more organized criminal activity, it does allow a country to keep a registry of sex workers and tax the acts sold.

There were very mixed reactions to the ruling. Canadian sex workers were very pleased. A former sex-trade worker who brought the case, Terri-Jean Bedford stated, “now the government must tell Canadians, all consenting adults, what we can and cannot do in the privacy of our home for money or not. And they must write laws that are fair”.

On the other hand, there are groups that are decrying the change in prostitution laws. Kim Pate is the Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. The Elizabeth Fry Societies advocate for the right of women and girls. Pate stated, ” it’s a sad day that we’ve now had confirmed that it’s OK to buy and sell women and girls in this country. I think generations to come — our daughters, their granddaughters and on — will look back and say, ‘what were they thinking?'”

The decision of the Canadian Court is interesting,  because it indicates that the Justices didn’t necessarily want to make it easier for prostitution to occur, they just wanted to protect the women who are forced into the trade. By giving the Legislature a second chance to write constitutionally appropriate laws, the reprieve for sex workers will probably not last long. However, it is safe to say that the laws will never be quite as restrictive as they were before today’s ruling.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Paul via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Big Change to Canadian Prostitution Laws appeared first on Law Street.