Model Letter- Protest Federalizing, Expanding Prostitution Criminalization
(Dave notes I totally support - although I think it could be pointed out
that at least outcall is legal in almost all the world except the U.S. with
no real issues and relate it to in private consenting adults)
)
Please send to your Senator and distribute widely! The model letter is attached.
Below is the cover letter :
Dear Sex Worker Supporters,
Sex Workers Outreach Project-Northern California and the US PROStitutes
Collective have joined together to oppose changes in the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007 (TVPRA H.R.3877).
On December 4, 2007 the Bill was passed in the United States House of
Representatives with 405 ayes and 2 nays and it is now before the US Senate.
As you may know, concern about trafficking is being exploited to promote
a moralistic and dangerous crusade against prostitution - a crusade we
are determined to stop.
H.R. 3887 has two very problematic aspects: 1) It would allow the Department
of Justice to prosecute traffickers without having to prove "fraud, force
or coercion", or a victim's status as a minor. 2) It adds an amendment
to the discredited 1910 Mann Act which prohibits interstate transportation
of women for 'immoral purposes' so that if a person 'induces or entices'
any individual to engage in prostitution or attempts to do so, they can
be charged with the new offence of 'sex trafficking' and imprisoned for
up to 10 years.
We know from speaking to politicians who have been lobbied that the campaign
for this legislation is a determined one which is having some success.
It is being presented as a progressive change. Congresswoman Carolyn B.
Maloney (D-Manhattan, Queens), co-chair of the Congressional Human Trafficking
Caucus and co-author of H.R. 3887 said recently "By eliminating the need
to prove force, fraud, or coercion except to obtain enhanced penalties,
prosecutors will have a more effective way to crack down on traffickers."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Sex workers and our friends and
family will be pursued as easy targets and criminalized under this law
whilst the real traffickers will go free.
Please urgently send your own letter, or the enclosed form letter, to
your Senator and encourage them to vote against H.R. 3887. If you don't
know who your Senator is or how to contact them please click here and
follow the directions:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
More info:
http://www.bayswan.org/traffick/HR3887.html
http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1582/49/
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3887&tab=summary
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h3887/show
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110rVUxT3: :
Robyn Few, SWOP-USA
Model letter
The Honorable____________
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Re: HR 3887 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act of 2007
Dear Senator_________________ ,
As you are aware, many people are justifiably concerned about people trafficked
into sweat shops, farms, the sex industry and elsewhere. But proposed
amendments to HR 3887, currently in the Senate, which reauthorizes the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by amending the Mann Act will
make it more difficult to investigate and prosecute serious cases involving
violence and coercion while providing no extra protection to victims.
These amendments to the Mann Act say that if someone 'induces or entices'
any individual to engage in prostitution or attempts to do so, they can
be charged with the new offence of 'sex trafficking' and imprisoned for
up to 10 years. No proof of 'force, coercion and fraud' is needed to prosecute
cases. This is so broad as to potentially criminalize anyone peripherally
involved in helping someone practicing prostitution in another state.
This change is premised on the claim that all prostitution is coerced.
Sex workers, like everyone, have always distinguished between the sex
they consent to (for money or not) and rape. While many may prefer another
job, they also point to the fact that sex work is often better paid than
most of the low-waged jobs women do.
Fraud, coercion and deception are already part of the TVPA. Existing laws
of abduction, kidnapping, false imprisonment, rape, grievous bodily harm
and extortion can also be used.
These changes will:
1) Create an impractically large class of people under the jurisdiction
of federal sex trafficking/ prostitution law enforcement, even when they
consensually exchange sexual services for money;
2) Divert needed resources and attention away from very real cases of
trafficking which involve coercion, force and violence. The millions of
dollars designated for the TVPA to go after violent assailants of women
and children will be instead used to go after sex workers;
3) Put more power to arrest and prosecute people in the hands of Federal
agencies who are unaware of local issues rather than State authorities.
There is now considerable evidence to show that figures on the number
of trafficking victims are inaccurate and inflated. This legislative change
which makes no distinction between genuine victims and those working independently
in the sex industry would artificially inflate the figures further.
We urge you to vote against these changes to H.R. 3887, which would dangerously
undermine efforts to combat serious trafficking by conflating trafficking
with prostitution.
With warmest regards,
Me
1234 any avenue
Anytown, USA 12345
3/5/08 Federal Anti- Prostitution Act Update
In 2007 at http://www.sexwork.com/legal/Fedlaw.html
and on various boards and the Private List I encouraged a mass letter
writing campaign to House members against the definition of "trafficking"
in HR 3887 which includes in private consenting adults vs. "coerced" prostitution
which is defined as "extreme trafficking". I assumed it would be quickly
passed in the Senate like the House and signed by Bush so I gave up.
However I am in discussion with Carol Leigh (who was the first to use
the term sexwork decades ago). I just discovered it has not yet even been
introduced in the Senate.
Carol's site at
http://www.bayswan.org/traffick/HR3887.html#1
has GREAT letters that express my concern about the definition and as
I had reported even the DOJ and Police Officer groups are against using
Federal laws to enforce what should be local only prostitution laws for
consenting adult prostitution (which is included in the "trafficking"
definition.) The bad definition refers back to the definitions in the
original section 103(9) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000
(22 U.S.C. 7102(9))
As I reported Aussie Amber who visited Phoenix and was on the Private
List, husband was busted under the old act with the same trafficking definition
which includes all prostitution. Amber only faced a misdemeanor but her
husband faced a Federal Felony since helping her with the phones is "trafficking".
He faced 20 years in Federal prison. I had tried to contact them at the
time with no success.
The good news is the FUNDING expired at the end of 2007 which is the reason
for HR 3887 which passed in December to extend the funding (to authorize
appropriations) for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 for the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act of 2000. But again it has not yet been introduced
in the Senate but could be at any time.
The bottom line is if the good argument made against the Federalizing
"consenting adult prostitution" it hopefully will delay or kill it. If
the Senate amends it to change the definition (they should remove the
trafficking definition and only have it apply to "extreme trafficking"
which is coerced, it than faces a conference committee.
Hopefully the Senate will not just ignore the arguments and just pass
it - since its against "trafficking" - without realizing the issues. Sadly
it passed quickly in the House but I wonder if House members realized
the details that applied to in private consenting adults being included
in the "trafficking" definition.
Other aspects of HR 3887 against coerced "severe trafficking" and against
child sex I support of course. Although there are already laws to deal
with that such as kidnapping etc.
12/9/07 UPDATE ON: Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
of 2007
A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008 through 2011
for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, to enhance measures
to combat trafficking in persons, and for other purposes.
My letter faxed to Tom Lantos, its sponsor and others is shown below.
I also have been in e-mail exchanges with Robyn Few founder of SWOP. While
we disagree on the street hooker issue, we certainly are in agreement
in fighting this law and have had good e-mail discussions and some of
my response has gone out on the SWOP mailing lists.
As Robyn pointed out, beyond my issue that in private consenting adult
prostitution is included in the trafficking definition so the FEDS can
continue to enforce and provide funding for going after sexworkers when
there is no force or coercion involved the Amendments also could be argued
to include all Internet dialog, website etc that crosses state lines (all
do). This is an expansion of the Mann Act. This could be used
against even CragsList, all the sexworker boards, even the Private List
if it has anyone getting it in another state. Federal crime promoting
trafficking (even if consenting adults in private) with up to 20 years
in prison
As SWOP said in there press release:" Even the Dept. of Justice is squawking
at this one. With limited resources to enforce laws prohibiting coercion
and trafficking in women and children as it is, this amendment which will
basically affect the medium in which consenting adults communicate gives
new meaning to the long arm of the law." .
SWOP also has pointed out that the language should be similar to the California
Trafficking Protection Act, which only applies to forced or underage acts.
It is surprising that Tom Lantos is sponsoring this as he has a record
in support of individual civil rights, including gay rights.
Reporting on a SWOP press conference in the front of Latos's office
in CA, Robyn says: "I agree that Lantos is not the enemy. SWOP did
not attack him but we did say that we did not agree with amendments to
the Mann Act and that we want the trafficking definition to be the same
as in the California Trafficking Protection Act. I talked about creating
more felons from the sex industry and keeping commercial prostitution
a states rights issue. Maxine and Lisa went up and spoke with his aide
and she was very cordial and took notes. Max asked if they could testify
in Congress. We had planned on doing this at the federal building but
decided to go to Lantos because he is the sponsor.
THE RESULT (SADLY):
Dec 4, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll
call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate
short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. The totals were
405 Ayes, 2 Nays, 24 Present/Not Voting.
There is a companion bill in the Senate which I suspect will get approved
quickly with overwhelming support. I wonder how many Congresspeople
realize that "trafficking" is not limited under the law to forced or coerced
like most people think of when they hear all the overblown hype about
"trafficking".
All these trafficked people that are forced, it seems are almost no where
to be found according to the government data which shows the huge numbers
quoted for the original 2000 Act justification can't be found. But
it gives local LE as well as the Feds more ammo and excuses to go after
in private consenting adults since they are committing Federal Crimes
under the Act.
Oh Canada! And most of the rest of the world that respects private sexual
rights and in private consenting adult sexwork choices.
More info from e-mail to Dave from an informed person:
Dear David:
Norman did his thing this afternoon and he found that the trafficking
bill HR 3887 has already passed the House and is in the Senate Judiciary
Committee where Senator Schumer is a member. I contacted his office but
no answers so far. I have a hunch it is a done deal and the Senate will
just rubber stamp it and it will become law in March 2008.
Norman found the rhetoric given by various people to the House to encourage
passage. I sent the text to you already and it contains a passage where
Carolyn Maloney discusses .... as a villain. I take note that she has
toned down her words from previous years but the implications are still
obvious. While she is on the floor of the House she can say anything she
wants too as the truth can take a holiday. Last year on cable TV she said
words that should cost her dearly someday.
As you can see from the text of the Congressional Record the rhetoric
is very strong and very determined to wipe out all forms of sex between
men and women, There is no room for consensual or compromise. I still
need to see if I can get to Jerry Nadler (Representative of the 8th District
of New York) ,and his staff. Maybe we can effect a change.
On to the Senate and then to Bush who will obviously sign it into law
Highlights of e-mail 12/9/07:
Dear Dave..
...I e-mailed Sen. Chuck Schumer, a member of the Judiciary Committee
now considering the trafficking bill. I raised seven objections: jurisdiction,
vague language, the mischaracterization of consensual conduct as trafficking,
the misplaced emphasis on sex when sweatshop abuses are far more prevalent,
the ulterior motives of proponents as way beyond human rights, the harmful
effects of moralism on our foreign relations, and law enforcement abuses
and absurdities.
I pointed out that the State Department's anti-trafficking office has
flunked the last two GAO audits on its statistics gathering, that President
Bush has used these anti-sex campaigns as a sop to the Christian Right
to divert attention from his embrace of the business sector engaged in
very un-Christian greed and con games,...
Congressional Record Brief Highlights of Carolyn Maloney testimony
...although we passed the constitutional amendment against slavery in
1865, slavery still exists, not just in the world, but in the United States
of America...A young woman, who couldn't even use her real name in the
committee, told about the trafficking of human beings inside of America,
in the City of Detroit, where this club was using her to commit all kinds
of acts and raise huge amounts of money at the same time. As one of the
television shows on NBC showed yesterday morning, guess what? There is
more money being taken out of prostitution in America than in the drug
industry. Drugs come number two to prostitution and involuntary servitude.
(Dave notes this was the Cheetahs strip club in Detroit where it seems
forced to work by organized crime. This is about kidnapping not prostitution!
Yes go after forced prostitution but the Act makes promoting all prostitution
a Federal Crime)
... This is what brings all of us to the floor today. I am very proud
of these two committees in the House that are dealing with new enforcement
tools to combat modern-day slavery, whether the exploitation is by unscrupulous
labor recruiters, by diplomats who abuse their services, or by brutal
street pimps who coerce and keep under their domain these women, young
women, at that.
... And the crime entitled ``sex trafficking'' improves the Mann Act to
allow prosecution of pimps whose activities affect interstate commerce,
not just those who actually cross a State line.
...This bill is named in honor of William Wilberforce, the famous English
antislavery legislator of the Nineteenth Century.
The Congressional Record goes on and on with more speakers about the slavery
nature of human trafficking related to prostitution in the U.S. and abroad.
There is no discussion or acknowledgement that their could be consensual
freely chosen prostitution - just the horrors of slavery and forced prostitution.
I support laws against forced prostitution, aka kidnapping which is already
a Federal Felony. But the Act in its definition of trafficking includes
all prostitution with a 20 year prison term. If "forced" its extreme trafficking
with up to 40 year in prison. The law should only cover "forced" as probably
most in Congress think it does, who haven't read the definitions in the
original 2000 Act this rereauthorizes and funds for 3 more years.
Update 12/3/07
IMPORTANT Opportunity to Change Federal Law
(see earlier articles below for background)
Trying to get a message to California Rep Tom Lantos the Sponsor
I attempted to send this response to Tom Lantos via is reply on his website.
But it is rejected since I don't have a CA zipcode!
I have faxed the following to his DC office and encourage others to express
their views:
On Liberated Christians Letterhead on 12/3/07
Memo to: The Honorable Tom Lantos
FAX: 202-226-4183 & 650-375-8270
Re: H.R. 3887: William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act of 2007
Since this Act doesn't change the definition of the original 2000 Act,
do you realize that the definition of trafficking includes all prostitution
including consenting, in private, adult prostitution? This is legal in
almost all the world except the U.S. (at least outcall).
In the original 2000 Act the definition of "severe trafficking" is "forced".
But “trafficking” includes consensual adults. HR 3887 mostly enforces
"trafficking" with it’s help and study of for non existent victims (of
adult consensual) included in “trafficking”. It would seem to not help
at all victims of "severe trafficking" because it only says “trafficking”
(consensual) (Dave notes re reading this a few days later it is confusing
and since trafficking includes both consensual and forced I could have
worded this better)
Reference
Definitions (refers back to the definitions in the original section 103(9)
of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9))
which says:
SEX TRAFFICKER.—The term ‘‘sex trafficker’’ means any person who, for
financial gain, recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains a
person for the purpose of using them for unlawful commercial sex acts.
SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING - "Severe" means if by force, fraud or coercion.
The solution is easy. Amend the definition in the 2000 Act of trafficking
and make it the definition contained in severe trafficking which is forced.
The you can delete everywhere the word "severe" since that is the only
form of trafficking, Result is no money wasted on Federal enforcement
of consensual adult prostitution.
Taxpayers in many polls do not want their tax dollars going toward arresting
in private consenting adult sex acts. Further it may be unconstitutional
under the Lawrence vs. Texas Supreme Court case.
Since you are so strong on other civil liberties issues, especially the
rights for gays etc I don't see how you support Federal enforcement of
private consenting adult sex acts.
It is a huge waste of public resource, police, federal agents, the courts
and prosecutors to go after in private consenting adult prostitution vs.
real criminals committing crimes that have real victims. The vast majority
of prostitution is not exploitive. Yes, forced trafficking as with the
2007 Rhode Island law should be illegal and use public resources to fight
trafficking that has real victims, not consenting private adult prostitution
that is included in the current Trafficking Act that is trying to be reauthorized.
I have prepared much more research and arguments against the Act related
to changes needed in the 2000 Act and various other points at http://sexwork.com/legal/Fedlaw.html
While I am not in California I have been an active national consenting
adult sexual rights advocate for decades and you are the sponsor of this
bill
Dave in Phoenix
Promoting Intimacy and Positive adult sexuality
www.sexwork.com
www.lovetouch.com
www.sexworkcanada.com (with the freedoms we lack)
www.libchrist.com - no issue biblically with "common" consenting adult
prostitution - not the temple prostitutes worshiping the fertility gods
- idolatry the sin not prostitution
Co-sponsors:
Dave notes I encourage folks to send letters, e-mails or copy this to
the other co-sponsors which I at least can't e-mail since most have sites
that reject out of state e-mails: Over the next few days I will try and
send similar e-mails to their fax numbers. But hearing from more than
just me - not even in their state- is more effective but can use my letter
above if you wish or just support it by quoting it to them.
Fax phones are easy to find at
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt
See Congressional Directory and select letter of last name to narrow it
down or use their name. I am sending both to their DC office and local
office. They also list phone numbers if any one wants to call them and
talk to staff.
- Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
- Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN]
- Rep. Steven Chabot [R-OH]
- Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]
- Rep. Thelma Drake [R-VA]
- Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R-NE]
- Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
- Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
- Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
- Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY]
|
- Rep. George Miller [D-CA]
- Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
- Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ]
- Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA]
- Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
- Rep. Albio Sires [D-NJ]
- Rep. Christopher Smith [R-NJ]
- Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA]
- Rep. Frank Wolf [R-VA]
|
|
|
In addition and would be useful to send to your local representative
and Senator Address and faxes at on site listed above.
If the bill passes the House, then we have to communicate more with the
Senate sponsors. But there may not be much time. There is a companion
Senate bill but the House PROBABLY has to pass first since its a spending
not a revenue bill.
Civics lesson:
In accordance with the Constitution, the Senate cannot originate revenue
measures. By tradition, the House also originates general appropriation
bills. If the Senate does originate a revenue measure either as a Senate
bill or an amendment to a non-revenue House bill, it can be returned to
the Senate by a vote of the House as an infringement of the constitutional
prerogative of the House.
Dave notes:
I doubt that very many in Congress even realize the two definitions. I
bet if they realized it uses Fed funds for private consenting adult sexwork
that it would have the support.
But again, I bet few realize this difference since "trafficking" sounds
so bad and implies forced but that is not the definition in the Act which
includes consenting.
IMPORTANT Opportunity to Change Federal Law
Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9))
that was reauthorized in 2005 but for which funding expires after 2007
the DEFINITION of trafficker includes ALL prostitution not just forced!
Funding expires at the end of 2007. The Act is up for reauthorizaation
now under the current Anti-Human Trafficking Bill which many in Congress
are trying to get passed by the end of the year.
If it was forced it was "Severe Forms" with higher penalties. But aiding
consenting private adult prostitution like Aussie Amber's husband was
charged with for setting up appointments for her results in 20 years in
prison even if not forced, but consenting. To me the most important thing
is to get the definition changed to forced like Rhode Island did in June
2007
I have extensive info on the 2005 Reauthorization Act at
http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/Federallaw2005.html
The details of the Rhode Island new law where trafficking only includes
forced into prostitution is at
http://www.sexwork.com/legal/RhodeIsland.html
Here is the definition problem from the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act
Definitions (refers back to the definitions in the original section 103(9)
of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9))
which says:
SEX TRAFFICKER.—The term ‘‘sex trafficker’’ means any person who, for
financial gain, recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains a
person for the purpose of using them for unlawful commercial sex acts.
SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING - "Severe" means if by force, fraud or coercion.
But non "severe" trafficking does not require any coercion, i.e. consenting
adult sexworkers.
The sex trafficker definition includes the massage parlor owner the escort
agency owner regardless if its consenting private adult sexwork that is
not the exploitative relationship the world "sex trafficker" implies.
Aussie Amber's husband was charged with this just for helping wife answer
phones and set up appointments when touring the U.S. My discussion of
the law and Aussie Amber is at
http://www.sexwork.com/legal/TraffickingLaw.html
Consensual in private sexwork as a choice is legal (at least outcall)
in almost all the world except the U.S. It is a choice for example of
millions of college educated women who choose private consenting adult
private sexwork. See
http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/whatcountrieslegal.html
What's more the law against private consenting adult sexuality may be
unconstitutional under Lawrence vs Texas -see
http://www.sexwork.com/legal/LawrencevsTexas.html
The Supreme Court said laws can not be based on religious morality nor
take away the sexual freedoms of consenting adults in their private place
(which is what outcall prostitution is)
This issue is far more important than the Mann Act changes, which we should
also fight!
It is a huge waste of public resource, police, federal agents, the courts
and prosecutors to go after in private consenting adult prostitution vs
real criminals committing crimes that have real victims. The vast majority
of prostitution is not exploitive. Yes forced trafficking as the new Rhode
Island law should be illegal and use public resources to fight trafficking
that has real victims, not consenting private adult prostitution that
is included in the current Trafficking Act that is trying to be reauthorized.
Prostitution between consenting adults is not trafficking and it is not
slavery no matter how much the religious groups and anti-sex feminists
have sensationalized and lied about it. Even in biblical times "common"
prostitution was never wrong - see
http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/christian.html
As one escorts signature line says:
Happy escorts make happy clients.
Happy clients make a happy business.
A happy business makes a happy life.
A happy life is a good life.
---
As Ivy says what she enjoys the most of escorting (outcall prostitution);
Re: The Top Things I Like About Escorting
November 26, 2007, 12:25:03 AM »
I like a variety of things.
1. The freedom. Freedom in several ways. The freedom of having my own
money. Being able to choose who to see. Being able to set my own hours.
The freedom to explore sexuality. Hmm, perhaps I should elaborate more
about freedom in a future column. I feel inspired!
2. Meeting new people. In spite of my shyness, I'm a people person.
3. Having to be the aggressor at times with newbies who are also shy has
lowered my shyness. I used to be very shy, almost painfully. I like that
it has greatly dissipated.
4. The money. That is given. However, I'm able to make money doing something
I enjoy. Not all people can say that.
5. Helping people. Granted, satisfying a person's sexual needs is helpful.
But, at times, some people also like being able to talk. Someone to just
listen to them, and what not. I love it when not only sexual needs are
met, but other need has been fulfilled, to some degree.
===============================================
Anti-Human Trafficking Bill Would Send FBI Agents on Trail of Pimps
Washington Post November 29, 2007; A05
Local vice police officers, who for decades have led the law-enforcement
crackdown on prostitution, could soon have unwilling partners: FBI agents.
The Justice Department is fighting legislation that would expand federal
law to cover prostitution cases, saying that the move would divert agents
from human trafficking crimes. Although local police still would handle
the vast majority of cases, Justice officials said the law's passage would
force them to bring cases in federal courts as well.
Some anti-trafficking activists and members of Congress say the federal
government should be involved in policing prostitution. Prostitution is
a social evil, they say, and increased law enforcement can only help the
campaign against it. "It's mind-boggling that the Justice Department would
be fighting" the bill, said Dorchen Leidholdt, a founding board member
of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, an activist group pushing
the change. "They have the power to pick and choose the cases they want
to prosecute. They don't have to prosecute local pimps if they don't want
to."
The new provision is part of a bill reauthorizing the federal human trafficking
statute, which passed Congress in 2000 and helped trigger a worldwide
fight against what many consider modern-day slavery. The House Foreign
Affairs Committee this month approved the legislation, which has bipartisan
support and is expected to be taken up by the full House next week. Its
prospects in the Senate are unclear.
The battle against trafficking is a major priority for the Bush administration,
which is attacking it with 10 federal agencies reporting to a Cabinet-level
task force chaired by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But there has
been heated debate, even among the dozens of organizations fighting trafficking
in the United States, over whether prostitutes should be considered trafficking
victims.
Federal officials define trafficking as holding someone in a workplace
through force, fraud or coercion, elements that are required to prove
a trafficking case under federal law, other than in cases involving minors.
Trafficking generally takes two forms, forced sex or labor. But some activists
argue that all prostitutes, even those not forced to turn tricks, should
be defined as trafficking victims and their pimps subject to federal prosecution.
(Dave notes READ THE 2000 ACT that has been reauthorized in 2005 - It
does just this)
The debate over the bill comes amid broader questions over how many victims
are trafficked into the United States. The government estimated in 1999
that about 50,000 slaves were arriving in the country every year. That
estimate was revised downward in 2004 to 14,500 to 17,500 a year. Yet
since 2000, and despite 42 Justice Department task forces and more than
$150 million in federal dollars to find them, about 1,400 people have
been certified as human trafficking victims in this country, a tiny fraction
of the original estimates. The House legislation cites the government's
current estimate of up to 17,500 victims a year, but the Justice Department,
in a Nov. 9 letter to congressional leaders, "questions the reliability"
of the numbers. "Such findings, without a full body of evidence, are counter-productive,"
the letter says.
The letter also expresses opposition to the provision that Justice officials
said would expand federal jurisdiction to cover prostitution offenses,
which the department calls unnecessary and "a diversion from Federal law
enforcement's core anti-trafficking mission." A senior Justice official,
who was not authorized to speak for the record, reiterated the department's
opposition yesterday. "Prostitution is abhorrent, but state and local
law enforcement officials already do an excellent job fighting it," he
said.
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said yesterday that she strongly supports
the bill. "We want to crack down on sex trafficking, and DOJ can allocate
its resources to go after the most serious cases," she said. But Jack
McDevitt, an associate dean in Northeastern University's College of Criminal
Justice, who has studied local law enforcement's response to trafficking,
said the Justice Department's concerns are warranted.
"Cases in local prostitution and pimping are better handled by local law
enforcement, which have the contacts in the community and are going to
find more intelligence about these crimes," he said. "Every major police
department in the United States has had a vice unit for the past 50 years."
===============================================
Draft of suggested letter to your Congress person and others
Re: Anti-Human Trafficking Bill
Summary
While I totally support strong laws against coerced human trafficking
in prostitution I am appalled that the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act of 2000 which this Bill seeks to reauthorize (as did the 2005 Reauthorization
Act for 2 years) includes in its definition of trafficking, in private
consenting adult prostitution. This is a huge waste of public resources
to go after what is legal in almost all the world except the U.S., consenting
adult private prostitution.
Taxpayers in many polls do not want their tax dollars going toward arresting
in private consenting adult sex acts. Further it may be unconstitutional
under the Lawrence vs. Texas Supreme Court case.
Unless the current Bill changes the definition of trafficking from the
original 2000 Act, only "severe trafficking" is coerced.
Definitions (refers back to the definitions in the original section 103(9)
of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9))
which says:
SEX TRAFFICKER.—The term ‘‘sex trafficker’’ means any person who, for
financial gain, recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains a
person for the purpose of using them for unlawful commercial sex acts.
SEVERE FORMS OF TRAFFICKING - "Severe" means if by force, fraud or coercion.
Therefore consenting adult private prostitution is covered with penalties
up to 20 years in prison vs harsher penalties if "severe"
This is outrageous for the millions of adult sexworkers that freely choose
private prostitution as a career in forms that are legal in almost all
the world except the U.S. We are denied the sexual freedoms that most
of the world enjoys. Hopefully you will oppose this act or be sure the
definitions are rewritten to only oppose forced or coerced prostitution.
Extensive background and discussion
(I would include all the points from above before the Washington Post
article, if some staffer wants to really understand the background and
what we are talking about).
|