NFL team owner Robert Kraft was swept up in a bust of a sex-trafficking day spa

[Toni]

Uh ... no. They said they couldn’t prove it. For all the reasons like we’re mentioned in the thread. That’s miles different from it not happening.

No evidence is no evidence. You can't claim there is "human trafficking" just because you want it to be true, regardless of there not being any evidence for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Makes you wonder who's running the show down there. Maybe this guy?

Maybe. And he was so eager to arrest everybody to arrest the Helen Lovejoy/Toni types in his county ...

Who?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No evidence is no evidence. You can't claim there is "human trafficking" just because you want it to be true, regardless of there not being any evidence for it.

- - - Updated - - -



Maybe. And he was so eager to arrest everybody to arrest the Helen Lovejoy/Toni types in his county ...

Who?

Rev. Lovejoy's wife in The Simpsons. I'm not exactly certain the connection between the two of you. I don't recall Helen Lovejoy having too large of a presence.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Rev. Lovejoy's wife in The Simpsons. I'm not exactly certain the connection between the two of you. I don't recall Helen Lovejoy having too large of a presence.

It's possible that there's one episode where she voiced an opinion to a man, so she's become a trigger warning on some less reputable sections of the internet.

 

[Toni]

Rev. Lovejoy's wife in The Simpsons. I'm not exactly certain the connection between the two of you. I don't recall Helen Lovejoy having too large of a presence.

It's possible that there's one episode where she voiced an opinion to a man, so she's become a trigger warning on some less reputable sections of the internet.

Ah, I get it. (Some) People think I'm opposed to sex trafficking because I'm religious and hate sex.

I'm probably the only person in America who isn't well versed in Simpsons...

I embrace my identity as a trigger warning, tho.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rev. Lovejoy's wife in The Simpsons. I'm not exactly certain the connection between the two of you. I don't recall Helen Lovejoy having too large of a presence.

It's possible that there's one episode where she voiced an opinion to a man, so she's become a trigger warning on some less reputable sections of the internet.

Ah, I get it. (Some) People think I'm opposed to sex trafficking because I'm religious and hate sex.

I'm probably the only person in America who isn't well versed in Simpsons...

I embrace my identity as a trigger warning, tho.

Women with opinions are trouble makers.

 

[Toni]

Ah, I get it. (Some) People think I'm opposed to sex trafficking because I'm religious and hate sex.

I'm probably the only person in America who isn't well versed in Simpsons...

I embrace my identity as a trigger warning, tho.

Women with opinions are trouble makers.

That's what makes us so much fun!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There certainly is evidence of coercion, of at the very least unfair labor practices and probably trafficking, even if the prosecutors have decided not to pursue trafficking charges.

Apparently there isn't sufficient evidence for a charge, so maybe we should presume innocence unless more evidence comes up and they can be proved guilty? Or do you think that they aren't charging them because there is some police corruption going on here? Maybe Kraft bought off the prosecutor? If so, do you have any evidence of such a thing? If not, then again, innocent until proved guilty, no?

If I hire a cleaning lady who I suspect may not be a US citizen, or might not be willing to perform the job I hired for her to do, then I have a certain amount of responsibility to perform due diligence that she is working legally and willingly. I might not be knowingly forcing her to work against her will but I am contributing to her problem if I do not perform due diligence to ensure that she is willing and legal. I am part of the coercion. One cannot simply say one didn't know. That is why employers are required to verify that workers are of legal age, have SS numbers, etc.

What do you expect the client to do exactly, to ensure she's not being trafficked? What questions should he ask her? Or are you saying he simply shouldn't be getting a massage in the first place? Massages are legal, ya? Maybe the city can issue individual worker licenses that have to be displayed and then take them down for a violation of the bylaw when they don't. That would also be a barrier against trafficking in that they'd have to sign on and could be checked for legal status for being in the country etc. Then go ahead and shut these places down for being unlicensed (I think that's the current procedure actually) and their competition can thrive, without these problems hopefully.

 

[Toni]

There certainly is evidence of coercion, of at the very least unfair labor practices and probably trafficking, even if the prosecutors have decided not to pursue trafficking charges.

Apparently there isn't sufficient evidence for a charge, so maybe we should presume innocence unless more evidence comes up and they can be proved guilty? Or do you think that they aren't charging them because there is some police corruption going on here? Maybe Kraft bought off the prosecutor? If so, do you have any evidence of such a thing? If not, then again, innocent until proved guilty, no?

In a court of law: sure.

In the court of public opinon/my personal opinion/this forum: Nope. I get to form my own opinion. Which is informed not only by whatever facts I have read in news media but also an understanding of the challenges and difficulties in proving trafficking.

Al Capone is well known to have been a criminal but he ultimately went down for tax evasion. Doesn't mean that I cannot recognize the criminality in his other actions. I'm not his lawyer, his judge, his jury. Or prosecutor. I'm a private citizen.

What do you expect the client to do exactly, to ensure she's not being trafficked? What questions should he ask her?

Not deal in trafficked women.

These are not women who responded to some ad on some employment site or news paper. They were brought in specifically do perform the exact services they were performing--and held there, without their passports in their possession, unable to leave the premises without being accompanied by a member designated by management, moved about to various locations at the owner's whims.

The owners know who they are 'hiring' and from whom and under what circumstances. That's what their business model is based upon.

 

[laughing dog]

There certainly is evidence of coercion, of at the very least unfair labor practices and probably trafficking, even if the prosecutors have decided not to pursue trafficking charges.

Apparently there isn't sufficient evidence for a charge, so maybe we should presume innocence unless more evidence comes up and they can be proved guilty?

In court, yes. Otherwise, no.

What do you expect the client to do exactly, to ensure she's not being trafficked?...

It's called caveat emptor - buyer beware. BTW, if you are getting a real massage instead of purchasing illegal sex acts, you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What do you expect the client to do exactly, to ensure she's not being trafficked?...

If you aren't sure she's a slave, then have sex with her. It's the most responsible, compassionate, non-reckless thing a guy could do.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What do you expect the client to do exactly, to ensure she's not being trafficked?...

If you aren't sure she's a slave, then have sex with her. It's the most responsible, compassionate, non-reckless thing a guy could do.

I assume you meant to say don't have sex with her. That sounds to me like a far more reasonable and compassionate course of action in regards to someone whom you're not sure is a slave.

Unless, of course, you're really, really good at sex, in which case her time with you will be one bright light of joy in the otherwise dark and hellish existence she's been forced into.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I just wanted it to sink in just how much it makes sense for an ethical, compassionate person to act that way.

 

[Derec]

If you aren't sure she's a slave, then don't have sex with her. It's the most responsible, compassionate, non-reckless thing a guy could do.

FIFY.

Certainty should not be required. If you do not have knowledge or reasonable suspicion that a sex worker is enslaved, there is no moral and there should be no legal culpability on you. Certainly merely being a sex worker, or merely being a sex worker in an Asian spa or similar things is not in itself a reason to suspect a sex worker is a slave.

 

[Derec]

In court, yes. Otherwise, no.

Do you limit that to sex work or any kind of work? If there is an immigrant cook from China who lives on premises, do you automatically assume that cook is being held at the restaurant against his will and forced to cook food? And should every customer of that restaurant be presumed to be engaging in forced labor by proxy just because there is merest possibility there may be human trafficking and forced labor afoot?

It's called caveat emptor - buyer beware. BTW, if you are getting a real massage instead of purchasing illegal sex acts, you have nothing to worry about.

There is no good reason for consensual sex work to be an illegal activity. Just like there was no reason - pre-Lawrence, to make consensual gay sex illegal.

It is amazing how supposed liberals excuse most blatant violations of people's privacy (note that even customers who only got massages were clandestinely videoed here!) as long as a law they personally support is being enforced.

Imagine instead a parallel universe where Lawrence never happened, and gay sex is still against the law in Florida. Police suspect illegal gay sex ("if you are not having illegal gay sex, you have nothing to worry about" - parallel universe laughing dog) in some Jupiter, FL bath house or something. They clandestinely install video cameras to record all customers. Over months, they manage to record hundreds of men having sex and proceed to arrest them. One of them happens to be a prominent sports franchise owner.
The local sheriff has a press conference where he proclaims that this is really a child abuse sting, leading to much outrage, but all the charges filed are for violations of anti-sodomy laws. The sheriff's department tries to pressure the team owner into taking a plea deal, threatening to release footage (of highly questionable legality). The prosecutor eventually releases a statement that there is no child abuse going on, just garden variety gay sodomy, but that doesn't stop PU (parallel universe) Toni, PU Don2 etc. insist that regardless of that statement, child abuse had to have taken place, that child abuse is so hard to prove so we should assume it's happening regardless of any lack of evidence, etc.
PU Tom Sawyer insists that he has nothing against gay sex per se, but he thinks bath houses, especially those owned by Chinese, should be automatically suspected of child abuse.

That's what all this bullshit surrounding this case looks like to me.

 

[Derec]

In the court of public opinon/my personal opinion/this forum: Nope. I get to form my own opinion.

I.e. you presume guilt because of your prejudices about sex work.

Which is informed not only by whatever facts I have read in news media but also an understanding of the challenges and difficulties in proving trafficking.

Just because something might be difficult to prove does not mean you should presume it happened in absence of evidence for it.

Al Capone is well known to have been a criminal but he ultimately went down for tax evasion. Doesn't mean that I cannot recognize the criminality in his other actions. I'm not his lawyer, his judge, his jury. Or prosecutor. I'm a private citizen.

Al Capone is an interesting example, in that he was a product of the same attitude (prohibition) you have toward sex work.
Sex work is not called the world's oldest profession for no reason. It is deeply ingrained in human nature. Which is why sex work exists in some form in all societies, even quite repressive ones like Saudi Arabia or Sweden. Trying to root it out only leads to misery for many people.

Not deal in trafficked women.

And how do you define "trafficking"? Be specific.
Because the supposedly "anti-trafficking" (really anti-sex work) groups (which you love to use for your questionable stats) define it such that any woman who moves (especially internationally) and engages in sex work, even if perfectly consensually, is counted as "trafficking victim". So is your solution not to fuck anybody with an accent?

These are not women who responded to some ad on some employment site or news paper. They were brought in specifically do perform the exact services they were performing--and held there, without their passports in their possession, unable to leave the premises without being accompanied by a member designated by management, moved about to various locations at the owner's whims.

The prosecutor admitted that there is no evidence of the claims initially made by the sheriff. Kindly stop pretending that those are facts.
If any woman is forced to perform sex acts against their will, the person who forces her should be prosecuted fully. However, just because a woman is from China does not mean that it is so. I know a Chinese woman who owns her own Asian massage parlor. And yes, I can testify that she does offer "extras", and is quite good at them . Is she trafficking herself?

The owners know who they are 'hiring' and from whom and under what circumstances. That's what their business model is based upon.

The owners do know, but you certainly do not.

 

[laughing dog]

In court, yes. Otherwise, no.

Do you limit that to sex work or any kind of work? If there is an immigrant cook from China who lives on premises, do you automatically assume that cook is being held at the restaurant against his will and forced to cook food? And should every customer of that restaurant be presumed to be engaging in forced labor by proxy just because there is merest possibility there may be human trafficking and forced labor afoot?

I based my opinion on the reporting. If some cook was reported to have been prevented from living the premises and had his/her passport held somewhere else, then I would conclude that the person was being held against his/her will.

There is no good reason for consensual sex work to be an illegal activity....

Irrelevant - Robert Kraft was breaking the law if he paid for sex.

 

[Derec]

The prosecutor admitted they had no evidence for trafficking. The prosecutor did not admit there was no evidence of seized passports or that the women were prevented from leaving the premises. Seizure of passports or prevention of leaving the premises can occur without trafficking.

And yet again the prohibitionists use their rubber definition of "trafficking" to wiggle out of any piece of evidence not supporting their views. If your definition of "trafficking" does not include seizing passports or preventing somebody to leave, then what good is it?

The prosecutor was quite clear in his statement. He likened it to police stopping somebody whom they suspect of having drugs and finding nothing. Do you really believe that the prosecutor would not have mentioned evidence of imprisonment if there was any evidence of such a thing? Be realistic for once!

 

[Derec]

I don't agree with anything you wrote.

Big surprise. I could write that the sky is blue and you and the Hound would find some objection.

There certainly is evidence of coercion, of at the very least unfair labor practices and probably trafficking, even if the prosecutors have decided not to pursue trafficking charges.

The prosecutor said that there is no evidence. What evidence do you think there is? He used an analogy of a traffic stop for suspected drug smuggling and a search finding nothing. That is a pretty clear statement.
You think there was trafficking because you want to believe that there was trafficking because you despise sex work. You should admit that much.

Note also that the women who serviced Kraft was arrested for prostitution. That means that the authorities certainly do not believe they were victims.
I do not think sex workers should be arrested, but neither should customers. Consensual sex work should be legal.

Trafficking is notoriously difficult to prove in a court of law.

That does not mean we should presume it just because some old guy got a handjob or two.

That does not mean that trafficking is rare or isn't known to have occurred in the past or in the present.

Neither does it mean it is frequent or that it occurred in this particular instance.

It is difficult to understand why more isn't being done to stop the trafficking of people.

First we would have to define it in a meaningful way. Simply moving and engaging is sex work != trafficking.
Second, we need to legalize consensual sex work. If some people want to sell sexual services, who are you to tell them they should not do whatever they want with their bodies?

If I hire a cleaning lady who I suspect may not be a US citizen, or might not be willing to perform the job I hired for her to do, then I have a certain amount of responsibility to perform due diligence that she is working legally and willingly. I might not be knowingly forcing her to work against her will but I am contributing to her problem if I do not perform due diligence to ensure that she is willing and legal. I am part of the coercion. One cannot simply say one didn't know. That is why employers are required to verify that workers are of legal age, have SS numbers, etc.

But if you hire a cleaner from an agency you do not check SS numbers etc. yourself. You assume the agency is on the up and up.
What your position is equivalent to is that because in some cases coercion and trafficking occurs, all cleaning services must be made illegal and trafficking should be presumed of any agencies hiring immigrants.

If I hire someone to perform sex acts and that person is unwilling, I am guilty of rape even if I did not know that person was unwilling,

I disagree.
I also disagree that hiring somebody to perform sex acts should be illegal.

just as I would be guilty of statutory rape if I didn't know that the person was under legal age of consent.

Sex work is not the only illogical sex-related law. If a girl lies about her age, why should that be the guy's fault? I mean, even ids can be faked.

I have a responsibility to know that the person I am engaging in sex with is doing so willingly and is of legal age to consent and also is not under the influence of substances that interfere with their ability to make sound judgments or act in their own behalf. My intention may not be to rape but I cannot simply claim innocence if I did nothing to ensure that the other person was of legal age, willing and not under the influence.

I think people should have the responsibility to do reasonable due diligence, not have absolute certainty.

But, you are opposed to any sex work though. Even if the woman is 25, and perfectly willing, you still want to throw a man in jail for hiring her to do consensual sexual acts. And that position is very wrong, illiberal and regressive.

 

[Derec]

I based my opinion on the reporting.

That reporting was based on claims by the sheriff. Claims that were not substantiated.

If some cook was reported to have been prevented from living the premises and had his/her passport held somewhere else, then I would conclude that the person was being held against his/her will.

Even if the prosecutor had to admit later that there was no evidence for any of it?
And even if it was true, how could patrons of the restaurant have known it? Or would it be a justification to criminalize cooking for money and hiring people to cook for you in general?

Irrelevant - Robert Kraft was breaking the law if he paid for sex.

It is very much relevant. Just like it is relevant that anti-sodomy laws were wrong. Just like it is relevant that abortion should be legal when/if Roe is repealed by SCOTUS.

 

[Derec]

No, we can claim human trafficking if we get situations like this one with a bunch of women who are victims of human trafficking. We're not courts.