Wake Round 5 Neg V Cornell KG
1NC
1
Obama will hold off GOP moves to tank the Iran Deal but it’ll take a full-court
press to hold them back before the deadline—failure causes war
Crowley and Everett, 11-12—Michael Crowley (senior foreign policy reporter for POLITICO)
and Burgess Everett (congressional reporter for POLITICO), “Republicans seek to thwart deal,”
POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/how-republicans-plan-to-thwart-obamasiran-talks-112805.html --BR
Two weeks before a crucial diplomatic deadline , newly victorious Republicans in Congress are
plotting to derail one of Barack Obama’s few remaining chances for a second-term policy legacy: a nuclear deal with
Iran. The Obama administration’s interim agreement with Tehran expires on Nov. 24. But
Senate Republicans don’t plan to wait until they take power in January to rattle the nuclear
talks. On Thursday, a day after returning to Washington, they will seek a vote on legislation requiring that Congress approve any
deal. Democrats, who still control the Senate, are likely to quash the move . But it’s an early illustration
of Republican plans to confound the president’s nuclear diplomacy, which the GOP sees as dangerously
weak toward Tehran’s anti-American Islamic regime. “The Hill has a lot of power to make things miserable for the president,” said
Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a critic of the nuclear talks who consults
closely with Congress on Iran legislation. The
White House has spent months beating back congressional
action on Iran , including toughened sanctions on the longtime U.S. foe, which is presumed to be pursuing a
nuclear weapon. New pressure on the Iranians could drive them from the negotiating table, say
Obama officials — and lead the United States to war . Though some Democrats support such measures — a proposal
threatening stiffer sanctions won 60 Senate co-sponsors in the last Congress, including 15 Democrats — Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid has kept them bottled up. “That situation will be different in the new Congress,” said a Republican aide, noting that the
incoming Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, won’t comply with White House pleas the way Reid did. The
role Republicans
play will depend on the course of the ongoing nuclear talks. An interim deal struck in Geneva last
November by the U.S. and five other world powers — Russia, China, France, Great Britain and Germany — expires on Nov. 24. That
deal froze the progress of Iran’s nuclear program in return for limited sanctions relief. Over the weekend, Secretary of State John
Kerry and other U.S. officials met with Iranian officials in Oman. Their goal is to strike a long-term deal lifting sanctions in return for
restrictions that would prevent Tehran from easily building an atomic bomb. But the Oman session seemed to achieve little; a
planned press conference with the participants was canceled. “As best I can tell, [there was] no progress,” said Gary Samore, a
former Obama White House aide who handled the Iranian nuclear portfolio and is now president of United Against a Nuclear Iran.
Obama officials say it’s still possible that a long-term deal will be reached by Nov. 24. But Samore and other experts expect the
interim deal, which was already extended once in July, will be extended again into 2015. “I want to start [the Iran] discussion
Thursday, and hopefully we’ll bring the bill up,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. “But in the event we do not,
I hope Sen. McConnell will make sanctions and the [Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act] must-dos in the new Congress.” Introduced in
July, the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act would require an up-or-down vote by Congress on any final agreement with Iran. Many
Republicans expect any deal to make too many concessions to Iran, and agree with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that
the Iranians should be barred from maintaining a uranium enrichment program — something Tehran almost certainly will not agree
to. A no vote wouldn’t actually void an Iran pact, however, because a nuclear deal wouldn’t constitute a formal treaty and therefore
would not require Senate ratification. But if the Senate were to vote against a nuclear agreement, the legislation would re-impose
any sanctions suspended by such a deal. If such a move were to survive a presidential veto, it would effectively kill an agreement
with Iran. If the interim nuclear deal is extended with few or no new concessions by Iran, sources say Republicans are likely to take
up legislation similar to a Senate bill sponsored last year by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez and Sen. Mark
Kirk, the one that drew 60 co-sponsors. That bill threatened new sanctions should Iran violate the interim agreement, or if it
abandons the negotiations. If the interim deal is extended with few or no new concessions by Iran, Republicans are likely to take up
legislation similar to a bill sponsored last year by Foreign Relations Committee chairman Robert Menendez and Sen. Mark Kirk. “If
it’s just a simple extension with a couple of bells and whistles, like they did [in July], I expect Congress to move forward with a new
bill similar to Menendez-Kirk,” said Dubowitz. “For the administration to actually get an extension without that they would have to
come back with a partial deal — but a meaningful partial deal.” Republicans say they have other ways to complicate Obama’s deal
making with Tehran, including by denying funding to offices that would implement any deal with the Iranians. Even
before last
week’s Republican electoral sweep, tensions were growing between the White House and the
Hill over Iran policy. Members of both parties have long complained that Obama officials, who regularly brief Hill leaders
privately about the Iran talks, have provided them with only limited and opaque information about the talks. Last week’s revelation
by The Wall Street Journal that Obama recently sent a secret letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, left many
members fuming. The friction also spiked after The New York Times reported in mid-October that Obama officials were designing an
Iran deal that would rely heavily on executive authority to suspend many of the U.S.-imposed sanctions that have stunted Iran’s
economy. Administration officials say the president has that power, although only
Congress can permanently lift
sanctions it has passed. A State Department spokeswoman called the premise of the Times story “wrong.” But a
Democratic staffer who has been briefed by senior officials called the idea “very real.” And senior Republicans already
concerned that Obama would cut a soft deal with Iran are determined not to be sidelined. A
senior administration official argued that Secretary of State John Kerry would not cut a deal with Iran
that couldn’t be defended against critics , noting that any comprehensive agreement would also require the
approval of America’s negotiating partners. As the administration has in the past, the official also again raised the idea that
opponents of a deal with Iran were in effect choosing a path of dangerous confrontation. “You’re
going to vote no — what’s that a vote for? So you think we should go to war?”
Now is key—going past November crushes the deal and causes escalation
[Mehr News Agency, Interview of Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control
Association, a Washington-based advocacy group, “Comprehensive nuclear deal possible: Arms
control expert,” 11-10-2014, http://en.mehrnews.com/detail/News/104572 //uwyo-baj]
In general, dialogue between leaders of important nations on key issues is important as it leads to a better understanding of each
side’s perspectives. I believe the
reported letter from President Obama in October is yet another indication
of the United States’ interest reaching a nuclear deal by Nov. 24 that provides Iran with the
option to continue to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program that meets its practical needs, but that
also establishes some reasonable limits and additional safeguards to ensure it cannot be used to
pursue nuclear weapons. You have said that you do not believe the interim nuclear deal would be extended again. What
are your reasons for this? Iran and the 5+1 have worked out solutions on several key issues , including
some that appeared to be intractable just a year ago. A comprehensive nuclear agreement is within reach, but both sides will
need to make some tough choices in the coming weeks to reach an agreement by the end of
November, particularly on uranium enrichment, which is still a key sticking point in the talks. Until now,
Iran has opposed reduction of its current enrichment capacity and wants to increase its domestic enrichment over time to provide
fuel for additional nuclear power reactors that might be built a decade or more from now. The 5+1, however, want to reduce Iran’s
current capacity and base enrichment on Tehran’s current practical needs, which are for the next decade very limited. There are
realistic options available that would meet the bottom line needs of both sides on this key issue. Finding
the right
combination of measures including curtailing the number of centrifuges for a period of several years,
allowing limited research on more sophisticated centrifuges, reducing Iran’s stockpile and
form of enriched uranium, and providing Iran with fuel supplies in advance for its one
operating light-water power reactor at Bushehr, can meet the core concerns of both sides on this
issue. The two sides can and must reach an agreement on this issue in order to conclude a
comprehensive nuclear agreement and/or to demonstrate they have made substantial
progress and only needs a few additional weeks to hammer out important technical
understandings. Nuclear negotiators from Iran and the 5+1 group will meet in Muscat, Oman, on November 11 and then will
resume talks in Vienna on Nov. 18. So why do the Iranian and 5+1 delegates go to Oman before Vienna? I don’t know why they
chose that particular location, but it is clear that the two sides are effectively in continuous negotiation at some level or another
from now until Nov. 24 in order to utilize all the time that is available before the deadline to try to work out an agreement. Professor
Vali Nasr wrote an article recently saying we are in a position that it is the best time to have a nuclear deal with Iran. Or, Saudi
Arabia’s intelligence organizations have claimed that Western powers are willing to reach an agreement with Tehran at any price.
What is your analysis of the situation? Is it possible that the two sides strike a nuclear deal by Nov. 24? This
is the best time
for the 5+1 and Iran to reach a long-term, verifiable comprehensive nuclear agreement
because the two sides are close to an agreement on all the issues and both sides are highly
motivated to reach agreement. What it will take, in my view, to reach an agreement is further flexibility on
each side on two key issues: Iran will need to agree to lower limits on its uranium enrichment
capacity for a period of several years; the 5+1 will need to allow some limited research by Iran on
advanced centrifuge machines; and the 5+1 will need to find a way to accelerate sanctions relief once
and if Iran takes key steps to modify or limit key parts of its nuclear program that could theoretically be used to
make nuclear weapons. Neither side, however, is willing to reach an agreement at “any price.” There have been reports that Obama
seeks to lift sanctions on Iran without Congressional permission. Are these reports true? It should not come as a surprise that
during the initial phases of a nuclear deal with Iran, sanctions relief will be granted through
presidential waivers, not Congressional action. This means the Obama administration will not seek a
Congressional vote on an agreement. Many of the sanctions put in place through laws that originated in Congress
provide for presidential waiver authority for national security purposes. Waiving such
sanctions in the initial phases of a deal is entirely consistent with what Congress wrote into
the legislation in the first place. On Oct. 17, National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said, “the
lifting of sanctions will only come when the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] verifies that Iran has met serious and
substantive benchmarks. We must be confident that Iran’s compliance is real and sustainable over a period of time.” Some members
of Congress, especially those in the Republican Party, are always looking to find reasons to complain about the president and his
policies. They need to understand the legislation they approved was designed to allow the president to exercise his waiver authority
on sanctions when Iran meets its obligations according to the terms of a comprehensive nuclear agreement. Can
the midterm Congressional election, in which the Republicans won the majority in the Senate as well, affect the nuclear
talks in case Iran and the 5+1 group fail to reach an agreement by Nov. 24? I believe it is possible
that the nuclear talks may be extended beyond the Nov. 24 target date to resolve remaining
technical details on key issues -- as was the case last year after the conclusion of the JPOA. But if the two sides
do not reach an agreement in principle by that time on all of the key issues, they must
recognize that hardliners in each country may take escalatory actions that narrow the
negotiating room in such a way that a long-term deal becomes less likely. For example, if a
comprehensive agreement is not achieved by late November, the US Congress could seek to
approve yet another set of sanctions against Iran in the hope that this would coerce Iran’s leaders into an agreement that
is more favorable to the West. Such legislation would not be signed by the president into law, but it could trigger Iran
to take escalatory steps, including a resumption of uranium enrichment to 20 percent levels of fissionable U-235. These
actions, or the threat of such actions, could worsen the climate for negotiations and make it more -not less-- difficult to reach a “win-win” solution on the nuclear issue. Now it is the best time for the two sides to
push for and to achieve a comprehensive nuclear agreement.
Legalization causes political fights
Hayes-Smith and Shekarkhar 10
(Rebecca and Zahra, Contemporary Justice Review: Issues in Criminal, Social, and Restorative
Justice, “Why is Prostitution Criminalized? An Alternative Viewpoint on the Construction of Sex
Work,” 2010, Taylor and Francis) /wyo-mm
The problem with changing the laws lies in the power infrastructure that is currently set up in the USA. Politicians tend to
criminalize not decriminalize or legalize in order to appear ‘tough on crime’. Without
politicians legalization is not possible. As previously mentioned, politicians can benefit by prostitution
remaining criminalized through the use of crackdowns (Roby, 1975). Public health issues appear on politician
platforms and are not necessarily the most important items. In recent years, appearing tough on crime has repeatedly
taken the forefront in many political campaigns. Healthcare remains an issue on democratic platforms, but the
focus is on universal healthcare for citizens, and if prostitutes are criminals then are they considered worthy of healthcare?
Besides politicians, the moral argument is strong and those opposed to prostitution would
fight its legalization . This group might include traditionalists who see prostitution as a threat
to the institute of marriage and to the moral values underlying society. These groups might
blame the laws for making it easy for sex to be purchased, thus devaluing sexual acts and their
sacred role in the reproduction of society. Davis (1937) argues that many, if not most, of the men who solicit
prostitutes are married. If this is true then married
women may feel threatened by laws that legalize
engaging in sexual acts in exchange for money. Some feminists argue that legalization expands
the sex industry, increases child prostitution, does not promote women's health and it is not
what sex workers want (Raymond, 2003).
Sustaining negotiations prevents Iranian prolif and Israel strikes – PC is key
Ross, Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at the Georgetown School of Foreign
Service and counselor at The Washington Institute, 10-16-14 (Dennis, previously served as
special assistant to President Obama and senior director for the central region at the National
Security Council, “How To Muddle Through With Iran,”
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142219/dennis-ross/how-to-muddle-through-with-iran,
accessed 10-20-14, CMM)
One negotiator from the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) told me that he expects that
if there is no agreement before the talks end, the Iranians will take the lid off their program and
rapidly ramp up their uranium enrichment program. Tehran would resume enriching uranium
at 20 percent, increase its use of next generation centrifuges, and expand its stockpiles of
enriched material. This would shrink the so-called break-out time that Iran would require to
produce weapons-grade enriched uranium and potentially hide it. And that, in turn, would mean
that the United States could no longer be confident that it could prevent Iran from possessing
nuclear weapons. How would the United States respond? Its first step would almost certainly be to introduce more
draconian sanctions against Tehran and mobilize international support for them. (The most important of these sanctions would be
designed to greatly curtail Iran’s ability to export its oil.) Notwithstanding the new sanctions, the
Israeli government’s
temptation to launch a military strike against the Iranian nuclear program would surely grow -not only because of the increased threat of Tehran’s program, but also because the
international community might be more forgiving of Israeli military action in circumstances
where the Iranians appear to be rapidly accelerating their nuclear program. So, is this
dangerous sequence of events likely to take place? It’s possible, but neither the P5+1 nor the
Iranians are keen on escalation, so both sides are likely to look for a way out. A PARTIAL DEAL One
possibility would be to agree to an extension of the negotiations under the current terms. The
benefit of such an extension, for the West, is that it would keep the Iranian program contained,
and the Islamic Republic would not move closer to break-out capability. For their part, the Iranians
would receive additional economic relief, even though the basic structure of the sanctions regime would remain
intact. Jofi Joseph, a former U.S. National Security Council official, has argued that preserving the
status quo is preferable to the uncertainty and danger of no deal as it still leaves room for the
possibility of achieving a sustainable comprehensible agreement. A possible variant of this
scenario would be a partial deal in which both sides would formalize an agreement on several
issues -- redesign of the Arak heavy water reactor, reconfiguration of Fordow into a research facility, enhanced verification
protocols for nuclear inspectors -- and continue the dialogue on the areas where there are still
significant disagreements. In each case, diplomacy would continue and there would be no
new sanctions. Washington would have to accept that it could not roll back the Iranian program immediately, although it
would still hope to do so over time.
Tanks Geneva and causes Israel strikes
Leubsdorf, 1/22/14 – former Washington Bureau chief of The Dallas Morning News (Carl, Dallas
Morning News, “Hard-liners’ mischief-making threatens Iran nuke talks”
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/columnists/carl-p-leubsdorf/20140122-carl-leubsdorfhard-liners-mischief-making-threatens-iran-nuke-talks.ece)
The measure’s most dangerous provision, according to various published reports, reads as follows:¶ “If the
government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapon program, the
United States should stand with Israel and provide in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional
responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic and economic support to the Government of Israel in the
defense of its territory, people and existence.Ӧ While not requiring U.S. action, critics note the language suggests
the mere
existence of an Iranian “nuclear weapon program” would be sufficient to compel Israel to
attack “in legitimate self-defense.” And it says the U.S. “should” provide such an Israeli attack
with “military, diplomatic and economic support” according to U.S. laws and congressional constitutional
responsibility.¶ In effect, that could enable the hard-liners who control the Israeli government to kill
the talks or try to drag the United States into a war against Iran if they decide that Iranian compliance with the
current agreement is insufficient to protect Israel.¶ The measure would also enable Congress to kill any
agreement the West reaches with Iran by overriding Obama’s decision to waive existing sanctions .
Global war
Reuveny, 10 – professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University
(Rafael, “Unilateral strike could trigger World War III, global depression” Gazette Xtra, 8/7, - See
more at: http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug/07/con-unilateral-strike-could-trigger-worldwar-iii-/#sthash.ec4zqu8o.dpuf)
A unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely have dire consequences,
including a regional war, global economic collapse and a major power clash.¶ For an Israeli campaign
to succeed, it must be quick and decisive. This requires an attack that would be so overwhelming that Iran would not dare to
respond in full force.¶ Such an outcome is extremely unlikely since the
locations of some of Iran’s nuclear
facilities are not fully known and known facilities are buried deep underground.¶ All of these widely
spread facilities are shielded by elaborate air defense systems constructed not only by the Iranians but also the Chinese and, likely,
the Russians as well.¶ By now, Iran has
also built redundant command and control systems and nuclear
facilities, devloped early warning systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles and upgraded and enlarged its armed forces.¶
Because Iran is well-prepared, a single, conventional Israeli strike—or even numerous strikes—could not destroy all
of its capabilities, giving Iran time to respond.¶ Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear program Israel destroyed in 1981, Iran has a
second-strike capability comprised of a coalition of Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas, and, perhaps, Turkish
forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to join the assault, turning a bad situation into a
regional war.¶ During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, at the apex of its power, Israel was saved from defeat by President Nixon’s
shipment of weapons and planes. Today, Israel’s numerical inferiority is greater, and it faces more determined and better-equipped
opponents. After years of futilely fighting Palestinian irregular armies, Israel has lost some of its perceived superiority—bolstering its
enemies’ resolve.¶ Despite Israel’s touted defense systems, Iranian coalition missiles, armed forces, and terrorist attacks would likely
wreak havoc on its enemy, leading to a prolonged tit-for-tat.¶ In the absence of massive U.S. assistance, Israel’s
military
resources may quickly dwindle, forcing it to use its alleged nuclear weapons, as it had reportedly
almost done in 1973.¶ An Israeli nuclear attack would likely destroy most of Iran’s capabilities, but a crippled Iran and its
coalition could still attack neighboring oil facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant mines in the Persian Gulf and impair maritime
trade in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean.¶ Middle Eastern oil shipments would likely slow to a trickle as
production declines due to the war and insurance companies decide to drop their risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and Venezuela
would likely stop selling oil to the United States and Europe.¶ From there, things could deteriorate as they did in the 1930s. The
world economy would head into a tailspin; international acrimony would rise; and Iraqi and Afghani
citizens might fully turn on the United States, immediately requiring the deployment of more American troops.¶ Russia, China,
Venezuela, and maybe Brazil and Turkey—all of which essentially support Iran—could be tempted to form an
alliance and openly challenge the U.S. hegemony.¶ Russia and China might rearm their injured Iranian protege
overnight, just as Nixon rearmed Israel, and threaten to intervene, just as the U.S.S.R. threatened to join Egypt and Syria in 1973.
President Obama’s response would likely put U.S. forces on nuclear alert, replaying Nixon’s nightmarish
scenario.¶ Iran may well feel duty-bound to respond to a unilateral attack by its Israeli archenemy, but it knows that it could not take
on the United States head-to-head. In contrast, if the United States leads the attack, Iran’s response would likely be muted.¶ If Iran
chooses to absorb an American-led strike, its allies would likely protest and send weapons but would probably not risk using force.¶
While no one has a crystal ball, leaders should be risk-averse when choosing war as a foreign policy tool. If attacking Iran is deemed
necessary, Israel must wait for an American green light. A
War III .
unilateral Israeli strike could ultimately spark World
2
The United States should decriminalize the offering of sexual services by
prostitutes in the United States. The United States should maintain
criminalization on the purchase of prostitution in the United States.
Legal-double-code solves and doesn’t link to the trafficking DA
Rudder 11
(Chelsea-Lynn, The World Post, “Sex for Sale: Legalized Prostitution Hurts Human Trafficking
Victims,” May 25, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsealyn-rudder/sex-for-salelegalized-pr_b_769779.html) /wyo-mm
Amsterdam's experience has shown that regulation of prostitution is not an effective means of cessation
against global human trafficking . In contrast, Sweden's method of decriminalizing prostitution
while criminalizing the purchase of sex and pimping has lead to a decrease in the number of
human trafficking cases. The criminalization of the purchase of sexual services was made into law in 1999. In the decade
since the law was enacted, reports indicate that Sweden appears to be the only country in the European
Union where sex trafficking and prostitution have not increased . By criminalizing the
purchase of sex, and decriminalizing prostitution authorities show that the law is on the side
of the victim who is exploited in the process. In Sweden, prostitution is considered to be a form of violence against
women. Under the Swedish law, jail terms are permitted. Although, to date most purchasers have been punished with fines. The
primary deterrent of the law is being publicly labeled as a john. When johns fear the loss of
their privacy, prostitution becomes less profitable for traffickers. Sweden's model shows that
criminalizing everything about prostitution except for the prostitutes themselves, works.
Variations on Sweden's prostitution decriminalization model have been adopted into law in Iceland and Norway. In spite of this
trend, a recent court ruling in Canada may legalize brothels and pimping. Prostitution is legal under Canadian law. However, in
September an Ontario justice ruled that Canada's laws against pimping, brothels and communicating for the purposes of prostitution
violated women's rights to "freedom of expression and security of the person." Canada's federal government has filed an appeal
against this ruling.
3
Trafficking efforts are working now – recent data proves
Campbell 13
[Joseph, Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of
Investigation, “Combating Human Trafficking”, 9-23-13, FBI,
http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/combating-human-trafficking, RSR]
The Department’s prosecution efforts are led by two specialized units—the Civil Rights Division’s Human Trafficking Prosecution
Unit, and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, which provide subject matter expertise and partner with
our 94 United States Attorneys’ Offices (USAOs) on prosecutions nationwide. The Civil Rights Division, through its Criminal Section
Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit (HTPU), in collaboration with USAOs nationwide, has principal responsibility for prosecuting
forced labor and sex trafficking of adults by force, fraud, and coercion, while CEOS provides expertise in child exploitation crimes,
including child sex trafficking, and works in collaboration with USAOs to investigate and prosecute cases arising under federal
statutes prohibiting the commercial sexual exploitation of children and the extraterritorial sexual abuse of children. Taken
together, USAOs, HTPU, and CEOS initiated a total of 128 federal human trafficking
prosecutions in FY 2012, charging 200 defendants . Of these, 162 defendants engaged
predominately in sex trafficking and 38 engaged predominantly in labor trafficking, although several defendants
engaged in both. In FY 2012, the Civil Rights Division, in coordination with USAOs, initiated 55 prosecutions involving forced labor
and sex trafficking of adults by force, fraud, or coercion. Of these, 34 were predominantly sex trafficking and 21 were predominantly
labor trafficking; several cases involved both. In FY 2012, CEOS, in coordination with USAOs, initiated 18 prosecutions involving the
sex trafficking of children and child sex tourism. During
FY 2012, the Department convicted a total of 138
traffickers in cases involving forced labor, sex trafficking of adults, and sex trafficking of
children. Of these, 105 predominantly involved sex trafficking and 33 predominantly involved labor trafficking, although some
cases involved both. The average prison sentence imposed for federal trafficking crimes during FY 2012 was nine years, and terms
imposed ranged from probation to life imprisonment. During the reporting period, federal prosecutors secured life sentences
against both sex and labor traffickers in four cases, including a sentence of life plus 20 years, the longest sentence ever imposed in a
labor trafficking case. Civil Rights Division Since the Department created the HTPU within the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights
Division in January 2007, HTPU has played a significant role in coordinating the Department’s human trafficking prosecution
programs. HTPU’s mission is to focus the Civil Rights Division’s human trafficking expertise and expand its anti-trafficking
enforcement program to increase human trafficking investigations and prosecutions throughout the nation. HTPU works to enhance
the Department's investigation and prosecution of significant human trafficking cases, particularly novel, complex, multijurisdictional, and multi-agency cases and those involving transnational organized crime and financial crimes. Consistent with
increases in trafficking caseloads across the Department, in the past four fiscal years, from 2009 through 2012, the Civil Rights
Division and USAOs have brought 94 labor trafficking cases, compared to 43 such cases over the previous four years, an increase of
over 118 percent. This
is in addition to the substantial increase in the number of adult sex
trafficking cases prosecuted by the Civil Rights Division and USAOs. The HTPU, the Executive Office for
U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), and multiple USAOs have continued to lead the six anti-trafficking coordination teams (ACTeams) in
collaboration with the FBI, DHS, and the Department of Labor. Following a competitive, nation-wide selection process, six pilot
ACTeams were launched in July 2011 in Los Angeles, California; El Paso, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; Atlanta, Georgia; Miami,
Florida; and Memphis, Tennessee. Since that time, the ACTeams, through enhanced coordination among federal prosecutors and
multiple federal investigative agencies, have developed significant human trafficking investigations and prosecutions, including the
first multi-district, multi-defendant combined sex trafficking and forced labor case in the Western District of Texas; the first domestic
servitude prosecution in the Western District of Missouri; and the first Eastern European forced labor case initiated in the Northern
District of Georgia, in addition to numerous other significant investigations and prosecutions. Of particular interest to this
committee, the
Department and DHS have collaborated with Mexican law enforcement
counterparts on the U.S./Mexico Human Trafficking Bilateral Enforcement Initiative, which
has contributed significantly to restoring the rights and dignity of human trafficking victims
through outreach, interagency coordination, international collaboration, and capacitybuilding. Through the Initiative, the U nited S tates and Mexico have worked as partners to bring
high-impact prosecutions under both U.S. and Mexican law to more effectively dismantle
human trafficking networks operating across the U.S.-Mexico border, prosecute human
traffickers, rescue human trafficking victims, and reunite victims with their families. Significant
bilateral cases have been prosecuted in Atlanta, Georgia; Miami, Florida; and New York, New York. To advance the interdisciplinary
initiative, the Department and DHS have participated in meetings in both the United States and Mexico to ensure that simultaneous
investigations and prosecutions enhance, rather than impede, each other. These
efforts have already resulted in
three cross-border collaborative prosecutions, involving defendants who have been sentenced
in Mexico and the United States to terms of imprisonment of up to 37.5 years, and resulting in
the vindication of the rights of dozens of sex trafficking victims. Outreach and training continue to be a
large part of the Department’s efforts to combat human trafficking. HTPU attorneys presented numerous in-person trainings as part
of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's State and Local Law Enforcement Training Symposiums. CRT, FBI, and other
Department components joined with the Department of State to create an Advanced Human Trafficking Investigator course at the
FBI Training Academy in Quantico, Virginia for Central American law enforcement officers. The program has trained investigators
from El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Panama. The Department, DHS, and DOL collaborated to develop and deliver the
Advanced Human Trafficking Training Program to the ACTeams, bringing federal agents and federal prosecutors together for an
intensive skill-building and strategic planning to enhance their anti-trafficking enforcement efforts.
Legalization expands trafficking
Osmanaj 14
(Egzone, Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, “The Impact of Legalized Prostitution on
Human Trafficking,” June 2014, file:///C:/Users/Debate/Downloads/2954-11624-1-PB.pdf)
/wyo-mm
Trafficking in persons is developed in all of its forms, but the most spread one remains the trafficking for sexual exploitation
purposes. The intention of this work is to explain the relationship between the legalization of prostitution and trafficking in persons,
respectively to show if legalization
of prostitution could influence the increase or decrease of the
number of trafficked persons for sexual exploitation.By foreseeing it as a solution of the
problem of trafficked women for sexual exploitation, many countries legalized prostitution,
namely, thinking that legalization of prostitution would reduce the number of trafficked women, will
decrease the number of women that deal with prostitution and will protect the sex workers, so that they wouldn’t feel discriminated
but enjoy the rights equally to those others, these countries legalized prostitution. However,
legalization of
prostitution doesn’t seem to be the best thought solution! This is proven by the practices of the
countries that legalized prostitution. In this work we elaborated the model of prostitution in Netherlands and
Germany. These countries legalized prostitution, and the Swedish model that completely differs from them, in order
to compare these models and be able to determine if there could be and how much legalization (or not) could affect the increase or
decrease of trafficked persons for sexual exploitation.The Netherlands in 2000 had legalized prostitution with
the arguments that legalization would decrease the number of trafficked women for prostitution, would take prostitutes away from
streets and would protect minor females from sexual exploitation.We saw that the results of different researches
show that
of the prostitution didn’t give any positive effect toward the war against
trafficking in persons. After the legalization of prostitution in Netherlands the number of
trafficked persons increased several times compare to before it was legalized, especially the
number of minors in prostitution increased three times more than it was before. Also in Germany it
the legalization
didn’t give any positive result. Sweden stands in a better position which is considered to be non-attractive place for human
traffickers. The Swedish law for sexual services adopted in 1999, which determines that purchasing sexual services is a crime, whilst
it is not when offering sexual services,gave evident results. Currently the number of prostitutes in Sweden is considered to be 1000,
before the law was adopted in 1998 the number of women involved in prostitution was 2500, the same for the number of
purchasers it dropped from 13% in 1996, to 7%, and the number of prostitutes in the streets dropped 650 in 1996 to 175 in 2010,
whereas in 2013 it is estimated that there are 10.This number speaks about the success of institutions that work against prostitution
and trafficking in persons in Sweden. Swedish legislation is an example followed by many countries like; Iceland,
France,Norway,South Korea,Great Britain,which are at the adaptation phases of the same law. Despite the negative side, legalization
of prostitution has the positive side in the aspect of protection of health of the workers by creating conditions for regular inspection,
better health conditions, decreases the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases.The attempts of the countries that through the
legalization of prostitution shall influence on the decrease of the trafficked persons for sexual exploitation purpose did not show to
be successful, or we could even say it failed in their mission. All the efforts to bring prostitution as natural as possible, to rehabilitate
it, to give legal protection and to convert it to an authentic business do not undo it which in fact prostitution is. I will close this work
with the sentence used in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and announced by the General Assembly of UNO, with
its resolution no. 217A/III, date 10 December 1948. That says: ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, but in
prostitution women are unsafe,threatened, and not protected.‘
Trafficking intrinsically connected to organized crime
Poulin 05
(Richard, Sisyphe, “The legalization of prostitution and its impact on trafficking in women and
children,” 2005, http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=1596) /wyo-mm
Humankind is witnessing the industrialization of prostitution, trafficking in women and children, pornography and sex tourism.
The various sectors of the sex industry are flourishing ; they are organized and managed by
networks of pimps and organized crime . The liberalization of the laws governing prostitution
in some countries has allowed the pimps involved in organized crime to acquire, emerging
from the underground, the status of entrepreneurs and respected business partners. The criminal
markets are naturally integrated into the legal markets where they are able to launder money with complete impunity. They now
play a major role in the world economy. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) estimates that gross criminal product
makes up 15% of world trade. (35) The sex markets account for a sizeable share of this. It
is estimated that the profits
from trafficking women for the purpose of prostitution alone now generate more money
than trafficking in firearms or drugs . (36) Thesex trade industry increasingly regarded as an entertainment industry
and prostitution as "legitimate work".
Organized crime causes CBW war—outweighs other conflicts
CSIS 9 (CEnter for Strategic and International Studies, "Revolution 6 - Conflict," Global Strategy
Institute," gsi.csis.org/index.php?Itemid=59&id=30&option=com_content&task=view)
The shift from interstate to intrastate war and the increasing capacity of non-state actors to commit acts of megaviolence
reflect how patterns of conflict have changed since the end of the Cold War. Today warfare is
increasingly described as “asymmetric.” Traditional military powers, like the United States, are confronted
by increasingly atypical adversaries— non-state ideologues, transnational criminal syndicates, and rogue states—
that employ unconventional tactics in wars ambiguous in both place and time. Today, conflict
is more likely to occur between warring factions on residential streets than between armies
on battlefields. As before, many belligerents still fight for power and/or wealth, but an increasing number are fighting purely
for ideology. Acts of terrorism have become the major vehicle for their malcontent, especially for
well-organized and well-funded Islamic groups like al-Qaeda. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and similar
incidences in recent decades have shown that even small groups of terrorists can carry out sophisticated attacks that result in an
incredible loss of life. The
proliferation of nuclear and biological technologies only ups the ante for
future incidences. [19] Terrorism and Transnational Crime Over the past few decades the size and scope of terrorists’
abilities have become truly alarming. Terrorist organizations have evolved from scrappy bands of
dissidents into well-organized groups with vast human and capital resources. This situation is forcing
governments around the world to develop strategies to both neutralize these groups where they operate and maintain security at
home. The United States has met some success in combating terrorist organizations, killing high-level officials and isolating certain
sub-groups, but the War on Terror has had the unintended consequence of forming “micro-actors,” individuals driven by foreign
military operations to militant extremism. These individuals, or groups of individuals, operate in poorly organized cells and as such
use internet technologies to spread their message and share plans of attack. Perhaps paradoxically, this disorganization and
decentralization makes these groups a greater threat to the military as it is harder to detect and track them. [1] Terrorism
has
also had the effect of heightening tensions between sovereign nations. After the Mumbai terrorist
attacks of 2008, India and Pakistan neared war after India accused Pakistan of harboring terrorists
and Pakistan refused to turn over individuals for prosecution. To finance their illegal activity,
terrorist organizations are becoming involved in transnational crime, especially drug
trafficking . Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy, has stated, “The huge revenues
from the heroin trade fill the coffers of the terrorists and thwart any attempt to stabilize the
region.” [2] Over the last two decades, we have witnessed a surge in transnational crime, in large part
because of the dissolution of Cold War alliances that helped keep criminal syndicates in check.
Organized crime activity is not limited to the smuggling of illicit drugs, but includes the trafficking of arms, drugs, and human beings.
Weapons of Mass Destruction According to President Obama, “In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone
down, but the
risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.” [3] International mechanisms established in
recent decades have by and large kept the nuclear ambitions of superpowers at bay. However,
the fall of the Soviet Union and the increasing prevalence and power of criminal networks
have made it more likely that a single actor could get his or or her hands on a Weapon of Mass
Destruction (WMD). The term WMD is used to describe any weapons technology (radiological,
chemical, biological, or nuclear) that is capable of killing a large number of people. [4] By and large it is believed that
WMD pose the greatest threat in the possession of belligerent states like Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. However, experts are
warning that a more urgent threat would come from WMD in the hands of non-state actors.
Nuclear material and technical knowledge are frequently exchanged on the black market,
especially in post-Soviet countries, where security personnel charged with guarding nuclear facilities are
easily bribed into selling nuclear plans and materials. [5] With the help of the United States, Russia and its
neighbors have made strides in securing these sites and improving oversight of the nuclear industry, but there is no telling how
much material has been traded over the years. [6] The
WMD threat does not only come from groups
operating in the developing world, however, as recent biochemical attacks attest. The prime
suspect in the anthrax attacks of 2001 was a government scientist, and the sarin gas attack on
the Tokyo subway was committed by a religious organization that enjoyed official government
recognition. The ease with which these materials have become available, especially through
online resources, is forcing governments to restrict their use. International governing bodies will need to
find an acceptable paradigm that allows for the benign applications of these technologies, as in power generation, while deterring
the nefarious ones.
4
The history of the prostitute has been woven by the bourgeois in discourses of
dirtiness and immorality of the poor. Prostitutes defies legalized forms of labor
by working through an illegalized occupation. Legalization of prostitution allows
for a discipline over this labor and an extension of the factory's gaze of
surveillance
Green 01
[Brian Green, Professor in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology University of British
Columbia, Organdi Quarterly is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal. It is free and
international. Organdi Quarterly focuses on cultural issues of our time, is open to all forms of
creation (painting, photography, cinema, video, music, writing...), and proposes a criticism on
the evolution of societies., “A Particular Class of Women : Class Struggles on the Prostitute Body,
1830-1900”, February 2001, http://www.organdi.net/article.php3?id_article=24, \\wyo-bb]
The prostitute was initially constructed as an identifiable body through the writings of
Alexandre Parent-Duchatelet and William Acton, two researchers who framed prostitution as a
response of working class women to both the imposition of labour discipline and the
subsistence needs brought about by industrial capitalism. Parent-Duchatelet, the first to construct the
prostitute as a product of Europe’s industrialization, was trained as a sanitation researcher, his previous work on the Parisian sewer
system providing a metaphor for his view of prostitution as an underground network of industrial capitalism’s human waste. His
experience inside the sewer, he writes, and there handling "putrid matter…in the midst of the most abject and disgusting products
of large groups of people" (cited in Bell : 47), is precisely what has prepared him to research prostitution. Parent-Duchatelet’s
sanitation discourse linked her immersion in physical and social ’filth and mire’ to recurrent medical problems which threatened to
spread throughout the social body if not subjected to political and medical regulation ; and that metaphor was to have enormous
implications for the construction of the prostitute body. Some thirty years later, William Acton placed the diseased body/ contagion
at the very centre of his work. Acton writes the prostitute’s "inner rottenness" as a blight, and compares the social implications of
prostitution to the medical threat posed by vermin ; in both cases, public administration has a responsibility to manage and contain
the pest who, "corrupt and dependent on corruption", carries " contamination and foulness to every quarter" (Acton : 166). The
sanitation discourses of Parent-Duchatelet and Acton framed the prostitute as moral and
medical threat, with the potential to undermine the social body. That threat, however, did not
originate in the prostitute herself, but emerged from working class communities generally,
with the prostitute as a carrier, or signifier, of the class.
She emerged from a proletariat whose living
conditions, housing, hygiene and social gatherings were outside the boundaries of bourgeois moral values, and whose containment
and regulation were made more difficult by the publicity and ungovernability of her body. In other words, if the prostitute could be
sanitized, the spread of working class unhygiene could be managed ; if the prostitute could be geographically contained, so too
could the morally-questionable and politically-dangerous social gatherings of the class. But
the prostitute/ working
class connection in Parent-Duchatelet and Acton is not simply symbolic ; in both cases, the
researchers emphasize prostitution as a product of capitalism, a common feature of emerging
working class communities for which the social order is not adequately prepared.
Industrialization had spawned the rapid growth of an urban proletariat who was neither
adequately trained in the work ethic nor provided with the material requisites of a staid
bourgeois respectability . Low wages and instability of employment, particularly for women, forced the adoption of
alternative means of income on a regular basis, and the chaotic sprawl of working class neighbourhoods gave rise to make-shift
gatherings of which bawdiness and drink formed the core. Under such conditions, the spread of prostitution was easily explained ;
conversely, the means of its containment were apparent as well : higher wages, social security, public investment in and policing of
working class communities. Having
written the prostitute as a natural product of the working class,
prostitute was not a unique
body but a temporary identity adopted by working class women in times of particular
Parent-Duchatelet and Acton equated her with the proletarian woman in general. The
financial hardship. Both men emphasized two related points about women in prostitution.
They frequently worked in the formal economy as well, particularly the factory system ;
therefore, prostitutes were proletarians . Likewise, temporary prostitution was a common
survival strategy of working class women and could not be associated with an inherently
’corrupt’ or ’immoral’ character ; therefore, proletarian women were prostitutes. In Acton’s
words, prostitution is a transitory state through which untold number of British women are ever on their passage…multitudes are
mothers before they become prostitutes, and others become mothers during their evil career (Acton : 49). The
fluidity that
Parent-Duchatelet and Acton found between the identities prostitute and worker ran both
ways, and so too did its implications. On the one hand, if prostitution was a common form of labour
in working class communities, then the prostitute herself was to a large extent not Othered in
the initial discourse. But, at the same time, that fluidity set apart the working class as a whole, ’the
great unwashed’, from the bourgeoisie, whose moral values, living conditions, leisure
activities and forms of congregation were constructed as the norm. In other words, the class
as a whole was Othered. This construction of the working class as Other to the bourgeoisie
involved a number of discourses ; sanitation, public health, respectability and morality all played
their part in bourgeois writings of class relations and of the prostitute as embodiment of all
that was lowly. At the same time, however, working class resistance and agency are explicitly written into Parent-Duchatelet’s
and Acton’s constructions, which identify prostitution as a choice of working class women (within
constraints, of course) and a challenge to bourgeois ethics and moral codes. Capitalism’s critics have
emphasized that the imposition of the wage as a means of social control was fiercely resisted
by newly-made proletarians, and was possible only as a result of enclosure, eviction,
criminalization of leisure, and extensive violence - ’bloody legislation’ and even bloodier
enforcement. And such struggles - of workers against the wage, of the bourgeoisie to justify
work by appeal to morality - is embedded throughout Parent-Duchatelet’s writing of the prostitute, who
he defines as exemplary of the problem of putting the working class to work : she cannot be "held still, pinned down", she shows
little interest in frugality, and seeks "to procure happiness without work", a characteristic which threatens "very serious
consequences" if allowed to invade public space unchecked (cited in Bell : 49-50). Prostitution, then, though
a form of
labour which emerges in response to capital’s expansion, is one which originates among
workers precisely because it evades the controlling gaze of the factory , is compatible with a
culture of non-work, and represents a partially self-defined labour which avoids
internalization of capital’s moral commands . It facilitates the expansion of working class congregation in public
places for sex, drink, and raucous conversation, phenomena which run counter to the demands of bourgeois morality and the
requirements of the labour regime. As such,
the regulation and containment of prostitution is necessary
for the enforcement of labour discipline (in the factory and in the household) upon workers ; their
submission to capital is by no means automatic, but must be secured by the isolation of those
occupations whose geographic and temporal work-spaces evade the direct surveillance of
capital.
FELLOW-FEELING OR COMPASSION ARE IMPOSSIBLE UNDER A CAPITALIST
LOGIC -IT MONETIZES ALL LIFE, ENABLING THE WORST ATROCITIES
IMAGINABLE
Kovel 02
Joel Kovel, Alger Hiss Professor, Social Studies, Bard College, THE ENEMY OF NATURE: THE END
OF CAPITALISM OR THE END OF THE WORLD, 2002, p. 141.
Capital produces egoic relations, which reproduce capital. The isolated selves of the capitalist order can choose to
become personifications of capital, or may have the role thrust upon them. In either case, they embark upon a pattern of
non-recognition mandated by the fact that the almighty dollar interposes itself between all
elements of experience: all things in the world, all other persons, and between the self and its
world: nothing really exists except in and through monetization. This set-up provides an ideal
culture medium for the bacillus of competition and ruthless self-maximization. Because money is all
that ‘counts’, a peculiar heartlessness characterizes capitalists, a tough-minded and cold
abstraction that will sacrifice species, whole continents (viz. Africa) or inconvenient sub-sets
of the population (viz. black urban males) who add too little to the great march of surplus
value or may be seen as standing in its way The presence of value screens out genuine fellowfeeling or compassion, replacing it with the calculus of profit-expansion. Never has a holocaust
been carried out so impersonally When the Nazis killed their victims, the crimes were accompanied by a racist drumbeat; for global capital, the losses are regrettable necessities .
AND the alternative is to endorse the structural historical criticism of sexual
activity for hire that is the 1nc and reject the legal recognition of labor
METHOD IS THE FOREMOST POLITICAL QUESTION BECAUSE ONE MUST
UNDERSTAND EXISTING SOCIAL TOTALITY BEFORE ONE CAN HOW TO ACT—
GROUNDING THE SITES OF POLITICAL CONTESTATION OUTSIDE OF LABOR
MERELY SERVE TO HUMANIZE CAPITAL AND PREVENT A TRANSITION BEYOND
OPPRESSION
TUMINO (Prof. English @ Pitt) 2001
[Stephen, “What is Orthodox Marxism and Why it Matters Now More than Ever”, Red Critique,
p. online //wyo-tjc]
Any effective political theory will have to do at least two things: it will have to offer an
integrated understanding of social practices and, based on such an interrelated knowledge,
offer a guideline for praxis. My main argument here is that among all contesting social theories now, only Orthodox
Marxism has been able to produce an integrated knowledge of the existing social totality and
provide lines of praxis that will lead to building a society free from necessity. But first I must clarify
what I mean by Orthodox Marxism. Like all other modes and forms of political theory, the very theoretical identity of Orthodox
Marxism is itself contested—not just from non-and anti-Marxists who question the very "real" (by which they mean the "practical"
as under free-market criteria) existence of any kind of Marxism now but, perhaps more tellingly, from within the Marxist tradition
itself. I will, therefore, first say what I regard to be the distinguishing marks of Orthodox Marxism and then outline a short polemical
map of contestation over Orthodox Marxism within the Marxist theories now. I will end by arguing for its effectivity in bringing
about a new society based not on human rights but on freedom from necessity. I will argue that to
know contemporary
society—and to be able to act on such knowledge—one has to first of all know what makes
the existing social totality. I will argue that the dominant social totality is based on inequality—not
just inequality of power but inequality of economic access (which then determines access to health care,
education, housing, diet, transportation, . . . ). This systematic inequality cannot be explained by gender,
race, sexuality, disability, ethnicity, or nationality. These are all secondary contradictions and
are all determined by the fundamental contradiction of capitalism which is inscribed in the relation of
capital and labor. All modes of Marxism now explain social inequalities primarily on the basis of these
secondary contradictions and in doing so—and this is my main argument—legitimate capitalism. Why?
Because such arguments authorize capitalism without gender, race, discrimination and thus
accept economic inequality as an integral part of human societies. They accept a sunny
capitalism—a capitalism beyond capitalism. Such a society, based on cultural equality but
economic inequality, has always been the not-so-hidden agenda of the bourgeois left—
whether it has been called "new left," "postmarxism," or "radical democracy." This is, by the way, the
main reason for its popularity in the culture industry—from the academy (Jameson, Harvey, Haraway, Butler,. . . ) to daily politics
(Michael Harrington, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson,. . . ) to. . . . For
all, capitalism is here to stay and the best that
can be done is to make its cruelties more tolerable, more humane. This humanization (not
eradication) of capitalism is the sole goal of ALL contemporary lefts (marxism, feminism, anti-racism,
queeries, . . . ). Such an understanding of social inequality is based on the fundamental
understanding that the source of wealth is human knowledge and not human labor. That is,
wealth is produced by the human mind and is thus free from the actual objective conditions that shape
the historical relations of labor and capital. Only Orthodox Marxism recognizes the historicity
of labor and its primacy as the source of all human wealth. In this paper I argue that any
emancipatory theory has to be founded on recognition of the priority of Marx's labor theory
of value and not repeat the technological determinism of corporate theory ("knowledge work") that
masquerades as social theory.
case
Patriarchy
Preventing extinction needs to come first
Paul Wapner, associate professor and director of the Global Environmental Policy Program at
American University, Winter 2003, Dissent, online:
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/archives/2003/wi03/wapner.htm
All attempts to listen to nature are social constructions-except one. Even the most radical
postmodernist must acknowledge the distinction between physical existence and nonexistence. As I have said, postmodernists accept that there is a physical substratum to the
phenomenal world even if they argue about the different meanings we ascribe to it. This
acknowledgment of physical existence is crucial. We can't ascribe meaning to that which
doesn't appear. What doesn't exist can manifest no character. Put differently, yes, the
postmodernist should rightly worry about interpreting nature's expressions. And all of us should
be wary of those who claim to speak on nature's behalf (including environmentalists who do
that). But we need not doubt the simple idea that a prerequisite of expression is existence.
This in turn suggests that preserving the nonhuman world-in all its diverse embodiments-must
be seen by eco-critics as a fundamental good. Eco-critics must be supporters, in some fashion,
of environmental preservation. Postmodernists reject the idea of a universal good. They
rightly acknowledge the difficulty of identifying a common value given the multiple contexts
of our value-producing activity. In fact, if there is one thing they vehemently scorn, it is the
idea that there can be a value that stands above the individual contexts of human experience.
Such a value would present itself as a metanarrative and, as Jean-François Lyotard has
explained, postmodernism is characterized fundamentally by its "incredulity toward metanarratives." Nonetheless, I can't see how postmodern critics can do otherwise than accept the
value of preserving the nonhuman world. The nonhuman is the extreme "other"; it stands in
contradistinction to humans as a species. In understanding the constructed quality of human
experience and the dangers of reification, postmodernism inherently advances an ethic of
respecting the "other." At the very least, respect must involve ensuring that the "other"
actually continues to exist. In our day and age, this requires us to take responsibility for
protecting the actuality of the nonhuman. Instead, however, we are running roughshod over
the earth's diversity of plants, animals, and ecosystems. Postmodern critics should find this
particularly disturbing. If they don't, they deny their own intellectual insights and compromise
their fundamental moral commitment.
Exploitation and violence persist regardless of legal status
Farley 04
(Melissa, Violence Against Women, ““Bad for the Body, Bad for the Heart”: Prostitution Harms
Women Even if Legalized or Decriminalized,” 2004, Sage Publications) /wyo-mm
We’asked women currently in prostitution in Colombia, Ger many, Mexico, South Africa, and
Zambia whether they thought that legal prostitution would offer them safety from physical and
sexual assault. Forty-six percent of these women in prostitution from six countries felt that
they were no safer from physical and sexual assault even if prostitution were legal . Brothel
prostitution is legal in Germany, one of the countries surveyed. In an indict ment of legal
prostitution, 59% of German respondents told us that they did not think that legal prostitution
made them any safer from rape and physical assault (Fancy et al., 2003). A comparable 50% of
100 prostitutes in a Washington, D.C., survey expressed the same opinion (Valera et al., 2001).
It is not possible to protect the health of someone whose “job” means that they will get raped
on average once a week (Hunter, 1993). One woman explained that prostitution is “like
domestic violence taken to the extreme” (I.eone, 2001). Another woman said, “What is rape
for others, is normal for us” (Farley, Lynne, & Cotton, in press).
Health
Legalization doesn’t solve health- even if regulations are implemented, too any
other risk factors in prostitution destroy womyn’s health
Farley 04
(Melissa, Violence Against Women, ““Bad for the Body, Bad for the Heart”: Prostitution Harms
Women Even if Legalized or Decriminalized,” 2004, Sage Publications) /wyo-mm
Throughout history, regardless of its legal status, prostitution has had a devastating impact on
women’s health. In 1858, Sanger asked 2,000 prostitutes in New York about their health and con cluded that premature old
age was the invariable result of prosti tution (as cited in Benjamin & Masters, 1964). Sanger described conditions of despair,
degradation, decline, and early death among prostitutes who survived on average only four years af ter entry into prostitution. A
physician, he wondered how they lasted that long (Benjamin & Masters, 1964). Making the same observation in the parlance of
today’s global marketplace, an anonymous pimp commented on the “brief shelf life” of a girl in prostitution. Pheterson (1996)
summarized the health problems of women in prostitution: exhaustion, frequent viral illness,
STDs, vaginal infections, back aches, sleeplessness, depression, headaches, stomachaches, and
eating disorders. Women who were used by more customers in prostitution reported more
severe physical symptoms (Vanwesenbeeck, 1994). A Canadian commission found that the death
rate of women in prostitution was 40 times higher than that of the general population (Special
mortality survey of more than 1,600 women in U.S.
prostitution noted that “no population of women studied previously has had a. . . percentage
of deaths due to murder even approximating those observed in our cohort” (Potterat et al., 2004, p.
783). In this survey, murder accounted for 50% of the deaths of women in prostitution. Reviewing
compara ble studies, Potterat et al. (2004) noted that murder accounted for between 29% and
100% of all prostituted women’s reported deaths in Birmingham, UK; Nairobi, Vancouver,
Canada; and London.
Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, 1985). A
Stigma
Legalization doesn’t solve- doesn’t erase stigmas they face, womyn don’t want
to be publicly marked as sex workers by registering, and doesn’t get rid of
violence sex workers face
Farley 04
(Melissa, Violence Against Women, ““Bad for the Body, Bad for the Heart”: Prostitution Harms
Women Even if Legalized or Decriminalized,” 2004, Sage Publications) /wyo-mm
Advocates of decriminalization argue that the health of those in prostitution will be improved by
decriminalization because otherwise women will not have access to health care. It is assumed that
women will seek health care as soon as the stigma of arrest is removed from prostitution. If
the stigma is removed, advocates argue, women will then file a complaint whenever they are
abused, raped, or assaulted in prostitution. They assume that the complaint will be followed
with a police response that treats women in prostitution with dignity and as ordinary
citizens . Unfortunately, health care workers and police too often share the same contempt
toward those in prostitution that others do . A former prostitute in NZ said to the Parliament: “This bill pro vides
people like me. . . with some form of red ress [italics added], for the brutalisation that may happen.. .when you’re with a client and
you have a knife pulled on you” (Georgina Beyer, speech, Wellington, NZ, June 26, 2003). The specific form of redress offered by the
NZ decriminalization law was not described by the speaker, nor is it articulated in the law. The
dilemma for the per son
in prostitution is not that there is no legal redress for coercion, physical assault, and rape in
the new law or in old laws. The dilemma is that in prostitution there is no avoiding sexual
harass ment, sexual exploitation, rape, and acts that are the equivalent of torture.
Decriminalization in NZ was promoted as a means of provid ing those in prostitution with legal redress against violent johns.
However, prostituted women could already take legal action under existing laws but rarely did so. Explaining this situation, a NZ
Prostitutes Collective member stated, “They don’t want to draw attention to themselves and what they’re doing” (Else, 2003, np.).
Women in the Netherlands have expressed similar senti ments, even though prostitution has been legal there for many years. Their
concern was the loss of anonymity that exists in legal prostitution. Once officially registered as
prostitutes, Dutch women feared that this designation would pursue them for the rest of their
lives. Despite the fact that if officially registered as prostitutes they would accrue pension
funds, the women still pre ferred anonymity (Schippers, 2002). They wanted to leave prosti tution
as quickly as possible with no legal record of having been in prostitution (Daley, 2001). Similarly,
despite attempts to unionize women in Germany’s $16.5 billion legal prostitution industry,
the women not only avoided unions, they avoided registering with the government and they
continued to engage in illegal prostitu tion in part because they felt that the remote areas
where prostitu tion is zoned put them at increased, not decreased, risk of physical danger
(Taubitz, 2004).
Changing policies is irrelevant in solving violence against sex workers because
violence is endemic to the profession - statistics and empirics
Farley 04
(Melissa, Violence Against Women, ““Bad for the Body, Bad for the Heart”: Prostitution Harms
Women Even if Legalized or Decriminalized,” 2004, Sage Publications) /wyo-mm
It is a cruel lie to suggest that decriminalization or legalization will protect anyone in prostitution .
There is much evidence that whatever its legal status, prostitution causes great harm to
women. The following sections summarize some of the many studies that now document the
physical and emotional harm caused by prostitution. In the past two decades, a number of authors have
documented or analyzed the sexual and physical violence that is the normative experience for women in prostitution, including
Baldwin (1993, 1999); Barry (1979, 1995); Boyer, Chapman, and Marshall (1993); Dworkin (1981, 1997, 2000); Farley, Baral, Kiremire,
and Sezgin (1998); Giobbe (1991, 1993); Hoigard and Finstad (1986); Hughes (1999); Hunter (1994); Hynes and Raymond (2002);
Jeffreys (1997); Karim, Karim, Soldan, and Zondi (1995); Leidholdt (1993); MacKinnon (1993, 1997, 2001); McKeganey and Barnard
(1996); Miller (1995); Silbert and Pines (1982a, 1982b); Silbert, Pines, and Lynch (1982); Valera, Sawyer, and Schiraldi (2001);
Vanwesenbeeck (1994); and Weisberg (1985). Sexual
violence and physical assault are the norm for women
in all types of prostitution. Nemoto, Operario, Takenaka, Iwamoto, and Le (2003) reported that 62% of Asian
women in San Francisco massage parlors had been physically assaulted by customers. These data
were from only 50% of the massage parlors in San Francisco. The other 50%—those brothels controlled by pimps! traffickers who
refused entrance to the researchers—were proba bly even more violent toward the women inside. Raymond, D’Cunha, et al. (2002)
found that 80%
of women who had been trafficked or prostituted suffered violence-related
injuries in pros titution. Among the women interviewed by Parriott (1994), 85% had been raped
in prostitution. In another study, 94% of those in street prostitution had experienced sexual
assault and 75% had been raped by one or more johns (Miller, 1995). In the Nether lands, where
prostitution is legal, 60% of prostituted women suf fered physical assaults; 70% experienced
verbal threats of physi cal assault; 40% experienced sexual violence; and 40% had been forced
into prostitution or sexual abuse by acquaintances (Vanwesenbeeck, 1994). Most young women in
prostitution were abused or beaten by johns as well as pimps. Silbert and Pines (1981, 1982b)
reported that 7O% of women suffered rape in prosti tution, with 65% having been physically
assaulted by customers and 66% asšiailted by pimps. Of 854 people in prostitution in nine
countries (Canada, Colombia, Germany, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, United States, and Zambia), 71%
experienced physical assaults in prostitution, and 62% reported rapes in prostitution (Fancy, Cot
ton, et al., 2003). Eighty-nine percent told the researchers that they wanted to leave prostitution but did not have other options for
economic survival.
To normalize prostitution as a reasonable job choice for poor women makes
invisible their strong desire to escape prostitution.
2nc
Legal endorsement of the conditions for labor only revalidates capitalism by
propping up the idea that the system is self correcting
MESZAROS (Prof. Emeritus @ Univ. Sussex) 1995
[Istavan, Beyond Capital: Towards a Theory of Transition, 930// wyo]
THE difficulty is that the ‘moment’ of radical politics is strictly limited by the nature of the crises in
question and the temporal determinations of their unfolding. The breach opened up at times
of crisis cannot be left open forever and the measures adopted to fill it, from the earliest steps
onwards, have their own logic and cumulative impact on subsequent interventions. Furthermore,
both the existing socioeconomic structures and their corresponding framework of political institutions tend to act against radical
initiatives by their very inertia as soon as the worst moment of the crisis is over and thus it becomes possible to contemplate again
‘the line of least resistance’. And no one can consider ‘radical restructuring’ the line of least resistance, since by its very nature it
necessarily involves upheaval and the disconcerting prospect of the unknown. No
immediate economic achievement
can offer a way out of this dilemma so as to prolong the life-span of revolutionary politics,
since such limited economic achievements made within the confines of the old premises — act
in the opposite direction by relieving the most pressing crisis symptoms and, as a result,
reinforcing the old reproductive mechanism shaken by the crisis. As history amply testifies, at
the first sign of ‘recovery’, politics is pushed back Into its traditional role of helping to sustain
and enforce the given socio-economic determinations. The claimed ‘recovery’ itself reached on the
basis of the ‘well tried economic motivations’, acts as the self-evident ideological justification for reverting
to the subservient, routine role of politics, in harmony with the dominant institutional framework. Thus,
radical politics can only accelerate its own demise (and thereby shorten, instead of extending as it
should, the favourable ‘moment’ of major political intervention) if it consents to define its own
scope in terms of limited economic targets which are in fact necessarily dictated by the
established socioeconomic structure in crisis.
THE REDUCTION OF CLASS TO A NEUTRAL LEVEL AMONG OTHER OPPRESSIONS
SUCH AS RACE AND GENDER, DESTROYS THE POTENTIAL OF CLASS TO REACH
ACROSS ALL LINES TO FORGE POLITICAL ACTION. CLASS MUST BE RECOGNIZED
AS QUALITATIVELY MORE IMPORTANT—OTHERWISE THE SYSTEM SATISFIES
DEMANDS ON GROUNDS OF FORMAL EQUALITY, DESTROYING ATTEMPTS TO
OVERCOME CAPITALIST OPPRESSION***
GIMENEZ (Prof. Sociology at UC Boulder) 2001
[Martha, “Marxism and Class; Gender and Race”, Race, Gender and Class, Vol. 8, p. online:
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/cgr.html //wyo-tjc]
There are many competing theories of race, gender, class, American society, political economy, power, etc.
but no specific theory is invoked to define how the terms race, gender and class are used, or
to identify how they are related to the rest of the social system. To some extent, race, gender and class
and their intersections and interlockings have become a mantra to be invoked in any and all theoretical contexts, for a tacit
agreement about their ubiquitousness and meaning seems to have developed among RGC studies advocates, so that all that remains
to be dome is empirically to document their intersections everywhere, for everything that happens is, by definition, raced, classed,
and gendered. This
pragmatic acceptance of race, gender and class, as givens, results in the
downplaying of theory, and the resort to experience as the source of knowledge. The
emphasis on experience in the construction of knowledge is intended as a corrective to
theories that, presumably, reflect only the experience of the powerful. RGC seems to offer a subjectivist
understanding of theory as simply a reflection of the experience and consciousness of the individual theorist, rather than as a body
of propositions which is collectively and systematically produced under historically specific conditions of possibility which grant them
historical validity for as long as those conditions prevail. Instead, knowledge and theory are pragmatically conceived as the products
or reflection of experience and, as such, unavoidably partial, so that greater accuracy and relative completeness can be
approximated only through gathering the experiential accounts of all groups. Such is the importance given to the role of experience
in the production of knowledge that in the eight page introduction to the first section of an RGC anthology, the word experience is
repeated thirty six times (Andersen and Collins, 1995: 1-9). I
agree with the importance of learning from the
experience of all groups, especially those who have been silenced by oppression and exclusion
and by the effects of ideologies that mystify their actual conditions of existence. To learn how
people describe their understanding of their lives is very illuminating, for "ideas are the conscious
expression -- real or illusory -- of (our) actual relations and activities" (Marx, 1994: 111), because "social existence determines
consciousness" (Marx, 1994: 211). Given that our existence is shaped by the capitalist mode of production, experience, to be fully
understood in its broader social and political implications, has to be situated in the context of the capitalist forces and relations that
produce it. Experience
in itself, however, is suspect because, dialectically, it is a unity of
opposites; it is, at the same time, unique, personal, insightful and revealing and, at the same
time, thoroughly social, partial, mystifying, itself the product of historical forces about which
individuals may know little or nothing about (for a critical assessment of experience as a source of knowledge see
Sherry Gorelick, "Contradictions of feminist methodology," in Chow, Wilkinson, and Baca Zinn, 1996; applicable to the role of
experience in contemporary RGC and feminist research is Jacoby's critique of the 1960s politics of subjectivity: Jacoby, 1973: 37- 49).
Given the emancipatory goals of the RGC perspective, it
is through the analytical tools of Marxist theory that
it can move forward, beyond the impasse revealed by the constant reiteration of variations on
the "interlocking" metaphor. This would require, however, a) a rethinking and modification of
the postulated relationships between race, class and gender, and b) a reconsideration of the
notion that, because everyone is located at the intersection of these structures, all social
relations and interactions are "raced," "classed," and "gendered." In the RGC perspective, race,
gender and class are presented as equivalent systems of oppression with extremely negative
consequences for the oppressed. It is also asserted that the theorization of the connections
between these systems require "a working hypothesis of equivalency" (Collins, 1997:74). Whether or
not it is possible to view class as just another system of oppression depends on the theoretical framework within class is defined. If
defined within the traditional sociology of stratification perspective, in terms of a gradation perspective, class refers simply to strata
or population aggregates ranked on the basis of standard SES indicators (income, occupation, and education) (for an excellent
discussion of the difference between gradational and relational concepts of class, see Ossowski, 1963). Class
in this nonrelational, descriptive sense has no claims to being more fundamental than gender or racial
oppression; it simply refers to the set of individual attributes that place individuals within an
aggregate or strata arbitrarily defined by the researcher (
i.e., depending on their data and research purposes, anywhere from three or four to twelve "classes" can be identified). From the
standpoint of Marxist theory,
however, class is qualitatively different from gender and race and cannot be
considered just another system of oppression. As Eagleton points out, whereas racism and sexism are
unremittingly bad, class is not entirely a "bad thing" even though socialists would like to abolish it. The
bourgeoisie in its revolutionary stage was instrumental in ushering a new era in historical
development, one which liberated the average person from the oppressions of feudalism and
put forth the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. Today, however, it has an unquestionably negative role
to play as it expands and deepens the rule of capital over the entire globe. The working class,
on the other hand, is pivotally located to wage the final struggle against capital and,
consequently, it is "an excellent thing" (Eagleton, 1996: 57). While racism and sexism have no
redeeming feature, class relations are, dialectically, a unity of opposites; both a site of
exploitation and, objectively, a site where the potential agents of social change are forged. To
argue that the working class is the fundamental agent of change does not entail the notion that it is the only agent of change. The
working class is of course composed of women and men who belong to different races,
ethnicities, national origins, cultures, and so forth, so that gender and racial/ethnic struggles
have the potential of fueling class struggles because, given the patterns of wealth ownership
and income distribution in this and all capitalist countries, those who raise the banners of gender and
racial struggles are overwhelmingly propertyless workers, technically members of the working
class, people who need to work for economic survival whether it is for a wage or a salary, for whom racism,
sexism and class exploitation matter. But this vision of a mobilized working class where gender and racial
struggles are not subsumed but are nevertheless related requires a class conscious effort to
link RGC studies to the Marxist analysis of historical change. In so far as the "class" in RGC
remains a neutral concept, open to any and all theoretical meanings, just one oppression
among others, intersectionality will not realize its revolutionary potential. Nevertheless, I want to
argue against the notion that class should be considered equivalent to gender and race. I find
the grounds for my argument not only on the crucial role class struggles play in processes of
epochal change but also in the very assumptions of RGC studies and the ethnomethodological insights put
forth by West and Fenstermaker (1994). The assumption of the simultaneity of experience (i.e., all
interactions are raced, classed, gendered) together with the ambiguity inherent in the
interactions themselves, so that while one person might think he or she is "doing gender,"
another might interpret those "doings" in terms of "doing class," highlight the basic issue that
Collins accurately identifies when she argues that ethnomethodology ignores power relations. Power
relations underlie all processes of social interaction and this is why social facts are
constraining upon people. But the pervasiveness of power ought not to obfuscate the fact that
some power relations are more important and consequential than others. For example, the power that
physical attractiveness might confer a woman in her interactions with her less attractive female supervisor or employer does not
match the economic power of the latter over the former. In my view,
the flattening or erasure of the qualitative
difference between class, race and gender in the RGC perspective is the foundation for the
recognition that it is important to deal with "basic relations of domination and subordination"
which now appear disembodied, outside class relations. In the effort to reject "class
reductionism," by postulating the equivalence between class and other forms of oppression, the RGC perspective
both negates the fundamental importance of class but it is forced to acknowledge its
importance by postulating some other "basic" structures of domination. Class relations -whether we are referring to the relations between capitalist and wage workers, or to the relations between workers (salaried and
waged) and their managers and supervisors, those who are placed in "contradictory class locations," (Wright, 1978) -- are of
paramount importance, for most people's economic survival is determined by them. Those in
dominant class positions do exert power over their employees and subordinates and a crucial
way in which that power is used is through their choosing the identity they impute their
workers. Whatever identity workers might claim or "do," employers can, in turn, disregard
their claims and "read" their "doings" differently as "raced" or "gendered" or both, rather
than as "classed," thus downplaying their class location and the class nature of their
grievances. To argue, then, that class is fundamental is not to "reduce" gender or racial
oppression to class, but to acknowledge that the underlying basic and "nameless" power at
the root of what happens in social interactions grounded in "intersectionality" is class power.
Health
Prostitution not key to solving disease spreadTrifiolis 14
(Kristie, Seton Hall Law eRepository, “Legalizing Prostitution: An Introduction,” January 1, 2014,
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1147&context=student_scholarship)
/wyo-mm
Legalizing prostitution does not promote women's health . A CATW89 study reported that 47%
of women stated that men expected sex without a condom, 73% reported that men offered to
pay more for sex without a condom, and 45% of women said they were abused if they insisted
that the men use a condom. 90 The safety policies in many legal brothels simply do not
protect women from harm . Women who work in these brothels have indicated that they
were abused by buyers, brothel owners, and even their friends.91 'Although 60 percent of
women reported that buyers had sometimes been prevented from abusing them, half of those
women answered that, nonetheless, they thought that they might be killed by one of their
'customers'.' 92
Consequentialism is key to ethical decision making, because it ensures beings
are treated as equal—any other approach to ethics is arbitrary because it
considers one’s preferences as more important than others
Lillehammer, 2011
[Hallvard, Faculty of Philosophy Cambridge University, “Consequentialism and global ethics.”
Forthcoming in M. Boylan, Ed., Global Morality and Justice: A Reader, Westview Press, Online,
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/teaching_staff/lillehammer/Consequentialism_and_Global_Ethics-12.pdf] /Wyo-MB
Contemporary discussions of consequentialism and global ethics have been marked by a focus on examples such as that of the
shallow pond. In this literature, distinctions are drawn and analogies made between different cases about which both the
consequentialist and his or her interlocutor are assumed to have a more or less firm view. One assumption in this literature is that
progress can be made by making judgements about simple actual or counterfactual examples, and then employing a principle of
equity to the effect that like cases be treated alike, in order to work out what to think about more complex actual cases. It is only fair
to say that in practice such attempts to rely only on judgements about simple cases have a tendency to produce trenchant standoffs. It is important to remember, therefore, that for some consequentialists the appeal to simple cases is neither the only, nor the
most basic, ground for their criticism of the ethical status quo. For some of the historically most prominent
consequentialists the evidential status of judgements about simple cases depends on their derivability from
basic ethical principles (plus knowledge of the relevant facts). Thus, in The Methods of Ethics, Henry Sidgwick argues that
ethical thought is grounded in a small number of self-evident axioms of practical reason. The first of these is that we ought
to promote our own good. The second is that the good of any one individual is objectively of
no more importance than the good of any other (or, in Sidgwick’s notorious metaphor, no individual’s
good is more important ‘from the point of view of the Universe’ than that of any other). The
third is that we ought to treat like cases alike. Taken together, Sidgwick takes these axioms to imply
a form of consequentialism. We ought to promote our own good. Yet since our own good is
objectively no more important than the good of anyone else, we ought to promote the good
of others as well. And in order to treat like cases alike, we have to weigh our own good
against the good of others impartially, all other things being equal. iv It follows that the rightness of
our actions is fixed by what is best for the entire universe of ethically relevant beings.
To claim otherwise is to claim for oneself and one’s preferences a special status they do not
possess. When understood along these lines, consequentialism is by definition a global ethics: the good
of everyone should count for everyone, no matter their identity, location, or personal and
social attachments, now or hereafter. v Some version of this view is also accepted by a number of contemporary
consequentialists, including Peter Singer, who writes that it is ‘preferable to proceed as Sidgwick did: search for undeniable
fundamental axioms, [and] build up a moral theory from them’ (Singer 1974, 517; Singer 1981). For these philosophers the question
of our ethical duties to others is not only a matter of our responses to cases like the shallow pond. It is also a matter of whether
these responses cohere with an ethics based on first principles. If you are to reject the consequentialist challenge, therefore, you will
have to show what is wrong with those principles.
1nr
Trafficking
Legalization of prostitution causes the proliferation of sex trafficking
Poulin 05
(Richard, Sisyphe, “The legalization of prostitution and its impact on trafficking in women and
children,” 2005, http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=1596) /wyo-mm
The most recent research, carried out by London Metropolitan University, at the request of the
Scottish government and published in 2004 on its government website, "confirms what several prior studies have shown, namely
that the "sex industries", sexual tourism, child prostitution and violence against prostituted
people have increased markedly in all the countries that have liberalized their prostitution
laws and turned pimps into respectable businessmen." Government policies are accordingly a
decisive factor in the proliferation of prostitution industries and its corollary, trafficking. Policies
favourable to the legalization of prostitution and trafficking for the purpose of prostitution form part of an international offensive,
mounted by the countries that advocate regulation, against the abolitionist Convention adopted by the UN in 1949, the Convention
for the Suppression of Human Trafficking and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. These countries have introduced in
international or regional conferences (especially in Europe) the concepts of "forced prostitution" and "forced trafficking" in contrast
to "voluntary prostitution" and "voluntary or consenting trafficking".
Legalization creates a trafficking magnet- allows traffickers to hide victims in
the open
Rudder 11
(Chelsea-Lynn, The World Post, “Sex for Sale: Legalized Prostitution Hurts Human Trafficking
Victims,” May 25, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsealyn-rudder/sex-for-salelegalized-pr_b_769779.html) /wyo-mm
Coerced prostitution is one of the primary forms of exploitation that trafficked women and girls are subjected to in the developed
world. Legalized
prostitution allows traffickers to hide victims in plain sight the open as
consenting sex workers. Legal or decriminalized pandering makes a portion of a sex trafficking
victims venture legitimate. In recent decades, several countries have changed their policies and laws on prostitution.
Because there is a positive correlation between commercial sex work, human trafficking and organized crime. In 2000, the
Netherlands, historically one of the most hospitable countries for commercial sex, formalized its prostitution
policy by lifting its ban on brothels. At the time, advocates felt that regulating brothels would
provide better protection to vulnerable women, particularly migrant trafficking victims.
Unfortunately, regulating brothels was not enough to stymie the impact of global human
trafficking on prostitution in the Netherlands. Instead, licensed brothels became a magnet for
human trafficking . Having found that regulation had not curbed trafficking the city of
Amsterdam decided to purchase former brothels, and in some instances loan them out to up
and coming designers and photographers. In 2008, Job Cohen, Mayor of Amsterdam, told The New York Times,
"We've realized this is no longer about small-scale entrepreneurs, but that big crime organizations are involved here
in trafficking women, drugs, killings and other criminal activities." Amsterdam has a reputation as an openminded city. Its traditions may be too avant-garde for some, but Amsterdam's regulated sex industry was attracting a criminal
element that was beyond the scope of the atmosphere of tolerance that it is famous for.
We turn the affirmative-- Gender oppression does not cause war, it’s the other
way around
Goldstein 01
[Joshua, Int’l Rel Prof @ American U, 2001, War and Gender, p. 412]
First, peace activists
face a dilemma in thinking about causes of war and working for peace. Many peace
scholars and activists support the approach, “if you want peace, work for justice.” Then, if one
believes that sexism contributes to war one can work for gender justice specifically (perhaps
among others) in order to pursue peace. This approach brings strategic allies to the peace movement
(women, labor, minorities), but rests on the assumption that injustices cause war. The evidence in this book
suggests that causality runs at least as strongly the other way. War is not a product of capitalism,
imperialism, gender, innate aggression, or any other single cause, although all of these
influence wars’ outbreaks and outcomes. Rather, war has in part fueled and sustained these and
other injustices.9 So,”if you want peace, work for peace.” Indeed, if you want justice (gender and others),
work for peace. Causality does not run just upward through the levels of analysis, from types of
individuals, societies, and governments up to war. It runs downward too. Enloe suggests that changes in attitudes
towards war and the military may be the most important way to “reverse women’s
oppression.” The dilemma is that peace work focused on justice brings to the peace
movement energy, allies, and moral grounding, yet, in light of this book’s evidence, the
emphasis on injustice as the main cause of war seems to be empirically inadequate.
Preventing death is the first ethical priority – it’s the only impact you can’t
recover from.
Zygmunt Bauman, University of Leeds Professor Emeritus of Sociology, 1995, Life In
Fragments: Essays In Postmodern Morality, p. 66-71
The being-for is like living towards-the-future: a being filled with anticipation, a being aware of the abyss between
future foretold and future that will eventually be; it is this gap which, like a magnet, draws the self towards the Other,as it draws life
towards the future, making life into an activity of overcoming, transcending, leaving behind. The
self stretches towards
the Other, as life stretches towards the future; neither can grasp what it stretches toward, but
it is in this hopeful and desperate, never conclusive and never abandoned stretching-toward
that the self is ever anew created and life ever anew lived. In the words of M. M. Bakhtin, it is only in this
not-yet accomplished world of anticipation and trial, leaning toward stubbornly an-other Other, that life can be lived - not in the
world of the `events that occurred'; in the latter world, `it is impossible to live, to act responsibly; in it, I am not needed, in principle I
am not there at all." Art, the Other, the future: what unites them, what makes them into three words vainly trying to grasp the same
mystery, is the modality of possibility. A curious modality, at home neither in ontology nor epistemology; itself, like that which it
tries to catch in its net, `always outside', forever `otherwise than being'. The possibility we are talking about here is not the
all-too-familiar unsure-of-itself, and through that uncertainty flawed, inferior and incomplete being, disdainfully dismissed by
triumphant existence as `mere possibility', `just a possibility'; possibility is instead `plus que la reahte' - both the origin and the
foundation of being. The hope, says Blanchot, proclaims the possibility of that which evades the possible; `in its limit, this is the hope
of the bond recaptured where it is now lost."' The hope is always the hope of being fu filled, but what keeps the hope alive and so
keeps the being open and on the move is precisely its unfu filment. One may say that the paradox of hope (and the paradox of
possibility founded in hope) is that it may pursue its destination solely through betraying its nature; the most exuberant of energies
expends itself in the urge towards rest. Possibility uses up its openness in search of closure. Its image of the better being is its own
impoverishment . . . The togetherness of the being-for is cut out of the same block; it shares in the paradoxical lot of all possibility. It
lasts as long as it is unfulfilled, yet it uses itself up in never ending effort of fulfilment, of recapturing the bond, making it tight and
immune to all future temptations. In an important, perhaps decisive sense, it is selfdestructive and self-defeating: its triumph is its
death. The Other, like restless and unpredictable art, like the future itself, is a mystery. And being-for-the-Other, going towards the
Other through the twisted and rocky gorge of affection, brings that mystery into view - makes it into a challenge. That mystery is
what has triggered the sentiment in the first place - but cracking that mystery is what the resulting movement is about. The mystery
must be unpacked so that the being-for may focus on the Other: one needs to know what to focus on. (The `demand' is unspoken,
the responsibility undertaken is unconditional; it is up to him or her who follows the demand and takes up the responsibility to
decide what the following of that demand and carrying out of that responsibility means in practical terms.) Mystery - noted Max
Frisch - (and the Other is a mystery), is an exciting puzzle, but one tends to get tired of that excitement. `And so one creates for
oneself an image. This is a loveless act, the betrayal." Creating an image of the Other leads to the substitution of the image for the
Other; the Other is now fixed - soothingly and comfortingly. There is nothing to be excited about anymore. I know what the Other
needs, I know where my responsibility starts and ends. Whatever the Other may now do will be taken down and used against him.
What used to be received as an exciting surprise now looks more like perversion; what used to be adored as exhilarating creativity
now feels like wicked levity. Thanatos has taken over from Eros, and the excitement of the ungraspable turned into the dullness and
tedium of the grasped. But, as Gyorgy Lukacs observed, `everything one person may know about another is only expectation, only
potentiality, only wish or fear, acquiring reality only as a result of what happens later, and this reality, too, dissolves straightaway
into potentialities'.
Only death, with its finality and irreversibility, puts an end to the musical-chairs
game of the real and the potential - it once and for all closes the embrace of togetherness
which was before invitingly open and tempted the lonely self." `Creating an image' is the dress rehearsal of that death.
But creating an image is the inner urge, the constant temptation, the must of all affection . . . It is the loneliness of being abandoned
to an unresolvable ambivalence and an unanchored and formless sentiment which sets in motion the togetherness of being-for. But
what loneliness seeks in togetherness is an end to its present condition - an end to itself. Without knowing - without being capable
of knowing - that the hope to replace the vexing loneliness with togetherness is founded solely on its own unfulfilment, and that
once loneliness is no more, the togetherness ( the being-for togetherness) must also collapse, as it cannot survive its own
completion. What the loneliness seeks in togetherness (suicidally for its own cravings) is the foreclosing and pre-empting of the
future, cancelling the future before it comes, robbing it of mystery but also of the possibility with which it is pregnant. Unknowingly
yet necessarily, it seeks it all to its own detriment, since the success (if there is a success) may only bring it back to where it started
and to the condition which prompted it to start on the journey in the first place. The
togetherness of being-for is
always in the future, and nowhere else. It is no more once the self proclaims: `I have arrived', `I have done it', `I fulfilled my
duty.' The being-for starts from the realization of the bottomlessness of the task, and ends with the declaration that the infinity has
been exhausted. This
is the tragedy of being-for - the reason why it cannot but be death-bound
while simultaneously remaining an undying attraction. In this tragedy, there are many happy moments, but no
happy end. Death is always the foreclosure of possibilities, and it comes eventually in its own time, even if not
brought forward by the impatience of love. The catch is to direct the affection to staving off the end, and to
do this against the affection's nature. What follows is that, if moral relationship is grounded in the being-for togetherness (as it is),
then it can exist as a project, and guide the self's conduct only as long as its nature of a project (a not yet-completed project) is not
denied. Morality, like the future itself, is forever not-yet. (And this is why the ethical code, any ethical code, the
more so the more perfect it is by its own standards, supports morality the way the rope supports the hanged man.) It is because of
our loneliness that we crave togetherness. It is because of our loneliness that we open up to the Other and allow the Other to open
up to us. It is because of our loneliness (which is only belied, not overcome, by the hubbub of the being-with) that we turn into
moral selves. And it
is only through allowing the togetherness its possibilities which only the future
can disclose that we stand a chance of acting morally, and sometimes even of being good, in the present.
They say the DA is not intrinsic – but the DA is real world, passing policies in
congress come at the expense of other controversial policies because of the
political investment it takes – we also have specific evidence referencing our
theory of political capital
They say we are epistemology bankrupt but-- The prioritization of method
creates a vicious cycle that prevents concrete solutions to problems
Owen 02, Reader in Political Theory at the University of Southampton (David, “Reorienting
International Relations: On Pragmatism, Pluralism and Practical Reasoning”, Millennium: Journal
of International Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3, http://mil.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/31/3/653)
Commenting on the ‘philosophical turn’ in IR, Wæver remarks that ‘[a] frenzy for words like “epistemology” and
“ontology” often signals this philosophical turn’, although he goes on to comment that these terms are often
used loosely.4 However, loosely deployed or not, it is clear that debates concerning ontology and
epistemology play a central role in the contemporary IR theory wars. In one respect, this is unsurprising
since it is a characteristic feature of the social sciences that periods of disciplinary disorientation involve recourse to reflection on
the philosophical commitments of different theoretical approaches, and there is no doubt that such reflection can play a valuable
role in making explicit the commitments that characterise (and help individuate) diverse theoretical positions. Yet, such
a
philosophical turn is not without its dangers and I will briefly mention three before turning to consider a confusion
that has, I will suggest, helped to promote the IR theory wars by motivating this philosophical turn. The first danger with the
philosophical turn is that it has an inbuilt tendency to prioritise issues of ontology and
epistemology over explanatory and/or interpretive power as if the latter two were merely a simple function
of the former. But while the explanatory and/or interpretive power of a theoretical account is not
wholly independent of its ontological and/or epistemological commitments (otherwise criticism of
these features would not be a criticism that had any value), it is by no means clear that it is, in contrast, wholly
dependent on these philosophical commitments. Thus, for example, one need not be sympathetic to rational
choice theory to recognise that it can provide powerful accounts of certain kinds of problems, such as the tragedy of the commons in
which dilemmas of collective action are foregrounded. It may, of course, be the case that the advocates of rational choice theory
cannot give a good account of why this type of theory is powerful in accounting for this class of problems (i.e., how it is that the
relevant actors come to exhibit features in these circumstances that approximate the assumptions of rational choice theory) and, if
this is the case, it is a philosophical weakness—but this does not undermine the point that, for
a certain class of
problems, rational choice theory may provide the best account available to us. In other words,
while the critical judgement of theoretical accounts in terms of their ontological and/or
epistemological sophistication is one kind of critical judgement, it is not the only or even
necessarily the most important kind. The second danger run by the philosophical turn is that because
prioritisation of ontology and epistemology promotes theory-construction from philosophical
first principles, it cultivates a theory-driven rather than problem-driven approach to IR.
Paraphrasing Ian Shapiro, the point can be put like this: since it is the case that there is always a plurality of possible true
descriptions of a given action, event or phenomenon, the
challenge is to decide which is the most apt in terms
of getting a perspicuous grip on the action, event or phenomenon in question given the
purposes of the inquiry; yet, from this standpoint, ‘theory-driven work is part of a reductionist
program’ in that it ‘dictates always opting for the description that calls for the explanation
that flows from the preferred model or theory’.5 The justification offered for this strategy rests on the mistaken belief
that it is necessary for social science because general explanations are required to characterise the classes of phenomena studied in
similar terms. However, as Shapiro points out, this is to misunderstand the enterprise of science since ‘whether there are general
explanations for classes of phenomena is a question for social-scientific inquiry, not to be prejudged before conducting that
inquiry’.6 Moreover, this
strategy easily slips into the promotion of the pursuit of generality over
that of empirical validity. The third danger is that the preceding two combine to encourage the
formation of a particular image of disciplinary debate in IR—what might be called (only slightly tongue in
cheek) ‘the Highlander view’—namely, an image of warring theoretical approaches with each, despite
occasional temporary tactical alliances, dedicated to the strategic achievement of sovereignty
over the disciplinary field. It encourages this view because the turn to, and prioritisation of,
ontology and epistemology stimulates the idea that there can only be one theoretical
approach which gets things right, namely, the theoretical approach that gets its ontology and epistemology right. This
image feeds back into IR exacerbating the first and second dangers, and so a potentially
vicious circle arises.
Their McConnel nonunqiue evidence is irrelevant--- nuclear deal deadline is Nov
24 and must circumvent sanctions before the GOP Senate takes over
Makarech 11-5
(Kia, Vanity Fair. “What Does Republican Control of the Senate Really Mean for Obama?” 11-514 http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/11/republican-senate-obamamidterms?mbid=social_twitter//wyoccd)
One of the biggest hurdles Obama will face with a Republican-led Senate is in Iran policy. The
administration is trying to reach a deal with Iran over its nuclear program on November 24,
and Republicans in the Senate (as well as plenty of Democrats) have made it clear that they will
fiercely oppose an unsatisfactory deal. The administration believes it has the authority to provide Iran with sanctions
relief without congressional approval. And Obama was able to get Harry Reid to squash a vote on Senators Mark
Kirk and Bob Menendez’s sanctions bill last time there was a serious push in Congress to tighten
sanctions, but he won’t be able to do that with a Republican majority —and as Mitch McConnell made clear
this week, a G.O.P. Senate would go through with a vote if the administration brings home a deal
they don’t like. And if a deal isn’t reached by November 24 and they extend the talks again, the negotiations will
be carrying on over the protests of an antagonistic Congress that is losing what little patience
it had with Obama’s Iran policy.
Obama has some PC but it’s finite.
[Stephen Collinson Cnn, "Obama's post-election strategy", WKMG, 11-7-2014,
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/politics/obamas-postelection-strategy/29608886 //uwyobaj]
Reporters at a post-election news conference sought to goad Obama into admitting
culpability for the Democratic meltdown, but he avoided prolonging the story by giving the
election defeat a catchy term similar to "shellacking" -- the word he used in 2010. Instead he
vowed to play the "fourth quarter" of his presidency well. The approach is designed to
maximize Obama's remaining political capital in Washington, which will quickly dry up once
the 2016 presidential campaign fires up.
Obama can spend PC now to get agenda items past
Chicago Tribune, 11-4-2014
[Editorial staff, Obama's last chance to save his legacy,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-obama-congress-edit-20141104story.html] /Bingham-MB
The mutiny started in West Virginia, and within four hours, Republicans had seized control of the U.S. Senate from President Barack
Obama's Democratic Party. Ouch. Watching a national referendum on, well, himself unfold Tuesday night, Barack Obama saw
something else starting to unfold: the
final 808 days of his presidency, and the legacy historians write
for centuries of Americans.¶ Will he be the president who pivots from complaining about
congressional Republicans to cutting deals with them? Or will he keep trying to rule by executive authority, a
tack that (a) has huge political appeal to his liberal base, (b) hasn't worked well thus far and (c) risks relegating him to historical
mediocrity?¶ Which agenda looks likelier, dealing with his foes or going it alone? Obama
has been meeting with aides
to plan his final two years, and the staged leaks suggest that ... he wants to do both.¶ Rule by
executive fiat would feel satisfying to a White House that isn't having the achievements-rich second term it envisioned. But that
bully strategy would give Republicans the genuine insult, and the easy-to-exploit excuse, that would poison potential deals on a tax
overhaul, border security, health care reform, the Keystone XL pipeline and so on.¶ Based on interviews with a dozen present and
past Obama advisers, Politico reported Sunday that there's a sigh, an unhappy-camper body language when the president finds
himself in his depressing slipstream of Ebola confabs and national-security-crisis-of-the-day meetings: "The vibe, according to people
in his orbit, is not so much of being checked out as of being fed up ... Obama, for so long the man with the bright future,
has
hated being relegated to sidelined pariah ..."¶ That's fate doesn't have to be. He has until
summer, when the 2016 presidential campaign will suck the remaining oxygen from this term, to beat the rap that
crises dominate him rather than the other way around. The best way forward:¶ •Blame whom you
wish, but Republicans and the president let election-year politics kill momentum for a major immigration deal. Neither party can
afford to let this fester unresolved. Enough with both sides letting total victory be the enemy of a compromise that secures the
border and rationalizes the flow of humanity that has crossed it.¶ •Illinois and other exports-heavy states would gain many jobs, and
this nation would score foreign policy points, if Congress and Obama agree that he gets Trade Promotion Authority and doesn't
kowtow to Democratic protectionists. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., torpedoed a deal earlier this year. Both major
parties should want to claim credit for goosing trade and putting more Americans back to work. ¶ •Both of you: Fix Obamacare. With
a majority of Americans in deep loathing and the nation almost $18 trillion in debt, this new entitlement has to be repaired. The
stakes are too immense for your spitting match to continue.¶ •Then there's the one threat that influences so much: America's ability
to defend itself, protect its citizens and prepare for its future. In our 2012 endorsement of Obama's re-election, we wrote words
we'll stand by: "One of these decades, the children in which we now invest our hope, and our love, will speak with today's adults
about the America that we bequeathed to them. They will praise us for avoiding the financial ravages they watch other nations
endure. Or they will condemn us for living ruinously beyond our means and forcing the enormous payback onto them — a criminal
act no previous American generation has committed against those that came next. Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney, whichever of you
occupies the White House for the next four years, that praise or condemnation will be your legacy."¶ • Five days before his 2009
inauguration, Obama tacitly acknowledged as much. He called Medicare "unsustainable" and said Social Security, too, had to be
reformed: "You have to have a president who is willing to
spend some political capital on this. And I intend to spend
some."¶ Partisan politics intervened. A Democratic president who won't stand for re-election and a Republican Party desperate for
legislative achievements ought to take at least the baby steps that will keep Medicare and Social Security alive for tomorrow's
Americans.¶ But time
for gutsy, shocking moves is short. By next summer, those of us who chatter
about presidents and policies will be speculating about Hillary Clinton, Rand Paul and their
ambitious rivals.
Human-rights advocates say no
Dale, 10
[Youngbee, Human Rights writer, “Obama's new regulatory rule, legalizing prostitution, and
fight against HIV/AIDS,” Examiner, June 17, 2010, http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-snew-regulatory-rule-legalizing-prostitution-and-fight-against-hiv-aids //uwyo-baj]
Last month, President Obama eased up the federal fundings for groups supporting prostitution
and sex trafficking. According to a news article, a new regulatory rule that went into effect does
not necessarily drop the funding restrictions. But it allows "affiliated entities, including a
separate part of the organization receiving federal funds to conduct actions in support of
prostitution or sex trafficking. Feminist groups and anti-human trafficking leaders in Congress
raised the concern by stating that they should not "be in the business of funding organizations
that support" prostitution or sex trafficking. However, the real issue of whether the new
regulatory rule is more effective in fighting against HIV/AIDS in the world seems to remain
unanswered. Yet, the in-depth analysis on the two countries with the highest number of people
under the U.S. aids shows that Obama's new regulatory rule is neighter effective nor helpful in
tackling HIV in the countries and its preventive efforts.