Quickie thread: You are likely to see certain anti sex industry activists start putting forward arguments in favour of the Nordic Model, two rules of thumb: (i) Check the footnotes; (ii) Remember basic guides to academic references from first year university /1
Nordic Model advocates will link to the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women in Australia's document "Demand Change: Understanding the Nordic Approach to Prostitution" - if a student submitted this in one of my classes, they would fail. catwa.org.au/wp-content/upl… /2
Of the 43 references in the report, only six are academic papers in peer reviewed journals (green) + 12 were gov reports (yellow) - the rest are websites, books and op-eds (blue) or deliberately misleading "journals" and "papers" which aren't what they seem (red) /3 #SpringSt 
In regard to the academic references: Ekberg (2004) explains the model but doesn't evaluate it, Kotsadam (2012) proposes a theoretical model of how criminalisation may deter demand, Waltman (2011) seems legit but notes the laws mixed impact... /4
Weitzer (2005) and Weitzer (2007) are *critical* of the Nordic model and argue that #sexworkiswork. Finally, the infamous Dreher and Neumayer (2013) paper used by every RadFem to argue that sex work legalisation increases sex trafficking - DOES NOT SUPPORT THE NORDIC MODEL /5
This is my biggest pet peeve, because the researchers actually spend a long time in the paper explaining the complex effects at play and that there *isn't* a simple relationship. They also very explicitly write this: /6
Alright, what about the government reports. Too many to go into, but let's focus on the Aus/NZ ones. How many of them were supportive of the Nordic Model? NSW Crime and Misconduct Commission (2004) - Nope, NZ review of decrim model (2008) - Nope ... /7
ACT Inquiry into the Prostitution Act (2012) - Nope, Queensland Prostitution Licensing Authority Report (2010) - Nope, was very very critical of the model. The other one is a Tasmanian Discussion paper that didn't make recommendations. /8
Alright, now lets get to the non-academic media articles, books and "journals". Most are what you'd expect, non peer reviewed op-ed rants by the typical crowd, speeches and "articles" on random websites, but some are pretty pernicious and misleading.. /9
Like this paper from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology which sounds pretty academic, but law journals are a bit different from typical scholarly peer reviewed academic journals and this is actually a student paper. /10
Or this 'article' published in the Solutions Journal - which is not a journal at all but a "a non-profit print and online publication devoted to showcasing bold and innovative ideas" /11
In summary pro Nordic Model organisations are not staffed with the best and brightest minds in criminology, law or public policy - and it shows. Always check the footnotes and ask yourself: is this research legit? /fin
- may be of interest.
Since this is being shared pretty widely, if you run an “adults-only” business in Australia, consider joining the @Eros_Assoc to ensure your interests are represented at a State and Federal level
