No model in practice: a ‘Nordic model’ to respond to prostitution?

Abstract

The so-called Nordic model to respond to prostitution has been considered in legislative debates across Europe and internationally, and hailed by some as best practice to tackle sex trafficking and is believed to support gender equality. Yet, when we interrogate the utilisation of the Nordic countries laws by law enforcers, it is not being implemented as per the law. We argue that 'all that is occurring is the transfer of rhetoric and ideology' in these countries ((Stone Politics, 19 (1): 51-59, 1999) at 56). In this article, we expose the cracks in the so-called Nordic model, thereby discrediting the 'persuasive' nature of a unified Nordic approach to prostitution. We draw on policy transfer and comparative law literature to illuminate the problems and challenges of naïve adoption of this socalled model, arguing that this can lead to uninformed, inappropriate and incomplete transfer of the Nordic model, which then becomes a policy irritant, further exacerbating the very problems it seeks to address.

A Review of the Criminalisation of the Payment for Sexual Services in Northern Ireland

“…Namely, the difficulties in transposing legislation from one context with a particular set of historical, cultural, political and social circumstances to another with a completely different set of circumstances. Indeed, Kingston and Thomas (2019), writing from a policy transfer and comparative law perspective claim that most countries that have adopted the legislation do not implement the law in full if at all, and all that is 'occurring is the transfer of rhetoric and ideology ' (2018: 423). It simply assumed that legislation devised for the unique context of Sweden (e.g.…”

Disrupting the Boundaries of the Academe: Co-creating Knowledge and Sex Work ‘Academic-activism’

“…Indeed, the purchase of sex was criminalised in Sweden in 1999, with Norway, France, Iceland, Ireland and Israel amongst the countries that have since followed suite. Kingston and Thomas (2018) note how this policy transfer DISRUPTING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ACADEME: CO-CREATING KNOWLEDGE AND SEX WORK ACADEMIC-ACTIVISM has been conducted in a way that ignores the implications of banning the purchase of sex, leading to shoddy copy-catting of a policy without due attention and diligence to the context. In the UK, an enquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Prostitution (2018) called for the Government to introduce a law to criminalise the purchase of all sex.…”

Who Takes Part in the Political Game? The Sex Work Governance Debate in Israel

“…Intending to minimize gender inequality, it shifts the focus from the sellers to those they perceive as perpetrators (Halley, Kotiswaran, Shamir, & Thomas, 2006 ; Harrington, 2018 ; Matthews, 2018 ; Sanders et al, 2020 ; Vuolajärvi, 2019 ; Waltman, 2011 ). The Swedish neo-abolitionist law has now evolved into a global “supermodel” for prostitution policy (McGarry & FitzGerald, 2018 ; Hammond, 2015 ; Kingston & Thomas, 2018 ; Sanders & Campbell, 2014 ), and bills to criminalize clients have been passed in Iceland (2009), Norway (2009), Canada (2014), France (2015), Northern Ireland (2016), and, most recently, Israel (2018).…”

“…This model has, nonetheless, been subject to much criticism. For example, Kingston and Thomas ( 2018 ) argued that a coherent Nordic model is questionable, not least because the Nordic laws operate in different contexts and are not implemented in existing legislation or by practitioners in the same way. Policy and law have thus become, they claim, a mechanism for the transference of ideology and rhetoric.…”

“…Policy and law have thus become, they claim, a mechanism for the transference of ideology and rhetoric. Other critics have focused on how the Nordic model can pose significant risks to sex workers’ safety by increasing resources of policing to their activities (Brooks-Gordon, 2006 ; Kingston & Thomas, 2018 ; Smith & Mac, 2018 ). Sex workers are invisible in this anti-prostitution crusade (McGarry & FitzGerald, 2018 ; Weitzer, 2007 ), precisely because their accounts clash with neo-abolitionist goals.…”