Ever since the Prime Minister let drop that the government was thinking of legalising prostitution, we have not had so much of a debate but pronouncements in unison by feminists. A range of women’s organisations and advocates have called on the government to adopt the so-called Nordic model, a piece of legislation first introduced in Sweden in 1999 that bases its rationale on criminalising the customer and victimising the service-provider.

This Swedish legislation was later rolled out in a couple of other neighbouring countries – hence the moniker ‘Nordic model’ – although each country has its own nuanced approach. The Nordic model then gained larger prominence and legitimacy when France emulated it last year, leading to a concerted campaign by women’s rights advocates to make the EU endorse it as its official policy. This campaign has now faltered, mostly because of doubts about the efficacy and ideological pertinence of this approach (to criminilise someone who pays for sex is radical stuff).

Feminists hail the Nordic model because it chimes with their worldview of rife, multifarious violence against women. Prostitution is perceived as a form of male violence and privilege: it commodifies women’s bodies, it renders women as mere objects of male indulgence.

This idea resonates among a class of liberals as well as conservatives; among conservatives it’s woven with the notion that commercial sex is abominable because sex is something intimate and private, and shouldn’t be reduced to a transaction. Prostitution in this sense is a violation of women’s dignity, and something that bolsters inequality between the sexes.

The thinking goes that women do not willingly get into prostitution as a career-choice. That’s a truism. Indeed it’s fair to say that many prostitutes are coerced into prostitution, and trafficked for the purpose of prostitution; or else they get into prostitution out of desperation or circumstances.

Yet the same can be said of other types of wretched jobs. I don’t suppose many people would willingly choose to work as labourers, or meat processors, or rubbish collectors, or in other menial undignified jobs – people in miserable jobs are condemned to those particular jobs by lack of choices. (I understand that prostitution is a degree worse than the other examples I give here; the point of comparison here is to make my point, not to create equivalence or belittle the shamefulness and violation inherent in prostitution.)

So, I am not in any way questioning the victimhood inherent in prostitution. However, I do acknowledge the validity of the counter-argument, often made by critics of the Nordic model, that treating prostitutes as victims is unhelpful because prostitutes have to be empowered to take their own decisions, not made to feel as helpless victims.

The philosophical arguments on prostitution are indeed very complex, and it’s not the scope of this article to explore those arguments. I want to limit my argument to what is the best regulatory framework for what is often dubbed as the oldest profession, an occupation (calling it a ‘profession’ is euphemistic) that will continue to thrive whatever we do. In this sense the point of legislation is to render prostitution as safe and dignified as possible, assist those who seek to get out, and undermine human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

The point of legislation is to render prostitution as safe and dignified as possible, assist those who seek to get out, and undermine human trafficking

This is where we can improve on the Nordic model. Proponents of the model often cite reports that the prevalence of street prostitution in Sweden has diminished, and hold this up as evidence that the Nordic model works. But there is no indication that prostitution on the whole has become less rife. The indications are that prostitution has become more hidden – the scantiness of data demonstrates how criminalisation has made it more difficult for social scientists to measure the prevalence of all forms of prostitution – and this concealment has made it more difficult to reach out to prostitutes. And in this sense the law has had a perverse effect.

At the other end of the regulatory spectrum we have full legalisation of prostitution, something that has been implemented within Europe in Germany and the Netherlands. Legalisation has rendered parts of the industry safe – particularly the regularised, big-business brothels – and made prostitution visible and hence reachable to social services. But it has not ended human trafficking or sexual exploitation. Legalisation has also spurred sex tourism.

Critics of the Nordic model, as well as legalisation, tend to favour the New Zealand model, which is a form of decriminalisation. As a regulatory framework it lies somewhere in the middle between full legalisation and Nordic-style criminalisation of the customer. In this sense, decriminalisation does not sanction prostitution, it simply fosters legal and societal toleration.

So every regulatory framework is a graduated system of control. In Malta the current situation has become a cover for misery and criminality – many women are being trafficked into Malta, or somehow enslaved, for prostitution – so the case for reform is compelling. But, as we grapple with ways to regularise prostitution, we have to admit that all of the off-the-shelf models have flaws. And we have to accept that prostitution is a grey zone of society that will always remain outside the State’s control to some extent, and in which success is measured in degrees, not absolutes (no one should fantasise that we are ever going to come close to lessening the prevalence of prostitution by a large degree).

My idea – my ideas are the gleanings of library research in Europe and on-the-ground journalistic research in Asia (the main source region for women trafficked into Europe) – is for a two-pronged approach.

First, make brothels and pimping illegal, and make sex services in any commercial establishments (such as massage parlours) illegal; and doubly make the buying or partaking of sex services in these establishments a criminal offence by the customer.

Second, make it legal for prostitutes to work on a self-employed, freelance basis only. Of course prostitutes could be allowed to work collectively in collectives or cooperatives so long as there is no boss or no pimp – simply a collective of prostitutes operating on a freelance basis, each responsible for her or his taxes and self-employment registration. These freelancers would then have to get tested for STDs regularly, and pay NI and taxes. The government could then offer them programmes of assistance and courses to get them off prostitution and on to other career paths if they choose to do so.

On the one hand my ideas are designed to allow safe and legal access to prostitution for patrons who will seek prostitutes in any case, while simultaneously empowering the prostitutes (freelancers) who work in legal prostitution and assisting them. And, on the other hand, the idea is to deter potential customers from seeking services in brothels and other for-profit establishments by the threat of criminal liability, and in this manner attack the business model that drives human trafficking and sexual exploitation or enslavement.