Apparently the Senate passed the UN womens rights treaty yesterday.  Kind of a surprise.  From the email I read it sounds like there is an expectation that the house will pass it as well.  

What impact would this have on prostitution laws in the US?

Only the senate has to ratify a treaty. And the vote this week was by the Foreign Relations Comm (http://foreign.senate.gov/press/02/020730.html).

But it has done this before with no action by the full senate.

168 countries have ratified this treaty. We stand with countries such as Syria who have not ratified it.  By the way the original was passed by the UN in 1979.  

further info at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm

But do you really think that Bush will sign it?  The pro-life group is very opposed to the treaty.

Bush has not shown very much political courage recently, so I think he will capitulate and sign this turkey. It is a document crafted by the very worst among post-structuralist feminazi harridans. It does not bode well for the future of this hobby, or, for that matter, just being male! It yields a whole new rationale for harassing and jailing men who seek contact with providers. Feminazis are just as puritanical as fundamentalist Christians and muslims, but in Europe, to some extent America, the absurdly leftist UN bureaucracy, and much of the industrialized world, they have MUCH greater access to power. Consider participating in this hobby with man-hating Stalinist witches like Gloria Steinem, Catherine McKinnon, Gloria Allred and Andrea Dworkin looking over your shoulder?

Interesting topic.  "States parties also agree to take appropriate measures against all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of women."

How would this treaty effect anyone but the international mob types that traffic women?

The same way that the RICO statute, originally devised as a tool in the "fight against organized crime" has been used against non-violent abortion protesters and now Mr. "Big Dog" himself, among a host of others. Any agency owner bringing in girls from Canada would be at risk for extreme penalties for "international trafficking!" You become a "mob type" by merely conspiring to transport "escorts" across international borders. Many of the most repressive laws and treaties sounded reasonable when they were proposed, but in practice they become nightmares. Title IX was fairly innocuous and useful before the corrupt Clinton/Reno Justice Department issued guidelines that made "gender" (Ughhhh!) based statistical differences in participation in sanctioned sports evidence of discrimination. The result has been the wholesale destruction of non-revenue producing collegiate sports. It never occurred the these Stalinists that men and women have different levels of interest in sports and that accounts for different levels of participation by sex. They continue to cling to the notion that "gender roles are socially constructed" in spite of the mountains of published research that shows that to be untrue. At some point you might put your foot in your mouth and say something that these totalitarian misfits won't like and you'll be "invited" to join me in the re-education camp! I've got a big mouth, I'll be one of the first to go. By the way, Latin nouns have gender, people are either of the male sex, or the female sex!

That would provide us a better basis for discussing it. the text and the legislative history and reports.

If the treaty primarily has to do with forced international prostitution, as I recall, then it would be relevant to the oriental spas over the US everywhere. Those are a prime example of criminal enterprises that exploit thousands of women.
The existing Travel and Mann Act laws could be applied to them, but finding the kingpins in Korea and extraditing them is something the FBI seems incapable of doing. There must be hundreds of persons from Korea who could translate wiretaps to help stop this exploitation.

That is where the FBI and Mr Ashcroft might best concentrate their resources, and NOT on consenting adult behavior, such as the totally out of this world bbjteow I had this morning from a sweet young companion, or the one day before yesterday, or the one planned for tomorrow.
I actually need FEMA help for fluid replacement. It is the very opposite of flloding, more like a conspiracy to dehydrate. LOL

Those abortion protestors murdered seven American doctors and threatened dozens of others to force their 14th century neo-fundamentalist beliefs upon others.
The trial record in the case of which you speak revealed numerous examples of extortion, butyric acid poured into clinics, vehicles abandoned to block clinic entrances, and physical obstruction of women attempting to excercise their legal rights. Of course the RTLs - Right-To-Lifers - do not bother to read much of this. It might be confusing. They prefer to speak in tongues.

As to TBD, just read the Exhibit A proffer of evidence of criminal misconduct, and show me where it has anything to do with free speech. TBD has censored his board in the worse way from the very beginning. To claim First Amendment rights for his behavior does not even pass the laugh test.
Fortunately TER is smart enough not to censor opinions and facts, but just in case, I'll save this for evidence. LOL.

Those abortion protestors murdered seven American doctors and threatened dozens of others to force their 14th century neo-fundamentalist beliefs upon others.
The trial record in the case of which you speak revealed numerous examples of extortion, butyric acid poured into clinics, vehicles abandoned to block clinic entrances, and physical obstruction of women attempting to excercise their legal rights. Of course the RTLs - Right-To-Lifers - do not bother to read much of this. It might be confusing. They prefer to speak in tongues.

As to TBD, just read the Exhibit A proffer of evidence of criminal misconduct, and show me where it has anything to do with free speech. TBD has censored his board in the worse way from the very beginning. To claim First Amendment rights for his behavior does not even pass the laugh test.
Fortunately TER is smart enough not to censor opinions and facts, but just in case, I'll save this for evidence. LOL.

The last time I looked at Article II, sec 2 of the Constitution, the President had the power to enter into treaties, provided that 2/3 of the Senators present concurred whenever they voted on it. This administration has not stated that it will attempt to withdraw the treaty, so the only remaining step is approval by 2/3 of the Senate. The Democrats can certainly get it out for a vote, but will need some Republican support.

As to impact on prostitution laws, the implementing body of the treaty has already been encouraging certain countries to decriminalize prostitution. Implementation of the treaty is delegated by its terms to the "Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women - CEDAW," which decides whether or not signatory countries are abiding by the terms of the treaty.
It is unclear what powers of enforcement it has, if any. The UN has a few monetary sanctions, especially nagging.

The treaty specifically states that countries shall take measures to suppress trafficking and exploitation of women. CEDAW has actually called upon China to decriminalize prostitution, and has urged Germany to legitimize prostitution, which it has to some extent already. Consenting adult prostitution of course is a far cry from trafficking or exploitation, except in the eyes of a very few fem-Nazis.

Article One of CEDAW defines discrimination as "any distinction ... on the basis of sex."
Article Two of the treaty requires signatory states to eliminate all discrimination against women, not just by government, but "by any person, organization, or enterprise."

Article Five of CEDAW directs governments to "modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of ... all ... practices which are based on ... stereotyped roles for men and women."
I suppose that requiring men to take out the garbage, barbecue, and open doors would fit here, but I'll keep opening doors, and maybe help with the dishes when a guest.

IMHO this treaty could well be a useful international standard that could be utilized to encourage the decriminalization of prostitution in the States. CEDAW interprets it that way. The existing US laws, moreover, certainly discriminate against women in their enforcement patterns. The laws now hurt women in many ways, and men in few, except in Denver and St Paul. LOL

-- Modified on 8/5/2002 7:42:46 AM

I seem to remember some "physical obstruction" during anti-nuke and environmentalist demonstrations. "Those abortion protesters" murdered seven doctors? Does that mean that non-violent environmentalist protestors are culpable with Ted Kazinski and other organized and unorganized enviro-terrorists? I was once propagandasized into irrationally hating anti-abortion protesters, but I met a few of them who were principled, thoughtful and reasonable people, and I had to reassess my opinion of them. They are not all clinic bombers any more than all Muslims are terrorists. I don't agree with them any more than I did before, but I no longer demonize them. If you listen to them, they certainly raise some troubling moral questions about abortion. I find that most pro-abortion people take their position not because of reasoned argument, but what one might call the "morality of convenience." It is convenient for women to be able to end their pregnancies when and if they choose, so therefore it must be moral. Funny, I am pro-abortion, but I like, respect and admire anti-abortionists much more than I do fellow pro-abortionist. (neither side likes me for not using their respective propaganda terminology; pro-choice; and pro-life) I am radically different in my outlook on such things from most members of western civilization. I don't think anyone achieves "personhood" until about five years of age, so I was not shocked when Steven Pinker of MIT made his controversial statements about infanticide. Troubling though they may be to me, I cannot come up with any empirically based arguments to refute what he is saying. I don't think you can have it both ways, if abortion is a moral act, then there is no empirical basis for asserting that human beings have rights, other than those we arbitrarily assign to our selves, and if you approve terminating fetuses for any reason, mere whim, then you have seriously undermined the assumption of "sanctity of life" which is a foundational premise that allows the notion  of "rights." Even the most secular of the founding fathers and "Age of Enlightenment" philosophers were so deeply embedded in western culture with its Judeo-Christian epistemology that they were unaware how much their political idealism was a direct outgrowth of Christian morality. They say fish don't know what water is, because they're immersed in it and have nothing to compare it to. If you spend enough time studying eastern philosophy you have something to compare it with. I came to the conclusion that only Western Civilization, with its Judeao-Christian moral system would ever have come up the enlightened political institutions that we all enjoy today. The irony is that, in my view, the metaphysical premises that allowed the West to create such wonders are, in the words of Gregory Bateson, "fraudulent." Science, the other brain child of the West, continues to undermine the Judeo-Christian moral system. So, were are in a conundrum! Tom Wolfe has spent a lot of time talking about this in recent years. Nietzsche was right, God is dead (and has been for a long time, since 1893, if you believe ole Freddy), but we have nothing to replace him with.  Buddhist philosophy is much more compatible with science, but has no basis for a moral system.

As far as TBD is concerned, I am not an apologist for him. In my opinion, he is a degenerate, parasitic, fat pig extortionist who deserves all the time he gets. I hope it's hard time. That doesn't mean that the RICO statute is good law. Anyone could be charged with conspiracy under that turkey. I can't believe it has passed Constitutional muster so far. That fact is that there were laws against extortion and criminal conspiracy before RICO, and he would still be facing the consequences of his extortion of escorts and agencies without the RICO statute. The key is that it is so vague that it can be used against anyone.

-- Modified on 8/5/2002 11:46:55 AM

-- Modified on 8/5/2002 11:56:39 AM

Have you seen the mug shots?  Not your typical hobbyist thank god!

If I was ever to run across any of that sort, I'd have to find another hobby to support.