Anti-Sex Trafficking, Minus the Trafficking

Kerry Howley | January 11, 2006

Anyone who doubts that the current anti-human trafficking push is anything more than a veiled crackdown on prostitution need only steal a glance at this spectacularly bad bill, signed into law yesterday. Or one might take a moment to ponder yesterday's gathering of anti-trafficking enthusiasts -- which includes groups I've never known to take any kind of stand on human rights issues, but are sure to fire off a few press releases every time someone, somewhere is having sex for any purpose other than producing a gurgling mini-conservative.

The new and improved version of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act authorizes grants for law enforcement agencies that wish to, among other things "establish, develop, expand, or strengthen programs...to investigate and prosecute persons who engage in the purchase of commercial sex acts" and/or "to educate persons charged with, or convicted of, purchasing or attempting to purchase commercial sex acts." In other words, this initiative, which began as an ill-advised attempt to stop trafficking from places like Cambodia, is now funding grants to "educate" the johns next door.

Nobody knows the scope of the problem this bill purports to fight, but a serious attempt to root out trafficking might start with decriminalization of the sex trade. Independent hookers are in contact with clients who will know where to look for abuses; sex workers also have a financial incentive to report trafficking rings that push down prices. I look forward to the day when the Concerned Women for America are concerned enough to ask for COYOTE's help.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|1.11.06 @ 4:02PM|#

Within just blocks of the White House, pimps and trafficking mafias..

They shouldn't talk about K street that way :)

CodeMonkeySteve|1.11.06 @ 4:10PM|#

You know you've been watching too much Firefly when you see something like this and your first thought is "Damn, the Companion Guild is going to be *pissed* ..."

|1.11.06 @ 4:11PM|#

...but are sure to fire off a few press releases every time someone, somewhere is having sex for any purpose other than producing a gurgling mini-conservative.

ROTFLMO because it soooo true!

Timothy|1.11.06 @ 4:12PM|#

I, for one, think there should be more sex acts in commercials.

|1.11.06 @ 4:16PM|#

I was dismayed when I saw this news from google earlier today. At least they made it a state request issue, so that individual states can decide whether or not to participate. One of the problems though, is they defined prostitution so loosely, there isn't even a marital exception. And it includes anything exchanged, including dinners, barter, you name it.

At any rate, I don't know how well the state request thing works in practice. Dangling free LE money might be too much of a temptation even for places like Nevada.

Between this and banning anything that could ever be annoying to anyone on the internet, this has been a bad week for freedom in America.

|1.11.06 @ 4:30PM|#

I see that Jim McDermott signed on as a co-sponsor of this little jewel.

Few things bring out the red leftists and the puritan fundies like making sure all men have their barn door nailed shut.

|1.11.06 @ 4:58PM|#

I just read on the Washington Post that another aspect of this bill mandates a dishonorable discharge for any member of the US military who solicits a prostitute.

Sneding troops into battle without body armor is still okay, though.

In other words, this initiative, which began as an ill-advised attempt to stop trafficking from places like Cambodia, is now funding grants to "educate" the johns next door.

The johns will be forced to pay for their own education. The funding will go to the police.

|1.11.06 @ 5:12PM|#

"And it includes anything exchanged, including dinners, barter, you name it."

Well, good thing the last date I went on didn't end with any prurient activity.

*whew*

Dodged that bullet.

|1.11.06 @ 5:17PM|#

Jennifer,

Jesus Christ, three quarters of the US military in WWII would have been dishonorably discharged if that's the case.

My dad bought tail when he was in the Army. My father-in-law did when he was in the Navy. Grandfathers too. As far as I can tell, everyone I've ever met that's been in the military has. It's like a badge of honor or something in their fraternity of Dogfaces.

|1.11.06 @ 5:21PM|#

I'd just be curious to know how many of the congressional supporters of this bill regularly pay for a prostitute's services...

|1.11.06 @ 5:26PM|#

mediageek,

Pay? Why none, of course. The lobbyists pay for that service. Natch.

|1.11.06 @ 5:30PM|#

touch�

|1.11.06 @ 5:31PM|#

Kerry could ask Anna Marie Cox what she thinks of this bill. Maybe they should also have some testimony from Washingtonienne.

|1.11.06 @ 5:36PM|#

Kmw--

More like seven-eighths.

Considering the military's focus on stupid sex stuff and kicking out Arabic translators because they're gay and lowering the intellectual standards to get into the Army and all this other nonsense that's been going on, I have a new theory: the guys currently in charge of our military policy are al-Qaeda agents under deep, deep, deep cover.

Which is frightening, but less frightening than the alternative: that they really are on America's side, but honestly think that, especially now with a wartime shortage of troops and ominous clouds on the Iranian and Chinese horizons, a man's consensual sexual habits make the single most important aspect of whether or not he can be a soldier.

|1.11.06 @ 5:39PM|#

It's somewhat hypocritical that Bush signed this, since his brother Neil is known to frequent asian consorts. But I guess if you're rich enough, you can keep the cops at bay with any number of incentives.

We're quickly devolving into a system of peonage, where the masses are criminalized. Which is kind of ironic, since this law was supposed to be about discouraging enslavement.

Warren|1.11.06 @ 5:42PM|#

Son. Of. A. Bitch.
How about I traffic my foot in your ass.

Barkeep! I'll have sex on the bea, no better give me a screaming orgas.. aww fuck it, just fill a syringe with Everclear and jam it in my ear.

|1.11.06 @ 5:49PM|#

So what does this mean for the great state of Nevada?

|1.11.06 @ 5:54PM|#

James,

It depends on whether Nevada accepts the feds money to prosecute the war on sex. It's still in the hands of the individual states.

Jennifer, at least the military has a history of being stupid about sex.

In WWI, the sex education given to US doughboys was, get this: abstinence based.

Now, just imagine, you're an 18 year old Private being sent to fight a brutal war in another country where you have a very good chance of dying in any manner of unpleasant ways.

Oh. And there's going to be French hotties.

I'll bet that abstinence only education is only slightly less effective for soldiers than it is for high school students.

Jeff P.|1.11.06 @ 6:06PM|#

Mmmmmmm, French hotties...
(sound of gun)
Oh No! I've been accidentally shot by Claudine Longet!

|1.11.06 @ 6:31PM|#

I have to criticize this garbage before it becomes law (as an officer in the Army, I can't criticize my Commander-in-Chief)...but a fucking dishonorable discharge ! What the hell? Those are usually reserved for anyone convicted of a FELONY. Our legislators have their heads crammed up their respective asses.

|1.11.06 @ 6:37PM|#

Randian,

Too late, Bush signed it yesterday.

|1.11.06 @ 6:39PM|#

Damn. guess I'm headed to Leavenworth.

|1.11.06 @ 6:55PM|#

Please do not refer to "French hotties".

They're "Freedom hotties".

|1.11.06 @ 6:56PM|#

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/

With President Bush signing the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act yesterday, servicemembers convicted of patronizing a prostitute can now receive a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and one year of confinement.

|1.11.06 @ 8:07PM|#

"veiled crackdown on prostitution"

crackdown or crackup?

veiled or unveiled?

Chollie Chan velly intelested to know.

|1.11.06 @ 8:10PM|#

tomWright|1.11.06 @ 8:35PM|#

This is all over the papers here in NJ. There seems to be a prostitution bust of a NJ 'massage parlor' every 3 or 4 days.

And out side of Trenton yet!

Prostitution in NJ? Who knew?

|1.11.06 @ 8:45PM|#

I used to think it was impossible to even consider that porn might be illegal someday in the US.

Now I'm not so sure.

I was previously of the mind that porn is so rampant that even if it is illegal, there will be a steady flow of it. While that's true, it's also true that the only advantage I see staying in the US is the freedom in gun ownership. If I get the "right" to own a gun taken away just because I watched some porn, I wouldn't see the US as a country worth living in anymore.

Windypundit|1.11.06 @ 8:47PM|#

It's still in the hands of the individual states."

Like any state law enforcement will turn down money from the federal government...

|1.11.06 @ 9:07PM|#

kmw, you can already have your 2nd amendment rights taken away for a misdemeanor-- misdemeanor domestic abuse/assault. The Lautenberg amendment provides for this even if the crime had zero to do with guns. I can predict that it will only get worse.

|1.11.06 @ 10:15PM|#

-It's somewhat hypocritical that Bush signed this, since his brother Neil is known to frequent asian consorts.-

How? The other day I was criticizing drug laws but then I remembered that I have an uncle that's a cop. I'm such a hypocrite. (?)

|1.11.06 @ 10:31PM|#

Never have I seen such a beautiful example of a false analogy.

What would you call it if I passed a law banning something, but made sure my brother never had any legal worries in participating in something I banned?

Maybe hypocrite is the wrong word. Maybe Feudal Elitist is better.

|1.11.06 @ 10:54PM|#

-Never have I seen such a beautiful example of a false analogy.-

Where? The analogy I made was fine unless you're thinking that I wrote it after reading your 10:31 post which included:

-What would you call it if I passed a law banning something, but made sure my brother never had any legal worries in participating in something I banned?-

which may or may not be true, but nonetheless was written later.

Feudal Elitist? No argument there, I'm just being bitchy because the whole 'What about Neil Bush??' line reminds me of back in the day when everyone hated Clinton for his brother Roger being a coke addict.

|1.12.06 @ 1:58AM|#

ROTFLMO?

WTF?

|1.12.06 @ 7:41AM|#

"In other words, this initiative, which began as an ill-advised attempt to stop trafficking from places like Cambodia, is now funding grants to "educate" the johns next door.

The johns will be forced to pay for their own education. The funding will go to the police."

Comment by: John at January 11, 2006 04:58 PM

Sounds an awful lot like psychological re-education camps.

Boss: Luke? Has you got yo' mind right, boy?

Luke: (sobbing) Yeah, Boss, I got my mind right!

Boss: What if you was to backslide on me?

Luke: (still sobbing) No, Boss, no...I
won't backslide. I got my mind right!!

Larry A|1.12.06 @ 3:23PM|#

"This is your rifle,
This is your gun.
This is for fighting,
This is for getting the hell out of here."

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements