U.S. Readers - IMPORTANT Opportunity to Change Federal Law
U.S. Readers - 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!
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.
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 information and a suggested leter to Congress people at http://sexwork.com/legal/Fedlaw.html
Note in the U.S. all states except RI make consenting private prostitution illegal except in certain licensed brothels in certain counties of Nevada. In addition most cities have laws against prostitution unlike only your one Federal Criminal Code.
Veteran of Misadventures
This is not exactly or precisely the case. Streetwalker prostitution in Rhode Island is still illegal; everything else private and INDOORS (as opposed to private and in your car) is legal. That means that if you pick up a SW in your car you could get busted, although there is a solid chance that your case will get tossed if you have a competent lawyer.
Originally Posted by Dave in Phoenix
Which makes prostitution in Rhode Island, despite the very slim pickings, more legal than in Montreal. In Rhode Island, ANY indoor prostitution, outcall or incall "bawdy house", is legal. In Montreal, outcall escorting is legal, whereas incall is illegal if the "bawdy house" law is violated ("living off the avails" of prostitution, etc.)
Dave, I am in full support of your legislative efforts. I will look at your letter later when I get the chance.
Last edited by EagerBeaver; 12-03-2007 at 07:25 AM.
Province of Quebec
The proper analogy would be the province of Quebec, not only Montreal, and Rhode Island.
Various municipalities have nuances in their zoning by-laws that are used to restrict via interpretations of commercial activities, proximity to schools and areas frequented by minors. At the provincial level businesses with liquor licenses can be faced with revocation if illegal activities may be linked to their door.
EagerBeaver - I said regarding RI, PRIVATE prostitution, which excludes street walking.
Also massage parlors have to be licensed so they can shut them down under a licensing requirement. But brothels and outcall are legal even more so than in Canada since no bawdy house issue.
As I recall without looking it up, in RH "pimping" is illegal so that is similar to Canada's Living off the avils restriction.
eastender- good points but there are non criminal bylaws, not criminal laws that in Canada are only Federal. You don't go to jail like you do in the U.S. with Federal, State and local criminal laws.
The U.S. Federal law is really bad that we are fighting since Aussie Amber's husband faced 20 years in prison simply for taking her phone calls while she was working.
In Canada even if convicted of running a bawdy house or living off the avils rarely if ever is there prison time, usually just a small fine. I am reminded of the BD house case that was appealed in in the Courts for many years. Hundreds of thousands were probably spent in legal fees, court time, judges to prosecute the case. She (the owner) lost but the only penalty was as I recall about a $2000 fine
Last edited by Dave in Phoenix; 12-04-2007 at 03:27 AM.
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)
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.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
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
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.
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.
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.