I'm on vacation (and thus this is unedited), but had this article forwarded to me and wanted to make a comparison. Human Trafficking is a serious problem throughout much of the world, in particular Asia and the Middle-East. Stories of people, mostly women, enslaved to work in garment factories, rice fields, brick factories, brothels, and homes are excruciating to read. They are most often not allowed to leave the premise. They are told that if they are disobedient in any way that they will be punished or their family will be. In many countries, such as Thailand, the police and other authorities are of little or no help as they are paid bribes to assist the slave masters and indeed, in some areas this type of slavery is considered socially acceptable.
When International Justice Mission (IJM) is prevented from putting up advertisements with a message to people who might be enslaved that they can contact IJM for help, Americans rightly go ballistic. The Brad Pitt's and Angelina Jolie's of Hollywood, the elected folk in Washington, and others scream about the lack of freedom of speech and how horrible these people are who do not want to help those enslaved.
Yet here in the U.S. this happens and what do we do? If someone plastered bus ads all over telling people that if they were enslaved in a Christian organization and couldn't leave for fear of harm that here was someone who could help, I'd not be offended in the least. So, why are these SIOA bus ads offensive? We know from a number of cases in the U.S. in just the past year that some number Muslims are held hostage, eg, enslaved, under threats of death. Why does Miami-Dade Transit not want to help these people escape?
If I wanted to put up an identical ad, though trying to reach women enslaved and forced to work as prostitutes in Miami, would that be deemed offensive to pimps who enslave these women and thus not allowed on Miami-Dade buses? If it said:
Threat over your head? Leaving Prostitution? RefugeFromProstitution.com
What third world is Miami-Dade becoming?
Showing posts with label decriminalize prostitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label decriminalize prostitution. Show all posts
Friday, April 16, 2010
Monday, December 8, 2008
Amsterdam: Messing up a good thing?
Recent news of Amsterdam’s plans to close a number of brothels and coffeeshops (that sell pot) in the central district raise some interesting questions. Their purpose according to the plan is to clean up the unappealing aspects of their city center to make it more appealing to tourists and clamp down on organized crime.
The Netherlands, and Amsterdam in particular, have for decades been known for their very open tolerance towards personal vices that many other countries have, over the past 90 to 100 years, tried various prohibitions against. Many people, particularly religious groups, have been very vocal in criticizing these policies and have for years put pressure on The Netherlands to repeal these policies and institute prohibitions.
The standard critiques have been that The Netherlands policies promote human trafficking and drug use among teens and others.
As far as drug use The Netherlands is actually below average. According to a UNICEF study of OECD countries conducted in 2007 about 21% of 11 – 15 year olds in the Netherlands had smoked pot in the past year while 31% of these kids in the US have. 35% of this age group in the UK have and 40% in Canada. The Netherlands scores equally well or better in other studies. It would appear that the coffeeshops may actually have a bit of a deterrent effect. This sometimes attributed to Dutch teens seeing people stoned in coffeeshops and finding it unappealing or the knowledge that they can always try it later if they want so there’s no need to rush to do it ‘while I have the opportunity’.
On the prostitution front the city’s plans to close down some brothels is even more interesting. Every study I have read on the harmful impacts of prostitution in The Netherlands indicates that The Netherlands has far fewer problems than other countries. Numerous studies by DSP- Groep, WODC, Regioplan Beleidsonderzoek, and Intraval have found extremely low incidences of human trafficking and underage prostitution. Across a broad spectrum of other issues these reports say that continuing the current policy of legal and open prostitution is far superior to the problems caused by prohibition.
Some, including Saint Augustin and Saint Thomas Aquinas, believe that legal prostitution is necessary to reduce problems of rape. Per capita The Netherlands has about 9 rapes per 100,000 people while the US has 33 per 100,000 (all OECD countries with legal prostitution average 11.3). Since Sweden criminalized prostitution in 1999 their incidences of rape have increased twofold. Will this clamping down also ratchet up rapes in The Netherlands?
The authorities in The Netherlands want to trade in a real society that has very few social problems for a veneer that they think will be more appealing to tourists. They want their city center to look better and cleaner and they’re willing to risk their very successful and strong social fabric to do it.
One of the more perplexing aspects of this plan is that Amsterdam is already one of the top tourists spots in the world, particularly relative to its size. People come not just because of the coffeeshops and prostitution, which is for better or worse a popular draw, and not just because of other equally or more popular attractions such as Amsterdam’s architecture and museums or the Anne Frank House. People come to see a society that has so very successfully integrated all of these things. As one travel agent pointed out to me this morning, take away the intriguing Red Light Districts and Coffeeshops and Amsterdam will become second fiddle to a number of other popular tourist cities.
Will a 22% reduction in coffeeshops, which is the plan, reduce or eliminate the apparently positive impact on illicit drug use among Dutch teens? Will clamping down on legal prostitution drive more of the industry underground and increase human trafficking and underage prostitution?
I'm in no way a supporter of prostitution or illicit drug use, but I do believe in a certain level of pragmatism, especially when the harms of policies such as social prohibitions are so detrimental to societies.
Stay Tuned…
The Netherlands, and Amsterdam in particular, have for decades been known for their very open tolerance towards personal vices that many other countries have, over the past 90 to 100 years, tried various prohibitions against. Many people, particularly religious groups, have been very vocal in criticizing these policies and have for years put pressure on The Netherlands to repeal these policies and institute prohibitions.
The standard critiques have been that The Netherlands policies promote human trafficking and drug use among teens and others.
As far as drug use The Netherlands is actually below average. According to a UNICEF study of OECD countries conducted in 2007 about 21% of 11 – 15 year olds in the Netherlands had smoked pot in the past year while 31% of these kids in the US have. 35% of this age group in the UK have and 40% in Canada. The Netherlands scores equally well or better in other studies. It would appear that the coffeeshops may actually have a bit of a deterrent effect. This sometimes attributed to Dutch teens seeing people stoned in coffeeshops and finding it unappealing or the knowledge that they can always try it later if they want so there’s no need to rush to do it ‘while I have the opportunity’.
On the prostitution front the city’s plans to close down some brothels is even more interesting. Every study I have read on the harmful impacts of prostitution in The Netherlands indicates that The Netherlands has far fewer problems than other countries. Numerous studies by DSP- Groep, WODC, Regioplan Beleidsonderzoek, and Intraval have found extremely low incidences of human trafficking and underage prostitution. Across a broad spectrum of other issues these reports say that continuing the current policy of legal and open prostitution is far superior to the problems caused by prohibition.
Some, including Saint Augustin and Saint Thomas Aquinas, believe that legal prostitution is necessary to reduce problems of rape. Per capita The Netherlands has about 9 rapes per 100,000 people while the US has 33 per 100,000 (all OECD countries with legal prostitution average 11.3). Since Sweden criminalized prostitution in 1999 their incidences of rape have increased twofold. Will this clamping down also ratchet up rapes in The Netherlands?
The authorities in The Netherlands want to trade in a real society that has very few social problems for a veneer that they think will be more appealing to tourists. They want their city center to look better and cleaner and they’re willing to risk their very successful and strong social fabric to do it.
One of the more perplexing aspects of this plan is that Amsterdam is already one of the top tourists spots in the world, particularly relative to its size. People come not just because of the coffeeshops and prostitution, which is for better or worse a popular draw, and not just because of other equally or more popular attractions such as Amsterdam’s architecture and museums or the Anne Frank House. People come to see a society that has so very successfully integrated all of these things. As one travel agent pointed out to me this morning, take away the intriguing Red Light Districts and Coffeeshops and Amsterdam will become second fiddle to a number of other popular tourist cities.
Will a 22% reduction in coffeeshops, which is the plan, reduce or eliminate the apparently positive impact on illicit drug use among Dutch teens? Will clamping down on legal prostitution drive more of the industry underground and increase human trafficking and underage prostitution?
I'm in no way a supporter of prostitution or illicit drug use, but I do believe in a certain level of pragmatism, especially when the harms of policies such as social prohibitions are so detrimental to societies.
Stay Tuned…
Monday, November 3, 2008
San Fran’s Prop K: A Very Bad Short-Sighted Idea ?
Most people who know me will be very surprised that I don’t support SF’s Prop K. This is the bill that many claim will decriminalize prostitution in San Francisco and anyone who knows me knows that I’m a fairly strong proponent of that. So why do I believe Prop K is short-sighted?
Prop K doesn’t actually decriminalize prostitution. It will be a city law and laws against prostitution are state laws. What Prop K does is say that the City cannot spend any money enforcing the state prostitution laws. It prevents city police from arresting anyone for prostitution. It does not, in any way, limit the city from investigating, arresting, and prosecuting people for crimes such as human trafficking or underage prostitution. So far, so good.
With Prop K someone can establish a brothel anywhere in the city they want. They can put up any signage they want. Streetwalkers will be able to ply their wares on any corner or in front of any store.
I’m all for ending our wars on prostitution. SF spent between $2.8 and $11 million last year enforcing prostitution laws and yet they have just as much prostitution as any other city. Civil prohibitions against personal vice are simply not realistically enforceable, no matter how much money we spend. As Steven Levitt noted in his 2007 draft paper on prostitution – “A prostitute is more likely to have sex with a police officer than to get officially arrested by one.” Our laws don’t reduce activity, they only drive it underground which makes life that much easier for human traffickers to enslave women of all ages and makes things that much more dangerous for the prostitutes and their clients. And the list goes on and on.
Our war on prostitution causes far more problems than the original problem it was intended to solve.
However, I’m also a proponent of limited (VERY LIMITED) regulation. I have no problem with sex workers who provide outcall services going anywhere in the city to meet a client. A brothel next to a school or streetwalkers on any corner is another matter. Not just for me, but for most people in San Francisco. With legal prostitution cities need to be able to, within reason, regulate where businesses are located. They need to be able to establish zones where indoor brothels or red light windows can be located and what kind of advertising they may post on the outside of their buildings. They need to be able to limit where streetwalkers may ply their trade.
Prop K may not allow this. Depending on one’s reading of the laws it may be impossible to establish any zoning under Prop K.
Here’s what I fear will happen. The average San Francisco sexworker is not a wallflower. Just watch many of the annual parades with Scarlet Harlot and her entourage if you don’t believe me. With no boundaries they will go wherever they want and do whatever they want to get attention and make money. If I were them I’d do the same. That’s the point. Find as many potential customers as possible so you have the greatest choice of who you service and can make the most money with the fewest hassles.
Many people who support decriminalization will find a brothel across from their favorite kids store or streetwalkers in front of their favorite café. “This isn’t what I signed up for.” They’ll say. The political types in city hall will start getting engulfed in complaints.
Now, the average politicians way of dealing with things is brash and trash. Nuance is not their strong suit. While a good option at this point would be very moderate regulation, they’ll instead pontificate on the need to reverse Prop K. Instead of finding a way to establish some reasonable zones for brothels, windows, and streetworkers, they’ll go full throttle back to the current failed attempts at civil enforcement of prostitution laws. Instead of a proposition on the 2011 ballot to allow the moderate regulation that Prop K doesn’t allow, expect a proposition to abolish Prop K. And it will likely pass with a large margin.
And you know what, prostitution won’t go down any, but complaints will. The bulk of prostitution will go back underground and streetworkers will re-congregate to ‘safer’ areas. People will be less likely to complain about it, even when they see it near their favorite café, if they just think the cops are doing something about it, than if not.
After this it could be 50 years before anyone can even think of decriminalizing prostitution again in San Francisco. And worse, anytime decrim is brought up anywhere else, all the opponents will need to do is point to the failed decriminalization in San Francisco of 2008 and the battle will be done.
Prop K doesn’t actually decriminalize prostitution. It will be a city law and laws against prostitution are state laws. What Prop K does is say that the City cannot spend any money enforcing the state prostitution laws. It prevents city police from arresting anyone for prostitution. It does not, in any way, limit the city from investigating, arresting, and prosecuting people for crimes such as human trafficking or underage prostitution. So far, so good.
With Prop K someone can establish a brothel anywhere in the city they want. They can put up any signage they want. Streetwalkers will be able to ply their wares on any corner or in front of any store.
I’m all for ending our wars on prostitution. SF spent between $2.8 and $11 million last year enforcing prostitution laws and yet they have just as much prostitution as any other city. Civil prohibitions against personal vice are simply not realistically enforceable, no matter how much money we spend. As Steven Levitt noted in his 2007 draft paper on prostitution – “A prostitute is more likely to have sex with a police officer than to get officially arrested by one.” Our laws don’t reduce activity, they only drive it underground which makes life that much easier for human traffickers to enslave women of all ages and makes things that much more dangerous for the prostitutes and their clients. And the list goes on and on.
Our war on prostitution causes far more problems than the original problem it was intended to solve.
However, I’m also a proponent of limited (VERY LIMITED) regulation. I have no problem with sex workers who provide outcall services going anywhere in the city to meet a client. A brothel next to a school or streetwalkers on any corner is another matter. Not just for me, but for most people in San Francisco. With legal prostitution cities need to be able to, within reason, regulate where businesses are located. They need to be able to establish zones where indoor brothels or red light windows can be located and what kind of advertising they may post on the outside of their buildings. They need to be able to limit where streetwalkers may ply their trade.
Prop K may not allow this. Depending on one’s reading of the laws it may be impossible to establish any zoning under Prop K.
Here’s what I fear will happen. The average San Francisco sexworker is not a wallflower. Just watch many of the annual parades with Scarlet Harlot and her entourage if you don’t believe me. With no boundaries they will go wherever they want and do whatever they want to get attention and make money. If I were them I’d do the same. That’s the point. Find as many potential customers as possible so you have the greatest choice of who you service and can make the most money with the fewest hassles.
Many people who support decriminalization will find a brothel across from their favorite kids store or streetwalkers in front of their favorite café. “This isn’t what I signed up for.” They’ll say. The political types in city hall will start getting engulfed in complaints.
Now, the average politicians way of dealing with things is brash and trash. Nuance is not their strong suit. While a good option at this point would be very moderate regulation, they’ll instead pontificate on the need to reverse Prop K. Instead of finding a way to establish some reasonable zones for brothels, windows, and streetworkers, they’ll go full throttle back to the current failed attempts at civil enforcement of prostitution laws. Instead of a proposition on the 2011 ballot to allow the moderate regulation that Prop K doesn’t allow, expect a proposition to abolish Prop K. And it will likely pass with a large margin.
And you know what, prostitution won’t go down any, but complaints will. The bulk of prostitution will go back underground and streetworkers will re-congregate to ‘safer’ areas. People will be less likely to complain about it, even when they see it near their favorite café, if they just think the cops are doing something about it, than if not.
After this it could be 50 years before anyone can even think of decriminalizing prostitution again in San Francisco. And worse, anytime decrim is brought up anywhere else, all the opponents will need to do is point to the failed decriminalization in San Francisco of 2008 and the battle will be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)