Have you heard about this?
I read it on a friend’s blog,
I think that is very scary;
AB22 is moving quickly through the legislature and has already passed through the Assembly. Although the spirit of the law attacks something that we all abhor--forced labor and sex trafficking-- the language of the bill provides for something more insidious. AB22 would make all prostitution a felony offense by defining all prostitution as sex trafficking. This is a tactic that is currently being employed by the Bush Administration and now we see it happening in the great state of California.
Please contact your state Senate representatives to oppose AB22. The bill is assigned the Senate Rules Committee so it would also be important to target those members. Tell them that we don't want to create a whole new class of felons. Sex workers are already second-class citizens and further criminalization will only create more harm.
Please read AB22 and the synopsis from the Assembly Public Safety Committee (with an accompanying analysis):
BILL NUMBER: AB 22 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 4, 2005
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 21, 2005
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Members Lieber and Liu and Senator Kuehl
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Bermudez, Chavez, Chan, DeVore,
Goldberg, Hancock, Shirley Horton, Koretz, Leslie, Levine,
Matthews, Pavley, Sharon Runner, and Ruskin)
(Coauthor: Senator Escutia)
DECEMBER 6, 2004
An act to add Section 52.8 to the Civil Code, to add Article 8.8
(commencing with Section 1038) to Chapter 4 of Division 8 of the
Evidence Code, to amend Section 13956 of the Government Code,
and to amend Sections 181, 186.2, 273.7, and 14023 of, to add
the heading of Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 181) to
Title 7 of Part 1 of, and to add Sections 181.1, 181.2, 181.3, and
13823.18 to, the Penal Code, relating Sections 181.1,
181.2, and 181.3 to, to add a Chapter heading in Title 7 (commencing
with Section 181) of Part 1 of, and to add and repeal Section
13823.18 of, the Penal Code, relating to human trafficking.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 22, as amended, Lieber. Trafficking in persons.
Existing law establishes the offenses of slavery and involuntary servitude. Existing law also makes it an offense to entice an unmarried female minor for purposes of prostitution, as specified, or to aid or assist with the same, or to procure by fraudulent means,
any female to have illicit carnal connection with any man. Existing law also makes it a crime to take away any minor as specified, for purposes of prostitution
While sex trafficking is awful, in my understanding, the bill would make simple prostitution a felony.
This serves no one.
A legislative process whereby a noble aim can serve as a magic carpet for morality is beyond me.
Please try to do something about the broad language.
Thanks,
So, about those crazy divorce statutes where a wife gets paid for being a companion..... This is illogical - at least with an escort you pay upfront - and at reasonalbe rates per event!
With Divorce - 1) you never know the rate until it is over, 2) you are not assured of quality, such that if the service declines you can easily move on 3) there is the hassle of EVERYTHING being made public.... my list goes on, but you get the drift...
Inconsistancy in the law - difficult to see why someone feels that this is important.
The price is definitely cheaper if you consider the length of term, but the quality is another matter. LA has got too many tricksters. How do we legislate the scammers out of the biz and keep the great ladies?
Someone once thought relationship risk was saleable. Couldn't they have cancelled Marriage before they started Vegas?
-- Modified on 6/11/2005 10:35:43 AM
I've put a link below to the Assembly web site for the bill, where you'll find full text and several analyses.
Another thing occurred to me: if this bill passes and simple prostitution is made a felony, California's "three strikes" law could apply. In other words, a third conviction might mean life in prison.
Looking at what Vicki originally posted, however, I have to wonder if that's really the intent of the bill. The Legislative Counsel's summary is discussing slavery and sex-trafficking in minors. The phrase "any female to have illicit carnal connection with any man" might be imprecise wording in the bill or a sloppy summary on the part of the Counsel. It's worth reading the text of the bill itself to see.
On the other hand, I note two of the co-authors are Senator Sheila Kuehl and Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, both hard-Left legislators who've never met a tax or a government regulation of private life they didn't like. So it wouldn't surprise me if this was their intent, too.
--b.
"Please contact your state Senate representatives to oppose AB22. The bill is assigned the Senate Rules Committee so it would also be important to target those members. Tell them that we don't want to create a whole new class of felons. Sex workers are already second-class citizens and further criminalization will only create more harm."
Great Advice. This is the way to get these more liberal politicans to agree that this is wrong. Appeal to their natural concerns.
Is this something where it would make sense for groups to lobby in person? Protest? Would folks here be willing to open themselves up to public criticism by doing it?
There have been public protests by sex industry workers in other countries in recent years. I have never heard of it being done anywhere in the US. But this is potentially horrifying. What would it take to get people here to organize in a serious way? Is this it?
I don't find any language that will make solicitation a felony. By a large stretch of the language, you might be subject to a civil suit by the provider who is found to be eligible to bring a complaint under the proposed statutes. Of course, that assumes your identity can be discovered. It appears one should avoid massage parlors, tanning salons and the like including agencies. We really don't have any morons using street pros, do we? Independents are going to raise prices since there will be the appearance of a higher standard of safety for the hobbyist. And, no, three strikes will not apply unless you have at least one "violent" felony conviction.
With the current ultra-conservative, moralistic bent of the current White House administration and our governments predilection to voraciously impede or outlaw anything that smells of "cash business" our favorite avocation/vocation could be in serious jeopardy.
Does anyone in the community have a handle on WHO and WHERE to write/e-mail/Fax. An avalanche of communications from our community expressing our concern for this bill in it's present form is imperative and posting said information here would be a huge help to all of us.
FR.
Here is a link (followed from the one above) that can tell you how each California Assembly person voted on AB 22. Figure out who your representative is. Write a short, well-worded comment (mine appears above) and email it to your representative, whether they have voted on this yet or not.
THEY WILL NOT take you seriously unless you include your real name and address. You know how you feel about spam? If you rant on them and then hide out with no name and address, you are actually DOING US MORE HARM THAN GOOD. So be courageous or stay out of it.
Here is the way to comment through the state website:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
You can use the left column menu to find the site (and email) of your local representative. Click on "find my district."
-- Modified on 6/11/2005 1:46:44 PM
(I hope I linked this properly)
C'mon gang I filled out my "Bill Comment Form"
Stand up and be heard!
FR.
....
Funny, I always thought that the reason for me to leave the U.S. would be because the Bush Administration pulled funding for scientific research.
Passage of the aforementioned bill would be an even more compelling reason.
I'd already be in Canada if it were not for their puny looney and other regressive taxes. It's a lot more expensive with some exceptions (LA) but the hobby is legal there for the most part unless you are proven to be organized and benefit (pimpin)from the efforts of the ladies. With the internet and 2-way messaging maturing, it puzzles me why ladies would pay for some 2-bit muscle. But that is for another day. Can't you just see brothels lined up on Hollywood Blvd? CA isn't crazy, it's not that they are against sex, but between the porn capital of America and all the pussy that is being passed around, they aren't making a dime. Why not? Pussy is the new revenue kids. Watch as many states follow CA if passed only to "allow" sex workers in certain areas and of course regulated.
-- Modified on 6/11/2005 10:37:19 AM
-- Modified on 6/11/2005 10:56:31 AM
One of the growing number of reasons my days in the US are numbered!
lesbians who are on the forefront of the gay rights movement. I wonder what the connection would be between the Bush Administration and the proponents of this bill. Another question I have is what is the purpose of this bill since pimping and pandering are already felonies in California?
It's just got language that could make simple prostitution a felony. If you know so much about the authors, Ace, how on earth did you miss what the bill was about?
A few quick points:
1. Simple prostitution is a misdemeanor, at least in most cases.
2. You're the one who has missed what the bill is about. It applies only to sex trafficking and slavery, not to prostitution.
3. There is no reason to villify anyone for this bill. It hits the intended target without also hitting regular providers and hobbyists. There may bevalid reasons to criticize it, but complaining that it will turn these minor crimes into felonies just isn't one of them.
I have some experience reading bils and statutes, but when I looked this one over just now I did not see language which would apply to acts of regular solicitation or prostitution. I didn't read as carefully as I would for a client so I might have missed something. Can anyone point to the specific language which they think would cover these crimes? All I see is one person reaching a conclusion which I can't substantiate, and a bunch of others chiming in on the assumption that he is right.
-- Modified on 6/11/2005 5:53:40 PM
i'm confused
It's about human trafficking. This means kidnaping and/or defrauding people into becoming, for all practical purposes, slaves. The victims are usually women and are usually forced into prostitution.
This is the same woman who regularly co-sponsors other bills that would protect sex offenders such as pedophiles and rapists. Her name appearing on such ridiculous legislation doesn't surprise me at all. She must be stopped.
Yes, just another reason NOT to live in California