1NC
OFF
Interpretation---‘The United States’ refers to the federal government only
Mitchell 1 – Counselor at Law, Federal Witness and Private Attorney General
Paul Andrew, “United States vs United States of America” [http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm] //
In 1871 Congress did expressly incorporate the District of Columbia, but
D.C. and the "United States" are not one
and the same . In that Act of 1871, Congress also expressly extended the U.S. Constitution into D.C.:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871¶ ¶ In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941), the
Supreme Court wrote: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/312/600.html "We may say in passing that the argument that the United States
may be treated as a corporation organized under its own laws, that is, under the Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so
strained as not to merit serious consideration ."¶ ¶ ¶ Some of the confusion rampant on this subject may have originated in the
definition of "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldu1.htm#union¶ ¶ See Paragraph 5 quoted here: "5. The United States of America are a
corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper
to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law."¶ ¶ Note that the plural verb "are" was
used, providing further evidence that the "United States of America" are plural, as implied by the plural term "States". Also, the
author of that definition switches to "United States" in the second sentence. This only adds to the confusion, because the term
"United States" has three (3) different legal meanings: http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hooven/hooven.htm#united.states¶ ¶
However, the decision cited above is Justice Marshall issuing dictum, and it is NOT an Act of Congress. Here, again, be very wary
of courts attempting to "legislate" in the absence of a proper Act of Congress. See 1 U.S.C. 101 for the statute defining the required
enacting clause: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html¶ ¶ And, pay attention to what was said in that definition here: "no suit
can be brought against the United States without authority of law". That statement is not only correct; it also provides another
important clue: Congress has conferred legal standing on the "United States" to sue and be sued at 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346,
respectively: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1346.html¶ ¶ Congress has
NOT conferred comparable legal standing upon the "United States of America" to sue, or be sued, as such.¶ ¶ Furthermore,
under the Articles of Confederation, the term "United States of America" is the "stile" or phrase that was
used to describe the Union formed legally by those Articles:¶ ¶ Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of
New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.¶ ¶ Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The
United States of America."¶ ¶ Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every
power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in
Congress assembled.”¶ ¶ [end excerpt]¶ ¶ ¶ When they came together the first time to form a Union of several (plural) States, they
Note also that those Articles clearly distinguished
"United States of America" from "United States" in Congress assembled. The States formally delegated
certain powers to the federal government, as the "United States" which is clearly identified in those
Articles ¶ ¶ Therefore, the "United States of America" now refer to the 50 States of the Union, and
the term "United States" refers to the federal government.¶ ¶ The term "United States" is the term
that is used consistently now throughout Title 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled in D.C.
decided to call themselves the "United States of America".¶ ¶
There is only ONE PLACE in all of Title 28 where the term "United States of America" is used, and there it is used in correct
contradistinction to "United States": http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html.
Legalization means removal of all penalties—includes state and federal
World Health Organization No Date
“Lexicon of alcohol and drug terms published by the World Health Organization”
[http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/who_lexicon/en/] Accessed July 22, 2014
decriminalization The repeal of laws or regulations that define a behaviour, product, or condition as
criminal. The term is used in connection with both illicit drugs and the crime of public drunkenness
(see inebriate). It is sometimes also applied to a reduction in the seriousness of a crime or of the penalties
the crime attracts, as when possession of marijuana is downgraded from a crime that warrants arrest and a
jail term to an infraction to be punished with a warning or fine. Thus decriminalization is often
distinguished from legalization , which involves the complete repeal of any definition as a crime ,
often coupled with a governmental effort to control or influence the market for the affected behaviour or
product
Prostitution is selling sex for money- includes
Birckhead, 11 -- UNC Chapel Hill law professor
[Tamar, "The 'Youngest Profession': Consent, Autonomy, and Prostituted Children,” 2011, Washington University Law Review, 88
Wash. U. L. Rev. 1055, l/n, accessed 6-21-14]
n177. See, e.g., Alaska Stat. § 11.66.100 (2007) (defining the act of prostitution to include both the person who accepts a fee in
exchange for sex as well as the person who makes the offer); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 944.30 (West 2005) (defining the act of
prostitution as applying equally to sellers and buyers).
Vote neg for limits and ground---snowballs to single-state affs which are
unpredictable and an untenable research burden—stable federal affs are the
basis for poltics/midterms which are the only core DAs on the topic—any other
interpretation also skirts the state v. federal debate which is a core literature
question which forces overly-shallow debates.
Mandate law enforcmenet training on idnetification and collection of data is extra
topical – proves rez is insufficient
OFF
The United States should [eliminate all penalties for prostitution]
Counterplan is superior—empowers sex workers, improves working conditions,
and avoids the disads and turns
Susan E. Thompson, “Prostitution—A Choice Ignored,” WOMEN’S RIGHTS LAW REPORTERS v. 21, Summer 2K, LN.
legalization is very problematic on
its own. Opponents to legalization argue that it represents the ultimate form of control over women's bodies and
sexuality .4 7 7 While the typical "pimp- prostitute" relationship is seemingly non-exis- tent, the government's tight control over
Although a system of legalization appears to be a viable alternative to criminalization,
prosti- tution, creates a situation where the govern- ment may be considered the pimp.478 Similar to the traditional pimp, the
government controls with whom, when, and where the prostitute en- gages in prostitution through a rigid series of time, place, and
manner restrictions.479 Instead of providing women with a degree of control and personal autonomy over their lives,
the system of legalization
ensures that prostitutes have no input over their lives and livelihood. This lack
of choice and control, leaves women fully dependent on the government for every aspect of their work.48 °
Once a prostitute is licensed to work in the legal brothel, she automatically gives up her freedom to choose who her customers are,
when to work, and how much she will receive for her services.4 8 ' A brothel prostitute typically works fourteen hour shifts, everyday,
for a three-week period.482 During that time, a brothel prostitute may see at least ten to fifteen men a day.483 Prostitutes have no
control over the clients they see so they have no right to refuse or deny a customer service, unless the customer is aggressive and
abusive.484 Legal brothel prostitutes may generate a decent income from their work, however, they must split their earnings with
management and are expected to pay for expenses, such as room and board, condoms, maid services, and a portion of weekly
venereal dis- ease checkups.485 Additionally, prostitutes' movements outside of the brothel are strictly
controlled.486 Once licensed, the female prosti- tute may not live in the same area that she works, socialize outside the brothel,
or vacation in the same area.487 On the whole, prostitutes are forbidden to leave the brothels except to go to a doctor's
appointment or the beauty salon. The mandatory health checks have been influential in reducing the rate of STDs and AIDS in
prostitution. 489 mandatory health controls do little to protect the prostitute from infected clients who
are either unaware they are infected or aware and continue to visit legal brothels.49° Once the prostitute tests positive for a disease
such as AIDS, she is forced to give up her only means of income, with no chance of receiving disability or unemployment insurance
to compensate her for her lOSS. 4 91 Additionally, mandatory health care may present some problems regarding the right to refuse
medical treatment when prostitutes are forced to undergo medical examinations. 492 Lastly, the legalization of prostitution
stigmatizes prostitutes as a group of women in need of
regulation and control. 493 prostitutes are no longer criminals, under a system of criminalization, they are stigmatized as "bad
through a system of licensing and registration
girls., 49 4 The sys- tem of legalization perpetuates the ideology of the whore/ madonna dichotomy by emphasizing that whores are
the source of diseases and licensing is the only way to control their behavior.495 Alternatively, the madonna is the pure, good girl,
who unlike the "other" woman, does not have to be controlled by strict regulations. Arguably, there is a fine line between the
whore/madonna which can easily be crossed by not only selling sex, but by giving it away im- properly through adultery or
promiscuity.496 This forced stigmatization may cause some prostitutes to work illegally, for fear that registration and licensing may
make their identity known.4 97 Under this scheme of control, the prostitute is not granted the same rights of privacy afforded to the
clients who enter the brothels.498 Clients who seek the service of a, brothel prostitute do not face registration or risk friends and
family finding out about their activities without their knowledge. 499 Had clients been forced to register. before visiting a brothel, one
is left to wonder, how many, if any, would continue to frequent brothels under such strict conditions? At first glance, the system of
legalization appears to be the best model of control, for al- lowing women the freedom to practice prostitu- tion if they choose.
However, a closer examina- tion shows that legalization does not promote freedom or choice in prostitution, but rather
eliminates all freedom associated with the choice of prostitution. In some ways, the legal- ized
system of control is more exploitative and criminal than the criminalized model of prosti- tution control. Under
legalization, women are not given any options. Either they work within the strict regulations that dictate their behavior
and activities, or work outside of the law and risk potential violence and arrest. Although brothel prostitutes may make a decent
living, they enjoy less freedom than the average worker at a fast-food restaurant.5°° In some ways, the worker at a fast-food
establishment may actually fare better than the brothel prosti- tute because that worker is not subjected to mandatory weekly and
monthly health exami- nations, and is free to walk and travel where she pleases.5 'O More importantly, if she loses her job or is
unable to work, unemployment, disa- bility insurance, and other social benefits are available for her protection. The system of legalization is a form of modern day slavery-cre- ated, operated, and condoned by the govern- ment, in order to control women's
sexuality.502 In essence, the legalized prostitute is the most exploited worker under a system of capitalism. She
is forced to work for the "master," with no questions asked. This legalized system of imprisonment is carefully structured so the
prosti- tute does all the work and receives none of the benefits. The system of legalization forces us to question who truly benefits
from the laws of le- galization? C. Decriminalization The decriminalization of prostitution involves the removal of all existing criminal
laws and regulations regarding voluntary prostitution between consenting adults.5°3 Voluntary relationships between prostitutes and
their managers (pimps) will also be free from criminal regulations and sanctions." 4 Under decriminalization, no new legislation will
be implemented specifically directed at prostitution, instead, prostitution will be subject to the same civil, business, and professional
codes of conduct that cover all legal businesses."5 Presently, no system of decriminalization exists anywhere in the United States.
Unlike the United States, most European nations do not prohibit the entire practice of prostitution."' Countries such as Sweden,
France, and Belgium recognize prostitution as a legal activity.5 ' Similarly, the Netherlands has accepted prostitution as a legitimate
profession under a system of decriminalization.50 8 Known for having the least repressive laws on prostitution, the authorities in the
Netherlands tolerate 59 the brothels and escort services. Although the government does not actively interfere with the practice of
prostitution, per se, it does control illegal activities associated with it.510 Sec- tion 250b of the Dutch Penal Code, currently prohibits
"certain prostitution-related activities such as pimping, facilitating prostitutes, and running prostitution enterprises."51' Under a
system of decriminalization, prostitutes are given their independence to work freely in their 512 chosen
profession. "Any laws concerning prostitution focus on monitoring safe working conditions and protecting the women from 51 3 The
majority of prostitution activities takes place in Amsterdam and Utrecht.1 4 Amster- dam's policy tolerates existing prostitution
houses, but prevents new ones from opening. 51 5 In Utrecht, a "zone of tolerance" exists where within a specified, separated area,
prostitutes solicit men under the watchful protection of plainclothes police officers and other prostitutes.516 Under this policy,
"[w]hen a prostitute leaves with a customer, another will take note of the license plate number; if she is gone longer than usual, an
authority will be notified. 5' 17 Decriminalizing the act of prostitution and all associated activities is directly aimed at
empowering prostitutes to take control over their lives and their work conditions.518 Prostitute's lives are dependent upon
healthy, safe, and eco- nomically viable work conditions. Protection alone is meaningless if prostitutes are continu- ally denied the
right to work, organize, and par- ticipate in social security programs.519 Decriminalization will permit prostitutes to
organize and form unions in order to voice their needs and concerns. As a professional union, prostitutes
would be better able to fight for improved working conditions and even develop standard professional codes of
ethics and be- havior that regulate their occupation.52 ° Recog- nition as a legal activity would permit prosti- tutes to demand
implementation of satisfactory health and safety standards, which would legally have to be followed by those who employ prostitutes.52' Prostitutes would be able to request a leave of absence for illness and vacations when the stress of the job become too
much to han- dle. Additionally, decriminalization would give prostitutes the opportunity to create and
oper- ate job-related training programs publicly for new prostitutes and refresher courses for the more experienced
prostitute. Training in "self- defense, sexual techniques, money management ... and the creation of mutual aid and support
networks" would empower prostitutes with for- mal control over themselves and their environ- ment.5 2 Presently, under a system of
criminaliza- tion, prostitutes are unable to gain access to ad- equate health care or become eligible for work- men's compensation or
disability. If prostitutes are injured or become sick on the job, they have no insurance to compensate them while they are unable to
work.52 3 However, under a model of decriminalization, recognizing prostitution as a legal profession would alter this grim reality.
From a health perspective, many benefits would develop from decriminalizing prostitution. Firstly, decriminalization would make
private health insurance available to all prostitutes.524 Since prostitution would no longer be illegal, private insurers would be
able to provide legal coverage to prostitutes who could afford it.5 25 Secondly, decriminalization would make
employer-based health coverage available to prostitutes who were employed in brothels. 2 6 Economic incentives or
legal sanctions could mandate that employers provide health insurance to their employees at affordable rates.5 27 Lastly,
eliminating the illegality of prostitution may allow prostitutes to have access to state sponsored health care coverage, such as Social
Security Disability Insurance or worker's compensation.128 If excess costs were a great concern, "[t]axing prostitutes' income would
generate additional revenue for the state, which may help to offset the ever-increasing cost of national health care.,529 As noted
earlier, enforcing the laws against prostitution is costly and a waste of valuable re- sources and manpower.53 ° Increasing technology and advanced methods of communication have made the easy arrest of the streetwalker virtually obsolete.5"3' In order to keep
up, gov- ernments have to invest more time and money to enforce prostitution laws. According to the New York Times, "[t]he
internet, pagers, cellu- lar phones and subterfuges like escort services have enabled more discreet forms of prostitutio n to thrive
beyond the reach of the street- level crackdown .... A 1985 study of sixteen of the nation's larg- est cities, indicated that each city
had spent ap- proximately $7.5 million to enforce prostitution laws.533 This came out to an estimated $120 million spent for all
sixteen cities combined.534 The study further detailed that police officers working in pairs, spent an average of twenty- one hours
per prostitution arrest.535 This in- cluded the time necessary to, (1) obtain a solicitation from, and make an arrest of, a suspected
prosti- tute or customer; (2) transport the ar- restee to the police station or deten- tion center; (3) complete finger- printing and
identification processes; (4) write and file a report; and (5) tes- tify in court. This fifth duty absorbs the majority of each arresting
officer's twenty-one hours.536 After spending all those hours on one ar- rest, it is not surprising that police costs account for 40% of
all public funds. 5 37 All sixteen of the cities studied, had spent a total of $35,627,496 to prosecute women for prostitution and an
esti- mated $31,770,211 was spent on incarcerating prostitutes.538 In New York, prostitutes ac- counted for over 50% of the
population in wo- men's jails and in California they accounted for at least 30%. 5 3 ' The reasoning behind these figures, is simply
that prostitutes usually serve longer sentences than women convicted of other misdemeanors.540 It is clear that the costs and
resources wasted on enforcing prostitution laws are ridic- ulous. The process of policing prostitution is an inherently lengthy and
tedious one.541 Decriminalization would allow costs and re- sources used for prostitution enforcement to be transferred to enforce
more pressing legal con- cerns.542 Not only would this be a more effi- cient use of presently scarce resources and pre- cious police
manpower, the costs to local taxpayers would decrease tremendously, saving Americans millions.543 A final argument in favor of
decriminalization involves the equal protection violations against women prosecuted for solicitation.5 44 Prostitutes and support
organizations citing an equal protection violation, address the statutory discriminatory treatment as applied to clients, married
couples, and prostitutes.545 Although many states have statutes that make illegal both the solicitation and the procurement of
commercial sex, prostitutes often face unfair treatment under the law.54 6 This selective enforcement places a disproportionate
blame on women for the problems of prostitution.547 Decriminalization would grant prostitutes a privacy right to engage in
consensual commercial sex, thereby affording them legal protection and rights. 54 8 However, the state courts have failed to
recognize a privacy interest to engage in commercial sex. 54 9 Roe II v. Butterworth, ruled that although the Florida statute did not
deny adults the right to engage in consensual sex, there was no fundamentally protected right of privacy to engage in sex for
money.550 Additionally, the state courts have refused to recognize any discriminatory treatment, re- garding the ways the laws treat
prostitutes as compared to married couples.55 2 When a hus- band offers to pay his wife for sexual services, that transaction will be
afforded constitutional protection. However, the exchange of mone- tary compensation for sex between unmarried, consenting
adults, is prosecuted under the laws of prostitution." 2 The court in People v. Mason ruled that states have a rational basis for discriminatory treatment between unmarried and married adults since there exists a heightened privacy interest for all marital
relationships.5 3 Theorists in favor of prostitution argue that there is essentially no difference between the exchange of money for
sex in a marriage or within a prostitute-client relationship.554 Ac- cording to Simone de Beauvoir, "[f]or both [marriage and
prostitution] the sexual act is a service; the one is hired for life by one man; the other has several clients who pay her by the '555
decriminalization of voluntary prosti- tution is not only the best alternative, it is the only alternative .
Only within a system of decriminalization would prostitutes be free to demand the equal justice
and representation under the law they so rightly deserve. Decriminalization would empower prostitutes with the
piece. The
ability to demand recognition of their work as labor worthy of receiving all the bene- fits and protections afforded to any other profession. When society allows prostitutes to or- ganize and form support networks, it gives them a voice to shout out against any
abuse and injustice. Decriminalization acknowledges that prostitutes are not the enemies, but rather a sys- tem that marginalizes
their existence and de- fines them as criminals is the enemy. To deny any individual access to satisfac- tory health care, fair wages,
and a safe work en- vironment is inhumane. Continued criminaliza- tion of prostitution justifies such inhumane treatment of
prostitutes, under the pretext that "they" are different from "us." The demand for decriminalization sends out a message that society will no longer support. a system that arbi- trarily selects who will be protected from abuse under the law and who will not.
Decriminaliza- tion may not be the perfect solution to all the problems associated with prostitution, but it is the answer that makes
the most sense.
OFF
TPA passes now—PC key, impact is the pivot
Charles Freeman, International Principle, Forbes-Tate and former official with the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office, “Trade—
Can Obama Get It Done?” WASHINGTON EXAMINER,
done/article/2559487
2—2—15, www.washingtonexaminer.com/trade-can-obama-get-it-
The day after the 2014 election, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was asked what kind of proposals his new majority could work on with
President Obama. “Trade agreements,” McConnell said, adding, “The President and I were just talking about that before I came over here." And when
trade agreements, it was one of the
did not meet with much enthusiasm from Obama's fellow Democrats,
Obama called on Congress during his State of the Union speech this month to pass legislation supporting new
few subjects that did not raise Republican ire. It
however, who lined up to pan the president's proposal to push the trade agenda forward. No problem, said a White House aide several days later,
the President will “ steamroll ” them. The politics of trade have long broken down along fairly strict partisan lines; pro-business
Republicans are for trade and pro-labor Democrats are against it. Freed from narrow constituent politics, however, Democrats in the White House have
pushed for greater openness to trade, largely because expanding
trade is a necessarily an important part of the foreign policy agenda of any
president interested in maintaining the U nited S tates’ global leadership. President Clinton famously passed the North American
Free Trade Agreement and permanent normal trade relations with China. So it isn’t surprising that Obama views new trade deals as central to his
foreign policy legacy. Still, getting new trade agreements through Congress is tough sledding for presidents of any party.
Populist demagoguing and popular myth still hold that trade kills American jobs. Many voters of all stripes believe this. Butressing America's
international leadership makes for far less compelling images than those of shuttered factories that have lost their competitive edge to job-stealing
firms on the other side of the planet. The misery of the few who lose out in the shuffle of trade liberalization has huge political resonance, even if the
overall economic benefit to Americans significantly outweighs the detriment. The policy landscape is littered with competing studies that demonstrate
the success or failure of trade agreements. Depending on who you believe, NAFTA has cost or delivered millions of jobs. Permanently normalized
trade relations for China resulted in the greatest and worst transfer of wealth in human history, unless actually it didn’t. The obvious reality is that trade
liberalization produces some losers, even if the rest of us are winners. But stories about the collapse of American manufacturing and televised portraits
of out-of-work breadwinners make for more sympathetic news stories than the fact that a new trade deal has added a few hundred dollars to the
purchasing power of the average family. The way policymakers talk about trade is often disingenuous. Trade agreements these days are about
reducing barriers to trade in a supply chain that can wend through many countries. They are about standardizing approaches to information gathering
and policy making. They set rules for economic governance that limit discrimination and encourage greater opportunities for an increased number and
kind of enterprises in the economy. And importantly, they set the rules for trade in services, which is the forgotten giant in international trade. This is all
wonky stuff, so when forced to talk about trade without putting its audience to sleep, the administration finds itself reverting to simplification. When in
doubt, Obama and the administration, like previous Republican and Democratic administrations, talk about how trade agreements are about exports,
as the president did when he proposed in his 2010 State of the Union speech to double U.S. exports in five years. We didn’t come close, but it was a
worthy aspiration. The global economy and the role of the United States in that economy has changed dramatically since the 1950s, but the politics of
trade is still very much grounded in that long-ago epoch. Back then, you made a finished product in one country and sold it to another. The way trade
data is gathered still assumes a 1950s approach; the country in which a product’s assembly is finalized gets full credit for the value of that product. So
China gets full credit for the value of an iPhone it assembles from component parts made in other countries, including the lion’s share of the value that
iPhone represents: its design, which really never left Cupertino, Calif. The enduring, alluring image of the “good (manufacturing) job at good wages”
from the days in the 1950s in which manufacturing employed 60 percent of American workers, is tough to shake in the public and political
consciousness. Despite the fact that fewer than 10 percent of Americans work in manufacturing and that America’s role in international trade is
increasingly focused on design and technological development, and providing services, the iconic assembly line worker is the poster child for U.S.
trade policy. He or she isn’t doing as well these days. So even pro-trade members of Congress are wary of trade votes. No politician wants to hear the
wrath of out-of-work constituents on local TV news or splashed across negative campaign advertising come election time. Obama and his team have
plenty of hard work ahead to convince even Republicans that a vote in favor of his trade deals won’t be Exhibit Number 1 when a political opponent
want to suggest that he or she has lost touch with voters. One otherwise pro-trade GOP lawmaker privately said, “Give us an excuse not to vote on
trade.” Steamrolling Democrats into a pro-trade vote may prove even harder. The common wisdom is that Republicans
need a sizable corpus
of Democrats to fall on their swords and vote yes on trade deals. That number could be as few as 20 in the House, but the smaller the
number, the greater the chance recalcitrant Republicans who feel electorally vulnerable will refuse to go along. At primary issue is the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, a free trade agreement being negotiated with 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The economic rationale for the TPP is
significant. Trade within
Asia has been booming, largely in component parts that have been assembled into finished products in China and exported
primarily to the United States and Europe. The TPP would draw the U nited S tates closer to the boom. But the economics are
changing because Asians are getting richer. This is having two effects. First, Asians are increasingly able to buy more things from abroad. Second, the
United States as a manufacturing center is becoming more viable as production in Asia is becoming more expensive, although don’t expect many new
TPP in place is a way to set the table
for American competitiveness in the broader regional economy as it develops. Whatever its economic merits, it is the strategic
imperative of TPP that may be driving the White House to demand its passage. Getting an agreement in place would be the signature
piece in the president’s platform to “rebalance” or “pivot” to the world’s fastest growing region. The trade deal would cement the
role of the U nited S tates as the prime mover on regional economic and strategic architecture. If TPP fails, the
international power, prestige and economic clout of the U nited S tates will suffer a grave setback. The stakes
jobs on the assembly line here, unless you are a robot or a semiconductor chip. So putting the
are large. The president’s trade team, led by U.S. Trade Representative Mike Froman, is composed of the most canny and skilled negotiators on the
planet. Negotiations are largely closed to public scrutiny. A more public process would gum up the works, although there is genuine and reasonable
concern about the lack of transparency among lawmakers, who view the regulation of commerce as a congressional power. But those who have had
access to the current text of the agreement are encouraged by what they’ve seen. But even Froman’s team cannot overcome what the 11 other
countries in the negotiations know, which is that Congress has final constitutional authority to establish the terms on which the United States trades.
Without some method of preventing Congress from amending TPP, the final deal will look almost nothing like what Asian nations agree with Obama's
negotiators. This is why other all America's trade
partners are waiting anxiously for Obama to be granted trade promotion authority
(TPA). Until he gets it, they will not give their final, best offers
to the his negotiators. TPA would force an up-or-down vote on the deal the president
sends to Congress. But who in Congress, Republican or Democrat, is eager to give the president a blank legislative check on any issue these days?
Republicans, particularly those on the Right, are loath to provide him with powers the the Constitution otherwise reserves to Congress. Democrats,
smarting from their election losses of 2014, which many ascribe to Obama’s unpopularity, aren’t keen on helping him burnish his legacy, particularly
Supporters of trade and the TPP
are hoping that the president’s alternatively vaunted and lampooned skills as a community organizer will be brought to
bear and knit together this fractious community. Similar efforts by the Clinton and Bush administrations involved all
hands on deck and late-night phone calls by the president to individual lawmakers. The pro-trade community is cheered by recent talk
that Obama will create a whip group of cabinet officers chaired in the White House to rally support for first TPA and then TPP
with an issue that splits his base. Talk of “steamrolling” probably doesn’t do much to advance the cause.
(and then, possibly, for a trans-Atlantic trade and investment partnership with Europe). But if the President is truly going to launch a campaign with the
kind of retail politicking necessary to drive "yes" votes on trade, it would be a solitary outlier in the otherwise-aloof legislative strategy practiced by this
White House. After all, the president’s signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, was notoriously passed with a White House legislative
strategy that consisted primarily of cheering from the sidelines. If the legislative activity on trade is as buzzing as some in the administration suggest,
it’s a little alarming that few if any of the key members and staffers on the Hill seem to have heard from anyone at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. purporting
can’t deliver the
votes to pass the agreements he is negotiating with other countries. What’s in the TPP will affect the politics involved in passing it. There is a
to be whipping their votes. Froman has thus far been the frontman selling the trade agenda, but despite his strengths, he
delicate balance in the construction of trade agreements. The administration almost certainly will attempt to inject new provisions into it that will reduce
the ability of other countries to use lax labor and environmental regulations as a competitive trade advantage. These provisions aim to respond to
demands from the Democratic base that, to paraphrase opponents of the deal, “trade agreements shouldn’t only be about trade.” However, strong
labor and environmental provisions are far from likely to win votes from lawmakers who fundamentally dislike trade. The primary beneficiaries of trade
liberalization are, after all, private sector companies whose agenda is held in deep suspicion by the Left. Despite the fact that only around 15 percent of
the private sector workforce is organized, the labor movement is deeply antagonistic to market-opening trade agreements that are perceived to place
U.S. workers under new pressures. The environmental movement views trade agreements as race-to-the-bottom exercises, and will lobby bitterly
against a TPP regardless of new provisions to raise environmental standards. If the president wants progress on other parts of his policy agenda — the
trade agenda only took up 15 sentences of an hour-long State of the Union address — he will need the support of his base. And traditional progressive
constituencies have warned that spending too much political capital on trade will imperil their support on other issues. If the Obama administration will
find it difficult to appease the Left, a TPP that seems focused more on left-of-center concerns than on opening markets will undermine the interest of
the business community in rallying support for passage. As a trade association executive lamented recently, “There’s a big difference between
business saying its for trade legislation — and it will be almost as a knee-jerk reaction — and actually committing resources and CEO time to lobby on
behalf of that legislation.” Thus far, not much time or money have been committed by the business community to get out the vote on either TPA or
TPP. Business leaders, and not just Washington representatives of American businesses, will need to make the trek to Capitol Hill personally for
members to be comfortable voting for trade. Appeasing all these constituencies is complicated. Further complicating the task is the fact that the political
process in Washington has a global audience, and the messaging behind a pro-TPP narrative is read far beyond the Beltway. Other TPP members will
attempt to read the process with a view to finalizing their offers, which in some cases will be complicated by domestic political events back home.
Some will rush to complete TPP even before TPA is granted to avoid the appearance of being captive to U.S. politics. Although some analysts believe
that TPP could be passed through Congress even absent TPA, it would make an already fraught process that much riskier. “I hope,” said one
Republican trade staffer, “they’re smarter than that.” Even beyond the TPP countries, other eyes are watching goings-on in Washington carefully.
During the State of the Union speech, the president raised the specter of competition with China as a reason to pass trade legislation. "China wants to
write the rules for the world's fastest-growing region,” he said. It may have been a message intended only for the Hill — fodder for the China paranoia
that sometimes drives legislation. But the administration has for years been trying to convince China that the TPP and the “pivot to Asia” were not
about containing China’s rise. The State of the Union speech complicated that message, and official and unofficial Chinese reactions were blistering.
The White House will have to smooth over those ruffled feathers to manage that most important strategic relationship, even if it is very likely that antiChina rhetoric will be an important part of the overall narrative behind the whip votes on Capitol Hill. Momentum
behind a TPA bill could
pick up quickly. Rumors that the Senate Finance and House Ways & Means Committees are moving to mark up
bills in February and March could begin to crank up the political machinery. And that will start to test the ability of the
White House to cajole individual members into supporting the bill. That will take a willingness to respond to district-by-district requests
for favors in areas other than trade. It will require the administrative to help develop narratives that provide members with answers to the question:
“Why did you vote for this bill.” Figuring out what members want for their votes and delivering on those asks is new territory for this White House, and
will take an awful lot of support from pro-business lobbyists with which this White House has sought to avoid contact since the start of the Obama
presidency. Finally, the reality of the political calendar is lost on no one. With the President’s term now ticking down to 23 months left, and with little
love lost between Republican leaders and the White House, it's possible that the GOP might pass trade promotion authority in hope of handing it off to
the next president, whom they hope will be a member of their party. Trade promotion authority with a the TPP deal is not a legacy either the president
or his fellow Democrats would be proud of. It would also be playing poker with American power and prestige abroad. The stakes are high. But the
politics of trade are low indeed.
Plan guts political capital
Coral Flanagan 3-3-14, Penn State University, “Week 2: Sexokopslagen, and some other words about Legalized Prostitution in
Sweden”, PENN STATE UNIVERSITY, http://sites.psu.edu/coralflanagan/2014/03/03/week-2-sexokopslagen-and-some-otherwords-about-legalized-prostitution-in-sweden/
In America, even mentioning legalized prostitution is political suicide –akin to coming out as a
polygamist or denying the existence of God– so its easy for us to forget that sex work is (at least
partially) legal in a majority of other countries, including many of our “First World” peers in the EU. Regulating
prostitution is a delicate task in the birthplace of both the Enlightenment and the Syphilis epidemic, and the Europeans have devised
diverse alternatives to prohibition, from the famous Dutch model of complete legalization to an increasing popular “Nordic model,”
based on Sweden’s Sex Purchase Act of 2001.
Plan has to be federal action in order to solve—just legalizing at the state level
leaves the Mann Act in place—normal means requires the plan to eliminate it
FindLaw No Date "Prostitution" criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/prostitution.html
Sometimes called "the oldest profession," prostitution can take many forms, from streetwalkers and brothels, to sophisticated callgirl or escort services. Prostitution laws make it a crime to offer, agree to, or engage in a sexual act for compensation.
Prostitution is Illegal Nationwide , Except for Nevada Prostitution is illegal in all states except certain parts of Nevada,
where it is strictly regulated. Some state statutes punish the act of prostitution, and other state statutes criminalize the acts of
As for federal statutes, the Mann
Act makes it a crime to transport a person in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of
prostitution or for any other immoral purpose. Depending upon applicable state law, the stages of a typical prostitution
soliciting prostitution, arranging for prostitution, and operating a house of prostitution.
"transaction" can involve charges against the provider of services (for "prostitution"), the customer paying for the services (for
"solicitation of prostitution"), and any middleman (for "pandering" or "pimping"). In most states offering sexual services or agreeing to
provide those services in exchange for money is considered prostitution whether or not the services are provided. In most
jurisdictions, the person offering sexual services is not the only one who can be charged with a crime. - See more at:
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/prostitution.html#sthash.VjVaLUgo.dpuf
Interpretation---‘The United States’ refers to the federal government
Mitchell 1 – Counselor at Law, Federal Witness and Private Attorney General
Paul Andrew, “United States vs United States of America” [http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm] //
In 1871 Congress did expressly incorporate the District of Columbia, but
D.C. and the "United States" are not one
and the same . In that Act of 1871, Congress also expressly extended the U.S. Constitution into D.C.:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871¶ ¶ In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941), the
Supreme Court wrote: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/312/600.html "We may say in passing that the argument that the United States
may be treated as a corporation organized under its own laws, that is, under the Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so
strained as not to merit serious consideration ."¶ ¶ ¶ Some of the confusion rampant on this subject may have originated in the
definition of "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldu1.htm#union¶ ¶ See Paragraph 5 quoted here: "5. The United States of America are a
corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper
to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law."¶ ¶ Note that the plural verb "are" was
used, providing further evidence that the "United States of America" are plural, as implied by the plural term "States". Also, the
author of that definition switches to "United States" in the second sentence. This only adds to the confusion, because the term
"United States" has three (3) different legal meanings: http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hooven/hooven.htm#united.states¶ ¶
However, the decision cited above is Justice Marshall issuing dictum, and it is NOT an Act of Congress. Here, again, be very wary
of courts attempting to "legislate" in the absence of a proper Act of Congress. See 1 U.S.C. 101 for the statute defining the required
enacting clause: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html¶ ¶ And, pay attention to what was said in that definition here: "no suit
can be brought against the United States without authority of law". That statement is not only correct; it also provides another
important clue: Congress has conferred legal standing on the "United States" to sue and be sued at 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346,
respectively: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1346.html¶ ¶ Congress has
NOT conferred comparable legal standing upon the "United States of America" to sue, or be sued, as such.¶ ¶ Furthermore,
under the Articles of Confederation, the term "United States of America" is the "stile" or phrase that was
used to describe the Union formed legally by those Articles:¶ ¶ Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of
New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.¶ ¶ Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The
United States of America."¶ ¶ Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every
power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in
Congress assembled.”¶ ¶ [end excerpt]¶ ¶ ¶ When they came together the first time to form a Union of several (plural) States, they
Note also that those Articles clearly distinguished
"United States of America" from "United States" in Congress assembled. The States formally delegated
certain powers to the federal government, as the "United States" which is clearly identified in those
Articles ¶ ¶ Therefore, the "United States of America" now refer to the 50 States of the Union, and
the term "United States" refers to the federal government.¶ ¶ The term "United States" is the term
that is used consistently now throughout Title 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled in D.C.
decided to call themselves the "United States of America".¶ ¶
There is only ONE PLACE in all of Title 28 where the term "United States of America" is used, and there it is used in correct
contradistinction to "United States": http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html.
Pivot is key to dampen Asian power competition
Miller 14 Scott Miller, Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Paul Nadeau, program manager
and research associate with the Scholl Chair at CSIS, 1/31/14, TPP Is More than a Trade Agreement, csis.org/publication/tpp-more-trade-agreement
The White House needs TPA because the TPP is the “pivot to Asia.” The military realignment is important, but
the repositioning is mostly relative, driven by drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pivot is a political and economic
realignment that aims to improve cooperation and integration among the United States and East Asia.
Then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton said this explicitly in her Foreign Policy article, “America’s Pacific Century,” when she wrote
“[O]pen markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cuttingedge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and
growing consumer base of Asia.” Military presence was only one out of the six courses of action that Secretary Clinton used to
TPP is arguably the key ingredient of three (deepening America's relationships
with rising powers, including China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and
define the Asia Pivot, while the
investment). If solving the financial crisis and passing health care reform were President Obama’s key domestic policy victories,
then the Asia Pivot is primed to be the area where he beneficially changes the course of U.S. foreign policy (the discussions with
there are tensions among Asia’s
large powers , and the United States is likely the single entity that can influence the situation. The United
States and Asia need each other and TPP is the vehicle that can functionally, economically, and politically help bind them
together. The Members of Congress and staff that have drafted the TPA bill have put admirable effort into legislation. Trade
negotiators working on TPP have been equally tireless. But TPP, and Asia, cannot wait forever. Many in Asia are already
Iran are still too nascent to determine how far reaching they will become). Today,
concerned that the Pivot was only superficial and that United States is already moving on. If TPA and TPP remain framed as a trade
issue, with all of the political baggage that comes with that, the Administration risks putting TPP on ice for 2014.
Alternatively, the Administration can influence perceptions by framing the TPP as a strategic goal that will be the cornerstone of the
Asia Pivot. This would reassure U.S. partners in Asia and answer domestic critics who argue that the Pivot lacks
substance. Moreover, it would give the President an achievable goal in advance of his April trip to Asia.
Nuclear war
*most probable
Campbell 8 (Kurt M, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Dr. Campbell served in several capacities in government,
including as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and the Pacific, Director on theNational Security Council Staff, previously the Chief
Executive Officer and co-founder of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), served as Director of the Aspen Strategy Group and the
Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Washington Quarterly, and was the founder and Principal of StratAsia, a strategic advisory company focused on
Asia, rior to co-founding CNAS, he served as Senior Vice President, Director of the International Security Program, and the Henry A. Kissinger Chair in
National Security Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, doctorate in International Relation Theory from Oxford, former associate
professor of public policy and international relations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and Assistant Director of the Center for Science
and International Affairs at Harvard University, member of Council on Foreign Relations and International Institute for Strategic Studies, “The Power of
Balance: America in iAsia” June 2008, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatelSingh_iAsia_June08.pdf)
Asian investment is also at record levels. Asian countries lead the world with unprecedented infrastructure projects. With over $3
trillion in foreign currency reserves, Asian nations and businesses are starting to shape global economic activity. Indian firms are
purchasing industrial giants such as Arcelor Steel, as well as iconic brands of its once-colonial ruler, such as Jaguar and Range
Rover. China’s Lenovo bought IBM’s personal computer We call the transformations across the Asia-Pacific the emergence of
“iAsia” to reflect the adoption by countries across Asia of fundamentally new strategic approaches to their neighbors and the world.
Asian nations are pursuing their interests with real power in a period of both tremendous potential and great
uncertainty. iAsia is: Integrating: iAsia includes increasing economic interdependence and a flowering of multinational forums to
deal with trade, cultural exchange, and, to some degree, security. Innovating: iAsia boasts the world’s most successful
manufacturing and technology sectors and could start taking the lead in everything from finance to nanotech to green tech.
Investing: Asian nations are developing infrastructure and human capital at unprecedented rates. But the continent remains
plagued by: Insecurity: Great-power rivalry is alive in Asia. Massive military investments along with historic
suspicions and contemporary territorial and other conflicts make war in Asia plausible. Instability: From environmental
degradation to violent extremism to trafficking in drugs, people, and weapons, Asian nations have much to worry about. Inequality:
Within nations and between them, inequality in Asia is more stark than anywhere else in the world. Impoverished minorities in
countries like India and China, and the gap in governance and capacity within countries, whether as backward as Burma or as
advanced as Singapore, present unique challenges. A traditional approach to Asia will not suffice if the United States is to both
protect American interests and help iAsia realize its potential and avoid pitfalls. business and the Chinese government, along with
other Asian financial players, injected billions in capital to help steady U.S. investment banks such as Merrill Lynch as the American
subprime mortgage collapse unfolded. Chinese investment funds regional industrialization, which in turn creates new markets for
global products. Asia now accounts for over 40 percent of global consumption of steel 4 and China is consuming almost half of
world’s available concrete. 5 Natural resources from soy to copper to oil are being used by China and India at astonishing rates,
driving up commodity prices and setting off alarm bells in Washington and other Western capitals. Yet Asia is not a theater
at peace. On average, between 15 and 50 people die every day from causes tied to conflict, and suspicions rooted in rivalry
and nationalism run deep. The continent harbors every traditional and non-traditional challenge of our age: it is a
cauldron of religious and ethnic tension; a source of terror and extremism; an accelerating driver of the insatiable
global appetite for energy; the place where the most people will suffer the adverse effects of global climate change; the primary
and the most likely theater on Earth for a major conventional confrontation and even a
nuclear conflict. Coexisting with the optimism of iAsia are the ingredients for internal strife, non-traditional threats
like terrorism, and traditional interstate conflict, which are all magnified by the risk of miscalc ulation or poor
source of nuclear proliferation;
decision-making.
Solves global trade
*Global trade order collapsing – TPA key to avoid protectionism and war
Ezell 14 (Stephen, Senior Analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), with a focus on innovation
policy, international information technology competitiveness, trade, and manufacturing and services issues, 10-29,
http://www.innovationfiles.org/trade-promotion-authority-a-vital-component-of-u-s-trade-policy/,)
there is currently a fight for the soul of the global trading system . The
years since the Great Recession have seen a dramatic increase in countries’ use of innovation mercantilist
policies—such as forcing local production as a condition of market access, subsidizing exports, stealing intellectual property, or manipulating currencies and standards—
which seek to favor domestic enterprises at the expense of foreign competitors. Viewing with envy
China’s rapid economic growth, dozens of other countries—from Brazil and India to Malaysia and South Africa—have
enacted similar mercantilist policies, giving rise to an emerging “Beijing Consensus” (i.e., innovation mercantilism). In fact, as evidence of this,
the World Trade Organization reported that the number of technical barriers to trade reached an all-time high
in 2012. And as this emerging “Beijing Consensus” gains strength, it comes at the expense of the
long-dominant, but now exhausted, “Washington Consensus” which has believed in the unalloyed
benefits of free trade, even when it is one-sided, and that has fretted that robust enforcement of trade rules may ignite a
trade war . As such, we need a new consensus, one that holds that trade and globalization remain poised
to generate lasting global prosperity, but only if all countries share a commitment to playing by a strong set of rules that foster shared, sustainable
growth. And that’s what the United States is doing in seeking to negotiate TPP and T-TIP agreements as
model, 21st century compacts that set the bar and lay the foundation upon which a stronger set of
future global trade rules can be built. If America doesn’t successfully conclude and pass through Congress these nextgeneration trade agreements—and let’s be clear, it will be much more difficult, if not impossible , to accomplish this without TPA—America risks
1. Regarding the first point, make no mistake:
losing out on the ability to set the agenda and standards for a more robust and liberalized global trade system going forward. 2. The logic of
TPA is sound, and TPA actually helps make U.S. trade agreements better, in several ways. First, TPA is an effective mechanism for Congress to delegate its Constitutional
authority to “regulate commerce with foreign nations” as stipulated by Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Through TPA, Congress outlines high-standard objectives and
priorities for U.S. negotiators to pursue in trade agreements, a process which helps build consensus on U.S. trade policy. Moreover, the TPA increases transparency in U.S.
trade policy, for it establishes consultation and notification requirements for the President and USTR to follow throughout the trade agreement negotiation process—ensuring
that Congress, interested stakeholders, and the general public are closely involved before, during, and after the conclusion of trade agreement negotiations. In addition, having
given USTR direction in its negotiation of U.S trade agreements, TPA expedites the process of Congressional debate on trade agreements, as each chamber suspends ordinary
legislative procedures and considers implementing legislation subject to time-limited debate with no (or limited) amendments. And given the importance of the two massively
transformational agreements currently being negotiated in the TPP and T-TIP, it’s essential that we have a streamlined, easily managed framework for reviewing, analyzing, and
ultimately approving these trade agreements quickly and efficiently. Yet perhaps even more importantly, Trade Promotion Authority recognizes that U.S. trade
partners would be reluctant to negotiate agreements that would be subject to unlimited Congressional debate and amendments. As U.S.
Trade Representative Mike Froman wrote in a Foreign Affairs article, The Strategic Logic of Trade, last week, “ By ensuring that Congress will consider trade
agreements as they have been negotiated by the executive branch, TPA gives U.S. trading partners the necessary confidence to
put their best and final offers on the table.” And as Inside U.S. Trade wrote in an article on Friday, October 24, the timing of Froman’s Foreign Affairs piece
calling for TPA is likely because he’s “received a clear signal from one or more TPP countries that they need to see TPA passed before they will
put their best offer on the table.” In short, TPA helps make the trade agreements the U.S. signs better by compelling our trade partners
to put their best offer on the table.
Extinction
Panzer 8 Michael J. Panzner, Faculty – New York Institute of Finance.
Specializes in Global Capital Markets. MA Columbia,
Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future from Economic Collapse, Revised and Updated Edition [Paperback], p. 137-138
protectionist
legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it
triggered a series of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious
economic downturn into a prolonged and devastating global disaster . But if history is any guide, those lessons
will have been long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public
anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly intensify .
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth
Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers
may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to
other countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless
policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire certain American
infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied
by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global
payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence and consumer
spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through
arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists
and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly.
The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and
dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as
factors of production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether
involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate
supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter
with supply. Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources will
become more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military encounters ,
often with minimal provocation . In some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient
pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious differences . Alternatively, nations may look
to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration and populist
sentiment toward other countries and cultures . Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of American retribution,
terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of
random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and
interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency. China will
likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the
Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some
observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an “intense
confrontation” between the United States and China is “inevitable” at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost
wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood.
resentments could also degenerate quickly , spurring the basest of human instincts
and triggering genocidal acts . Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using
Long-simmering
jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up conflicts between
Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.
case
Regs Fail: 1NC
Regs fail—opt-out and non-compliance
McNeill 12/2/13 (Maggie, BA (English) from the University of New Orleans in 1987 and her MLIS from Louisiana State
University in 1993. After several years as a librarian, economic necessity spurred her to take up sex work; from 1997 to 2006 she
worked first as a stripper, then as a call girl and madam, “Treating Sex Work as Work” http://www.catounbound.org/2013/12/02/maggie-mcneill/treating-sex-work-work)
In any discussion of sex work, there will always be voices calling for it to be “legalized and heavily regulated”; unfortunately, the
regulation” isn’t any more desirable or effective in the
sex industry than it is in most others. For one thing, harsh legalization requirements simply discourage sex
workers from compliance . It is estimated that over 80% of sex workers in Nevada, 90% of those in
Queensland, 95% of those in Greece and 97% of those in Turkey prefer to work illegally rather than submit
to the r estrictive conditions their systems require, and those figures are typical for “heavy” legalization regimes. One
example of an onerous restriction most workers prefer to avoid is licensing; the experience of New York gun
owners last Christmas provides a graphic illustration of why people might not want to be on a list for an activity
which is legal, but still stigmatized in some quarters. In the Netherlands, ever-tightening requirements
experiences of legalization regimes demonstrates that “heavy
(such as closing window brothels, raising the legal work age to 21 and demanding that the 70% of Amsterdam sex workers who are
not Dutch nationals be fluent in the language anyway) have made it increasingly difficult to work legally even if one
wants to. And even in looser legalization regimes, laws create perverse incentives and provide weapons the police inevitably use to
harass sex workers; in the United Kingdom women who share a working flat for safety are often prosecuted for “brothel-keeping”
and, in a bizarrely cruel touch, for “pimping” each other (because they each contribute a substantial portion of the other’s rent). In
India, the adult children of sex workers are sometimes charged with “living on the avails,” thus making it dangerous for them to be
supported by their mothers while attending university. And in Queensland, police actually run sting operations to arrest sex workers
travelling together for safety or company, or even visiting a client together, under the excuse of “protecting” them from each other.
Operators evade regs—tech
Sheila Jeffreys, Professor, University of Melbourne, “’Brothels without Walls’: The Escort Sector as a Problem for the
Legalization of Prostitution,” SOCIAL POLITICS v. 17 n. 2, 2010, pp 210-234.
This article examines the way a boom in escort prostitution in the west creates problems for the policy owwwm gg43f legalizing the
industry. Legalization became an increasingly popular policy in the 1990s, heralded as a way to make prostituted women safer and
to combat the organized crime that bedevils the industry. In the last decade, legalization has been introduced in a number of
Australian states, in Germany, and in the Netherlands. Queensland in Australia, and the Netherlands, in which the systems of state
regulation are similar, will be examined here. Legalization
policies, founded on the idea that
prostitution will usually take place in brothels, set up special regulatory systems by which brothels can
acquire licenses and create conditions of operation, such as requirements that the pimps, now called “service providers,” who own
They delegate control over prostitution to local
councils which handle planning procedures and are expected to identify and close down illegal brothels. Changes in
the industry, however, are increasingly making these policies obsolete . The new technologies
of the Internet and the mobile phone are enabling many businesses to operate
without shopfronts on the main street, and prostitution is one of these. The three main forms of prostitution in the west
the brothels, institute health, and safety plans for the buildings.
are brothel prostitution, street prostitution, and escort prostitution, though prostitution also takes place in and through strip clubs and
other venues such as Couples clubs and Sauna clubs (Daalder 2007). Escort prostitution is overtaking brothels as an industry
sector, according to official reports in Queensland and the Netherlands (Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) 2006;
Department of State 2008). There is little research literature on escort prostitution, and none that seeks to estimate the increased
size of the sector and its relationship to brothel prostitution (Castle and Lee 2008). There is, however, a new and developing
literature on the use of the Internet by the women and men in escort prostitution, which suggests that this sector of the industry is
very extensive (Pruitt 2005). This literature uses the term “escorts” to cover prostituted women and men who work for agencies, and
those who work independently. It covers those who work from their own homes (incall) as well as those who travel to sites chosen
by themselves or the prostitutors (outcall), but not those who work in brothels or “massage parlors.” There are a
large number
of websites that advertise escort prostitution. A 2008 study found that their Internet search for “escort”
and “escort services” resulted in 20,000,000 hits (Castle and Lee 2008). These often include reviews of individual “escorts”
alongside information about how to contact the “escort.” The most well known in the UK is Punternet, which contains more than
88,000 “field reports” or reviews by prostitutors (Sharp and Earle 2002). Internet sites have also developed on which the women in
escort prostitution can swap information about dangerous prostitutors and tips on how to keep safe from the physical violence,
stalking, and verbal abuse they suffer (Davies and Evans 2004). There
is evidence to suggest that this
boom in the escort sector is undermining attempts to regulate the industry in the locations that will be
examined here. Escort prostitution defeats the delegation of control to local councils
because it is organized beyond boundaries and across borders, and it makes no sense of safety requirements
that can only be applied in permanent brothel locations. There is a fierce international controversy as to whether legalization is a
progressive and effective policy, or whether the demand for prostitution should be targeted by penalizing the male buyers, as in
Sweden (Ekberg 2004), in South Africa (Cape Argus 2007), and in Norway (Norway 2007). This article is directed toward providing
evidence to support the argument that legalization is a failed social policy
Patriarchy D
Their patriarchy impacts are contrived, reductionist, essentialist, and
marginalizes and fractures resistance
Crenshaw 2 [Carrie Crenshaw PhD, Former President of CEDA, “Perspectives In Controversy: Selected Articles from
Contemporary Argumentation and Debate” 2002 p. 119-126]
Feminism is not dead. It is alive and well in intercollegiate debate. Increasingly, students rely on feminist authors
to inform their analysis of resolutions. While I applaud these initial efforts to explore feminist
thought, I am concerned that such arguments only exemplify the general absence of sound causal
reasoning in debate rounds. Poor causal reasoning results from a debate practice that privileges empirical
proof over rhetorical proof, fostering ignorance of the subject matter being debated. To illustrate my
point, I claim that debate arguments about feminists suffer from a reductionism that tends to
marginalize the voices of significant feminist authors. David Zarefsky made a persuasive case for the value of
causal reasoning in intercollegiate debate as far back as 1979. He argued that causal arguments are desirable for four
reasons. First, causal analysis increases the control of the arguer over events by promoting
understanding of them. Second, the use of causal reasoning increases rigor of analysis and fairness in the
decision-making process. Third, causal arguments promote understanding of the philosophical paradox that
presumably good people tolerate the existence of evil. Finally, causal reasoning supplies good reasons for
“commitments to policy choices or to systems of belief which transcend whim , caprice, or the non-reflexive “claims of
immediacy” (117-9). Rhetorical proof plays an important role in the analysis of causal relationships. This is true despite the
common assumption that the identification of cause and effect relies solely upon empirical investigation. For Zarefsky, there are
three types of causal reasoning. The first type of causal reasoning describes the application of a covering law to account for physical
or material conditions that cause a resulting event This type of causal reasoning requires empirical proof prominent in scientific
investigation. A second type of causal reasoning requires the assignment of responsibility. Responsible human beings as agents
cause certain events to happen; that is, causation resides in human beings (107-08). A third type of causal claim explains the
existence of a causal relationship. It functions “to provide reasons to justify a belief that a causal connection exists” (108). The
second and third types of causal arguments rely on rhetorical proof, the provision of “good reasons” to
substantiate arguments about human responsibility or explanations for the existence of a causal relationship (108). I
contend that the practice of intercollegiate debate privileges the first type of causal analysis. It reduces
questions of human motivation and explanation to a level of empiricism appropriate only for
causal questions concerning physical or material conditions. Arguments about feminism clearly illustrate
this phenomenon. Substantive debates about feminism usually take one of two forms . First, on the affirmative,
debaters argue that some aspect of the resolution is a manifestation of patriarchy. For example, given
the spring 1992 resolution, “[rjesolved: That advertising degrades the quality of life," many affirmatives argued that the portrayal of
women as beautiful objects for men's consumption is a manifestation of patriarchy that results in tangible harms to women such as
rising rates of eating disorders. The fall 1992 topic, "(rjesolved: That the welfare system exacerbates the
problems of the urban poor in the United States," also had its share of patri- archy cases.
Affirmatives typically argued that women's dependence upon a patriarchal welfare system results
in increasing rates of women's poverty. In addition to these concrete harms to individual women, most affirmatives
on both topics, desiring "big impacts," argued that the effects of patriarchy include nightmarish totalitarianism and/or
nuclear annihilation. On the negative, many debaters countered with arguments that the some aspect of the resolution in
some way sustains or energizes the feminist movement in resistance to patriarchal harms. For example, some negatives argued
that sexist advertising provides an impetus for the reinvigoration of the feminist movement and/or feminist consciousness, ultimately
solving the threat of patriarchal nuclear annihilation. likewise, debaters negating the welfare topic argued that the state of the
welfare system is the key issue around which the feminist movement is mobilizing or that the consequence of
the welfare system - breakup of the patriarchal nuclear family -undermines patriarchy as a whole. Such arguments
seem to have two assumptions in common. First, there is a single feminism. As a result, feminists
are transformed into feminism. Debaters speak of feminism as a single, monolithic, theoretical and
pragmatic entity and feminists as women with identical motivations, methods, and goals. Second,
these arguments assume that patriarchy is the single or root cause of all forms of oppression.
Patriarchy not only is responsible for sexism and the consequent oppression of women, it also is the cause of totalitarianism,
environmental degradation, nuclear war, racism, and capitalist exploitation. These reductionist arguments reflect an
unwillingness to debate about the complexities of human motivation and explanation. They betray a
reliance upon a framework of proof that can explain only material conditions and physical realities through empirical quantification.
The transformation of feminists 'Mo feminism and the identification of patriarchy as the sole cause of all oppression is related in part
to the current form of intercollegiate debate practice. By "form," I refer to Kenneth Burke's notion of form, defined as the "creation of
appetite in the mind of the auditor, and the adequate satisfying of that appetite" (Counter-Statement 31). Though the framework for
this understanding of form is found in literary and artistic criticism, it is appropriate in this context; as Burke notes, literature can be
"equipment for living" (Biilosophy 293). He also suggests that form "is an arousing and fulfillment of desires. A work has form in so
far as one part of it leads a reader to anticipate another part, to be gratified by the sequence" (Counter-Statement 124). Burke
observes that there are several aspects to the concept of form. One of these aspects, conventional form, involves to some degree
the appeal of form as form. Progressive, repetitive, and minor forms, may be effective even though the reader has no awareness of
their formality. But when a form appeals as form, we designate it as conventional form. Any form can become conventional, and be
sought for itself - whether it be as complex as the Greek tragedy or as compact as the sonnet (Counter-Statement 126). These
concepts help to explain debaters' continuing reluctance to employ rhetorical proof in arguments about causality. Debaters practice
the convention of poor causal reasoning as a result of judges' unexamined reliance upon conventional form. Convention is the
practice of arguing single-cause links to monolithic impacts that arises out of custom or usage. Conventional form is the expectation
of judges that an argument will take this form. Common practice or convention dictates that a case or disadvantage with nefarious
impacts causally related to a single link will "outweigh" opposing claims in the mind of the judge. In this sense, debate arguments
themselves are conventional. Debaters practice the convention of establishing single-cause relationships to
large monolithic impacts in order to conform to audience expectation. Debaters practice poor causal reasoning
because they are rewarded for it by judges. The convention of arguing single-cause links leadsthe judge to anticipate the
certainty of the impact and to be gratified by the sequence. I suspect that the sequence is gratifying for judges because it relieves us
from the responsibility and difficulties of evaluating rhetorical proofs. We are caught between our responsibility to evaluate rhetorical
proofs and our reluctance to succumb to complete relativism and subjectivity. To take responsibility for evaluating rhetorical proof is
to admit that not every question has an empirical answer. However, when we abandon our responsibility to rhetorical proofs, we
sacrifice our students' understanding of causal reasoning. The sacrifice has consequences for our students' knowledge of the
subject matter they are debating. For example, when feminism is defined as a single entity, not as a pluralized
movement or theory, that single entity results in the identification of patriarchy as the sole cause of
oppression. The result is ignorance of the subject position of the particular feminist author, for
highlighting his or her subject position might draw attention to the incompleteness of the causal
relationship between link and impact Consequently, debaters do not challenge the basic
assumptions of such argumentation and ignorance of feminists is perpetuated. Feminists are not
feminism. The topics of feminist inquiry are many and varied, as are the philosophical approaches to the study of these topics.
Different authors have attempted categorization of various feminists in distinctive ways. For example, Alison Jaggar argues that
feminists can be divided into four categories: liberal feminism, marxist feminism, radical feminism, and socialist feminism. While
each of these feminists may share a common commitment to the improvement of women's situations, they differ from each other in
very important ways and reflect divergent philosophical assumptions that make them each unique. Linda Alcoff presents an entirely
different categorization of feminist theory based upon distinct understandings of the concept "woman," including cultural feminism
and post-structural feminism. Karen Offen utilizes a comparative historical approach to examine two distinct modes of historical
argumentation or discourse that have been used by women and their male allies on behalf of women's emancipation from male
control in Western societies. These include relational feminism and individualist feminism. Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron
describe a whole category of French feminists that contain many distinct versions of the feminist project by French authors. Women
of color and third-world feminists have argued that even these broad categorizations of the various feminism
have neglected the contributions of non-white, non-Western feminists (see, for example, hooks; Hull;
Joseph and Lewis; Lorde; Moraga; Omolade; and Smith). In this literature, the very definition of feminism is contested. Some
feminists argue that "all feminists are united by a commitment to improving the situation of women" (Jaggar
and Rothenberg xii), while others have resisted the notion of a single definition of feminism, bell hooks observes, " a central
problem within feminist discourse has been our inability to either arrive at a consensus of opinion about
what feminism is (or accept definitions) that could serve as points of unification" (Feminist Theory 17). The
controversy over the very definition of feminism has political implications. The power to define is the power both to include and
exclude people and ideas in and from that feminism. As a result, [bjourgeois white women interested in women's rights issues have
been satisfied with simple definitions for obvious reasons. Rhetorically placing themselves in the same social category as oppressed
women, they were not anxious to call attention to race and class privilege (hooks. Feminist Wieory 18). Debate arguments
that assume a singular conception of feminism include and empower the voices of race- and
class-privileged women while excluding and silencing the voices of feminists marginalized by
race and class status. This position becomes clearer when we examine the second assumption of arguments about
feminism in intercollegiate debate - patriarchy is the sole cause of oppression. Important feminist thought has resisted this
assumption for good reason. Designating patriarchy as the sole cause of oppression allows the
subjugation of resistance to other forms of oppression like racism and classism to the struggle against sexism.
Such subjugation has the effect of denigrating the legitimacy of resistance to racism and classism as struggles of equal importance.
"Within feminist movement in the West, this led to the assumption that resisting patriarchal domination is a more legitimate feminist
action than resisting racism and other forms of domination" (hooks. Talking Back 19). The relegation of struggles against racism and
class exploitation to offspring status is not the only implication of the "sole cause" argument In addition, identifying patriarchy
as the single source of oppression obscures women's perpetration of other forms of subjugation and
domination, bell hooks argues that we should not obscure the reality that women can and do partici- pate in politics of domination,
as perpetrators as well as victims - that we dominate, that we are dominated. If focus on patriarchal domination masks this reality or
becomes the means by which women deflect attention from the real conditions and circumstances of our lives, then women
cooperate in suppressing and promoting false consciousness, inhibiting our capacity to assume responsibility for transforming
ourselves and society (hooks. Talking Back 20). Characterizing patriarchy as the sole cause of oppression
allows mainstream feminists to abdicate responsibility for the exercise of class and race privilege.
It casts the struggle against class exploitation and racism as secondary concerns . Current debate practice
promotes ignorance of these issues because debaters appeal to conventional form, the expectation of judges that they will isolate a
single link to a large impact Feminists become feminism and patriarchy becomes the sole cause of all evil. Poor causal arguments
arouse and fulfill the expectation of judges by allowing us to surrender our responsibility to evaluate rhetorical proof for complex
causal relationships. The result is either the mar-ginalization or colonization of certain feminist voices.
Arguing feminism in debate rounds risks trivializing feminists. Privileging the act of speaking about feminism over the content of
speech "often turns the voices and beings of non-white women into commodity, spectacle" (hooks, Talking Back 14). Teaching
sophisticated causal reasoning enables our students to learn more concerning the subject matter about which they argue. In this
case, students would learn more about the multiplicity of feminists instead of reproducing the marginalization of many feminist
voices in the debate itself. The content of the speech of feminists must be investigated to subvert the colonization of exploited
women. To do so, we must explore alternatives to the formal expectation of single-cause links to enormous
impacts for appropriation of the marginal voice threatens the very core of self-determination and free selfexpression for exploited and oppressed peoples. If the identified audience, those spoken to, is determined solely by
ruling groups who control production and distribution, then it is easy for the marginal voice striving for a hearing to allow what is said
to be overdetermined by the needs of that majority group who appears to be listening, to be tuned in (hooks, Talking Back 14).
Not the root cause
Goldstein 1 – IR, American U (Joshua, 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.
Cant solve all masculinity- no scenario for conflict
Ehrenreich 99 – Ph.D Cellular Immunology @ Rockefeller University, author of 21 books, political activist (Barbara,
“Fukuyama’s Follies” [“Men Hate War Too”], 1999, Foreign Affairs Volume 78, No. 1, January/February,
http://www.metu.edu.tr/~utuba/Ehrenreich%20etal.pdf, Spector)
there is little
basis for locating the wellspring of war in aggressive male instincts —or in any instincts, for that matter. Wars are not barroom
brawls writ large, but, as social theorist Robin Fox puts it, "complicated, orchestrated, highly organized" collective undertakings that cannot
be explained by any individual impulse. No plausible instinct would impel a man to leave his home, cut his hair short, and drill for
hours under the hot sun. As anthropologists Clifton B. Kroeber and Bernard L. Fontana have pointed out, "It is a large step from what may be biologically
innate leanings toward individual aggression to ritualized, socially sanctioned, institutionalized group warfare." Or as a 1989 conference on
the anthropology of war concluded, "The hypothesis of a killer instinct is.. . not so much irrelevant as wrong." In fact, the male appetite for battle
has always been far less voracious than either biologically inclined theorists of war or army commanders might like. In traditional
societies, warriors often had to be taunted, intoxicated, or ritually "transformed" into animal form before battle. zs Throughout Western
history, individual men have gone to near*suicidal lengths to avoid participating in wars— cutting off limbs or fingers or risking
execution by deserting. Prior to the advent of the nationalist armies of the nineteenth century, desertion rates in European armies were so high that,
according to historian Geoffrey Parker, “at certain times, almost an entire army would vanish into thin air.” SO unreliable was the rank and file of the famed
If Fukuyama had read just a bit further in the anthropology of war, even in the works of some scholars he cites approvingly, he would have discovered that
eighteenth-century Prussian army that military manuals forbade camping near wooded areas. Even in the supposedly highly motivated armies of the twentieth-century
democracies, few men can bring themselves to shoot directly at individual enemies —a fact, as Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman writes in On Killing:
The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, that has posed a persistent challenge to the Pentagon.
Trafficking: Offense 1NC
Human trafficking efforts are working now – recent data proves
Joseph Campbell, Deputy Assistant Director, FBI, “Combating Human Trafficking,” 9—23—13,
www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/combating-human-trafficking
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 antitrafficking 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 multidistrict, 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 capacity-building. 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.
Plan increases trafficking—two links
FIRST, scale effects
Seo-Young Cho, German institute for Economic Research, Axel Dreher, Heidelberg University and Eric Neumayer, London
School of Economics and Political Science, “Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?” WORLD DEVELOPMENT V.
41, 2013, pp. 67-82.
This paper has investigated the impact of legalized prostitution on inflows of human trafficking. According to economic theory, there
are two effects of unknown magnitude. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution leads to an expansion of the
prostitution market and thus an increase in human trafficking, while the substitution effect reduces demand for trafficked
prostitutes by favoring prostitutes who have legal residence in a country. Our quantitative empirical analysis for a
crosssection of up to 150 countries shows that the scale effect dominates the substitution effect .
On average, countries with legalized prostitution experience a larger degree of reported human trafficking
inflows . We have corroborated this quantitative evidence with three brief case studies of Sweden,
Denmark, and Germany. Consistent with the results from our quantitative analysis, the legalization of prostitution has led to
substantial scale effects in these cases. Both the cross-country comparisons among Sweden, Denmark, and Germany, with their
different prostitution regimes, as well as the temporal comparison within Germany before and after the further legalization of
prostitution, suggest that any compositional changes in the share of trafficked individuals among all prostitutes have
been small and the substitution effect has therefore been dominated by the scale effect. Naturally, this
qualitative evidence is also somewhat tentative as there is no “smoking gun” proving that the scale effect dominates the substitution
effect and that the legalization of prostitution definitely increases inward trafficking flows. The problem here lies in the clandestine
nature of both the prostitution and trafficking markets, making it difficult, perhaps impossible, to find hard evidence establishing this
relationship. Our central finding, i.e., that countries with legalized prostitution experience a larger reported incidence of
trafficking inflows, is therefore best regarded as being based on the most reliable existing data, but needs to be
subjected to future scrutiny. More research in this area is definitely warranted, but it will require the collection of more reliable data to
establish firmer conclusions. The likely negative consequences of legalized prostitution on a country’s inflows of human trafficking
might be seen to support those who argue in favor of banning prostitution, thereby reducing the flows of trafficking (e.g., Outshoorn,
2005).
TWO, enforcement tradeoff
Wim Huisman, VU School of Criminology, Amersterdam and Edward R. Kleemans, “The Challenges of Fighting Sex Trafficking
in the Legalized Prostitution Market of the Netherlands,” CRIM LAW SOC CHANGE V. 61, 2014, pp. 215-228,
Regulatory enforcement by the city administration is still largely dependent on criminal investigations made by
the police to uncover the legal façades of organized crime. While the city administration and the tax authority try to deal with brothel
owners and prostitutes as legitimate entrepreneurs, the prostitution business retains many characteristics of an
illegitimate market. This hinders regulation and monitoring . Yet, in turn, to be able to investigate and prosecute
sex traffickers, the police are reliant the information provided by regulators. The regulation has hidden the legalized
sector from the view of the criminal justice system, while human trafficking still thrives behind the legal
façades of a legalized prostitution sector. Brothels can even function as legalized outlets for victims
of sex trafficking. Monitoring the regulated sector drains capacity away, which could alternatively be devoted to criminal
investigation and other tasks, thus preventing the police from focusing on the investigation of sex trafficking in unregulated forms of
prostitution. Local authorities have to be the eyes and ears of the criminal justice system if sex trafficking is to be detected; but, they
do not always accept this responsibility. Legal limitations and the differing aims of regulatory enforcement and criminal justice hinder
effective collaboration between local authorities and criminal justice agencies. This paper, therefore, concludes that the
legalization and regulation of the prostitution sector has not driven out organized crime. On the contrary, fighting
sex trafficking using the criminal justice system may even be harder in the legalized prostitution sector.
Legalizing prostitution breaks U.S. compliance with the Palermo protocol
Svati P. Shah, Assistant Professor, Women, GGender, Sexuality Studies, Unviersity of Massachusetts-Amherst, “Trafficking and
the Conflict with Sex Work: Implications for HIV Control and Prevention,” WORKING PAPER, Global Commission on HIV and the
Law, 2011, p. 2-3.
The Palermo Protocol
It is from this context of governmental and institutionalised feminist concerns that the contemporary anti-trafficking framework has been crafted. The three rhetorical
pegs on
the conflation of prostitution with trafficking
which
and sexual exploitation are based are not borne out by perspectives from sex workers’
rights organisations and trade unions, nor are they unilaterally supported by research on sexual commerce. A strong body of research on prostitution5 shows the following: 1.
all prostitution is not only done by women and girls; men and transgender people also sell sexual services, though they are targeted differently by law enforcement. 2. the
selling of sexual services is fundamentally conducted as an income generating activity, and not primarily as violence, although the criminalisation of sexual commerce is seen to
enhance the violence that sex workers may face. 3. prostitution and human trafficking are not the same phenomenon, and that it is incorrect to assume that everyone who sells
calling for the
abolition of prostitution as trafficking has been extremely successful in mobilising governmental
interest, an international non-governmental organisation (NGO) network, and significant resources to this cause. This mobilisation has not been without its critics, many of
sexual services is exploited. 6 While calling for the abolition of prostitution per se would not have amounted to a viable international campaign,
which have come from the sex workers’ rights movement. A focal point of the debate has been the definition of trafficking in the Protocol To Prevent, Suppress And Punish
Trafficking In Persons, Especially Women And Children, Supplementing The United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime, also known as the ‘Palermo
The Protocol, ratified by 117 countries, provides the foundational definition
for how governments understand and act upon ‘human trafficking’: “The purposes of this Protocol are: (a) To prevent and
Protocol,’ which was drafted in 2000.
combat trafficking in persons, paying particular attention to women and children; (b) To protect and assist the victims of such trafficking, with full respect for their human rights;
and (c) To promote cooperation among States Parties in order to meet those objectives.” The Protocol goes on to define ‘trafficking in persons’ as follows: “For the purposes of
this Protocol: (a) “Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other
forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the
exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or
consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.
practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs; (b) The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of
this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used; (c) The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child
for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered “trafficking in persons” even if this does not involve any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article;” (emphasis
added) According to this definition, ‘trafficking’ requires: 1) recruitment, 2) force/power/deceit, and 3) exploitation. If all of these criteria are present in an individual case, then
The wording “exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms
of sexual exploitation” is the place where the concepts of prostitution and sexual exploitation are
fused together. In this definition , there is no prostitution that is not definable as ‘sexual
exploitation,’ although the research and advocacy on sexual commerce paints a much different, and more complex, picture. Veterans of the
debates and discussions that led to this version of the definition of trafficking in the Protocol
explain that the anti-prostitution feminist lobby, which had made alliances with some governments, including the US, had taken
great pains to argue that all prostitution is equivalent to sexual exploitation and violence against women, regardless of
the consent of the ‘trafficked’ person is irrelevant.
consent, and that it therefore constituted ‘trafficking.’ Another group of feminist activists argued that trafficking and prostitution were not equivalent, and that conflating them
completely would amount to the UN advocating to abolish prostitution altogether. This would not be acceptable, they argued, because (a) many people rely on prostitution for
their livelihoods, and (b) two consenting adults engaging in sexual commerce should not be criminalised for doing so. The resulting definition reflects many of the agenda items
of the anti-prostitution lobby (e.g., rendering consent irrelevant, placing extraordinary emphasis on defining prostitution as ‘trafficking’ and ‘sexual exploitation,’ conflating
prostitution with women and girls, etc.) The inclusion of language that acknowledges that prostitution may not be the only form that human trafficking takes is the result of the
efforts of opponents to the abolitionist position.
U.S. compliance is key to the overall Palermo regime---solves global trafficking
Janie Chuang, attorney, “The United States as Global Sheriff: Using Unilateral Sanctions to Combat Trafficking,” MICHIGAN
JOURNAL OF INTERNAITONAL LAW v. 27, Winter 2006, LN.
The recent decision by the United States to ratify the Palermo Protocol is a welcome development in this regard.
By signaling to the [*466] international community, through ratification, its willingness to be bound by a set of
internationally-defined standards, the United States has improved its standing to police the domestic
anti-trafficking efforts of other countries. These salutary effects, however, are offset by the United States'
unwillingness to abide by the Palermo Protocol's compromise over the definition of trafficking. n141 For reasons explained
below, this departure from the compromise definition risks undermining the overall legitimacy of the TVPA sanctions
regime . B. Inconsistency with International Norms The second criterion for assessing the TVPA sanctions regime concerns whether the United States looks to
international standards in applying its domestic sanctions laws. Key factors to consider include whether the substance and application of the U.S. minimum standards comply
with the definitions set forth in international instruments and the interpretations and recommendations of international bodies. n142 As Cleveland notes, "states are much more
likely to voluntarily comply with international norms that they perceive to be fair, and reliable interpretation and application of international norms by transnational actors is critical
Given the struggles over the trafficking definition,
consistency with international norms is crucial to the successful operation of the international
anti-trafficking legal framework . As the legislative guide to the Protocol makes clear, "the main reason for defining the term "trafficking in persons' in
to encouraging nations to recognize, internalize, and obey international law." n143
international law was to provide some degree of consensus-based standardization of concepts" to undergird "efficient international cooperation in investigating and prosecuting
An agreed definition would also standardize research and other activities, allowing for
better comparison of national and regional data and a clearer global picture of the problem. n145 By substituting its own trafficking
cases." n144
definition for that of the Protocol and failing to apply more comprehensive human rights standards in its [*467] country assessments, however, the U.S. sanctions regime
currently diverges in critical respects from the evolving international anti-trafficking framework.
Framing: 1NC (1:15
the disad isn’t linear causality- it’s sceanrio planning
Steven Bernstein 2k et al., “God Gave Physics the Easy Problems: Adapting Social Science to an Unpredictable World,”
EJIR, 6, 43, 2000, p. 53-55
One useful alternative approach is the development of scenarios, or narratives with plot lines that map a
set of causes and trends in future time. This forward reasoning strategy is based on a notion of
contingent causal mechanisms, in opposition to the standard, neo-positivist focus on efficient causes, but
with no clear parallel in evolutionary biology. It should not be confused with efforts by some to develop social scientific concepts
directly analogous to evolutionary mechanisms (such as variation or selection) in biology to explain, for example, transformations in
the international system or institutions, or conditions for optimum performance in the international political economy. Scenarios
are not predictions; rather, they start with the assumption that the future is unpredictable and tell
alternative stories of how the future may unfold. Scenarios are generally constructed by distinguishing what
we believe is relatively certain from what we think is uncertain. The most important ‘’certainties’ are common
to all scenarios that address the problem or trend, while the most important perceived uncertainties differentiate one scenario from
another. The approach differs significantly from a forecasting tournament or competition, where advocates of different theoretical
perspectives generate differential perspectives on a single outcome in the hope of subsequently identifying the ‘best’ or most
accurate performer. Rather, by constructing scenarios, or plausible stories of paths to the future, we can identify the
different driving forces (a term we prefer to independent variable, since it implies a force pushing in a certain direction rather
than what is known on one side of an ‘equals’ sign) and then attempt to combine these forces in logical chains that
generate a range of outcomes, rather than single futures. Scenarios make contingent claims rather than
point predictions . They reinsert a sensible notion of contingency into theoretical arguments that would otherwise tend toward
determinism. Scholars in international relations tend to privilege arguments that reach back into the past
and parse out one or two causal variables that are then posited to be the major driving forces of past and future outcomes. The field
also favors variables that are structural or otherwise parametric, thus downplaying the role of both agency and accident . Forward
reasoning undercuts structural determinism by raising the possibility and plausibility of multiple
futures. Scenarios are impressionistic pictures that build on different combinations of causal variables
that may also take on different values in different scenarios . Thus it is possible to construct
scenarios without pre-existing firm proof of theoretical claims that meet strict positivist standards.
The foundation for scenarios is made up of provisional assumptions and causal claims. These become the subject of
revision and updating more than testing. A set of scenarios often contains competing or at least contrasting assumptions. It is less
important where people start, than it is where they end up through frequent revisions, and how they got there . A good
scenario is an internally consistent hypothesis about how the future might unfold; it is a chain of
logic that connects ‘drivers’ to outcomes (Rosell, 1999:126). Consider as an example one plausible scenario at the
level of a ‘global future’ where power continues to shift away from the state and towards international institutions, transnational
actors and local communities. The state lose its monopoly on the provision of security and basic characteristics of the Westphalian
system as we have known it are fundamentally altered. In this setting, key decisions about security, economics and culture will be
made by non-state actors. Security may become a commodity that can be bought like other commodities in the global marketplace .
A detailed scenario about this transformation would specify the range of changes that are expected to
occur and how they are connected to one another. It would also identify what kinds of evidence might support
the scenario as these or other processes unfold over the next decade, and what kind of evidence would count against the
scenario. This is simply a form of process tracing, or increasing the number of observable implications of an
argument, in future rather than past time. Eventually, as in the heuristics of evolutionary biology, future history
becomes data. But instead of thinking of data as something that can falsify any particular hypothesis,
one should think of it as something capable of distinguishing or selecting the story that was from
the stories that might have been.
Predictions work
Chernoff 09
[Fred, Prof. IR and Dir. IR – Colgate U., European Journal of International Relations, “Conventionalism as an
Adequate Basis for Policy-Relevant IR Theory”, 15:1, Sage]
For these and other reasons, many social theorists and social scientists have come to the conclusion that
prediction is impossible. Well-known IR reflexivists like Rick Ashley, Robert Cox, Rob Walker and Alex Wendt have
attacked naturalism by emphasizing the interpretive nature of social theory. Ashley is explicit in his critique of prediction, as is Cox,
who says quite simply, ‘It is impossible to predict the future’ (Ashley, 1986: 283; Cox, 1987: 139, cf. also 1987: 393). More recently,
HeikkiPatomäki has argued that ‘qualitative changes and emergence are possible, but predictions are not’ defective and that the
latter two presuppose an unjustifiably narrow notion of ‘prediction’.14 A determined prediction sceptic may continue to hold that
there is too great a degree of complexity of social relationships (which comprise ‘open systems’) to allow any prediction whatsoever.
Two very simple examples may circumscribe and help to refute a radical variety of scepticism.First, we all make reliable
social predictions and do so with great frequency. We can predict with high probability that a
spouse, child or parent will react to certain well-known stimuli that we might supply, based on extensive past
experience. More to the point of IR prediction – scepticism, we can imagine a young child in the UK who (perhaps at the cinema)
(1) picks up a bit of 19th-century British imperial lore thus gaining a sense of the power of the crown, without knowing anything of
current balances of power, (2) hears some stories about the US–UK invasion of Iraq in the context of the aim of advancing
democracy, and (3) hears a bit about communist China and democratic Taiwan. Although the specific term ‘preventative strike’
might not enter into her lexicon, it is possible to imagine the child, whose knowledge is thus limited, thinking that if democratic
Taiwan were threatened by China, the UK would (possibly or probably) launch a strike on China to protect it, much as the UK had
done to help democracy in Iraq. In contrast to the child, readers of this journal and scholars who study the world more
thoroughly have factual information (e.g. about the relative military and economic capabilities of the UK and
China) and hold some cause-and-effect principles (such as that states do not usually initiate actions that leaders
understand will have an extremely high probability of undercutting their power with almost no chances of success). Anyone who has
adequate knowledge of world politics would predict that the UK will not launch a preventive attack against China. In the real world,
China knows that for the next decade and well beyond the UK will not intervene militarily in its affairs. While Chinese leaders have to
plan for many likely — and even a few somewhat unlikely — future possibilities, they do not have to plan for various implausible
contingencies: they do not have to structure forces geared to defend against specifically UK forces and do not have to conduct
diplomacy with the UK in a way that would be required if such an attack were a real possibility. Any rational decisionmaker in China may use some cause-and-effect (probabilistic) principles along with knowledge of specific
facts relating to the Sino-British relationship to predict (P2) that the UK will not land its forces on Chinese
territory — even in the event of a war over Taiwan (that is, the probability is very close to zero). The statement P2 qualifies as a
prediction based on DEF above and counts as knowledge for Chinese political and military decision-makers. A Chinese diplomat or
military planner who would deny that theory-based prediction would have no basis to rule out extremely implausible predictions like
P2 and would thus have to prepare for such unlikely contingencies as UK action against China. A reflexivist theorist sceptical of
‘prediction’ in IR might argue that the China example distorts the notion by using a trivial prediction and treating it as a meaningful
one. But the critic’s temptation to dismiss its value stems precisely from the fact that it is so obviously true. The value to
China of knowing that the UK is not a military threat is significant. The fact that, under current conditions, any plausible cause-andeffect understanding of IR that one might adopt would yield P2, that the ‘UK will not attack China’, does not diminish the value to
China of knowing the UK does not pose a military threat. A critic might also argue that DEF and the China example allow nonscientific claims to count as predictions. But we note that while physics and chemistry offer precise ‘point predictions’, other natural
sciences, such as seismology, genetics or meteorology, produce predictions that are often much less specific; that is, they describe
the predicted ‘events’ in broader time frame and typically in probabilistic terms. We often find predictions about the probability, for
example, of a seismic event in the form ‘some time in the next three years’ rather than ‘two years from next Monday at 11:17 am’.
DEF includes approximate and probabilistic propositions as predictions and is thus able to catagorize as a prediction the former sort
of statement, which is of a type that is often of great value to policy-makers. With the help of these ‘non-point
predictions’ coming from the natural and the social sciences, leaders are able to choose the courses of action
(e.g. more stringent earthquake-safety building codes, or procuring an additional carrier battle group) that are most likely to
accomplish the leaders’ desired ends. So while ‘point predictions’ are not what political leaders require in most decisionmaking situations, critics of IR predictiveness often attack the predictive capacity of IR theory for its inability to deliver them. The
critics thus commit the straw [person] man fallacy by requiring a sort of prediction in IR (1) that few, if
any, theorists claim to be able to offer, (2) that are not required by policy-makers for theory-based
predictions to be valuable, and (3) that are not possible even in some natural sciences.15 The range of
theorists included in ‘reflexivists’ here is very wide and it is possible to dissent from some of the general descriptions. From the point
of view of the central argument of this article, there are two important features that should be rendered accurately. One is that
reflexivists reject explanation–prediction symmetry, which allows them to pursue causal (or constitutive) explanation without any
commitment to prediction. The second is that almost all share clear opposition to predictive social science.16 Thereflexivist
commitment to both of these conclusions should be evident from the foregoing discussion.
Prob Frontline
Extinction first—existence before essence
Paul Wapner, Associate Professor and Director, Global Environmental Policy Program, American University, “Leftist Criticism of
‘Nature’: Environmental Protection in a Postmodern Age,” DISSENT, Winter 2003,
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 non-existence. 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 valueproducing 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 meta-narratives." 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.
High magnitude, low probability events first – aggregate probability meets your
framework, math yo, scientific uncertainty
Bostrom 13
[Nick, Philosopher and professor (Oxford), Ph.D. (LSOE), director of The Future of Humanity Institute and the Programme on the
Impacts of Future Technology, of course, he’s also the inaugural recipient of “The Eugene R. Gannon Award for the Continued
Pursuit of Human Advancement,” “Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority,” Global Policy, Vol 4, Issue 1,
http://www.existential-risk.org/concept.html]
existential risk is one that threatens the premature extinction of EarthAlthough it is often difficult
to assess the probability of existential risks, there are many reasons to suppose that the total such
risk confronting humanity over the next few centuries is significant . Estimates of 10-20% total existential risk in this century are fairly
typical among those who have examined the issue, though inevitably such estimates rely heavily on subjective judgment.1 The most reasonable estimate might be
substantially higher or lower. But perhaps the strongest reason for judging the total existential risk within the next
few centuries to be significant is the extreme magnitude of the values at stake. Even a small
probability of existential catastrophe could be highly practically significant (Bostrom 2003; Matheny 2007; Posner
2004; Weitzman 2009). Humanity has survived what we might call natural existential risks for hundreds of thousands
of years; thus it is prima facie unlikely that any of them will do us in within the next hundred.2 This conclusion is buttressed when we analyze specific risks from nature,
1. The maxipok rule 1.1. Existential risk and uncertainty An
originating intelligent life or the permanent and drastic destruction of its potential for desirable future development (Bostrom 2002).
such as asteroid impacts, supervolcanic eruptions, earthquakes, gamma-ray bursts, and so forth: Empirical impact distributions and scientific models suggest that the likelihood
In contrast, our species is introducing entirely
new kinds of existential risk — threats we have no track record of surviving. Our longevity as a species therefore offers no strong
prior grounds for confident optimism. Consideration of specific existential-risk scenarios bears out the suspicion
that the great bulk of existential risk in the foreseeable future consists of anthropogenic existential risks — that
of extinction because of these kinds of risk is extremely small on a time scale of a century or so.3
is, those arising from human activity. In particular, most of the biggest existential risks seem to be linked to potential future technological breakthroughs that may radically
As our powers expand, so will the scale of their potential
consequences — intended and unintended, positive and negative. For example, there appear to be significant existential risks in some of the advanced forms of
biotechnology, molecular nanotechnology, and machine intelligence that might be developed in the decades ahead. The bulk of existential risk over
expand our ability to manipulate the external world or our own biology.
the next century may thus reside in rather speculative scenarios to which we cannot assign
precise probabilities through any rigorous statistical or scientific method. But the fact that the probability of some risk is
difficult to quantify does not imply that the risk is negligible . Probability can be understood in
different senses . Most relevant here is the epistemic sense in which probability is construed as (something like) the credence that an ideally reasonable
observer should assign to the risk's materializing based on currently available evidence.4 If something cannot presently be known to be
objectively safe, it is risky at least in the subjective sense relevant to decision making. An empty cave is
unsafe in just this sense if you cannot tell whether or not it is home to a hungry lion. It would be rational for you to avoid the cave if you reasonably judge that the expected harm
The uncertainty and error-proneness of our first-order assessments of risk
is itself something we must factor into our all-things-considered probability assignments. This factor
often dominates in low-probability, high-consequence risks — especially those involving poorly
understood natural phenomena, complex social dynamics, or new technology, or that are difficult to assess for
other reasons. Suppose that some scientific analysis A indicates that some catastrophe X has an extremely small
probability P(X) of occurring. Then the probability that A has some hidden crucial flaw may easily be much
greater than P(X).5 Furthermore, the conditional probability of X given that A is crucially flawed, P(X|¬A),
may be fairly high. We may then find that most of the risk of X resides in the uncertainty of our
scientific assessment that P(X) was small (figure 1) (Ord, Hillerbrand and Sandberg 2010).
of entry outweighs the expected benefit.
War Frontline
Prefer our particular scenarios for escalation – their evidence can’t account for
assume the logical internal link chain that we have posited
Yes great power war – realism, fear of worse alts, failed political processes, violent
human nature – their evidence twists definitions to exclude our scenarios
-On point answer to Mueller, Pinker and Mandelbaum
Lyon 14 {Rod, director of the strategy and international program at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, executive editor of
The Strategist, “No, Great Power War Isn’t Obsolete,” The Diplomat, 8/22, http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/no-great-power-war-isntobsolete/}
August has seen a wave of reflection on major war. It’s a question we seem to revisit every time the key anniversaries of WWI and WWII roll around,
but especially this year because its the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of WWI. Some pundits
are keen to draw parallels
between 1914 and 2014—though on its face it’s not apparent to me why 2014 should be more like
1914 than 2013.¶ Academic strategists familiar with their disciplinary history will know that the issue of whether major war’s
obsolete received a detailed coverage back in Survival magazine in the late 1990s. To save readers the trouble of digging
through their archives, one contributor, John Mueller, argued that it was obsolete—gone the way of slavery and dueling—while others
wrestled partly over how to define obsolescence and even more over how to define major war. Was the Vietnam War “major?” Was the Cold War a
argued that perhaps major war was just a poor policy option nowadays—because of
the steep rise in the costs and the thin rewards for success.¶ It’s intriguing that the question about the
obsolescence of war is typically qualified by the adjective “major .” No one seems particularly keen to
claim that nasty little wars—in particular, nasty little wars in faraway places—are obsolete, perhaps because they
patently aren’t . From memory, Mueller didn’t want to call those conflicts “wars,” though; he saw those more as “opportunistic predation”
“war?” Michael Mandelbaum
(That’s the reason the cover of his book, The Remnants of War, features an image—from the Balkan conflict in 1991—of a thug swigging from a
bottle.)¶ Then
9/11 came along and sideswiped that whole debate . The nasty little wars of the 1990s
didn’t stay in faraway places. A superpower got up and marched off to war —albeit a war against al Qaeda, its
supporters, and all its works. Somewhere along the line the mission became conflated with a host of other
problems, and Washington ended up obsessing about the Global War on Terror for longer than it probably
should have done. But Washington’s behavior at least answered one question related to the Big One: did great
powers still go to war? Yes . Now, the question still unanswered—unanswered since 1945 if you think major war has
to be hot; unanswered since 1991, if you think major war can be cold—is whether or not major powers still go to war with
each other.¶ Psychologist Steven Pinker has recently argued that the better angels of our nature are making
us turn away from violence. I’m not wholly convinced by his argument—the better angels of our nature seem
pretty militant to me, and always have been. (See Ephesians, 6:12.) But academic research from a few decades back
suggests that great-power wars against each other aren’t common. Jack Levy in his research on war in the international system between 1495 and
1975 found only nine of what he would call “world wars”—wars where almost all great powers were involved. Much more commonly, he found
“interstate wars”—113 of which engaged a great power.¶ I cite those figures to underline two points. First, if world wars are rare, maybe we don’t need
special explanations to say why there hasn’t been one since 1945 (hot) or 1991 (cold). Second, that definition of major war is still a problem.¶ Let’s
put aside the academic arguments and look straight at the case that most worries us. Is a greatpower war between the U.S. and China possible? I think we could answer that question directly: possible, yes ; likely, no.
Great powers, especially nuclear-armed ones, don’t go to war with each other lightly. But sometimes wars
happen . And they aren’t accidents. They’re about international order . They’re about, as Raymond Aron
said, the life and death of states. And the principal reason for fighting them is that not doing so
looks like a worse alternative.¶ Moreover , the paths to war—including rare major-power war—are
not reserved solely for conventionally-armed states. Where both powers are nuclear-armed we
should expect a conflict, even one at the lower rungs of the escalation ladder, to be fought with a high degree of political control, and an
understanding that the objectives of the conflict are limited. Naturally, it would help if both sides shared a common
understanding of where the firebreaks were between conventional and nuclear conflict, and already had in place a set of crisismanagement procedures, but it’s possible that neither of those conditions might exist . (Neither would prevent a war,
but both would provide a better sense of the likely escalation dynamics of a particular conflict.) Indeed, it’s because major war is
possible that we retain such a keen interest in war termination. Unconstrained escalation doesn’t
lead to a happy place.
2NC
T
United states must include the federal government
Edited by John Bilyeu OAKLEY, Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis, AND Vikram D. AMAR, Professor
of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs of the School of Law of the University of California at Davis, ‘9 [American Civil
Procedure: A Guide to Civil Adjudication in US Courts, Kluwer Law International, 2009, page 19
Although it is commonplace today to refer to “the United States” as a single entity and as the
subject of statements that grammatically employ singular verbs, it is important to remember that
“the United States” remains in many important ways a collective term . The enduring legal significance of
the fifty states that together constitute the United States, and their essential dominion over most legal matters affecting day-to-day
life within the United States, vastly complicates any attempt to summarize the civil procedures within the United States. Within
the community of nations, the United States is a geopolitical superpower that acts through a
federal government granted constitutionally specified and limited powers. The organizing
principle of the federal Constitution,1 however, is one of popular sovereignty, with governmental
powers distributed in the first instance to republican institutions of government organized
autonomously and uniquely in each of the fifty states. Although there are substantial similarities in the
organization of state governments, idiosyncrasies abound.
Legalize means removing from the books—they don’t because federal
prohibitions are in place
Melody M. Heaps & James A. Swartz 1994 Heapsis the founder and president of Treatment Alternative for Special
Clients, Ph.D, Swartz is presently Director of Research at the Illinois Treatment Alternative for Special Clients (TASC) program and
an associate faculty member of the Illinois School of Professional Psychology.
University of Chicago Legal Forum 1994 1994 U Chi Legal F 175 ARTICLE: TOWARD A RATIONAL DRUG POLICY: SETTING
NEW PRIORITIES
n7 The term "decriminalization" should not be mistaken as being equivalent to "legalization." As Professor Kraska has written (albeit
in an article that ultimately argues against decriminalization): The terms "decriminalization" and "legalization" are often confused.
Decriminalization is the reduction in severity of a criminal offense and the penalty associated with that offense. Marijuana
possession, for instance, might be decriminalized from a felony offense to a misdemeanor. Legalization, on the other hand, is
removing or repealing statutory proscriptions entirely . To wit, possessing
marijuana, once a criminal offense, becomes legal under the rubric of legalization.
exactly what the word implies:
Accpetable regs are zoning requirements, advertising restrinctions, health
Micah Schwartzbach No Date (Either 2013 or 2014), Micah Schwartzbach joined Nolo’s editorial staff in 2013. Before
that he was a criminal defense lawyer specializing in research and writing, first in Berkeley, then in Marin County. In 2008 he served
as co-counsel in the landmark acquittal of an organ transplant surgeon accused of attempting to accelerate a potential organ
donor’s death. (People v. Roozrokh, San Luis Obispo Superior Court Case No. F405885.) He writes and edits content across a
range of practice areas. He also authors Uncuffed: A Candid Take on Crime and Society, a blog that dissects the world of criminal
law. Micah earned his B.A. from the University of California, Davis, where he graduated with highest honors, and his J.D. from the
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, where he graduated cum laude. “Decriminalizing Prostitution“
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/decriminalizing-prostitution.htm ac 8-18
Legalization vs. Decriminalization¶ Those who oppose the criminalization of prostitution typically advocate one of two approaches:
legalization (which involves regulation) or decriminalization (no regulation). Legalization is what Nevada practices: the
direct regulation of prostitution by the government . This regulation may include an array of methods,
from zoning requirements and advertising restrictions to mandatory tests for sexually
transmitted diseases . (For more information on Nevada's prostitution laws, see Prostitution, Pimping, and Pandering Laws
in Nevada.)¶ Decriminalization is the removal of laws and regulation; under this model, prostitution is treated just like any other
occupation. Sweden takes a partial decriminalization approach, under which the sale of sex is not illegal, but its purchase is. New
Zealand, on the other hand, has decriminalized both the purchase and sale of sexual activity. Critics
of decriminalization point to studies regarding New Zealand’s sex trade that show that violence against sex workers has persisted in
that country.
regs
Patriarchy: 2NC
Legalization commodifies women and increases stigma
Janice G. Raymond, Professor, University of Massachusetts, “Ten Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution and a Legal
Response to the Demand for Prostitution,” JOURNAL OF TRAUMA PRACTICE v. 2 2003, pp. 315-332.
many men who previously would
not have risked buying women for sex now see prostitution as acceptable. When legal barriers
disappear, so too do the social and ethical barriers to treating women as sexual merchandise.
Legalization of prostitution sends the message to new generations of men and boys that women are sexual
commodities and that prostitution is harmless fun (Leidholdt, 2000). As men have a plethora of “sexual services” offered to
them in prostitution, women must compete by engaging in anal sex, sex without condoms, bondage and domination,
and other acts demanded by buyers. Once prostitution is legalized, for example, women’s reproductive capacities are
With the advent of legalization in countries that have decriminalized the sex industry,
sellable products. Some buyers find pregnancy a turn-on and demand breast milk in their sexual encounters with pregnant women
(Sullivan & Jeffreys, 2001, p. 10).
Legalization-enabled advertising perpetuates patriarchy
Sheila Jeffreys, Professor, University of Melbourne, “’Brothels without Walls’: The Escort Sector as a Problem for the
Legalization of Prostitution,” SOCIAL POLITICS v. 17 n. 2, 2010, pp 210-234.
legalization legislation was expressly aimed at minimizing the effect of prostitution on
the “community.” The advertising of prostitution makes this hard to achieve. When states legalize
their prostitution industries, they must make provision for advertising since the business cannot otherwise sell its
wares. This is likely to have the effect of normalizing men’s prostitution behavior and the way that women
The Queensland
are treated in prostitution. Moreover, citizens may not wish to be confronted with prostitution advertising in their neighborhoods or in
their local newspapers. For this reason, restrictions are usually put in place on how advertising is to be conducted. In Victoria, for
instance, brothels may not advertise the nature of their business on the front of their premises, but large billboards advertising their
wares may be placed on highways. Thus, one Melbourne legal brothel advertises itself as “Sex Chocolates and Flowers NOT
required” (Gale 2008). Newspaper advertising in Victoria is not supposed to specify the ethnicity of the women being offered,
although the websites of the legal brothels do offer women using racially specific terms. Advertising is particularly vital in relation to
escort prostitution since there is no brothel at which men can call to buy women on their way home from work. The effect of
prostitution advertising on women’s equality is not well recognized but it can be seen to have an effect on
public space that is harmful. Advertising for prostitution whether in print media or in the streetscape may, like
other sexist advertising, affect the way in which women experience their relationship with the world and
the way that women’s status is understood (Rosewarne 2007). The Queensland Act addresses advertising for prostitution which the
legislators considered could cause public offence. To this end, the PLA has to vet advertisements and they must be of an approved
size and not include forbidden language. The advice on advertising policy contains four pages of approved words and phrases for
use. The words include: Asian, Greek, Slave, Submissive, Spanish, Your bust size, and Donkey. Approved phrases include,
eighteen year old, busty, brunette’, “Mysterious Oriental temptress,” “Asian, pretty, friendly,” “All Australian babe,” “Asian delight,”
“Charcoal black chicky babe,” “sexy Japanese, friendly and attractive.” In Queensland, the sex work advocacy group SSPAN
defends retention of such language by saying that it is vital for working, since the male buyers want to buy bodies of a particular skin
color and may even be violent if they do not get what they want. They explain that, “The fetishisation of race and ethnicity are an
integral part of the sex industry.” Clients want to be able to locate a “type” without ringing dozens of advertisments’ and problems
may occur “if sole operators can’t inform potential clients of their skin color they will potentially be exposed to violent situations”
(SSPAN 2006, 5). The requirement that provision is made for women to be advertised not just by sex but by race does challenge the
euphemisms that are used to refer to prostitution by legalizing states such as the naming of brothel owners “service providers” in
Victoria (Sullivan 2007). “Services” can be provided by persons of either sex and irrespective of racial origin but prostitution cannot,
because it is the body of the woman rather than any services performed by her that is for sold for use. Escort prostitution, even more
than brothel prostitution makes it difficult for legalizing states to protect their citizenry from the business, and reduce impact on the
community. Legalization not only fails to reduce street prostiution, which is the aspect of the practice that causes
most concern to residents, but requires that the public should be exposed to the sale of sexed and
racialized bodies.
Patriarchy: A2 “Choice”
The aff is not empowering—entrenches a neoliberal choice ethos that guts
agency
Gupta 12—Rahila, is a freelance journalist and writer. Her work has appeared in The Guardian and New Humanist among
other papers and magazines. Her books include, From Homebreakers to Jailbreakers: Southall Black Sisters ed. (Zed Press, 2003),
Provoked (Harper Collins, India, 2007) and Enslaved: The New British Slavery (Portobello Books, 2007), “Has neoliberalism
knocked feminism sideways?,” https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/rahila-gupta/has-neoliberalism-knocked-feminism-sideways
If the culture of neoliberalism had something to offer women, it was the idea of agency, of choice
freely exercised, free even of patriarchal restraints. It emphasised self-sufficiency of the individual
while at the same time undermining those collective struggles or institutions which make selfsufficiency possible. The world was your oyster – all you needed to do was compete
successfully in the marketplace. The flexible worker, in order to make herself acceptable to the world of work, may even
go so far as to remodel herself through cosmetic surgery, all the while under the illusion that she was in control of her life. In her
essay on ‘Feminism’ in a forthcoming book, Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, Clare Chambers argues that liberal
capitalism is committed to what she calls the ‘fetishism of choice’. If women choose things that
disadvantage them and entrench differences, it legitimates inequality because the inequality
arises from the choices they make. The few women who do well out of the sex industry do not
believe that their work entrenches inequality because it is freely chosen , because prostitution is
seen as a liberation from the drudgery of cleaning jobs. Choice is their weapon against feminist
objections. In their so-called free expression of their sexuality, they are challenging nothing in
the neoliberal schema because the work reduces women to the status of meat and commodity.
Neoliberalism had other impacts: on the actual day-to-day political and social commitments of those concerned with
gender justice. At first feminists stood to benefit from the state’s gradual shedding of its functions
which began under Thatcher, in that classic double-edged way in which capitalism operates.
Southall Black Sisters (SBS) was founded in the same year that she came to power . We who set up antiracist, feminist and other community groups in the 80s complained that we were providing
services which should have been part of the remit of the state – and that we were doing it for half
the cost at the expense of our pensions (none), maternity rights (shockingly for a feminist group, none),
working all the hours in the day with no employment protection – all this self-exploitation justified by our
commitment to the cause. The up side of it was that the service we provided was grounded in political
insights into the nature of patriarchy, racism and class. But this was only the half of it. Over the next
thirty years, the grants culture morphed into contracts and commissioning . Why? Partly because
neoliberal ideology popularises the view that grants make us complacent whereas commissioning
brings in competition, the ideal Petri dish for human development . But competition for funding
destroyed the solidarities we worked so hard at building with other women’s groups. ‘Value for
money’ concerns led to the introduction of targets; meeting them sometimes needed an element of creativity – how do you quantify
success in supporting a woman facing domestic violence if she does not choose to leave her violent partner? These outcomes
take a long time and the short-termist, box-ticking culture of neoliberalism destroys the integrity
of such work. Fortunately, the neoliberal project of rolling back the state is not yet complete; some of
the state institutions from the earlier, statist period came to SBS’s rescue . The judiciary, hardly a bastion
of progressive wisdom, put a break on the commissioning process when SBS challenged Ealing Council’s decision to offer the
domestic violence “contract” to all comers without having carried out a proper race equality impact assessment first. It was the
equality duties placed on the state as a result of earlier political campaigns which, in this case,
attempted to inject equality concerns into a depoliticised culture which is what neo-liberalism
aims to create. Additionally, the ‘best value’, the more for less principle opens the door to any provider as long as they can
prove that they have some track record. It is precisely this de-politicised culture that allowed the Home Office to take away the
contract from POPPY for services to trafficked women, the foremost agency in the field, and award it to Salvation Army. It didn’t
matter that the women may not have easy access to abortion advice or services, that the service is provided within a strong
Christian ethos, that the umbrella body, Churches Against Sex Trafficking in Europe or CHASTE - to which the Salvation army
belongs, also bids for government contracts to lock up trafficked women on their way to being deported in the same safe house
where trafficked women are fighting for their right to remain; one building is both prison and refuge.
The climate in which
we operate has become so depoliticised that agencies in the field who want to differentiate
themselves from the faith sector call themselves the ‘violence against women sector’ and not
feminists! While the state plays an important role in safeguarding the rights of women, a state in
hock to the neoliberal project can damage the health of vulnerable sections of society. Black
women, in particular, are alive to the contradictions that the state polices their communities more
heavily and uses harsh immigration rules instead of better resources when we turn to it for
protection against issues like forced marriage. This marketisation of the voluntary sector is
neoliberalism’s attempt to find new markets. It thrives on the continuous expansion of markets;
hence the growing privatisation of what had been regarded as off-limits – public utilities ,
education , prisons , social housing – but we are reaching saturation point. Neoliberalism is no longer
delivering growth in the developed world, and therefore profit , the holy grail of capitalism as we
can deduce from the mess in Europe and America. David Harvey believes that the main achievement of neoliberalism has been re-distributive; money has flowed from the poor to the business elites. Our latest budget makes the poor rather
than the rich pay for growth programmes to kick start the economy. In Brazil, Nestle has targeted people earning less than $2 a day
by launching a floating supermarket along the Amazon selling fizzy drinks and milk powder – so we have the obscenity of obesity
and malnourishment sitting side by side. If this is not scraping the barrel then I don’t know what is. I believe
we are
witnessing an implosion of neo-liberalism but the opposition to it has yet to take a concrete
shape . As Elaine Husband of the New Democratic Party in Canada said, people are tired of being trickled down on. How do
we re-capture the state from the neoliberal project to which it is in hock? What is the way forward? A new
society hovers on the horizon and feminism should play an important part in shaping it. I’m no Mystic Meg but here are some issues
Resistance is important . That’s one of the reasons why the neoliberal project
developed unevenly. Thatcher privatised many things, but left the NHS alone because there would be fierce resistance
worth considering:
although David Cameron seems less daunted by it; women have often been the backbone of resistance movements, from the
miners’ wives onwards to Skychef and Gate Gourmet, second wave feminists from the 70s are both strengthened by and need to
nurture the current wave; we need to let go of growth as a gold standard of economic health. Serge Latouche, a French academic,
argues for 'degrowth' or contraction economics. Growth in terms of meeting real human need makes sense ,
growth achieved through consumerism does not ; the market needs the state more than the state
needs the market as we have seen from the massive injection of government funds to rescue the
banking sector; neoliberalism has encouraged the growth of a permanent underclass, usually
made up of illegal immigrants and predominantly women in some categories, who live completely
outside the system, which makes a nonsense of democracy’s commitment to universalism.
Feminism needs to guard against atomisation – which is what neoliberalism thrives on. We
should be a transformative movement, should recognise, understand, analyse what damage neoliberalism has done to all our traditional allies. We need to get involved in the major movements of our time, to
redraw the links, participate in Occupy London, fight religious fundamentalism as well as sexual violence, wage inequality and
poverty. These may be old goals for a new culture but they can do with re-stating as we haven’t got there yet.
Case: VAW/Stigma
Legalization increases violence against women
IT ‘08
(The Irish Times citing Cari Mitchell a spokeswoman for the English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP), a network of women working in
different areas of the sex industry “Should the laws against prostitution be abolished?” February 11, 2008 Monday, Lexis, TSW)
Cari Mitchell is writing on behalf of the English Collective of Prostitutes NO: Legalising prostitution
does not protect those involved but rather acts to expand the sex industry and normalise the
exploitation of women. This has been proven in other jurisdictions such as the Netherlands. A woman seldom finds herself
involved in prostitution as a result of unlimited choices, but rather as a consequence of very constrained circumstances. Prostitution is a survival strategy. By legalising
the practice there is a failure to acknowledge that prostitution preys on particularly vulnerable
individuals. Women in prostitution suffer violence or the threat of violence on a regular basis.
Legalisation does not protect the women from violence, rape and murder, which are endemic in the sex industry and
are understood to be "occupational hazards". Women prostituted in legal brothels in Victoria, Australia are given guidelines that dictate how to negotiate with a violent customer.
In what other non-military profession is it necessary to handle hostage situations in a "normal" working day? No state has yet effectively regulated the sex industry. A woman
seldom finds herself involved in prostitution as a result of unlimited choices, but rather as a consequence of very constrained circumstances. Prostitution is a survival strategy.
By legalising the practice there is a failure to acknowledge that prostitution preys on particularly vulnerable individuals. The
Netherlands believed that legalising prostitution would end child prostitution, but instead it has seen a huge increase in numbers of child prostitutes. The same
phenomenon has occurred in Victoria, Australia. Legalised prostitution has contributed to an increase in
organised crime within the industry and this has led to an increase in violence against the
women.
They don’t solve stigma
CAASE ‘07
(Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation “ADDRESSING MISCONCEPTIONS: Legalization” After July 2007
http://media.virbcdn.com/files/e1/FileItem-150147-AM_Legalization.pdf, TSW)
Misconception: Women involved in the sex trade would prefer to work in the regulated environment that legalization
would provide. REALITY: Arguments stating that individuals involved in the sex trade would prefer to work in a regulated
environment are negated by the fact that very few of the women in legalized prostitution actually register. For instance,
membership in the official service union in Germany, which requires employer health care, legal aid, three paid holidays a year,
and a five-day workweek, remains very low – less than five percent of the 400,000 individuals eligible for the union actually
register. 7 The reason behind this hesitance to register shows that, though the stigma of buying sex is erased when prostitution
is legalized, the stigma of selling it is not . Evidence shows that women are not eager to self identify and tend to avoid
official registrations, even when registering comes with substantial benefits . One researcher found that women involved in
prostitution in the Netherlands were concerned about the loss of anonymity that registration would require; once officially
registered as prostitutes, Dutch women feared that this designation would pursue them for the rest of their lives. Despite any
“employment” benefits that registration would provide, the women stated that they wanted to leave prostitution as quickly as possible
with no legal record of having been in prostitution. 8 Another study in the Netherlands found that only three percent of
individuals involved in prostitution believed that legalization was a good thing . 9
SW Vote Neg 2NC
Sex workers want decrim
Lutnick and Cohan 9 (Alexandra Lutnick, Public Health Analyst, Research Triangle Institute International. Deborah
Cohan, Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San
Francisco. “Criminalization, legalization or decriminalization of sex work: what female sex workers say in San Francisco, USA”,
Reproductive Health Matters, 2009) ac 8-17
Decriminalization The
majority of study participants expressed sup- port for certain tenets of a
decriminalized model. Seventy-one per cent agreed or strongly agreed that courts should get rid of laws that make sex work
illegal. A large portion felt that they should be allowed to trade sex in strip clubs and mas- sage parlors (68%), on the streets (77%),
and in escort agencies and brothels (87%). The majority of the women, 82%, preferred street-based sex work to happen in
commercial areas and red light districts. Ninety-one per cent wanted laws that protected the rights of sex workers. Legalization The
legalization of sex work often times results in sex workers and their businesses experiencing
heightened forms of regulation that are not wit- nessed in other businesses . One-third of the
women thought that the San Francisco Health Department should regulate sex work, and 84% felt that
they should have to undergo health screening to be able to engage in sex work. Discussion The sex workers in this study
were predominately those who are considered the most marginalized . In the qualitative phase, one-third of
the women were street-based sex workers, and 25% were current injection drug users. Over two-thirds of those in the
quantitative phase reported cur- rent street-based sex work, and over half were current injection
drug users. These are the work- ers who are likely most at risk for physical and sexual assault, as
well as arrest. Taking all the women's responses into consideration, their pref- erences do not fit neatly into any one of the three
pre-existing legal frameworks. The majority of sex workers voiced a preference for removing the statutes
that criminalize sex work in order to facilitate a social and political environment where they would
have legal rights and could seek help when they were victims of violence. They did not want to be arrested
for their sex work, yet they also did not want to be regulated by government or pay taxes, sentiments that
hold true for many people. Likewise, with over half the women receiving some type of federal or state financial assistance, if they
reported sex work income they would likely cease to be eligible for assistance. While many women voiced their opposition to
government oversight, some advocated for ele- ments of regulation that are found in legalized systems, including mandated health
screening, and decriminalized models, such as zoning restric- tions. It is possible that these responses were influ- enced by the
setting where the interviews were conducted – a sex worker health clinic. As such, they may have felt that health examinations
would be done in a community-based, peer-led clinic. The preference that street-based sex work be covered by zoning restrictions
may have been informed by the reality that those who work on the street in a criminalized system have very little control over their
work situation. If there were specified areas for street prostitution, women might feel safer due to the more controlled nature of the
work environment. An argument frequently used against crimi- nalization is the rampant violence sex workers experience in
criminalized settings. 1,2,9,17 – 24 Police abuse, such as sexual demands in lieu of arrest 19,23 and excessive use of physical
force have been reported, e.g. in Canada and the United States. 21,25 Most crimes against sex workers go unpunished, as most
sex workers do not go to the police when they have been victimized. 3,22,23,26 Few papers address the risk of violence among
femalesexworkersinSanFrancisco.Inacross- sectional study of 783 adults accessing health care at St. James Infirmary from 19992004, we found that 36.3% of the women experienced sex work-related violence, and 7.9% police violence. 24 Another study
conducted in San Francisco in 1990-91 found that female sex workers, as com- pared to male and transgender workers, were at
higher risk of rape and arrest for prostitution- related offences. 27 Hay's article about police abuse of prostitutes in San Francisco
acknowledges that the most frequent type of police abuse reported by sex workers, the demand for sex in lieu of arrest, is the
hardest to verify. Many of the women in that study reported not filing a complaint when abused by a police officer as they doubted it
would result in any positive change. Hay sees police abuse as just another occupational hazard, 19 but it is presumably one th at
could be challenged more readily if prostitution were decriminalized. Even if sex work were to be decriminalized or legalized, many
things might not change. If prostitution codes were removed, there are still other legal codes such as loitering, trespassing, public
nuisance and narcotics which could be used to target sex workers. Additionally, given the deep cultural beliefs about sex work,
decrim- inalization or legalization would likely not elim- inate the stigma associated with prostitution. A change in the criminal code
would also not guar- antee access to the health and social services the women want. Incarceration should not be the only way for
the women to stop using/drinking or accessing vital services such as health care, drug treatment or housing. Any future work
towards decriminalization will need to be coupled with a commitment that the health and social services sex workers want will be
available. The
vast majority of women in this study did not want sex work to be a criminal offence,
but they did not want to be regulated by government or pay taxes either. This disparate set of preferences cannot co-exist under the framework of decriminalization. Therefore, it is clear that future work by advocacy
groups needs to explore with a diversity of sex workers the compromises they are willing to make
to ensure safe working con- ditions and the same legal protections afforded to other workers. More
of the women might be willing to pay taxes and accept the same regu- lations as other businesses if they knew it would result in the
acquisition of legal protection. This requires further inquiry. It is also probable that marginalized sex workers have not been as visible in previous decriminalization campaigns because their basic needs are not being met, and organizing for legal change is not
their immedi- ate priority. Advocacy groups need to work with sex workers – women, men and transgender – who are most
marginalized, to understand their immediate needs and how these can be addressed through decriminalization.
1NR
welfare
The plan creates forced prostitution and forced eligibility testing by allowing sex
work to be a part of work for welfare requirements
Spector 06, Jessica, Prof @ Trinity. “Prostitution and pornography: Philosophical debate about the sex industry.” Stanford
University Press, 2006.
We can perhaps make the point more vivid by noting two other protections
against forced sex that, on our hypothesis, should fall
by the wayside. First, to the extent that welfare and unemployment compensation are intended for persons who cannot find
suitable employment, if sex work is available and a person is suitable for it (however that is judged), government should encourage
people to take such work and cut off benefits if such work is refused . 30 Second, insofar as persons are allowed to make enforceable
labor contracts, they should be allowed to make contracts for sexual services, including tacit or implicit agreements, and the courts would have to
uphold them. This was the point in the expensive date scenario, discussed at the start of this section. As the lesson of that scenario suggests, the
barriers established between sex and commerce not only function to keep the workplace free of sexual pressures but also to keep private sexual
relations free of the norms of business, where broken promises and defeated expectations can bring enforced remedies.
***Footnote 30***
30. The suggestion is meant to be provocative, but it's short of absurd. The principal objection to it is that, while
government assistance may be conditional on one's willingness to take available work, one need only seek "suitable work." One can reject a job
without losing unemployment compensation benefits if one does so on bona fide religious grounds, because it pays less than one is used to earning,
Despite such protections, in
York City's welfare-to-work program called "Business
Link" made arrangements with the Psychic Network to train welfare recipients in Tarot reading
and other skills and then to hire them as telephone psychics at Sto-$12 per hour. See Nina Bernstein, "New York
because it interferes with family obligations. because it poses a health risk, or because it's a new line of work.
the last nine months of 1999, until the press reported it, New
Drops Psychic Training Program," New York Times (January 29, 2.000); and Michael Daly, "Veil of Secrecy Lifted: Program Training Poor to Be Phone
Psychics ls Exposed," New York Daily News (March 19, 2.000). (I am indebted to Jacob Levi for alerting me to this factoid.) It
is also
understood that, if one's unemployment drags on, the range of jobs one must consider suitable is
expected to grow. Furthermore, former prostitutes might be required to consider such work suitable if
it were available. Finally, welfare reform as we know it has imposed a number of fairly draconian conditions on eligibility, including work
requirements that seem to pay little attention to the benefit recipients' suitability for the jobs they are required to take. As Sylvia Law has noted. "The
state enjoys a large freedom to condition receipt of public assistance upon the sacrifice of otherwise
constitutionally protected rights. Perhaps courts would see a policy that conditioned aid on a requirement
that a woman engage in commercial sex as so egregious that the policy would be found to violate constitutional liberty.
But this conclusion is far from clear" (Law, p. 606). Hence, the suggestion in the text may be farfetched at present but is
not inconceivable, especially given current trends in eligibility requirements for public assistance
and social insurance. For a more general discussion of eligibility requirements for unemployment compensation, see Mark A. Rothstein,
Charles B. Craver, Elinor P. Schroeder, and Elaine W. Shoben, Employment Law, 2d ed. (St. Paul. Minn.: West, 1999), pp. 767-70, 786-88.
Trafficking M: Turns Case
The emotional impact alone flips the case---even if legalization has some positive
aspects, abuse of women will remain rampant, damaging those the aff seeks to
serve
Janice G. Raymond & Donna M. Hughes 1, PhD & professor at the University of Massachusetts AND PhD & professor
at the University of Rhode Island, “Sex Trafficking of Women in the United States: Domestic and International Trends,” Coalition
against Trafficking of Women, March 2001, http://bibliobase.sermais.pt:8008/BiblioNET/upload/PDF3/01913_sex_traff_us.pdf
The emotional consequences of trafficking and prostitution can be just as, and sometimes more, severe than
the physical health effects. Thirty-one percent (N=4) of the international women and 64 percent of the U.S.
women (N=14) said they had suicidal thoughts (See Table 11). One international woman and 12 (63%) of the U.S.
women had tried to hurt or kill themselves at some point. Fifty-four percent (N=7) of the international women and
41 percent of the U.S. women felt hopeless. One U.S. woman said, “I didn’t care if I died.” One
international woman said, “I don’t care about myself.” Eighty-five percent (N=11) of the international women and
86 percent (N=19) of U.S. women experienced depression/sadness. Women who were sexually
exploited continued to experience depression and sadness, even after being out of the sex industry.
Thirty-eight percent (N=5) of the international women, and 27 percent (N=6) of the U.S. women reported that they
were unable to feel. 54 percent (N=7) of the international and 36 percent (N=8) of the U.S. women reported feeling like they
had no energy or felt sluggish. One international woman said she had “no concentration.” And approximately a third of international
and U.S. women (31%, N=4 and 32%, N=7, respectively) said they had difficulty sleeping. Thirty-one percent (N=4) of the
international women and 32 percent (N=7) of the U.S. women suffered from a loss of appetite. Women who are victimized
in the sex industry often blame themselves for what happened to them. This internalization of
responsibility is not surprising given that there is little understanding and little sympathy about about the
situation of women in the sex industry. Consequently, 46 percent (N=6) of the international women and 36 percent
(N=8) of the U.S. women said they felt self-blame and guilt about being sexually exploited and abused. Two international women
said they felt anxiety and guilt about their children. Two U.S. women said they felt “shame.” Although international women blamed
themselves more than U.S. women, the U.S. women reported more anger and rage. Sixty-four percent (N=14)
of the U.S. women compared to 31 percent (N=4) of the international women experienced anger and rage. One U.S.
woman said she “felt like killing someone.” Although women were not asked about feelings of fear, two U.S. women said
that they felt “paranoid,” and one international woman said she was “scared all the time.” Two U.S.
women said they suffered panic attacks. One international woman summed up her mental state prior to and after
entrance into the sex industry. “Before I entered this business I was quite a normal person: laughed, fell in love.
And then everything was gone. I was like in lethargy , I thought I didn’t have the way out.” Another international
woman simply said, “ I was diminished .”
Trafficking L: A2 “Turns”
No turn – increase in demand outweighs
Wright 13 (Abbey L., “Cleaning Up The Blood, Sweat, and Tears of the Super Bowl [Sex Trade]: What Host Cities Must Do in
Preparation for Major Sporting Events to Combat Sex Trafficking”, 2013, 13 Va. Sports & Ent. L.J. 97, lexis)
However, while
legalization may provide more supply in terms of the general population seeking
commercial sex, the concept disregards those instances where traffickers are serving the
demand of a specific clientele - for example, clients who can be described as "sadists or pedophiles" and for whom a
standard legal prostitute does not suffice. n203 Additionally, legalization of prostitution necessarily comes hand
in hand with an immediate shift in focus from criminal investigations, allowing both voluntary prostitution as
well as forced prostitution to continue without notice . n204 For those who seek out prostitutes, legalization
removes the stigma that is associated with buying commercial sex, which logically leads to higher demand , but it
does not follow that there will be an increase in supply of willing women to fulfill that demand,
providing traffickers with an increased market and the need for additional victims. n205 Importantly, whether
prostitution is legal or criminal within a state, human trafficking still exists and the system will be abused whether prostitution is legal
or not. n206 But the
benefits of legalization are outweighed by the detrimental effect had on the
victims of sex trafficking, and states should ensure that prostitution in all forms is illegal to confirm that the
focus on the victims of sex trafficking in not lost among the regulation of legal prostitution during major sporting events.
Legalization drastically increases sex trafficking---the scale effect of legalization
vastly outweighs the positive effects of a regulated market
Carol Tan 14, Master in Public Policy student at Harvard’s Kennedy School focusing on conflict management and humanitarian
affairs strategy, former management consultant with the Boston Consulting Group and graduated from the University of California at
Berkeley with honors in Economics and Political Science, 1/2/14, Does legalized prostitution increase human trafficking?,
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/human-rights/legalized-prostitution-human-traffickinginflows#sthash.6P2DX6YS.dpuf
A 2012 study published in World Development,
“Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?” investigates
the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows into high-income countries. The researchers — Seo-Yeong Cho of the German
Institute for Economic Research, Axel Dreher of the University of Heidelberg and Eric Neumayer of the London School of Economics and Political
Science — analyzed
cross-sectional data of 116 countries to determine the effect of legalized
prostitution on human trafficking inflows. In addition, they reviewed case studies of Denmark,
Germany and Switzerland to examine the longitudinal effects of legalizing or criminalizing
prostitution. The study’s findings include: Countries with legalized prostitution are associated
with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale
effect of legalizing prostitution , i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect,
where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers . On average, countries with legalized
prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows . The effect of legal
prostitution on human trafficking inflows is stronger in high-income countries than middle-income
countries. Because trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation requires that clients in a potential destination country have sufficient
purchasing power, domestic supply acts as a constraint. Criminalization of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the
shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows. Cross-country
comparisons of Sweden with Denmark (where prostitution is decriminalized) and Germany (expanded legalization of prostitution) are
consistent with the quantitative analysis, showing that trafficking inflows decreased with
criminalization and increased with legalization. The type of legalization of prostitution does not
matter — it only matters whether prostitution is legal or not . Whether third-party involvement (persons who facilitate
the prostitution businesses, i.e, “pimps”) is allowed or not does not have an effect on human trafficking inflows into a country. Legalization of
prostitution itself is more important in explaining human trafficking than the type of legalization. Democracies have a higher probability of increased
human-trafficking inflows than non-democratic countries. There is a 13.4% higher probability of receiving higher inflows in a democratic country than
otherwise
Still no reporting – massive abuse with trafficking
Rieger 7 – April, J.D. Cornell Law School, “MISSING THE MARK: WHY THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT
FAILS TO PROTECT SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIMS IN THE UNITED STATES,” Harvard Journal of Law & Gender Vol. 30,
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol301/rieger.pdf
Conditions. Effects, and Aftermath of Sex Trafficking 1. Isolation and Control Sex trafficking
victims often work under slavefreedom is severely constrained
by a combination of means including debt bond- age, document confiscation, security guards, violence, and
threats* One woman recounted the control traffickers had over undocumented women: In the strip clubs . . .
they have a lot of girls there from outside without green cards, or illegal aliens. And they really work them like they were
stupid, and with those girls they really recruit them to do porno. The club manager has a hold on them , because they
don't have their green card.91 Traffickers use their victims* fears of deportation and arrest to keep them under
their control.92 Many victims are also vulnerable because they lack English proficiency. One study reported
that 40% of the women who were sexually exploited in the U nited S tates had no English-language
proficiency, and 33% reported very little understanding of or speaking ability in English.91 Traffickers
also use isolation to control their victims by forcing them to live where they work and by constantly moving
them around the country/4 2. Rape In the United States, many victims are forced to work in illegal
brothels. In fact, the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services ("USCIS," formerly the Immigration and Naturalization
like and inhumane conditions. Once in the United States, victims often find that their
Services) has discovered over 250 brothels in 26 different cities—many of which are thought to be staffed by sex trafficking
Many victims suffer rape and violence at the hands of their traffickers and customers,
often repeatedly . Being forced to have sex with twenty-five men or more per day is not uncommon.96 Rape is a
frequently deployed tool used to initiate victims into the world of prostitution, although virgins are often not
raped until after their virginity has been "sold" at a higher price.97 After being raped by "customers" all day long, many
victims are raped by their traffickers at night. One victim reported. "In the first brothel, there were terrible guards . . .
victims.94
awful perverts. Once they gobbled some pills that prevent men from cumming quickly. They fucked me for five hours straight. I have
never experienced anything like that."*9,' Similarly, a social services provider reported that Latinas trafficked into the
South protected themselves by sleeping together, because the traffickers had "underlings who
would rape them in the middle of the night."99 3. Physical Violence and Threats Physical abuse and even
murder is a constant fear for many victims. One woman reported, "I had one pimp in the States who liked
to whip me with thin belts and urinate on my body .. . Sometimes he would even invite his friends."100 Another victim
described being punished by her pimp after a customer had raped her: "I've been beat with
hangers, tied to a bedpost. Beaten for being with a trick for too long. I was robbed and raped by a trick and then
beaten by the pimp for letting that happen."101 Traffickers not only harm their victims, but they also threaten
harm to the victims* families.102 Traffickers in the United States often have international organized crime connections that
include connections in the victims* home country. Traffickers make clear that they have the ability to carry out
the threats on the victims" families in their home countries. Thus, these threats are usually quite effective at
maintaining control over victims . One victim recounted threats made to her family: "I have been sold by lots of pimps.
So many that it's scary. Pimps who resold me globally .... I was like a dog on a short leash. When I pulled it just a little bit. they
threatened to put me in jail .... Last pimp in Turkey . . . described how he would ... (kill my family). I think at the end he could
have."11" It is not uncommon for victims to be forced to participate in the violence against other
trafficking victims. One woman described being one of many women from Asia whom her
traffickers had enslaved and impregnated: "We were beaten and raped if we didn't comply .... I had to hold down
women as he raped them .... I saw five women being raped."" victims appear to disappear.""- Sadly, deportation to a
victim's home country often results in re-trafficking; some studies indicate a re-trafficking rate as
high as 50%." '
Regulating the legal market trades-off with police monitoring of gray markets –
that undermines efforts to prevent sex trafficking
Wim Huisman & Edward R. Kleemans 14, PhD & Chair of Professor of Criminology at VU University Amsterdam AND
PhD, Full Professor at the VU School of Criminology, Faculty of Law, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands, “The challenges
of fighting sex trafficking in the legalized prostitution market of the Netherlands,” Crime, Law and Social Change: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, Springer
*Note---text redacted by Joseph Lenart III. Georgetown Debate does not endorse the gendered language of this article.
In three ways, the legalization and regulation of the prostitution sector can influence the capacity of
the police (in terms of manpower) to fight sex trafficking: first, when legalization leads to an increase in the
numbers of trafficked women working in the regulated sector; second, when monitoring the
regulated sector drains capacity from investigating the unregulated sector; and , third, when
monitoring drains the capacity for investigating cases of human trafficking. Evaluation studies show that
the police play a pivotal role in monitoring the licensed sector and in carrying out inspections [1].
The downside of these efforts is that there is insufficient police capacity left to play a major
monitoring and investigative role with regard to punishable forms of operation outside the licensed sector .
Thus, the assumption that the new policy would allow the police more capacity to fight human
trafficking has not come to fruition. What is more, the feeling in the prostitution sector is that licensed
businesses are inspected more often than non-licensed businesses, a situation which undermines
the willingness of operators of licensed businesses to adhere to the rules and complicates the
efforts to combat human trafficking [1]. Internal evaluations made by the police also show that the licensed
prostitution sector is not being fully monitored and that it takes a lot of effort to monitor the
unregulated parts of the business [26, 27]. The monitoring of the unregulated sector was described
as ‘inefficient’ and ‘ineffective’ [26: 101]. Many police forces limit themselves to incidental and reactive
inspections. The internal evaluations also show that the money spent on police efforts to support local
authorities is not always reimbursed. In some regional police forces, local authorities financed extra
police-officers. This can mean, however, that any increase in the police capacity to fight sex
trafficking becomes dependent on the priority that local municipalities put on it.
L: Empirically—Germany
Germany and Netherlands prove
Janice G. Raymond, Professor, University of Massachusetts, “Ten Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution and a Legal
Response to the Demand for Prostitution,” JOURNAL OF TRAUMA PRACTICE v. 2 2003, pp. 315-332.
Legalized or decriminalized prostitution industries are one of the root causes of sex trafficking.
One argument for legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands was that legalization would help to end the exploitation of desperate
immigrant women who had been trafficked there for prostitution. However, one report found that 80% of women in the
brothels of the Netherlands were trafficked from other countries (Budapest Group, 1999)(1). In 1994, the
International Organization of Migration (IOM) stated that in the Netherlands alone, “nearly 70 % of trafficked women were from
CEEC [Central and Eastern European Countries]” (IOM, 1995, p. 4). The government of the Netherlands presents itself as a
champion of anti-trafficking policies and programs, yet it has removed every legal impediment to pimping,
procuring and brothels. In the year 2000, the Dutch Ministry of Justice argued in favor of a legal quota of foreign “sex
workers,” because the Dutch prostitution market demanded a variety of “bodies” (Dutting, 2001, p. 16). Also in 2000, the Dutch
government sought and received a judgment from the European Court recognizing prostitution as an economic activity, thereby
enabling women from the European Union and former Soviet bloc countries to obtain working permits as “sex workers” in the Dutch
sex industry if they could prove that they are self employed. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Europe
report that traffickers use the work permits to bring foreign women into the Dutch prostitution
industry, masking the fact that women have been trafficked, by coaching them to describe
themselves as independent “migrant sex workers” (Personal Communication, Representative of the International
Human Rights Network, 1999). In the year since lifting the ban on brothels in the Netherlands, eight Dutch
victim support organizations reported an increase in the number of victims of trafficking, and
twelve victim support organization reported that the number of victims from other countries has
not diminished (Bureau NRM, 2002, p. 75). Forty-three of the 348 municipalities (12%) in the Netherlands choose to follow a
no-brothel policy, but the Minister of Justice has indicated that the complete banning of prostitution within any municipality could
conflict with the federally guaranteed “right to free choice of work” (Bureau NRM, 2002, p.19). The first steps toward
legalization of prostitution in Germany occurred in the 1980s. By 1993, it was widely recognized
that 75% of the women in Germany’s prostitution industry were foreigners from Uruguay,
Argentina, Paraguay and other countries in South America (Altink, 1993, p. 33). After the fall of the Berlin wall,
80% of the estimated 10,000 women trafficked into Germany were from Central and Eastern Europe and CIS countries (IOM. 1998a
, p. 17). In 2002, prostitution in Germany was established as a legitimate job after years of being
legalized in tolerance zones. Promotion of prostitution, pimping and brothels are now legal in
Germany. The sheer volume of foreign women in the German prostitution industry suggests that
these women were trafficked into Germany, a process euphemistically described as facilitated
migration. It is almost impossible for poor women to facilitate their own migration, underwrite the costs of travel and travel
documents, and set themselves up in “business” without intervention. In 1984, a Labor government in the Australian State of Victoria
introduced legislation to legalize prostitution in brothels. Subsequent Australian governments expanded legalization culminating in
the Prostitution Control Act of 1994. Noting the link between legalization of prostitution and trafficking in Australia, the US
Department of State observed: “Trafficking in East Asian women for the sex trade is a growing
problem…lax laws – including legalized prostitution in parts of the country – make [antitrafficking] enforcement difficult at the working level” (U.S. Department of State, 2000, p. 6F).
A2 Conflation
Their attempt to semantically draw a clear line between “sex work” and trafficking
erases exploitative aspects inherent to prostitution
Murphy 13 (Meghan, reporter, "Decriminalizing Prostitution May Not Be the Answer" Vice)
www.vice.com/en_ca/read/decriminalizing-prostitution-may-not-be-the-answer
Recent efforts to frame prostitution as “sex work” are strongly connected to this push to completely decriminalize the
industry. And while some might argue that the term “prostitution” is outdated and disrespects the women in trade (as Sarah
Ratchford does in her recent VICE article), according to some prostitution survivors and feminist organizations, the
terms "sex work" and "sex worker" are disrespectful and offensive for a myriad of other reasons. Sometimes framed
as a politically correct approach, the language of “sex work” and the discourse surrounding it has
been adopted by some as a way to normalize and sanitize the sex industry—while apparently
erasing the exploitative aspects that are inherent to prostitution . Bridget Perrier is an Aboriginal woman who
was prostituted on the streets and in brothels across Canada from the age of 12. She managed to exit the trade and is now cofounder and First Nations educator at Sextrade 101, a survivor-led, abolitionist organization out of Toronto. “To me the terms ‘sex
work’ and ‘sex worker’ are both very offensive because of my own experience as a sexually exploited child,” she told me over email.
When I spoke with author and prostitution survivor, Rachel Moran, she told me she hated those more politically
correct terms because they were “lies.” “They are deliberately constructed in order to conceal a
truth that I was living every day,” she told me. “I hated what I was doing. I hated every moment of it. But I
absolutely despised lying about it.” Andrea Matolcsi, a trafficking expert at Equality Now, an international human rights organization
advocating on behalf of girls and women, was disappointed when two reports, backed by UNAIDS, UNDP, and UNFPA came out
advocating for the full decriminalization of prostitution. Shortly thereafter, UN Women sent out a note that, while not an official
position, uses the language of “sex work.” And while “They talk a lot about people’s ‘right’ to be in prostitution, but not their right to
be out of it,” Matolcsi says. Conversations around “sex work” often focus on the issue of “choice”—
whether or not, for example, women should have the right to “choose” prostitution as a “career,”
or whether or not “consenting adults” should have to right to engage in sex in exchange for money.
What we don’t talk about enough is the context behind said “choices.” Issues like poverty, abuse,
gender inequality, racism, and a history of colonialism all play a role in leading women into
prostitution and keeping them there. Perrier agrees that the framing of prostitution as a “choice” for
some women distorts reality: “Those words—‘choice’ and ‘choose’—are words that those who are encased in the sex
industry say to themselves so that they can cope,” she told me. One of the key mistakes made by UN Women, UNAIDS
and other groups working to decriminalize the purchase of sex, is the push to distinguish between “sex work” and
trafficking. The idea behind this framing is that one situation is “chosen” while the other is not.
But it isn’t as simple as that . Experts, advocates, and prostitution survivors know that to ignore
the connections between prostitution, exploitation, and trafficking is to ignore the realities of the
sex industry. Swedish journalist Kajsa Ekis Ekman recently published a book looking at the sex trade and Sweden’s experience
with the Nordic model. She believes that trafficking is intricately tied to prostitution . “Trafficking comes in
when there isn’t a large enough supply of prostitutes for the demand that exists, if you’re talking in
market terms. In the Western world there are never enough women who enter the sex industry willingly. So trafficking is the
answer to the question of supply and demand." “If there were thousands of women lining up
outside brothels saying ‘Please, let me in to work!’ why would the mafia need to drag them across
Europe or across the world?” Ekman asks.
L: Empirically—Australia
Australia proves increase
Julie Bindel and Liz Kelly, Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit, London Metropolitan University, “A Critical Examination of
Responses to Prostitution in Four Countries: Victoria, Australia; Ireland; the netherlands; and Sweeden,” 2003, http://nordicbalticassistwomen.net/IMG/pdf/Study_in_4_countries_Kelly_Bindel.pdf
Legalisation is a ‘pull factor’ for traffickers . Project Respect estimates, “at least seven licensed brothels in
Victoria have used trafficked women in the last year”. An Australian Institute of Criminology study
estimated that Australian brothels earned $1 million a week from illegal prostitution . Mary Sullivan and
Sheila Jeffreys point out that, “Legalisation was intended to eliminate organised crime from the sex industry. In fact
the reverse has happened . Legalisation has brought with it an explosion in the trafficking of women into
prostitution by organised crime . Convicted criminals, fronted by supposedly more reputable people,
remain in the business ” (2000, p 12). In Victoria estimates from the police and the legal brothel industry put the
number of illegal brothels at 400, four times more than the legal ones (Murphy 2002). In1994, the International
Organisation for Migration (IOM) stated that in the Netherlands alone: "nearly 70 per cent of trafficked women were from CEEC
[Central and Eastern European Countries]" (IOM, 1995).
Demand gap link is true—Australia proves
Janice Shaw Crouse, senior fellow, Beverly LaHaye Institute, “What’s Wrong with Legalizing Prostitution,” AMERICAN
THINKER, 3—3—10, http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/03/whats_wrong_with_legalizing_pr.html
One study found that 80% of prostitutes were assaulted by their pimps, and over one-third receive death threats for themselves or
their families. Nor does legalization end corruption -- laissez-faire Amsterdam closed one-third of their legal brothels because of ties
to organized crime while acknowledging that the illegal brothels are thriving outside the official zone. Neighboring countries call the
Netherlands a "failed experiment." Legalizing prostitution increases sex-trafficking because demand
exceeds supply. So traffickers fill the demand with girls and women from other countries -- lured, tricked, or
sold, they end up without their passports, assaulted and forced into sex slavery. After legalization in Australia, illegal
brothels increased 300%, pulling thousands more vulnerable women into prostitution. Yet there are those who want to make
prostitution legal. What other job requires working naked, subject to the whims another person, with no protection against abuse?
Pimps, traffickers, and madams are dictators, usually brutal ones. Even in the legal brothels in Nevada, some prostituted women are
there because pimps dumped them for the referral fee, working with no right to refuse any customer. And though some rooms have
panic buttons for situations that get out of control, one john explained, "Look, men pay to get what they want. Lots of men go to
prostitutes to do things to them that 'real women' would not put up with." Legalization doesn't mean freedom and dignity;
it doesn't eliminate injuries or diseases. In fact, violence is an integral part of the job -- broken bones, burns, vaginal and
anal tearing, stabbings, rapes, STDs, HIV/AIDS, sterility, miscarriages, and drug and alcohol addictions. Two years after legalization
in Australia, the number of women with HIV infections increased 91%; johns don't undergo medical exams. Prostitutes in regulated
brothels may be marginally safer, but the illegal brothels they spawn offer little to no protection. Many claim that without legalization,
prostitutes have no redress for crimes against them, but that's not true. Laws currently exist against battery, assault,
coercion, etc. Conventional wisdom argues that police don't take crimes against prostitutes seriously. To the degree that this is true,
legalization won't help. Even in countries where prostitution is legal, victims often do not report sex-related crimes because
they'd have to register and then live with the prostitution label. Legalization creates greater demand for younger girls, who the johns
think are less likely to have an STD. Those who think that legalizing prostitution ends sex-trafficking are wrong; legalization merely
increases demand and throws open the floodgates of child prostitution.
Trafficking U: Efforts work now
Human trafficking efforts are working now – recent data proves.
Campbell, Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of Investigation, ’13 [Joseph,
“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 antitrafficking 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 multidistrict, 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 capacity-building. 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.