[Under universal criminality] the cop becomes a law unto himself, with the ability to criminalize or wholly dehumanize any individual at will.
– Steve Martinot
Cops raping sex workers is so ubiquitous, non-cop rapists often pose as cops to facilitate the crime:
A [Maine] mechanic who pretended to be an undercover [cop] to [rape] prostitutes…will spend more than eight years in prison…Jason Foster was…also sentenced to seven years of suspended prison time…Foster claimed he was just a paying prostitution customer…[he] must also register for life as a sex offender.
The only flaw in this otherwise-excellent essay is that the author buys into the “pimp” myth:
…around 70% of all prisoners in the US are convicted of victimless crimes…the person charged with a crime has harmed no one. Some might say they harm themselves, but each individual would have to be involved in any discussion of whether that were true or not. Regardless, they are thrown in prison…those convicted of victimless crimes are themselves the victims…of the victimless crime law system. The mythology of imprisonment is that all those in prison are violent offenders, “bad guys” who need to be taken off the streets for the safety and security of the average person. If 70% of all prisoners are there for victimless crimes, then this is worse than a myth. It is a malicious lie…
“Sex trafficking terrorists”. Because one moral panic at a time isn’t enough any more.
There are terrorists in the United States who actively seek victims for their sex trafficking businesses. According to Shared Hope International, this enterprise is booming. The market for human beings is profitable…Sex traffickers target children as young as 11 years old. Moreover, younger boys and girls are also subject to these predators…over 100,000 children…are bought, sold, and rented every year…It is, in fact, considered “a form of modern-day slavery…The terrorists in the U.S. are not only those the media discusses daily, but they are also the sex traffickers who are active in their pursuit of victims. These terrorists are pimps and they are not always strangers…
Long-time readers may recall that I said this almost four years ago:
Disgraced former Suffolk County Police Chief James Burke…stymied the FBI’s investigation into the Gilgo Beach serial-killings for years…Burke…refused to keep the feds in the loop on the unsolved murders of eight women, a man and a toddler on or near the beach…because he learned he was in the FBI’s cross hairs for assaulting Christopher Loeb…a handcuffed suspect who swiped items from his vehicle— including pornography and sex toys…[Burke] then tried to cover up the assault…Suffolk Police Commissioner Tim Sini announced that the FBI would now play a major role in the Gilgo Beach cold case…
No sillier than the anti-sex propaganda favored by Western charlatans:
A “spiritualist” in Ghana named Mallam Ya Wadudu asserts that tattoos can cause “homosexuality and prostitution”…he said, “The snakes, lions, scorpions, frogs and other animal symbols they put on themselves all have spiritual meanings. Those who put the symbols on their bodies have to be delivered from the influence of the spirits in the symbols.” He firmly believes tattooing such symbols onto your body will lead to demonic possession…side effects may include homosexuality, alcoholism, or prostitution…
The mental gymnastics on display here would be truly Olympian if they weren’t so wholly clownish:
…Whether or not Sugar dating resembles “prostitution,” this tired argument is outdated and hardly applicable in the modern world. Not only does it neglect the nuance and idiosyncrasies that exist in the world of Sugar dating, but it also assumes that, in the general population, only two types of intimate relationships exist: ones that include money and ones that do not…the phenomenon of the Girlfriend-Experience (GFE) is an example of the growing similarity and fusion between sexual and marriage markets. To an onlooker, a GFE in action appears identical to any other dating scenario, but with the added certainty that…sex will be included somewhere in the evening’s antics. And the woman will be compensated…the [sugar baby]…is more than a sex object – and her Sugar Daddy is more than an ATM. To call Sugar dating prostitution is to reduce the individuals involved to one-dimensional stereotypes, when life is much more complicated and interesting than that…
Do you think we ought to tell “Sara-Kate” that GFE is a prostitution term?
Saving Them From Themselves (#428)
Consensual crime laws enable predators, part umpteen:
Police Detective David Edward Abbott, a member of the Northern Virginia-Washington D.C. Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, committed suicide…before law enforcement could arrest him on suspicion of sexually abusing minors. Abbott…was the detective [who]…sought a warrant to take [a] 17-year-old male…to the hospital, inject him with a drug that would give him an erection, photograph his genitals, and compare the photo with existing pictures of his genitals the police had confiscated from his 15-year-old girlfriend’s phone. The teen was eventually sentenced to one year of probation…Abbott sued the teen’s lawyer for defamation. The lawyer, Jessica Foster, remarked to the media that the warrant to take pornographic pictures of her client–to be used as evidence that he was guilty of creating child pornography–was “crazy”…Abbott said the comments caused him severe emotional distress; he claimed he was threatened and called a pedophile…Abbott…had inappropriate contact with two young boys, ages 11 and 13…
And you can bet they’re going to get help from civil liberties groups:
Following a First Amendment victory against meddling Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart…Backpage.com is now taking on the federal government. On December 11, the company filed a civil action against U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, claiming that the…SAVE…Act…is unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and infringes on First Amendment rights. The…Act added “advertising” a victim of sexual exploitation to the list of thing that can trigger a sex-trafficking charge, meaning that user-generated ad platforms such as Backpage and Craigslist could find themselves facing the same charges as someone who forces someone else into prostitution—regardless of whether the platform knew anything about the ad. It also stipulated a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence (up to life imprisonment)…A wide swath of free-speech and civil-liberties advocates opposed the SAVE Act…[warning] that [its] reach wouldn’t just extend to Backpage but also social media such as Facebook and Twitter, online dating websites, and apps such as Tinder and Grindr…
If you’ll look back at what I’ve previously reported on Grady Judd, I’m sure you can guess what kind of tactics were used to entrap these people so Judd could destroy their lives for his self-aggrandizement:
A five-day human trafficking undercover operation in Polk County netted 95 arrests…The suspects range in age from 15 to 68 years old…Detectives filed 21 felony charges and 111 misdemeanor charges…“We’ve seen firsthand the negative social costs of how prostitution hurts families, children, and communities. And more often than not, there is a high correlation between other crimes and prostitution,” Polk Sheriff Grady Judd [vomited onto reporters]. “There is also a direct nexus between prostitution and human trafficking, and we are committed to identifying victims of human trafficking and getting them into [brainwashing] programs and out of lives of crime.”
Good Fantasy, Bad Reality (#578)
…FBI agents…devised an undercover operation targeting…individuals…pursuing [an extreme BDSM]…fantasy…four individuals were…willing to pay thousands of dollars for a sex slave…The four…were indicted on human trafficking charges between December 2013 and May 2014. They all pled guilty, and in September 2015, an Arizona federal judge sentenced them to prison terms ranging from seven to nine years…[Agent Ryan] Blay said…“We didn’t want to wait until there were actual victims.”
It’s a sign of how badly US “justice” has deteriorated that the agent sees nothing wrong with that chilling final statement.
Here’s a firsthand account of what it’s like to be targeted by an “Operation Cross-Country” sting (video courtesy of Tara Burns):
A porn studio has published a performers’ bill of rights in the aftermath of the sexual assault allegations against porn actor James Deen, which have driven the adult industry to reexamine some of the on-set concerns surrounding the issue of performer consent…Angie and Colin Rowntree, long-time adult film veterans who operate sssh.com (a porn for women site) and Wasteland.com (a BDSM site), instituted their studio’s first formalized “On-set Policies And Best Practices” document…Sssh and Wasteland said they are taking their current principles and making them crystal clear for all parties. According to Angie Rowntree, the document, which is now publicly available on their site, “is going to be an ongoing process” and will evolve as new potential concerns pop up…
NPR has parroted government “sex trafficking” propaganda for years, but writing about this issue without mentioning Dart’s smackdown by a federal court is a remarkably revealing display of the organization’s total disregard for the truth:
Across the country, law enforcement is cracking down on sex trafficking of minors by going after online escort ads. Five years ago, Craigslist was pressured to shut down its adult-services forum. The new target is Backpage.com — Visa and MasterCard stopped processing transactions with Backpage this summer. Some in the sex industry are getting around that by using the virtual currency bitcoin. That’s the latest adaptation by an industry used to getting creative to avoid detection…Cook County Illinois Sheriff Tom Dart called a news conference to announce a victory this summer…Backpage…is fighting back. It’s suing Sheriff Dart and making its ads free…
The link for the David Edward Abbott story didn’t work for me. In case anyone else is having trouble with it, try this:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=53429
Oops, sorry about that; I was in a bit of a rush & messed that one up. Thank you, Chester!
”Do you think we ought to tell “Sara-Kate” that GFE is a prostitution term?”
I don’t think she says otherwise. The way I understand her point is that GFE is a form of prostitution that can be undistinguishable on the surface from a real date and can include some real emotions. Therefore it’s a moot point where sugar daddy arrangements fall in the spectrum.
Backpage is really stepping up recently. Not quite the hero we deserve, but definitely the one we need right now….
Re: Universal Criminality
There’s something I’m not understanding, and this has built up over the past several weeks, going back to the last Guy Fawkes day column in November. I wanted to post a message along the following lines on Thursday, but it seemed inappropriate based on what I’m about to say.
A few weeks ago, readers here were exhorted to contribute money to the people whose assets were seized in the Rentboy raids so that they could mount a proper defense, and perhaps advance the cause of sex worker rights. Further, the posts in recent days on the Deen scandal and the significance of December 17th argue that sex workers need to have equality before the law if individuals like Deen are to be held to account for their alleged malicious actions.
However, at the same time, this blog has demonstrated time and time again that the Justice System, not just in America but basically worldwide, is so hopelessly corrupt and evil that any expectation of a fair outcome from it is laughably futile, as is any attempt to reform it.
To me, these two points contradict each other. Why would sex workers want equality before the Law when it’s been amply demonstrated that it’s a dead letter anyway? It would seem like sex workers and their allies should be tearing down the courthouse, not trying to work inside it.
Is this why we are told that revolution is inevitable, even though it never seems to come? Because that brings me to that Counter Punch article. One can “call for” things until the cows come home. People are doing that right now for all manner of causes, from an end to meat consumption to sex worker rights to building a better mouse trap. It’s not going to amount to a hill of beans unless there’s a plan to back it up with concrete action. What’s that author’s plan?
This at last leads me to the question that I’ve asked before, and felt inappropriate to ask again two days ago. In my opinion, waiting for society to ‘grow up’ with regards to sexuality is futile, if the past 2000 years of human history is any sort of indicator. If society had the blood of hundreds (thousands?) of sex workers on it’s hands, why then have sex workers not taken up arms to defend themselves, and avenge the deaths of their sisters? Cabrogal made the argument last time “because police; because a sex worker’s weapon can be turned against her.” However, if police and the justice system cannot (and never can be) relied on to provide assistance, then does it matter what they think or might do? What’s a worse fate, being dead, being locked in a cage, or locked into a life of poverty and destitution?
A simple answer is that the justice system is inevitable and has to be dealt with as is now. It’s a matter of what is realistic in our lifetime vs the utopia of a perfectly just society. Even if it is flawed and corrupt, they must strive to at least get the same treatment as avergage people under the law, as soon as possible. In a sense it’s the spirit of harm reduction: the criminal system is not going to go away anytime soon, so we should give people the means to navigate it as safely as possible.
Once again, Francois, I think you and I have much in common in terms of our outlooks. Indeed, it was some of your opinions posted here in the past few days that led me to speak as I have today.
I can understand the desire for harm reduction; it’s the inevitability part of it that gets me. With the exception of the death of all living tissue at some point, I don’t think anything is inevitable in terms of human experience until it actually happens. If someone doesn’t decide to make something happen, it will not.
As you may remember, the Canadian Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, recently struck down Canada’s sex-work laws. Then the Canadian government turned around and brought in new Swedish Model laws. But note that we did win through the court system — it was the politicians who took our victory away. If there are two options, fighting through the court system for our rights, or waiting for the politicians to give us our rights, it seems to me that the court system option is the one that’s more likely to be fruitful.
There are several fronts in the battle for sex-worker rights, and those in the movement who are fighting through the court system are doing important work.
You write that, “waiting for society to ‘grow up’ with regards to sexuality is futile, if the past 2000 years of human history is any sort of indicator.” I was born in 1960. I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember how vicious the homophobia back then, but let me assure you that our society has gone through a MASSIVE transformation when it comes to sexuality. The belief that nothing has changed for the last 2000 in regards to sexual attitudes is completely untrue. Things HAVE changed for the LGBT community, and that shows that things CAN change for sex-workers. Don’t give up hope.
I’d say justice has progressed a lot in the last centuries and I’m mostly satisfied with the system we have now. It’s important to understand that mentalities are constantly evolving and the judges always interpret the laws in light of the current social context. Also, no matter the laws, social mentality is very important for how it is enforced. Changing police mentality is even more important than changing the laws. Making something legal does not ensure that it will not be targetted indirectly and making it illegal does not mean it will be enforced.
I think there’s been some improvement in Canada as seen in the decline in arrests and the tolerance of incalls. Many LE have official policies that consensual sex work is not an enforcement issue. As for politicians, they are really not as stupid as their phony rhetoric makes them sound. Nobody wants the headache of figuring out what kind of official system to make once it’s legal. It’s just so much easier to keep it illegal but let people do it anyway. Well, that’s the very definition of universal criminality.
To Chester Brown:
For the record, I’m in my late 20’s. Believe me, I don’t want to give up hope (although I’ve seen it argued that hope has to be given up in order to spur people to take action) however, about the Canadian Supreme Court decision. I confess I’m not familiar with the intricacies of Canadian law, but how is it that the politicians were allowed to take your victory away? Why did the justices even leave them the option to make new laws, which were basically the old ones warmed over?
To Francois:
“It’s just so much easier to keep it illegal but let people do it anyway. Well, that’s the very definition of universal criminality.”
I differ here. Under UC how can there be ‘letting people do it anyway’ because anyone caught doing ‘it’ must be punished, and as many people as possible need to be caught in order to perpetuate the system.
That’s how we’ve come to the point of a not insignificant amount of people grumbling and muttering about a third option in addition to the two Chester mentioned: burning the system down and making sure it’s never rebuilt or replaced.
When the SCC struck down the previous laws in the Bedford case they gave the government one year to address the ruling. The CPC decided that the best way to do that was institute our own version of the disastrous Swedish Model, completely disregarding the fact that the new law(C-36) was clearly in contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and were so certain in their own righteousness determined that it was not necessary to refer the bill to the SCC to determine if the new bill was or was not charter compliant despite the litany of voices trying to convince them to see the light. With the election of a new party in October there are a number of people convinced that the new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau of the Liberals, is intending to repeal or amend C-36, in spite of the fact he said no such thing. But when you have a party leader actually say nothing of value during the election all sorts or people get it in their heads that he said what they wanted him to say(see Obama).
Thank you (and to Francois as well) for explaining the ins and outs of this.
In the old laws, selling/buying sex was legal, but third parties, brothels and communicating in public were illegal. Since the transaction was itself legal, the court found that these laws prevented workers from operating in safe conditions. The court can only strike down laws; parliament is still able to make new laws to replace them, but they must work within the decision. Our government at the time was very good at circumventing court decisions.
The new law now nominally allows sex workers to hire some third parties. The argument of the government was that it respects the court decision by allowing them to hire some security. However, buying is now totally illegal, so essentially it’s just tit for tat. Criminalizing the clients is just as damaging to the worker’s safety as criminalizing 3rd parties. Their logic was that prostitution is bad and needs to be prevented as much as possible, while pretending that sex workers would be able to work in safe conditions (as per the court decision). They recreated the effect of the old laws by simply inverting what is legal and what is illegal and arguing that it respects the words of the court decision, if not it’s spirit.
Unlike the original Swedish model, selling sex is technically a crime; the prostitute simply have an immunity from prosecution. They can in fact be arrested if they work next to a school. The laws says they are victims by definition, unless they happen to be next to a school in which case they magically become responsible for their own action. This is probably the part of the law that makes the less sense.
About universal criminality, it means the laws can pretty much be used to arrest anyone. Therefore it’s unrealistic to go after everyone who is known to break a law. The authorities decide who they need to arrest and then they find which laws they can use against them.
Police have discretion in how they enforce the law. Their duty is to maintain order and keep people safe. Laws are just the tools they use. They know all the escort agencies and websites who have been operating for decades. In canadian cities, most police now have official policies not enforce the law in cases of consensual sex work.
We can’t just burn the system. It would be like burning the boat we’re sailing on. It’s not a perfect boat, but we have to improve it without sinking it otherwise we’ll all have to swim and most people will drown.
“Police have discretion in how they enforce the law. Their duty is to maintain order and keep people safe. Laws are just the tools they use.”
I don’t know. I think some of the people here who have been on the receiving end of that duty might give you an argument on that point.
“We can’t just burn the system. It would be like burning the boat we’re sailing on. It’s not a perfect boat, but we have to improve it without sinking it otherwise we’ll all have to swim and most people will drown.”
I fully agree (believe it or not), which is why I wish people would think about what it really means when they say things along the lines of “a revolution is coming” or “just get rid of it all”.
“… instituted their studio’s first formalized “On-set Policies And Best Practices” document…Sssh and Wasteland said they are taking their current principles and making them crystal clear for all parties. ”
This is a great idea, because the reason James Deen did the stuff he did is that he didn’t know that it was wrong.
Ok, so it’s not just about James Deen. The director and everyone else on set should have intervened. The difficulty is, well, if they are not actually being fucked – how are they supposed to know? It’s kinda a fine line, sometimes, especially if it’s degradation-and-violence porn.
If the only person who can really know if a performer has crossed a line is the other performer, maybe that other performer needs to yell something like – oh, I dunno – how about: “stop filming, this asshole is hurting me”.
A fruitful place to find precedent might be sports: another place where people consent to things that would otherwise be actionable assault.