All sex is now called Human Trafficking

[yyzyyz]

California voters hold the power this Election Day to decide if many thousands of people convicted of adult consensual prostitution related offenses in their state must now register as sex offenders. These are their neighbors, their friends, their family—whether they know it or not—and many are women: trans- and cisgender women, poor and working class women, and disproportionately, they are women of color.

This attack on women already made vulnerable to violence and poverty is just one of the possible consequences of Proposition 35, a ballot initiative marketed to voters as a tough law to fight trafficking but is instead a “tough on crime” measure backed with millions of dollars from one influential donor, written by a community activist with little experience in the issue. If it passes? Advocates for survivors of trafficking, civil rights attorneys, and sex workers fear that rather than protect Californians, it will expose their communities to increased police surveillance, arrest, and the possibility of being labeled a “sex offender” for the rest of their lives.

A good deal of advocacy around trafficking is concerned with proposing new laws, with several organizations—such as the Polaris Project and Shared Hope International—focused on introducing copycat legislation state-after-state, focused on increasing criminal penalties associated with trafficking and moving resources to law enforcement. There is little evidence that strengthening criminal penalties and relying primarily on law enforcement are strategies to end forced labor; in fact, advocates who work with survivors of trafficking, as well as people involved in the sex trade and sex worker rights' advocates, have documented the limitations and dangers of a “tough on crime” approach on trafficking. Still, the “tough on crime” approach has become dominant in what some anti-trafficking advocates now call “the war on trafficking.”

Treating Those In the Sex Trade as Sex Offenders

Proposition 35 adds to this dangerous mix: the overlapping matrix of laws concerning trafficking, the increasingly common conflation of commercial sex with trafficking found in these laws, and the concerns of rights' advocates. If passed, Prop 35 will create more severe criminal penalties for what it describes as "sexual exploitation"—a potentially far-reaching term that can include any kind of commercial sex, whether or not force, fraud or coercion was present.

Under Prop 35, anyone involved in the sex trade could potentially be viewed as being involved in trafficking, and could face all of the criminal penalties associated with this redefinition of who is involved in “trafficking,” which include fines of between $500,000 and $1 million and prison sentences ranging from five years to life. This is in addition to having to register as a sex offender, and surrender to lifelong internet monitoring: that is, turning over all of one's "internet identifiers," which includes "any electronic mail address, user name, screen name, or similar identifier used for the purpose of Internet forum discussions, Internet chat room discussion, instant messaging, social networking, or similar Internet communication."

Advocates say Prop 35's conflation of the sex trade with trafficking will not only endanger people in the sex trade, but it will also fail survivors of trafficking. "I think trafficking is very much premised on issues of forced labor – be it forced work, be it forced sexual services," said Cindy Liou, a staff attorney at Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach, which works with hundreds of survivors of human trafficking.

"Even the division between forced labor and sex work feel extraneous," she explains. "Our forced labor cases may involve sexual assault, or we may have cases where a client isn't forced to prostitute herself for money, but is forced to commit sexual acts for noncommercial means – [under Prop 35] that would no longer be considered 'forced work.' That said, to confuse prostitution with trafficking is not appropriate, they are separate crimes, and they effect people in different ways. That's the whole point why they are different crimes."

If passed, Proposition 35 could also require anyone in California convicted of some prostitution-related offenses as far back as 1944 to also register as a sex offender and submit to lifelong internet monitoring. This is what drove Naomi Akers, the Executive Director of St. James Infirmary, an occupational health and safety clinic run by and for sex workers in San Francisco, to come out hard against the bill. In a Facebook image that spread quickly through sex worker communities online, Akers wrote "I have a previous conviction for 647a" – that is, lewd conduct, one of several common charges brought by California law enforcement against sex workers – "when I was a prostitute on the streets and if Prop 35 passes, I will be be required to register as a sex offender."

Through Prop 35, “it is possible that people convicted of prostitution-related offenses could be placed on the sex offender registry," said Juhu Thukral, director of law and advocacy at The Opportunity Agenda and founder and former director of the Sex Workers' Project. "It is also possible that placement on the registry will be retroactive for some of these offenses."

http://bebopper76.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/proposition-35-all-sex-is-now-called-human-trafficking/

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12517-californias-prop-35-targeting-the-wrong-people-for-the-wrong-reasons

[Dweller201]

I've been, just recently, following this proposed law and find it to be bizarre, especially for California.

The state has a giant porn industry and an immense escort industry barely below the surface. So, I'd think the next step there would be to legalize everything in the sex industry. There's also a proposal to make porn actors wear condoms. Technically, porn is an "art form" because the actors are acting and not classified as prostitutes, so a law designed to force behavior in an art is unheard of, and again in California, home of acting, it's a bizarre move.

I'd like to know who is behind these proposed laws. Is it religious people, or is it the result of the force of the sex industry there driving some people over the edge?

I'm also amazed at the fractured, disconnected, and unrealistic culture (if you can call it that) of our country. In Nevada, prostitution is legal, and I've heard of no horror stories, but that success is ignored. The people proposing this in Cali believe their situation is akin to slavery, but somehow that doesn't apply to people in another part of the same country.

I feel like I'm living in ancient Greece with many city states that don't really get along, which implies America is a failure.

Or filled with morons, I can't decide which.

If it does pass, then Cali will be gutted, regarding this fact of life, and it will simply move elsewhere.

[WheelMan]

Prop 35 did pass. The SF Chronicle noted there was no formal organization in opposition. The ACLU and the Erotic Service Providers Legal, Educational and Research Project took anti- positions on the matter.

The Chronicle's summary of the proposition was rather less alarming than the OP above, not that that means anything.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Prop-35-Trafficking-measure-passes-4014911.php#ixzz2BXLsIC4J

[Nightrain]

The surreal part is where they say, these trafficking laws could be used against prostitutes who enter the profession of their own volition. :eek:

[Bit Banger]

The surreal part is where they say, these trafficking laws could be used against prostitutes who enter the profession of their own volition. :eek:

From their perspective, what woman would even consider becoming a whore (prejorative used to reflect their viewpoint) of her own volition?

She MUST have been forced into it by somebody else! Therefore it's trafficking.

[Dweller201]

From their perspective, what woman would even consider becoming a whore (prejorative used to reflect their viewpoint) of her own volition?

She MUST have been forced into it by somebody else! Therefore it's trafficking.

That's the view I'm seeing which is dangerous for everyone who does chose to enter into the profession. It's extremely naive to assume that women do not want to sell sex and that they're automatically being exploited when they do so.

The notion adds this "romance" to sex which for billions of people is seen more as a bodily function than a sacred act. There's many people who chose to sell their body for all types of labor and sex is objectively no different. That is, unless it is by force, then that's slavery no matter what the person is doing. Slavery should be prosecuted but it needs to be proven.

I've known many women who have gotten into the sex trade and almost always they're trying to pay for something. It could be to support a kid, to pay for college, etc and so that IS a form of coercion, but it's the same economic force that effects many of us. Has California passed measures to support people in the sex trade financially, I'm going to say no. Thus, this law is a reaction and a shotgun measure at that.

I'd like to read the law and see exactly what it says and how dangerous it is for everyone before drawing more conclusions. If it is dangerous then everyone in the Cali sex trade needs to start campaigning for legalized prostitution to avoid stiff punishments.

[Bethanie]

That's the view I'm seeing which is dangerous for everyone who does chose to enter into the profession. It's extremely naive to assume that women do not want to sell sex and that they're automatically being exploited when they do so.

The notion adds this "romance" to sex which for billions of people is seen more as a bodily function than a sacred act. There's many people who chose to sell their body for all types of labor and sex is objectively no different. That is, unless it is by force, then that's slavery no matter what the person is doing. Slavery should be prosecuted but it needs to be proven.

I've known many women who have gotten into the sex trade and almost always they're trying to pay for something. It could be to support a kid, to pay for college, etc and so that IS a form of coercion, but it's the same economic force that effects many of us. Has California passed measures to support people in the sex trade financially, I'm going to say no. Thus, this law is a reaction and a shotgun measure at that.

I'd like to read the law and see exactly what it says and how dangerous it is for everyone before drawing more conclusions. If it is dangerous then everyone in the Cali sex trade needs to start campaigning for legalized prostitution to avoid stiff punishments.

Trafficking is real and it is very sad. Prostitution is harmless minus coercion but coercion is often hard to prove and thus laws stay on the books to assist with enforcement and prosecution.

IMO when everyone is 25 and over there is maybe less attention to trafficking issues as being a possibility

[WheelMan]

Here's a good discussion of Prop 35, with some good links. Scroll past item 1 (not relevant to prop 35, but may also be of interest to this forum).

http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/DCForumID14/51547.html

[Dweller201]

Trafficking is real and it is very sad. Prostitution is harmless minus coercion but coercion is often hard to prove and thus laws stay on the books to assist with enforcement and prosecution.

IMO when everyone is 25 and over there is maybe less attention to trafficking issues as being a possibility

I'm aware about trafficking. It was a problem, only during election years, in Philly with Korean massage parlors. The women were frequently indentured servants. The gimmick was their "employer" paid their way to the US and they worked the debt off via the massage parlor. On top of that they were illegal aliens so it was a no win situation, and that's just a complex type of slavery.

It's totally different than a woman who decided to strike out on her own and do whatever with consenting adults for a fee. There are likely economic pressures behind the choice, but those aren't different than most people are subject to, so there is no specific person enslaving the woman, as I mentioned. In addition, I think it's "hilarious", in a pathetic way, that people think having sex is some form of oppression.

If they want to stop trafficking then they need to legalize prostitution just as they did in CO with [Prop 64]. If you want to bust a criminal black market for good, then destroy the criminal aspect of it.

It annoys the hell out of me that there's countless massage parlors around, everyone knows what they are, yet pretends they don't, so who knows what situation is going on there? Make it legal and then trafficking and the female exploitation will end because we will know.

Everyone in the industry will benefit from having an infrastructure behind them. I can only imagine how tough it is to go it alone, as you guys do.

It is always the case that when you make something people enjoy doing illegal, and then more illegal, it just gets driven further underground and it become more dangerous and corrupt.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Mace

[N6_in_the_village]

Thanks for bringing this California proposition (which unfortunately was approved) to attention of the board. Here is a link to a useful "No on Prop 35" site, which contains many links and quotations explaining why this new law:

- is poorly written

- blurs the distinction between victims of human trafficking and voluntary sex workers

- may harm rather than help both victims and voluntary sex workers

http://www.againstthecaseact.com/

[Dweller201]

Thanks for bringing this California proposition (which unfortunately was approved) to attention of the board. Here is a link to a useful "No on Prop 35" site, which contains many links and quotations explaining why this new law:

- is poorly written

- blurs the distinction between victims of human trafficking and voluntary sex workers

- may harm rather than help both victims and voluntary sex workers

http://www.againstthecaseact.com/

My bet is that the law comes from the idea there are no voluntary "sex workers" and is an attempt to sweep an underground economy. A long time ago I used to think that, for whatever reason, past trauma, economics, etc there was no such thing as a voluntary sex worker. Obviously, I no longer believe that, but I understand it.

Currently, the term "sex worker" is kind of delusional since the activities aren't really considered "work" by the law. It just sounds like criminals or deranged people using a euphemism for something bad. The solution is what I've been saying, which is for people who enjoy the work and are mentally pretty normal to publicly advocate for freedom.

That should be easier than we all think because when you remove the social taboos, people are just doing the simplest things. It's wacky that there's laws about selling sex since all of it comes from "you" and it's not like drugs, etc that can be dangerous products. Sex is not a product.