Mike Bloomberg Just Lost My Vote with His Super Bowl Ad

Many Americans will basically be meeting Mike Bloomberg for the first time today, when the billionaire former three-term mayor of New York City drops an ad costing a reported $11 million during the Super Bowl. Despite have served in office first as a Republican and then as an independent, Bloomberg is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination. He’s not exactly unknown (he even once had a funny cameo on Curb Your Enthusiasm), but he’s hardly as familiar to most voters as Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Donald Trump.

But based on his commercial, which is about gun violence in America, Bloomberg has already lost my potential vote. Let me explain.

As a small-l libertarian unaffiliated with any party, my vote is up for grabs in November even if I’ve gone Libertarian in almost every presidential race in which I’ve voted (the one exception came in 1984, when as a first-time voter, I cast a vote for Walter Mondale, whose self-deprecating “Norwegian charisma” and honest declaration that he would raise taxes to close the deficit spoke to me). Especially as I get older, I want to be able to vote for a candidate who might actually win and I understand that presidential politics will never cough up someone with whom I completely agree. Indeed, I even parted company with former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson on various things despite enthusiastically voting for him in 2012 and 2016.

Rare among libertarians, who tend to dismiss Bloomberg as a petty tyrant for many plausible reasons, I was excited when he jumped into the Democratic race. Sure, he was a nanny stater on steroids when he ran the Big Apple, famous for his what-the-fuck efforts to ban Big Gulp sodas and salt and he was an unapologetic champion of the repressive police tactic known as “stop and frisk” (he’s unconvincingly repented now that he’s running for president). He remains an idiot and a hypocrite on pot legalization, among other things. It’s at least a little disturbing that he’s risen as high as fourth in some polls based solely on spending $250 billion on ads. His just-announced $5 trillion tax plan is a groaner as well, especially since he doesn’t seem interested in cutting spending.

But he’s running for president of the United States, so the soft bigotry of low expectations works in his favor. In a Democratic field filled with ultra-lefties such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom want to regulate the hell out of the economy, Bloomberg is a dyed-in-the-wool, unapologetic capitalist who earned his $54 billion net worth the old-fashioned way: by providing an excellent service at a price that customers were willing to pay.

He is thus nothing less than a walking, talking refutation of the “destroy all billionaires” mindset of Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (“No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars“) and former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich (who says billionaires’ fortunes have nothing to do “with being successful in the supposed free market”).

Like the widely disliked and now-forgotten Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks CEO who flirted with an independent run last year and openly defended free enterprise, Bloomberg has succeeded incredibly in the private sector and unlike his fellow billionaire Donald Trump, his wealth isn’t based on working political connections, getting tax breaks, and pursuing eminent domain grifts.

As important, Bloomberg has a real political record to run on. Talk to just about anybody with a five-digit income in New York and they’ll tell you that Bloomberg was a good mayor despite the Nurse Ratched flourishes. Unlike the current occupant of Gracie Mansion, the failed presidential contender and groundhog killer Bill De Blasio, Bloomberg made the city safe for commerce, improved the provision of basic services, and forced positive changes in the public school system. He was nobody’s idea of a libertarian, but he also oversaw an absolutely booming city.

So I looked forward to seeing him spar with Warren and Sanders on economic issues, mock Joe Biden for never having worked in the private sector, and dismiss Mayor Pete for his unaccomplished tenure in a city whose population is less than New York’s was in 1810. As befits somebody who made his mint in New York, Bloomberg is blunt, mean, and nasty and I caught myself daydreaming about the debates he might have with Donald Trump, whom he calls “a failed businessman whose companies went bankrupt multiple times.”

But that Super Bowl ad kills whatever minor buzz he gave me. This is how he chooses to intro himself to the voting public? The ad recounts the tragic, senseless shooting death of a young black man, a powerful vignette that Bloomberg’s campaign insists will “stop people in their tracks.” As mayor and afterwards, gun control was a central concern to Bloomberg, who helped bankroll 2018 candidates who wanted to restrict gun rights and whose website touts his plans to create “more effective background checks,” “keep guns out of the wrong hands,” “tackle daily gun violence in the hardest-hit communities,” “ban assault weapons and protect schools,” and “confront the gun lobby head-on.”

I believe in Second Amendment rights but I don’t have particularly strong feelings on the matter, especially compared to most libertarians. All of the things that Bloomberg suggests are either already basically the law or won’t have the effects supporters claim. As my Reason colleague Jacob Sullum has written, background checks will do nothing to stop mass shootings because “perpetrators of these attacks typically do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records.” Beyond that, passing more and stricter laws generally don’t stop criminals, who don’t follow laws, from getting guns. Researchers funded by the federal government concluded that the assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 had essentially no impact on gun violence and crime. Most important, Bloomberg simply ignores the massive declines in gun-related crimes and violence over the past 25 years. “There were 4.6 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2017, far below the 7.2 per 100,000 people recorded in 1974,” reports Pew. Between 1993 and 2015, “rates for crimes using guns dropped from 7.3 per 1,000 people to 1.1 per 1,000 people.”

The story told in Bloomberg’s Super Bowl ad is moving and sad, but I simply don’t understand why the billionaire would focus on the issue of gun violence in such a high-profile setting. In its way, it’s as off-kilter as Donald Trump’s insistence during the 2016 campaign that violent crime was somehow out of control. Perhaps Bloomberg is trying to signal loud and clear to Democratic primary voters that despite his past affiliations as a Republican and an independent, he is in synch with Democratic fixations and policy priorities.

Maybe the “George” ad will in fact help seal the deal with Democrats, but it leaves me and, I suspect, other independent voters wondering just how different he is from other candidates who are already in the race. I would have much rather seen a commercial that explained how Bloomberg would draw on his business experience and success as mayor of the largest city in the country to grow the economy, tackle looming entitlement cataclysms, and reduce culture-war battles.

The 2020 race doesn’t yet have a major-party candidate who offers a compelling, optimistic, and realistic vision of an economically vibrant and socially tolerant nation. Instead we have, on the one hand, an incumbent president who can barely go a few hours without picking fights and signing off on massive spending increases, trade barriers, and immigration restrictions. On the other hand, we have a bunch of Democrats who talk about massively expanding the size, scope, and spending of government while dreaming of new taxes and regulations on virtually every aspect of our lives.

Mike Bloomberg might have offered an alternative to these two exhausting and generally miserable options. Instead, he is dropping millions of dollars on a high-profile commercial that will win him no new followers nor distinguish him from his rivals. Given his billions, Bloomberg can afford to follow his bliss when it comes to campaigning, but I know I’ll be looking elsewhere for a candidate to support.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Om87H5
via IFTTT

Brexit: The Unquenchable Fire Spanning The Globe

Brexit: The Unquenchable Fire Spanning The Globe

Authored by Mark Angelides via LibertyNation.com,

Brexit is one of the most historically significant events of recent times. It was the precursor to Trump, it heralded the populist movement across Europe, and it was the first moment that the world realized that the ideology of globalism was not a fixed fate, inescapable and unstoppable.

When we read history, more often than not, we focus on the events and the great happenings. We contemplate and wonder at the surrounding circumstance, and question how these things got started, what was the impetus to the historical event? We know the players, we know the dates and the number of people involved, but we rarely hear of the motivations, or at least what the primary cause of said motivation might be. Not so with Brexit.

It took three Prime Ministers, two General Elections, and three and a half years of arguments from either side of this political divide since the public voted to leave. It was a campaign that was being fought even after the votes were counted. This may seem familiar to our American audience. President Trump won in 2016, and yet there are swathes of the political and media class who just do not accept the reality: This is Brexit country.

As Britain prepares to bid a not-so-fond farewell to the E.U., I want to walk you through the timeline of events from Britain joining what was billed as little more than a simple trade arrangement. And we’ll go all the way through to the E.U. becoming a monolithic government that commanded nations in what laws they must implement and what border controls, if any, they were permitted. Finally, we’ll see how Britain broke free of an organization that would be a country.

The Back Story: Clashes And Confrontations

In 1973, Britain joined the European Communities (E.C.), which was a fairly simple trade organization made up of just eight other countries, including France and Germany. Then, in 1975, the E.C. developed to become what is today known as the Common Market or ECC. Membership of the ECC would require certain laws and regulations to be made in the E.U. and not in Westminster, in order to have regulatory alignment political capital. A referendum was held to see if the people of Britain wished to continue. The result was an overwhelming yes.

However, as the years went on, more and more changes to the structure of this trading organization took place that required a handing over of national sovereignty. The trading block grew, adding new European countries to its ranks. Treaties were signed by the governments of the day each time they arose that handed power to Brussels and took it away from the British parliament. Many thought this was a price worth paying to be part of a large trading block.

But not everyone.

Political Pressure

A Euro-Skeptic movement began around the same time that the E.U. was pressuring Britain to adopt the Euro as its currency and to do away with the Pound Sterling. The skeptics – or “mad, swivel-eyed loons” as the PM described them – argued that a trade deal was not worth handing over law-making abilities to what was fast becoming a foreign government and that Britain should have control over its own laws, currency, and immigration policy.

Nigel Farage

It took over 20 years of campaigning, but electoral pressure from the United Kingdom Independence Party, then headed by Nigel Farage, forced PM David Cameron to offer an In/Out referendum on continued membership of the E.U. if he won the 2015 General Election with an outright majority.

Cameron, who was then leading a minority government in coalition with the Liberal Democrat Party, believed there was little chance he would gain an outright majority, but that the promise of a referendum would at least put himself and his Conservative Party back in power. The nation was stunned by the result

A Brexit Referendum

Far from just winning the election, because of Cameron’s promise on the referendum, he was catapulted back to Westminster with a large majority and was beholden to the voters to deliver on his promise.

All leaders of the main political parties campaigned for Britain to remain part of the European Union. Nigel Farage, UKIP, and several grassroots movements campaigned to leave in a David and Goliath campaign. On June 23, 2016, the public went to the ballot boxes. The vast majority of polling predicted that the Remain side would win, and it wasn’t until the results started coming in that David Cameron realized he had made a huge miscalculation.

The final result was 52% to Leave and 48% to Remain. Of the 650 voting constituencies in the U.K., over 400 voted to part ways with the E.U. It was the largest single vote for anything ever in the history of the country.

Brexit Delayed

In the wake of the historic result, Cameron first attempted to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership in hopes that this would be enough to satiate the Brexiteers. The E.U., perhaps believing that no country would ever actually leave, reacted arrogantly, offering nothing more than sops. The PM returned to Britain humiliated.

Theresa May

Because PM Cameron had campaigned to Remain in the E.U., he felt he should not be the person responsible for taking Britain out. A leadership election was held in the Conservative Party, and Theresa May became the new prime minister. However, May did not seem to have the support, or perhaps the will, to complete Brexit.

The country remained divided between those who won the referendum and those who wanted to ignore the vote and carry on as before. PM May was unable to pass any legislation in Parliament, and without support, could not govern; another leadership election was called.  Boris Johnson handily won this race and challenged the opposition Labour Party to agree to a General Election.

In the U.K., the Fixed-Term Parliament Act prevents calling an election unless a two-thirds majority of MPs vote for one, or the five-year period expires.

Labour, under leader Jeremey Corbyn, was initially hesitant to agree to an election as his party’s stated position was to try and remain in the E.U. After much back and forth, mocking and threats, an election was agreed to, and Boris Johnson, running on a platform of “Get Brexit Done,” won a resounding landslide.

Lingering Tentacles

Britain leaves today, but this does not mean that the relationship is entirely over. During the next year, parliament will negotiate with E.U. leaders to determine if some kind of trade arrangement can be reached. So far, the E.U. is asking for what’s known as a “level playing field,” which in reality means political and legal alignment on rules and regulations. Boris Johnson has ruled this out, suggesting that it is this alignment that began Brexit in the first place.

If at the end of 2020 no trade arrangement is reached, Britain will revert to trading on World Trade Organization terms, no different to any other country outside of the E.U. Whether PM Johnson wins another election will depend on how well he manages these negotiations.

Eternal Flame?

Perhaps we can, after looking at the story of Brexit, understand why we so seldom have a complete overview of historical events – and why it’s so difficult to hand over a complete package wrapped in a nice little bow and say, ”look, here’s this segment of history and all you need to know.” Perhaps it’s because these events that shape the future of nations are never truly over.

Brexit has happened, Donald Trump won, but the story goes on. What happens today will have major consequences for the next 20 years, 200 years, or perhaps even more. Brexit was the spark that lit the flame of a populist resurgence around the globe. We see it in Europe, we see it in the U.S., and it will rage until all people can honestly say that they are truly, finally, free.


Tyler Durden

Sun, 02/02/2020 – 08:10

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36RPD7Y Tyler Durden

Mike Bloomberg Just Lost My Vote with His Super Bowl Ad

Many Americans will basically be meeting Mike Bloomberg for the first time today, when the billionaire former three-term mayor of New York City drops an ad costing a reported $11 million during the Super Bowl. Despite have served in office first as a Republican and then as an independent, Bloomberg is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination. He’s not exactly unknown (he even once had a funny cameo on Curb Your Enthusiasm), but he’s hardly as familiar to most voters as Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Donald Trump.

But based on his commercial, which is about gun violence in America, Bloomberg has already lost my potential vote. Let me explain.

As a small-l libertarian unaffiliated with any party, my vote is up for grabs in November even if I’ve gone Libertarian in almost every presidential race in which I’ve voted (the one exception came in 1984, when as a first-time voter, I cast a vote for Walter Mondale, whose self-deprecating “Norwegian charisma” and honest declaration that he would raise taxes to close the deficit spoke to me). Especially as I get older, I want to be able to vote for a candidate who might actually win and I understand that presidential politics will never cough up someone with whom I completely agree. Indeed, I even parted company with former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson on various things despite enthusiastically voting for him in 2012 and 2016.

Rare among libertarians, who tend to dismiss Bloomberg as a petty tyrant for many plausible reasons, I was excited when he jumped into the Democratic race. Sure, he was a nanny stater on steroids when he ran the Big Apple, famous for his what-the-fuck efforts to ban Big Gulp sodas and salt and he was an unapologetic champion of the repressive police tactic known as “stop and frisk” (he’s unconvincingly repented now that he’s running for president). He remains an idiot and a hypocrite on pot legalization, among other things. It’s at least a little disturbing that he’s risen as high as fourth in some polls based solely on spending $250 billion on ads. His just-announced $5 trillion tax plan is a groaner as well, especially since he doesn’t seem interested in cutting spending.

But he’s running for president of the United States, so the soft bigotry of low expectations works in his favor. In a Democratic field filled with ultra-lefties such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom want to regulate the hell out of the economy, Bloomberg is a dyed-in-the-wool, unapologetic capitalist who earned his $54 billion net worth the old-fashioned way: by providing an excellent service at a price that customers were willing to pay.

He is thus nothing less than a walking, talking refutation of the “destroy all billionaires” mindset of Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (“No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars“) and former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich (who says billionaires’ fortunes have nothing to do “with being successful in the supposed free market”).

Like the widely disliked and now-forgotten Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks CEO who flirted with an independent run last year and openly defended free enterprise, Bloomberg has succeeded incredibly in the private sector and unlike his fellow billionaire Donald Trump, his wealth isn’t based on working political connections, getting tax breaks, and pursuing eminent domain grifts.

As important, Bloomberg has a real political record to run on. Talk to just about anybody with a five-digit income in New York and they’ll tell you that Bloomberg was a good mayor despite the Nurse Ratched flourishes. Unlike the current occupant of Gracie Mansion, the failed presidential contender and groundhog killer Bill De Blasio, Bloomberg made the city safe for commerce, improved the provision of basic services, and forced positive changes in the public school system. He was nobody’s idea of a libertarian, but he also oversaw an absolutely booming city.

So I looked forward to seeing him spar with Warren and Sanders on economic issues, mock Joe Biden for never having worked in the private sector, and dismiss Mayor Pete for his unaccomplished tenure in a city whose population is less than New York’s was in 1810. As befits somebody who made his mint in New York, Bloomberg is blunt, mean, and nasty and I caught myself daydreaming about the debates he might have with Donald Trump, whom he calls “a failed businessman whose companies went bankrupt multiple times.”

But that Super Bowl ad kills whatever minor buzz he gave me. This is how he chooses to intro himself to the voting public? The ad recounts the tragic, senseless shooting death of a young black man, a powerful vignette that Bloomberg’s campaign insists will “stop people in their tracks.” As mayor and afterwards, gun control was a central concern to Bloomberg, who helped bankroll 2018 candidates who wanted to restrict gun rights and whose website touts his plans to create “more effective background checks,” “keep guns out of the wrong hands,” “tackle daily gun violence in the hardest-hit communities,” “ban assault weapons and protect schools,” and “confront the gun lobby head-on.”

I believe in Second Amendment rights but I don’t have particularly strong feelings on the matter, especially compared to most libertarians. All of the things that Bloomberg suggests are either already basically the law or won’t have the effects supporters claim. As my Reason colleague Jacob Sullum has written, background checks will do nothing to stop mass shootings because “perpetrators of these attacks typically do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records.” Beyond that, passing more and stricter laws generally don’t stop criminals, who don’t follow laws, from getting guns. Researchers funded by the federal government concluded that the assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 had essentially no impact on gun violence and crime. Most important, Bloomberg simply ignores the massive declines in gun-related crimes and violence over the past 25 years. “There were 4.6 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2017, far below the 7.2 per 100,000 people recorded in 1974,” reports Pew. Between 1993 and 2015, “rates for crimes using guns dropped from 7.3 per 1,000 people to 1.1 per 1,000 people.”

The story told in Bloomberg’s Super Bowl ad is moving and sad, but I simply don’t understand why the billionaire would focus on the issue of gun violence in such a high-profile setting. In its way, it’s as off-kilter as Donald Trump’s insistence during the 2016 campaign that violent crime was somehow out of control. Perhaps Bloomberg is trying to signal loud and clear to Democratic primary voters that despite his past affiliations as a Republican and an independent, he is in synch with Democratic fixations and policy priorities.

Maybe the “George” ad will in fact help seal the deal with Democrats, but it leaves me and, I suspect, other independent voters wondering just how different he is from other candidates who are already in the race. I would have much rather seen a commercial that explained how Bloomberg would draw on his business experience and success as mayor of the largest city in the country to grow the economy, tackle looming entitlement cataclysms, and reduce culture-war battles.

The 2020 race doesn’t yet have a major-party candidate who offers a compelling, optimistic, and realistic vision of an economically vibrant and socially tolerant nation. Instead we have, on the one hand, an incumbent president who can barely go a few hours without picking fights and signing off on massive spending increases, trade barriers, and immigration restrictions. On the other hand, we have a bunch of Democrats who talk about massively expanding the size, scope, and spending of government while dreaming of new taxes and regulations on virtually every aspect of our lives.

Mike Bloomberg might have offered an alternative to these two exhausting and generally miserable options. Instead, he is dropping millions of dollars on a high-profile commercial that will win him no new followers nor distinguish him from his rivals. Given his billions, Bloomberg can afford to follow his bliss when it comes to campaigning, but I know I’ll be looking elsewhere for a candidate to support.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Om87H5
via IFTTT

The State Of Democracy (Is Declining) Around The World

The State Of Democracy (Is Declining) Around The World

The Economist Democracy Index rates countries on the state of their governing system each year. 

In the latest installment published today, Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes that 22 countries in the world were rated as “full democracies,” including all Scandinavian countries, several Western European nations as well as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Mauritius, Costa Rica and Chile, which joined the top group in 2019 together with France and Portugal.

Infographic: The State of Democracy Around the World | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Malta dropped out of the full democracies section. Another country which saw its ratings drop in the past year was Iraq, which left the “hybrid regime” category and became authoritarian. India and China also were rated lower in 2019. India, a flawed democracy, was only rated at 6.9 points while China – an authoritarian regime – was scrutinized for heightened surveillance and human rights abuses in its Eastern regions and only achieved a rating of 2.3 points. The country exhibited the biggest loss of any country in the 2019 ranking and became the 15th least democratic place in the world.

Thailand improved its rating most – by 1.7 points – and became a “flawed democracy.”

Advanced economies like Japan and the U.S. also found themselves in the “flawed democracies” category. According to the report, the persistent success of anti-establishment parties (on the left and the right) was partly to blame for the “decline in the quality of democracy.” Japan, which is rated negatively because of inaction on gender inequality, actually made improvements but still “has a long way to go.” The U.S., finally, lost points because of political gridlock and the partisan nature of the political system.

Infographic: The Best And Worst Countries For Democracy | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

The countries rated most poorly were North Korea, Syria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The lowest rated European nations were Belarus, Azerbaijan and Russia.


Tyler Durden

Sun, 02/02/2020 – 07:35

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2vKzF2D Tyler Durden

Rewriting History Of World War II Is Ominous Warning

Rewriting History Of World War II Is Ominous Warning

Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

It is astounding and deeply disturbing that 75 years after the end of World World Two the history of that event is being re-written before our very eyes.

That war resulted in over 50 million dead with more than half of the victims from the Soviet Union. It incorporated the worst crimes against humanity, including the systematic mass murder of millions carried out by Nazi Germany, known as the Holocaust. The victims included Jews, Slavs, Roma, Soviet prisoners-of-war and others whom the fascist Nazis deemed to be “Untermensch” (“Subhumans”).

The Soviet Red Army fought back the Nazi forces all the way from Russia through Eastern Europe, eventually defeating the Third Reich in Berlin. Nearly 90 per cent of all Wehrmacht casualties incurred during the entire war were suffered on the Eastern Front against the Red Army. That alone testifies how it was the Soviet Union among the allied nations which primarily accomplished the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Seventy-five years ago, on January 27, 1945, it was Red Army soldiers who liberated the notorious Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp. It was during the Vistula-Oder Offensive which drove the Nazis out of Poland paving the way for the eventual final victorious battle in Berlin some three months later.

It is incredible that within living memory, these objective facts of history about the most cataclysmic war ever waged are being falsified or insidiously distorted.

Germany’s most-read magazine Der Spiegel, American-European journal Politico, a U.S. embassy announcement, as well as American Vice President Mike Pence, are among recent sources who have either falsified or downplayed the heroic role of the Soviet Union in liberating Auschwitz. This is part of a disconcerting trend of rewriting the history of World War Two, by which, preposterously, the Soviet Union is being equated with Nazi Germany. Such pernicious fiction must be resisted and repudiated by all conscientious historians and citizens.

Der Spiegel and the U.S. embassy in Denmark both had to issue embarrassed apologies after they separately stated that it was American forces which liberated Auschwitz. It is mind-boggling how such an error on the 75th anniversary of one of the most iconic events in history could have been made – by a leading magazine and a diplomatic corps.

More sinister was an article published in Politico on January 24 written by the Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki which claimed, “Far from being a liberator, the Soviet Union was a facilitator of Nazi Germany.”

The Polish politician is no exception. It has become a staple argument in recent years contended by other Polish leaders and politicians from the Baltic states who seek to revise the history of the war, blaming the Soviet Union for being an accomplice with Nazi Germany. The corruption of history is partly driven by a desire to whitewash the nefarious role played by these countries as quislings to the Third Reich who helped it carry out the Holocaust.

Vice President Pence’s speech at the Holocaust memorial event in Jerusalem on January 23 was another deplorable sleight of hand. In his address, he never once mentioned the fact of the Soviet forces blasting open the gates of Auschwitz. Pence merely said, “When soldiers opened the gates of Auschwitz…” A sentence later, he went on to mention how “American soldiers liberated Europe from tyranny.”

It is quite astonishing how brazenly false narratives about World War Two are being told, not merely by Neo-Nazi sympathizers and cranks beyond the pale, but by supposedly senior politicians and respectable media. It is perplexing how the heroic role of Soviet commanders, soldiers and people is being eroded, airbrushed and even maligned into something grotesquely opposite.

Washington’s belligerent geopolitical agenda of trying to isolate and undermine Russia is no doubt underlying the process of re-writing history in order to deprive Russia of moral authority and recast it as a malign nation. Of course the obsessive Russophobia of Polish and Baltic politicians neatly plays into this agenda.

This reprehensible revisionism is in flagrant contradiction and denial of international libraries of documented history, archives, official and personal correspondence, photographs, as well as first-hand witness accounts.

An excellent essay by Martin Sieff this week recounts how Soviet soldiers and medics tended to the remaining 7,000 wretched inmates of Auschwitz. More than a million others had been exterminated by the Nazis before they fled from the advancing Soviet forces.

The Soviet officer in command of liberating Auschwitz was Lieutenant Colonel Anatoly Shapiro. He was himself a Russian-born Jew. The Soviet soldiers spoke of their horror and heartbreak upon discovering the hellish conditions in which skeletal men, women and children were teetering on the brink of death. Bodies of dead lay everywhere among pools of frozen blood.

Another Jewish Soviet officer Colonel Elisavetsky told how Russian doctors and nurses worked without sleep or food to try to save the emaciated inmates.

As Sieff notes:

“For Colonel Shapiro, the idea that he, his Red Army comrades and the medical staff who fought and died to liberate Auschwitz and who worked so hard to save its pitifully few survivors should be casually equated with the Nazis mass-killers would have been ludicrous and contemptible… The true story of the liberation of Auschwitz needs to be told and retold. It needs to be rammed down the throats of Russia-hating bigots and warmongers everywhere.”

Maintaining the historical record about World War Two – its fascist origins and its defeat – is not just a matter of national pride for Russians. Ominously, if history can be denied, falsified and distorted, then the danger of repetition returns. We must never let the heroic role of the Soviet Union be forgotten or belittled, especially by people who seem to have a penchant for fascism.


Tyler Durden

Sun, 02/02/2020 – 07:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/37SjgHl Tyler Durden

Massage Parlor Panic

The website Rubmaps describes itself as being devoted to “erotic massage parlor reviews & happy endings.” Users who pay for membership can write and read reviews of massage parlors. Some reviews are predictably racy, and some are, perhaps surprisingly, more PG-rated. The site lets clients know what to expect from massage parlors—and also what not to expect, offering clarity about which services are on offer and guidance about how to behave.

Increasingly, however, it also serves another purpose. Police have begun monitoring the site on the theory that, as a 2016 article in the magazine Prosecutor’s Brief asserted, a good Rubmaps review “indicates that the location is a brothel.” And when police and prosecutors take an interest, so do politicians.

Rubmaps entered the Congressional Record in March 2015, when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) was speaking about the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. Feinstein cited Rubmaps as one of 19 sites that supposedly “act[ed] as purveyors of child sex trafficking in this country.” Those sites, she said, “ought to be ashamed of themselves.” 

It was Feinstein who should have been ashamed. During her extensive remarks, she offered no solid evidence that these sites were in fact facilitating child sex trafficking. Yet her push to shutter them played directly into a social panic that has been building into a legal crusade against sex work and the web platforms that enable it. Within a few years, Rubmaps—then one of the lesser-known sites Feinstein mentioned—would become a key target in this dubious fight, aided by America’s long history of discriminatory opposition to massage businesses operated and staffed primarily by Asian immigrants.

People who coerce or force others into prostitution do exist, and violence against those involved in prostitution happens. Law enforcement should absolutely take these horrors seriously—especially if minors are involved. Yet government estimates of the prevalence of sex trafficking have tended to be wildly inflated and plagued with “methodological weaknesses, gaps in data, and numerical discrepancies,” as the Government Accountability Office put it. Known cases in the United States remain incredibly rare.

In 2015, for instance, U.S. attorneys received information on about 750 people suspected of either “peonage, slavery, forced labor or sex trafficking,” according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Yet they ultimately filed charges in just 395 of these cases.

Perhaps because of the scarcity of bona fide trafficking cases and disproportionate public interest in the topic, law enforcement agencies frequently go on fishing expeditions, searching for needles in a haystack and then arresting anyone in the vicinity of the barn.

The Wall Street Journal reported in September that agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department are investigating Rubmaps and two similar websites. Opponents argue these sites facilitate the sexual exploitation of girls and women. But authorities rarely turn up the horrific crimes they say they’re rooting out. Instead, the people most harmed by the attention from law enforcement are the ones cops and advocates claim they’re out to save.

Rubmaps’ emergence as a digital boogeyman corresponds with a nationwide legal assault on Asian massage parlors and the women who work at or own them. Recent high-profile examples—including the Palm Beach, Florida, investigation that ensnared New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and the Queens, New York, raid that led to the death of Chinese immigrant Yang Song—highlight a wider phenomenon that plays out around the country on a weekly basis, a carceral charade in which the twisted “help” offered to “exploited” women includes jail, seized assets, and deportation.

These raids, which often overlap with America’s escalating crackdowns on unauthorized immigrants, frequently involve Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and FBI agents. Federal law enforcement officials are being enlisted, in other words, to round up women for giving unapproved hand jobs or offering ordinary back and foot massages without the right paperwork.

In a throwback to shameful earlier episodes in U.S. history, these workers—mostly middle-aged Asian immigrant women—are treated as victims long enough to get authorities in the door and then as criminals once law enforcement officials are done playing hero to the press.

Once Upon a Time in Florida

The sting that nabbed Robert Kraft, the CEO of the Kraft Group and owner of the Patriots, on solicitation charges in February 2019 was a perfect storm of sex trafficking panic, xenophobia, prosecutorial showboating, and prurient interest. The bust was part of a monthslong investigation into massage parlors in and around Palm Beach County, Florida. Local police and prosecutors initially heralded it as part of a “human trafficking investigation” that would rescue victims and send a message to the men who patronized them. But it ultimately yielded no human trafficking charges, and the “rescued” women faced more severe criminal penalties than did their clients.

The inability to identify any trafficking victims is especially striking given that law enforcement used every tool at their disposal to get the answer they wanted. In June, the Associated Press reported that Martin County sheriff’s detectives told one masseuse detained in the raid that she would be given an apartment and allowed to bring her children to the United States from overseas so long as she testified that she had been trafficked.

Nonetheless, the woman repeatedly insisted she wasn’t forced into sex work. She was doing it to support relatives in China, she said, even as police kept pressuring her to change her story. Eventually she agreed merely to not deny to law enforcement that she was trafficked—but not to say she had been, either—and they let her go.

As part of the investigation, police and Homeland Security agents had staked out several local businesses for months, made multiple undercover visits, tailed workers running errands, and used a “sneak and peek” warrant to secretly install security cameras in massage rooms. Two of the women arrested, more than a dozen of the men (including Kraft), and a host of regular massage patrons who were filmed naked as part of police surveillance are suing over the footage.

The men who were picked up received misdemeanor solicitation charges. That doesn’t mean they got off scot-free: Even a minor run-in with the criminal justice system can be disruptive and costly, not to mention the reputational damage that comes from having your name in the papers as part of an alleged “human trafficking bust.” For his part, Kraft was soon back to having dinner beside President Donald Trump and partying in the Hamptons with Hollywood celebrities. But most of the men arrested were not wealthy public figures.

Massage parlor workers and managers faced much worse, including jail time, seized assets, and sometimes multiple felony charges, despite an utter lack of evidence of any nonconsensual activity.

Eight women were accused of participating in a “prostitution enterprise” as well as engaging in prostitution themselves. Others were indicted on allegations of deriving support from the proceeds of prostitution, procuring for prostitution, unlawful transport for prostitution, or keeping a house of ill fame.

Money laundering, racketeering, and conspiracy charges are common in these prosecutions, since doing anything with proceeds from prostitution can qualify. Applying such charges to sex workers who band together and to sex work–adjacent businesses (such as websites that permit escort ads or massage parlors where some workers engage in sex acts) gives prosecutors two things: leverage in eliciting pleas rather than taking a case to trial, and the legal room to seize financial assets.

As of the end of 2019, eight of the 11 spa staffers and associates booked in the stings in Florida’s Indian River, Martin, and Palm Beach counties had accepted plea deals after initially pleading not guilty. The one male employee who was involved pleaded guilty to unlawful transport (a misdemeanor), while seven women pleaded no contest or guilty to misdemeanor prostitution charges and sometimes no contest to other prostitution-related charges. In exchange, prosecutors dropped many of the felony counts, and most of the defendants will avoid more jail time than they have already served.

No traffickers or victims ever materialized (thankfully). In the end, police shut down some immigrant-owned businesses, put a dozen or more women out of work, prohibited some licensed masseuses who were also sex workers from doing legal massage work in the future, and that’s about it.

This is tragically typical of these operations. A 2017 crackdown in Florida, dubbed “Operation Spa,” saw police, immigration agents, and Homeland Security raiding 13 businesses they claimed were engaging in human trafficking. But according to the Fort Myers News-Press, “what transpired was little more than a massage parlor bust of several family-owned businesses.” Five women accepted racketeering-related charges, two employees pleaded guilty to “residing in a place for the purpose of prostitution,” and one woman pleaded guilty to solicitation. No one was convicted of or pleaded guilty to trafficking. Still, one of the workers was deported to China and more than half of the businesses were shut down.

A July 2019 examination by USA Today of three other Florida busts likewise concluded that “law enforcement’s tough-on-trafficking rhetoric fizzled after initial headlines.” A supposed crackdown on the unique scourge of forced labor ended up looking a lot more like a series of conventional immigration and vice raids.

Media-Driven Drama

Law enforcement operations directed at massage parlors in the name of fighting trafficking have increasingly taken the form of immigration stings that target Asian women.

For years I’ve been following the uptick in federally backed efforts to target “illicit massage parlors.” This included setting up Google Alerts for the term massage parlor, which generates an automated email anytime the search engine registers a new article on the topic. Tracking these alerts over periods of time can offer a snapshot of how such arrests are handled.

Between June 1 and September 15, 2019, a Google Alert on the phrase massage parlor yielded stories about more than 95 cases involving suspected sex trafficking and/or prostitution at massage businesses. This figure almost certainly dramatically undercounts these stings, because not every such operation makes the news, gets indexed by Google Alerts, or uses the phrase massage parlor. Still, the results were striking.

The raids went down in urban, suburban, and rural parts of 31 states across the country. But no matter the location or context, the vast majority of those arrested or charged were Asian women. Of 102 identified suspects, 76 were listed as Asian or had typically Asian names.

Of the 97 cases in which this information was given, the average age of those arrested or indicted was 49.8 years. About 80 percent of suspects were in their 40s or 50s, with just two in their 20s and none in their teens.

No one was accused of abduction, smuggling anyone into the country illegally, or running an operation involving children. Prostitution showed up most frequently—at least 47 times—when specific allegations or charges were mentioned. Nineteen cases cited a charge for some form of practicing massage without a license (a felony in some places). Other arrestees were accused of promoting prostitution (in at least 20 cases), some variation on keeping a prostitution facility (eight cases), or other charges frequently applied to sex work—such as racketeering and money laundering—even when all parties involved are consenting adults and legal residents.

Fourteen people did face some form of charge for sex trafficking or human trafficking, with nine coming from a single investigation in Massachusetts. Most of these cases, however, lack any known victims or any allegations that sex acts were coerced or forced.

In the Massachusetts case, initial reports mentioned potential sex trafficking charges against the nine suspects. But as of December 2019, there is no evidence that such charges were filed or that any victims were discovered. Wisconsin business owner Dongmei Greer, 55, faces a state sex trafficking charge after police got a tip that prostitution was taking place at her business—yet the only “victim” was an adult woman who was also arrested for prostitution. Maryland resident Emily Zhang Lawrence has also been charged with sex trafficking, even though the suspected sex acts at her business were all conducted by consenting adults.

Only three sex trafficking suspects during this period are alleged to have coerced any specific victims. In one case, 60-year-old Rita Law—a Hong Kong immigrant naturalized in 1989—was convicted of exploiting two massage business employees and sentenced to 360 months in federal prison. In another ongoing case, a 48-year-old Chinese immigrant named Sufeng Jiang and her boyfriend, Randy Carl Wittner, are accused of mistreating an employee who had just started working for them when cops raided the place and accused the employee of prostitution.

In none of these cases did victims face bosses who acted violently, kept them in captivity, or stole their earnings. Instead, the employers allegedly used these victims’ precarious status as immigrants and sex workers to subject them to coercive arrangements, unsafe working conditions, or unfair financial terms.

These are the kinds of situations that law enforcement should be focused on. Yet they represent an exceptionally small fraction of overall “illicit massage parlor” investigations and prosecutions. These cases also highlight how expanding immigrant and sex worker rights could benefit victims more than these needle-in-a-haystack “rescue” missions. It’s the criminalized nature of prostitution and vulnerable position of people with a precarious immigration status that allow exploitation and abuse, not nefarious underground trafficking rings.

In some cases, prosecutors follow up prostitution arrests by seeking civil court orders to shut down the massage businesses. Occasionally, they try to shut down a business without even bothering with arrests or prosecutions first.

In April 2019, prosecutors got a temporary restraining order to shut down TY Green’s Massage Therapy in Huntsville, Alabama; to freeze the assets of owner Yuping Tang, her daughter Jiao Liu, and three other businesses run by the family; and to seize their workplaces and homes. In a story that made national news, state Attorney General Steve Marshall called the businesses “fronts for a human-trafficking operation” and bragged about this being the first civil action brought under new state human trafficking laws.

Eight months later, no sex trafficking or forced labor charges have been filed. No prostitution charges have been filed. And the Madison County Circuit Court has denied Marshall’s request to make the shutdowns permanent, saying the state failed to make its case.

In April 2019, Columbus, Ohio, City Attorney Zach Klein obtained “emergency” court orders to “vacate and shutter” two massage parlors following stings carried out by county authorities. The emergency was this: During one of the operations, an Asian woman guessed to be age 35 gave an undercover detective an hourlong massage and then, when he asked, “began masturbating the [detective’s] penis” for an extra $40, according to the order. Undercover detectives made at least six more visits to the business over the course of as many months, with similar results.

The investigation into the second business started after authorities found it listed on Rubmaps, Klein said; undercover detectives who subsequently received massages there reported that unidentified Asian female masseuses had also attempted “to stroke [their] genitals.” Though the monthslong operation ultimately rescued no one, Klein promised in a May 2019 press release: “We’re going to continue aggressively going after these businesses that really are nothing more than illegal fronts for human trafficking and prostitution.”

“Suspicious behavior,” according to police, may include having more male than female customers, being open during nonstandard business hours, employing masseuses who wear high heels, having an entrance in the back of the building, requiring customers to buzz in for entry, keeping window blinds closed, having employees that don’t leave the building for lunch breaks, and of course being listed on Rubmaps. In Texas, the Harris County Sheriff’s Office works with a group called Project AWESOME that checks licensing department records against businesses on Rubmaps and reports suspected licensing or zoning law violators to the cops.

Media reports of such activity almost always adopt sensationalistic terms, with headlines that nod to “human trafficking rings” even while listing nothing but prostitution or operating without a license among charged offenses.

“Massage parlor owner pleads guilty to trafficking women,” declared a Minnesota NBC affiliate headline in September. The owner, a 40-year-old woman, had actually pleaded guilty to two counts of prostitution. The article added that the business was suspicious because in order to get in, customers had to ring a doorbell.

The Politics of Massage Parlor Busts

Even though these cases consistently turn out to be duds, prominent rising political stars on both the left and the right have been active participants in this sort of prosecution.

As attorney general of Missouri, for example, Republican Josh Hawley—now the state’s junior senator—presided over a series of massage parlor raids around Springfield in 2017. “Investigators say they spent nearly three years building a case,” reported the Springfield News-Leader.

Hawley’s office told the media that the businesses were “fronts for trafficking.” At a July 2017 court hearing, he said victims had been “rescued” and suggested potential ties to an international sex slavery ring, to “Asian organized crime,” and to “the movement of persons from East Asia to here and then out beyond.” Not long after, Hawley blamed human trafficking on “our cultural elites, Hollywood, and the media,” who had denigrated “the biblical truth about husband and wife” and “the appropriate place for sexual practice and expression within the family.”

No one was ever charged with sex trafficking, labor trafficking, immigration violations, or even prostitution following those raids. As of December 2019, the only criminal charges were for misdemeanor violations of Missouri massage licensing law, with seven massage parlor workers pleading guilty to one count each. But that didn’t stop Greene County, Missouri, prosecutors from trying to suspend the raided businesses’ licenses and seize their assets. Several businesses are still fighting these actions, though a judge did finally dismiss civil asset forfeiture claims against two of the defendants in fall 2019.

Meanwhile, there was no further mention of the victims allegedly rescued, and the announcement of the bust is now gone from the Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Office press release page.

Before becoming a U.S. senator and failed 2020 presidential candidate, Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) presided over crackdowns on San Francisco massage parlors during her time as the city’s district attorney. She helped form a human trafficking task force, through which the city inspected “more than 180 establishments and shut the doors of more than 30,” as Harris and then–Mayor Gavin Newsom bragged in a 2008 San Francisco Examiner op-ed opposing a local measure to decriminalize commercial sex between consenting adults.

In 2005, Harris assisted ICE, the FBI, and the IRS with “Operation Gilded Cage,” which involved raids at 50 locations around San Francisco and Los Angeles. An ICE spokesperson said at the time that 45 arrests had been made, $3 million seized, and 150 illegal immigrants detained. The State Department announced it thus: “U.S. Agents Crack West Coast Human Smuggling, Trafficking Ring.”

Twenty-nine people from the San Francisco raids were indicted on federal charges. Yet charges against at least eight of these suspects—including one of two women initially charged with sex trafficking—were later dismissed entirely. The others pleaded guilty to things like conspiracy to harbor undocumented immigrants; conspiracy to use a facility in the aid of unlawful activity; violations of the Mann Act, which prohibits people from bringing women across state lines for “immoral” purposes; and filing false tax returns. Although no one was ultimately prosecuted for sex trafficking, labor trafficking, or any crime involving coercion or force, the result was more than $2.1 million in forfeited assets.

As for the “rescued” women, most were deported back to their home countries. According to a 2007 article in the Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties by professors Grace Chang and Kathleen Kim, 120 women who worked at raided San Francisco businesses were detained at an undisclosed military base and grilled by federal officials for 24 hours before specialized victim services providers were called in. “By the time advocates arrived, federal officials had already decided that the majority of the women were not legal victims of trafficking, and placed them in immigration detention,” Kim and Chang found.

Human Rights Watch reported that Operation Gilded Cage and subsequent Bay Area “anti-trafficking” efforts led to the shutdown of 70 Korean massage and spa businesses between 2005 and 2010, without any noticeable difference in the prevalence of prostitution (let alone any evidence that forced labor or sexual violence was being stopped). But business owners became more reluctant to keep condoms on the premises, a former deputy health officer said, since they could be used by police as evidence of prostitution.

A War on Prostitution—and on Immigration

In some ways, these operations represent a new front in the war on sex trafficking. In another sense, they merely perpetuate a fear of Asian sexuality that has deep roots in American politics and culture.

The first federal restriction on immigration, the Page Act of 1875, explicitly banned Chinese sex workers. The bill’s eponymous sponsor, Rep. Horace Page (R–Calif.), said it would “end the danger of cheap Chinese labor and immoral Chinese women.” The law’s anti-prostitution provision was used as an excuse to turn away all Asian women, especially the Chinese. Meanwhile, prohibitions on indentured male laborers were mostly ignored.

“The West’s perception of Asian women” is “constantly shifting from perpetual prostitute to sex trafficking victim, whichever is most convenient at the time,” the writer Diana Lu explained in an August 2019 piece for Hyphen magazine. “The sexualization of Asian women, including their association with sex work and human trafficking, has been a hallmark of anti-Asian propaganda since the first U.S. anti-immigration efforts,” used “to stoke public contempt” and to “promote discriminatory policies.”

Over the past few decades, calls to crack down on prostitution have been “increasingly unlikely to be justified on the ground of protecting society from libertine degradation,” note Aya Gruber, Amy J. Cohen, and Kate Mogulescu in a May 2016 Florida Law Review article on “penal welfare.” A new paradigm—one that sees sex work as inherently exploitative and patriarchal, and one that sees all sex workers as victims—has sprung up in its place.

Proponents of this view insist that the push to eradicate prostitution is an “abolitionist” movement aimed at taking out “modern slavery.” Under this umbrella, stings on immigrant-owned businesses are promoted as efforts not to control loose women or police U.S. borders but to root out sexual exploitation.

In an era of increased public suspicion of mass incarceration and tough-on-crime politics, Gruber et al. suggest, this approach enables “entrenched institutions of criminal law to continue to function despite a growing crisis in public confidence.” It lets authorities continue doing exactly what they’ve been doing—terrorizing vulnerable populations and collecting handsome fees for it—while framing their actions in a way that’s more friendly to contemporary social-justice pieties.

But much of the same old racist and xenophobic fearmongering remains. The political crusade against prostitution still ends up disproportionately targeting Asian immigrant women.

Police on the vice beat have coded many cultural practices common among immigrant groups and low-income workers as red flags. Eating meals at work rather than going out is often mentioned. So is being driven around by an employer rather than owning one’s own car, or having a home base in one city while temporarily traveling to others for work. In at least a few instances, authorities have suggested that living in Flushing, Queens, with its large Asian population, is itself suspicious.

Among those who criticize this approach is the activist group Red Canary Song, which has described efforts to arrest and deport Chinese massage workers as “anti-Asian racism.” Red Canary Song formed in response to the November 2017 death of Yang Song, a 38-year-old immigrant from China, following a raid on the massage parlor in Queens where she worked under the pseudonym “SiSi.”

The New York Police Department (NYPD) had previously arrested Song three times for alleged prostitution, according to her lawyer, Chen Mingli. In 2016, she’d told Chen, a man claiming to be a cop held a gun to her head and threatened to arrest her if she didn’t perform oral sex on him.

Song’s third arrest happened after a September 2017 raid on her workplace and resulted in her being jailed overnight. Chen later told media that Song had said she would rather die than be arrested again.

No one knows for sure what happened on the day Song fell to her death, though witnesses saw her go flying through a fourth-story window and plummet to the street below. An investigation by the Queens District Attorney’s Office concluded that no police wrongdoing had contributed to the death. Yet the raid was part of a much larger wave of operations against similar businesses in the area. Starting in 2012, arrests of Asian New Yorkers for unlicensed massage and for prostitution jumped about 2,700 percent, according to a report from the Urban Institute.

Even if no one in the NYPD was directly responsible for Song’s fall, the city’s ethnically targeted raids were the backdrop for what happened that day. The police were there to round up immigrant women and collect a handful of misdemeanor arrests. Song may not have been pushed out of the window—but if she leaped, it’s because she preferred to chance death than find herself back in NYPD custody.

‘Penal Welfare’

Exemplifying the “penal welfare” mindset in the massage parlor realm is Polaris Project, an activist group known for trafficking in erroneous and misleading data about sex work while raking in government money. Between 2010 and 2018, the group—which was founded in 2002 by Brown University students who read an article about human trafficking and decided to “raise awareness” about the problem—got more than $12.3 million in public funding.

For years, Polaris was an enthusiastic disseminator of the wild claim that 300,000 U.S. children each year are sold domestically for sex. A number of media and government reports have cited the group as the source of this figure. In reality, it’s a nebulous stat pulled from a 2001 paper in which researchers “relied on a series of guesses,” as Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler put it in a 2015 investigation. More than a decade ago, the respected Crimes Against Children Research Center debunked the figure, pleading with people in all caps: “PLEASE DO NOT CITE” it.

Polaris has also aggressively perpetuated the idea that the Super Bowl turns host cities into temporary hotbeds of sex trafficking, a popular myth with no basis in evidence. But lately, the group has turned to warning about “illicit massage parlors,” claiming there are more than 9,000 such establishments in the U.S. and the “vast majority” of workers at these businesses are slaves. (Polaris did not respond to requests for comment for this story.)

This count is a projection from the number of Rubmaps ads in some cities—hardly a scientific analysis. But that hasn’t stopped Polaris from pushing a range of new state and federal regulations based on its manufactured crisis, nor has it stopped the media from running sensationalistic stories pegged to Polaris reports.

On a January 2018 press call, Polaris representatives recommended that city governments begin using “a code enforcement perspective,” passing regulations such as bans on back-door entry by customers and requirements that front doors be unlocked at all times during business hours. The group called for “a massive grassroots campaign to get these restrictions passed in as many jurisdictions as possible.”

Such recommendations may seem minor and harmless, but enacting and enforcing them could put workers in greater danger. Keeping doors locked and requiring people to buzz in, for instance, can be a way of protecting against potentially dangerous customers in businesses staffed solely by women. Enforcement means more reason to send police into these businesses and gives authorities a way to sanction them even if no sexual activity is found. And shutting down businesses for building code violations leaves employees jobless, sometimes shelterless, and all the more likely to turn to illicit work.

Even as a strategy to stop abuse, this is baffling. An exploitative boss, a rapist, or a human trafficker is really going to stop because massage customers have to use the front door? It’s enough to leave the impression that ending actual harm against massage parlor workers isn’t the primary goal.

The Epstein Paradox

In 2019, the feds signaled that they might start taking cases of actual abuse and exploitation as seriously as they do paid sex between consenting adults. In a welcome shift from their typical focus, U.S. attorneys indicted finance mogul Jeffrey Epstein and cult leader Keith Raniere for offenses that are both well-documented and tragic, accusing each of activity that had spanned more than a decade.

Epstein was indicted last summer on sex trafficking charges for flying teen girls to his homes and allegedly paying them to engage in sex acts with himself and others, employing force in some cases. Despite numerous red flags, public accusations, and even a 2008 conviction in Florida, federal prosecutors refused to get involved. Epstein’s actions were covered up or minimized, and he remained free for more than a decade following the initial allegations from multiple women and girls.

In the wake of Epstein’s arrest (and his subsequent death in custody), authorities have been doubling down on the same old approach that overwhelmingly nabs consenting adults, not predators. In August, the FBI rebranded its decade-old “Operation Cross Country”—touted as an initiative to stop child sex trafficking—as “Operation Independence Day.” But the outcome was unchanged: mostly arrests of adult sex workers and those who seek to patronize them.

The Trump administration continues to use fearmongering about human trafficking to call for stricter border control. Homeland Security’s “Blue Campaign” continues to blast out “see something, say something” propaganda in airports, at hotels, and online. Federal prosecutors continue to pursue their case against Backpage, a classified-ad site that was popular with sex workers before federal law enforcement shut it down. And the Department of Justice has started targeting new sites, including Rubmaps.

Meanwhile, at the local level, city administrators and politicians are using a few high-profile cases of genuinely horrifying behavior as an excuse to ramp up burdensome restrictions on massage businesses and workers. Beth Huber, owner of Quick Fix Massage in Minnesota, complained to her local CBS station in September that under new regulations, not only does her establishment need a license but each employee does, too. The switch could cost Huber thousands of dollars a year, she said.

The city of Santa Clara, California, took another approach that’s been gaining traction: prohibiting new massage parlors within a certain vicinity of hotels, schools, existing massage parlors, and certain other locations, much as is done with strip clubs and adult stores. The city has been reconsidering that move, however, after discovering it’s now impossible for massage businesses to launch anywhere but industrial areas on the outskirts of town.

Some cities are implementing stricter background checks for massage business owners; limiting the number of occupational licenses or business permits available for massage; imposing stringent health regulations merely to enable more inspections; allowing inspections of any massage business at pretty much any time for pretty much any reason; and starting “active monitoring” of massage parlors and their employees by police. Other cities have started barring new massage parlors from opening altogether.

Across the board, authorities ignore the needs of real victims while telling tales about international cabals and captive girls in need of clandestine intervention.

The Real Danger Is U.S. Policy

In September 2018, Yuqin Shu—a Chinese immigrant living in Bullhead City, Arizona—was charged with operating a house of prostitution and with money laundering, both felonies. As part of “Operation Human Touch,” agents with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) had shown up at her home-based massage business posing as customers and subsequently alleged that Shu offered them sex acts for a fee.

The purpose of the operation was supposedly to break up a human trafficking ring. But “it is unclear how an ICE officer having sexual relations with human trafficking victims in Mohave County, Arizona, protects the nation from terrorist attacks or secures the borders,” wrote attorney Brad Rideout in a motion seeking the real names of undercover HSI agents “Arturo” and “Sergio.”

Shu maintained that she was neither a sex trafficker nor a victim of forced prostitution or trafficking—just a mom trying to get by. The Mohave County Superior Court ordered local police to provide her with the identities of the HSI agents who visited her. But Homeland Security refused, saying agents were unavailable to testify in any of the Operation Human Touch cases. After an ordeal that lasted a year and a half, Shu’s charges are now likely to be dismissed.

HSI’s refusal to cooperate also led to the December dismissal of all charges against massage business owner Amanda Yamauchi and her associate Dean Michael Bassett. Police and media had initially portrayed the pair as international sex traffickers, a story that is hard to reconcile with the feds’ refusal to participate in their prosecution.

The two-year Homeland Security–aided investigation has yielded misdemeanor prostitution and solicitation convictions against a 45-year-old woman and the client with whom she was caught. The woman spent 56 days in jail and had to pay a $600 fine; her husband got a misdemeanor pandering charge for driving her to work; and a case against the owner of the massage parlor where she was arrested is ongoing.

If nothing else, the massage parlor panic is a massive waste of public resources. And as with so many previous federal criminal justice boondoggles, from the drug war to efforts to stop teen sexting, the crusade against Asian massage parlors is putting at risk the very people it purports to protect.

Credentials crackdowns, mandatory occupational licensing, and the growing number of regulatory burdens and fees a person must bear in order to work within the law mean that many immigrants are boxed out of legal employment—and thus more likely to need to turn to sex work or to accept unfair and unsafe labor conditions. Restrictive immigration policies and harsh enforcement thereof mean that people who want to come to the United States from another country are more reliant on middlemen, leading to more of the “debt bondage” situations law enforcement agencies are always warning about. Immigration restrictionism also yields a larger population of “illegals”—many of whom broke no law to get here but overstayed their original visas—who are easily exploitable via threats to report their immigration violations to the authorities.

The criminalization of voluntary adult prostitution and the aggressive enforcement of laws against it also render those engaged in the sale of sexual services less likely to go to authorities when crimes are committed against them. This makes them targets for violent clients, corrupt cops, and exploitative bosses.

Organizations like Polaris are training bystanders, hotel maids, and flight attendants on how to spot “signs” of human trafficking, an exercise that seems largely to lead to racial profiling and the harassment of sex workers. Meanwhile, vulnerable populations often remain confused and in the dark about their rights. Even anti-trafficking activist groups will occasionally admit that the dramatic, cinematic stories of abduction and captivity are mostly imaginary: Control, to the extent it exists, is more often exercised through psychological manipulation, withholding passports, and threats to get the worker deported.

Rescuing those who are exploited doesn’t require literally swooping in and saving them. It involves making them feel like they have allies and options—and seeing that they actually do.

Women like Yuqin Shu and Yang Song pose no threat to anyone. And politically vilified sites such as Rubmaps don’t “enable sex trafficking” any more than the Yellow Pages did when escort services were listed there. A panic over massage parlors has swept the nation thanks to cynical and misguided efforts by America’s political leaders and law enforcement authorities. Rather than improve the lives of supposed victims, it has created a class of easily exploitable people—and then terrorized them for just trying to survive.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ufzMTc
via IFTTT

Massage Parlor Panic

The website Rubmaps describes itself as being devoted to “erotic massage parlor reviews & happy endings.” Users who pay for membership can write and read reviews of massage parlors. Some reviews are predictably racy, and some are, perhaps surprisingly, more PG-rated. The site lets clients know what to expect from massage parlors—and also what not to expect, offering clarity about which services are on offer and guidance about how to behave.

Increasingly, however, it also serves another purpose. Police have begun monitoring the site on the theory that, as a 2016 article in the magazine Prosecutor’s Brief asserted, a good Rubmaps review “indicates that the location is a brothel.” And when police and prosecutors take an interest, so do politicians.

Rubmaps entered the Congressional Record in March 2015, when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) was speaking about the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. Feinstein cited Rubmaps as one of 19 sites that supposedly “act[ed] as purveyors of child sex trafficking in this country.” Those sites, she said, “ought to be ashamed of themselves.” 

It was Feinstein who should have been ashamed. During her extensive remarks, she offered no solid evidence that these sites were in fact facilitating child sex trafficking. Yet her push to shutter them played directly into a social panic that has been building into a legal crusade against sex work and the web platforms that enable it. Within a few years, Rubmaps—then one of the lesser-known sites Feinstein mentioned—would become a key target in this dubious fight, aided by America’s long history of discriminatory opposition to massage businesses operated and staffed primarily by Asian immigrants.

People who coerce or force others into prostitution do exist, and violence against those involved in prostitution happens. Law enforcement should absolutely take these horrors seriously—especially if minors are involved. Yet government estimates of the prevalence of sex trafficking have tended to be wildly inflated and plagued with “methodological weaknesses, gaps in data, and numerical discrepancies,” as the Government Accountability Office put it. Known cases in the United States remain incredibly rare.

In 2015, for instance, U.S. attorneys received information on about 750 people suspected of either “peonage, slavery, forced labor or sex trafficking,” according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Yet they ultimately filed charges in just 395 of these cases.

Perhaps because of the scarcity of bona fide trafficking cases and disproportionate public interest in the topic, law enforcement agencies frequently go on fishing expeditions, searching for needles in a haystack and then arresting anyone in the vicinity of the barn.

The Wall Street Journal reported in September that agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department are investigating Rubmaps and two similar websites. Opponents argue these sites facilitate the sexual exploitation of girls and women. But authorities rarely turn up the horrific crimes they say they’re rooting out. Instead, the people most harmed by the attention from law enforcement are the ones cops and advocates claim they’re out to save.

Rubmaps’ emergence as a digital boogeyman corresponds with a nationwide legal assault on Asian massage parlors and the women who work at or own them. Recent high-profile examples—including the Palm Beach, Florida, investigation that ensnared New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and the Queens, New York, raid that led to the death of Chinese immigrant Yang Song—highlight a wider phenomenon that plays out around the country on a weekly basis, a carceral charade in which the twisted “help” offered to “exploited” women includes jail, seized assets, and deportation.

These raids, which often overlap with America’s escalating crackdowns on unauthorized immigrants, frequently involve Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and FBI agents. Federal law enforcement officials are being enlisted, in other words, to round up women for giving unapproved hand jobs or offering ordinary back and foot massages without the right paperwork.

In a throwback to shameful earlier episodes in U.S. history, these workers—mostly middle-aged Asian immigrant women—are treated as victims long enough to get authorities in the door and then as criminals once law enforcement officials are done playing hero to the press.

Once Upon a Time in Florida

The sting that nabbed Robert Kraft, the CEO of the Kraft Group and owner of the Patriots, on solicitation charges in February 2019 was a perfect storm of sex trafficking panic, xenophobia, prosecutorial showboating, and prurient interest. The bust was part of a monthslong investigation into massage parlors in and around Palm Beach County, Florida. Local police and prosecutors initially heralded it as part of a “human trafficking investigation” that would rescue victims and send a message to the men who patronized them. But it ultimately yielded no human trafficking charges, and the “rescued” women faced more severe criminal penalties than did their clients.

The inability to identify any trafficking victims is especially striking given that law enforcement used every tool at their disposal to get the answer they wanted. In June, the Associated Press reported that Martin County sheriff’s detectives told one masseuse detained in the raid that she would be given an apartment and allowed to bring her children to the United States from overseas so long as she testified that she had been trafficked.

Nonetheless, the woman repeatedly insisted she wasn’t forced into sex work. She was doing it to support relatives in China, she said, even as police kept pressuring her to change her story. Eventually she agreed merely to not deny to law enforcement that she was trafficked—but not to say she had been, either—and they let her go.

As part of the investigation, police and Homeland Security agents had staked out several local businesses for months, made multiple undercover visits, tailed workers running errands, and used a “sneak and peek” warrant to secretly install security cameras in massage rooms. Two of the women arrested, more than a dozen of the men (including Kraft), and a host of regular massage patrons who were filmed naked as part of police surveillance are suing over the footage.

The men who were picked up received misdemeanor solicitation charges. That doesn’t mean they got off scot-free: Even a minor run-in with the criminal justice system can be disruptive and costly, not to mention the reputational damage that comes from having your name in the papers as part of an alleged “human trafficking bust.” For his part, Kraft was soon back to having dinner beside President Donald Trump and partying in the Hamptons with Hollywood celebrities. But most of the men arrested were not wealthy public figures.

Massage parlor workers and managers faced much worse, including jail time, seized assets, and sometimes multiple felony charges, despite an utter lack of evidence of any nonconsensual activity.

Eight women were accused of participating in a “prostitution enterprise” as well as engaging in prostitution themselves. Others were indicted on allegations of deriving support from the proceeds of prostitution, procuring for prostitution, unlawful transport for prostitution, or keeping a house of ill fame.

Money laundering, racketeering, and conspiracy charges are common in these prosecutions, since doing anything with proceeds from prostitution can qualify. Applying such charges to sex workers who band together and to sex work–adjacent businesses (such as websites that permit escort ads or massage parlors where some workers engage in sex acts) gives prosecutors two things: leverage in eliciting pleas rather than taking a case to trial, and the legal room to seize financial assets.

As of the end of 2019, eight of the 11 spa staffers and associates booked in the stings in Florida’s Indian River, Martin, and Palm Beach counties had accepted plea deals after initially pleading not guilty. The one male employee who was involved pleaded guilty to unlawful transport (a misdemeanor), while seven women pleaded no contest or guilty to misdemeanor prostitution charges and sometimes no contest to other prostitution-related charges. In exchange, prosecutors dropped many of the felony counts, and most of the defendants will avoid more jail time than they have already served.

No traffickers or victims ever materialized (thankfully). In the end, police shut down some immigrant-owned businesses, put a dozen or more women out of work, prohibited some licensed masseuses who were also sex workers from doing legal massage work in the future, and that’s about it.

This is tragically typical of these operations. A 2017 crackdown in Florida, dubbed “Operation Spa,” saw police, immigration agents, and Homeland Security raiding 13 businesses they claimed were engaging in human trafficking. But according to the Fort Myers News-Press, “what transpired was little more than a massage parlor bust of several family-owned businesses.” Five women accepted racketeering-related charges, two employees pleaded guilty to “residing in a place for the purpose of prostitution,” and one woman pleaded guilty to solicitation. No one was convicted of or pleaded guilty to trafficking. Still, one of the workers was deported to China and more than half of the businesses were shut down.

A July 2019 examination by USA Today of three other Florida busts likewise concluded that “law enforcement’s tough-on-trafficking rhetoric fizzled after initial headlines.” A supposed crackdown on the unique scourge of forced labor ended up looking a lot more like a series of conventional immigration and vice raids.

Media-Driven Drama

Law enforcement operations directed at massage parlors in the name of fighting trafficking have increasingly taken the form of immigration stings that target Asian women.

For years I’ve been following the uptick in federally backed efforts to target “illicit massage parlors.” This included setting up Google Alerts for the term massage parlor, which generates an automated email anytime the search engine registers a new article on the topic. Tracking these alerts over periods of time can offer a snapshot of how such arrests are handled.

Between June 1 and September 15, 2019, a Google Alert on the phrase massage parlor yielded stories about more than 95 cases involving suspected sex trafficking and/or prostitution at massage businesses. This figure almost certainly dramatically undercounts these stings, because not every such operation makes the news, gets indexed by Google Alerts, or uses the phrase massage parlor. Still, the results were striking.

The raids went down in urban, suburban, and rural parts of 31 states across the country. But no matter the location or context, the vast majority of those arrested or charged were Asian women. Of 102 identified suspects, 76 were listed as Asian or had typically Asian names.

Of the 97 cases in which this information was given, the average age of those arrested or indicted was 49.8 years. About 80 percent of suspects were in their 40s or 50s, with just two in their 20s and none in their teens.

No one was accused of abduction, smuggling anyone into the country illegally, or running an operation involving children. Prostitution showed up most frequently—at least 47 times—when specific allegations or charges were mentioned. Nineteen cases cited a charge for some form of practicing massage without a license (a felony in some places). Other arrestees were accused of promoting prostitution (in at least 20 cases), some variation on keeping a prostitution facility (eight cases), or other charges frequently applied to sex work—such as racketeering and money laundering—even when all parties involved are consenting adults and legal residents.

Fourteen people did face some form of charge for sex trafficking or human trafficking, with nine coming from a single investigation in Massachusetts. Most of these cases, however, lack any known victims or any allegations that sex acts were coerced or forced.

In the Massachusetts case, initial reports mentioned potential sex trafficking charges against the nine suspects. But as of December 2019, there is no evidence that such charges were filed or that any victims were discovered. Wisconsin business owner Dongmei Greer, 55, faces a state sex trafficking charge after police got a tip that prostitution was taking place at her business—yet the only “victim” was an adult woman who was also arrested for prostitution. Maryland resident Emily Zhang Lawrence has also been charged with sex trafficking, even though the suspected sex acts at her business were all conducted by consenting adults.

Only three sex trafficking suspects during this period are alleged to have coerced any specific victims. In one case, 60-year-old Rita Law—a Hong Kong immigrant naturalized in 1989—was convicted of exploiting two massage business employees and sentenced to 360 months in federal prison. In another ongoing case, a 48-year-old Chinese immigrant named Sufeng Jiang and her boyfriend, Randy Carl Wittner, are accused of mistreating an employee who had just started working for them when cops raided the place and accused the employee of prostitution.

In none of these cases did victims face bosses who acted violently, kept them in captivity, or stole their earnings. Instead, the employers allegedly used these victims’ precarious status as immigrants and sex workers to subject them to coercive arrangements, unsafe working conditions, or unfair financial terms.

These are the kinds of situations that law enforcement should be focused on. Yet they represent an exceptionally small fraction of overall “illicit massage parlor” investigations and prosecutions. These cases also highlight how expanding immigrant and sex worker rights could benefit victims more than these needle-in-a-haystack “rescue” missions. It’s the criminalized nature of prostitution and vulnerable position of people with a precarious immigration status that allow exploitation and abuse, not nefarious underground trafficking rings.

In some cases, prosecutors follow up prostitution arrests by seeking civil court orders to shut down the massage businesses. Occasionally, they try to shut down a business without even bothering with arrests or prosecutions first.

In April 2019, prosecutors got a temporary restraining order to shut down TY Green’s Massage Therapy in Huntsville, Alabama; to freeze the assets of owner Yuping Tang, her daughter Jiao Liu, and three other businesses run by the family; and to seize their workplaces and homes. In a story that made national news, state Attorney General Steve Marshall called the businesses “fronts for a human-trafficking operation” and bragged about this being the first civil action brought under new state human trafficking laws.

Eight months later, no sex trafficking or forced labor charges have been filed. No prostitution charges have been filed. And the Madison County Circuit Court has denied Marshall’s request to make the shutdowns permanent, saying the state failed to make its case.

In April 2019, Columbus, Ohio, City Attorney Zach Klein obtained “emergency” court orders to “vacate and shutter” two massage parlors following stings carried out by county authorities. The emergency was this: During one of the operations, an Asian woman guessed to be age 35 gave an undercover detective an hourlong massage and then, when he asked, “began masturbating the [detective’s] penis” for an extra $40, according to the order. Undercover detectives made at least six more visits to the business over the course of as many months, with similar results.

The investigation into the second business started after authorities found it listed on Rubmaps, Klein said; undercover detectives who subsequently received massages there reported that unidentified Asian female masseuses had also attempted “to stroke [their] genitals.” Though the monthslong operation ultimately rescued no one, Klein promised in a May 2019 press release: “We’re going to continue aggressively going after these businesses that really are nothing more than illegal fronts for human trafficking and prostitution.”

“Suspicious behavior,” according to police, may include having more male than female customers, being open during nonstandard business hours, employing masseuses who wear high heels, having an entrance in the back of the building, requiring customers to buzz in for entry, keeping window blinds closed, having employees that don’t leave the building for lunch breaks, and of course being listed on Rubmaps. In Texas, the Harris County Sheriff’s Office works with a group called Project AWESOME that checks licensing department records against businesses on Rubmaps and reports suspected licensing or zoning law violators to the cops.

Media reports of such activity almost always adopt sensationalistic terms, with headlines that nod to “human trafficking rings” even while listing nothing but prostitution or operating without a license among charged offenses.

“Massage parlor owner pleads guilty to trafficking women,” declared a Minnesota NBC affiliate headline in September. The owner, a 40-year-old woman, had actually pleaded guilty to two counts of prostitution. The article added that the business was suspicious because in order to get in, customers had to ring a doorbell.

The Politics of Massage Parlor Busts

Even though these cases consistently turn out to be duds, prominent rising political stars on both the left and the right have been active participants in this sort of prosecution.

As attorney general of Missouri, for example, Republican Josh Hawley—now the state’s junior senator—presided over a series of massage parlor raids around Springfield in 2017. “Investigators say they spent nearly three years building a case,” reported the Springfield News-Leader.

Hawley’s office told the media that the businesses were “fronts for trafficking.” At a July 2017 court hearing, he said victims had been “rescued” and suggested potential ties to an international sex slavery ring, to “Asian organized crime,” and to “the movement of persons from East Asia to here and then out beyond.” Not long after, Hawley blamed human trafficking on “our cultural elites, Hollywood, and the media,” who had denigrated “the biblical truth about husband and wife” and “the appropriate place for sexual practice and expression within the family.”

No one was ever charged with sex trafficking, labor trafficking, immigration violations, or even prostitution following those raids. As of December 2019, the only criminal charges were for misdemeanor violations of Missouri massage licensing law, with seven massage parlor workers pleading guilty to one count each. But that didn’t stop Greene County, Missouri, prosecutors from trying to suspend the raided businesses’ licenses and seize their assets. Several businesses are still fighting these actions, though a judge did finally dismiss civil asset forfeiture claims against two of the defendants in fall 2019.

Meanwhile, there was no further mention of the victims allegedly rescued, and the announcement of the bust is now gone from the Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Office press release page.

Before becoming a U.S. senator and failed 2020 presidential candidate, Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) presided over crackdowns on San Francisco massage parlors during her time as the city’s district attorney. She helped form a human trafficking task force, through which the city inspected “more than 180 establishments and shut the doors of more than 30,” as Harris and then–Mayor Gavin Newsom bragged in a 2008 San Francisco Examiner op-ed opposing a local measure to decriminalize commercial sex between consenting adults.

In 2005, Harris assisted ICE, the FBI, and the IRS with “Operation Gilded Cage,” which involved raids at 50 locations around San Francisco and Los Angeles. An ICE spokesperson said at the time that 45 arrests had been made, $3 million seized, and 150 illegal immigrants detained. The State Department announced it thus: “U.S. Agents Crack West Coast Human Smuggling, Trafficking Ring.”

Twenty-nine people from the San Francisco raids were indicted on federal charges. Yet charges against at least eight of these suspects—including one of two women initially charged with sex trafficking—were later dismissed entirely. The others pleaded guilty to things like conspiracy to harbor undocumented immigrants; conspiracy to use a facility in the aid of unlawful activity; violations of the Mann Act, which prohibits people from bringing women across state lines for “immoral” purposes; and filing false tax returns. Although no one was ultimately prosecuted for sex trafficking, labor trafficking, or any crime involving coercion or force, the result was more than $2.1 million in forfeited assets.

As for the “rescued” women, most were deported back to their home countries. According to a 2007 article in the Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties by professors Grace Chang and Kathleen Kim, 120 women who worked at raided San Francisco businesses were detained at an undisclosed military base and grilled by federal officials for 24 hours before specialized victim services providers were called in. “By the time advocates arrived, federal officials had already decided that the majority of the women were not legal victims of trafficking, and placed them in immigration detention,” Kim and Chang found.

Human Rights Watch reported that Operation Gilded Cage and subsequent Bay Area “anti-trafficking” efforts led to the shutdown of 70 Korean massage and spa businesses between 2005 and 2010, without any noticeable difference in the prevalence of prostitution (let alone any evidence that forced labor or sexual violence was being stopped). But business owners became more reluctant to keep condoms on the premises, a former deputy health officer said, since they could be used by police as evidence of prostitution.

A War on Prostitution—and on Immigration

In some ways, these operations represent a new front in the war on sex trafficking. In another sense, they merely perpetuate a fear of Asian sexuality that has deep roots in American politics and culture.

The first federal restriction on immigration, the Page Act of 1875, explicitly banned Chinese sex workers. The bill’s eponymous sponsor, Rep. Horace Page (R–Calif.), said it would “end the danger of cheap Chinese labor and immoral Chinese women.” The law’s anti-prostitution provision was used as an excuse to turn away all Asian women, especially the Chinese. Meanwhile, prohibitions on indentured male laborers were mostly ignored.

“The West’s perception of Asian women” is “constantly shifting from perpetual prostitute to sex trafficking victim, whichever is most convenient at the time,” the writer Diana Lu explained in an August 2019 piece for Hyphen magazine. “The sexualization of Asian women, including their association with sex work and human trafficking, has been a hallmark of anti-Asian propaganda since the first U.S. anti-immigration efforts,” used “to stoke public contempt” and to “promote discriminatory policies.”

Over the past few decades, calls to crack down on prostitution have been “increasingly unlikely to be justified on the ground of protecting society from libertine degradation,” note Aya Gruber, Amy J. Cohen, and Kate Mogulescu in a May 2016 Florida Law Review article on “penal welfare.” A new paradigm—one that sees sex work as inherently exploitative and patriarchal, and one that sees all sex workers as victims—has sprung up in its place.

Proponents of this view insist that the push to eradicate prostitution is an “abolitionist” movement aimed at taking out “modern slavery.” Under this umbrella, stings on immigrant-owned businesses are promoted as efforts not to control loose women or police U.S. borders but to root out sexual exploitation.

In an era of increased public suspicion of mass incarceration and tough-on-crime politics, Gruber et al. suggest, this approach enables “entrenched institutions of criminal law to continue to function despite a growing crisis in public confidence.” It lets authorities continue doing exactly what they’ve been doing—terrorizing vulnerable populations and collecting handsome fees for it—while framing their actions in a way that’s more friendly to contemporary social-justice pieties.

But much of the same old racist and xenophobic fearmongering remains. The political crusade against prostitution still ends up disproportionately targeting Asian immigrant women.

Police on the vice beat have coded many cultural practices common among immigrant groups and low-income workers as red flags. Eating meals at work rather than going out is often mentioned. So is being driven around by an employer rather than owning one’s own car, or having a home base in one city while temporarily traveling to others for work. In at least a few instances, authorities have suggested that living in Flushing, Queens, with its large Asian population, is itself suspicious.

Among those who criticize this approach is the activist group Red Canary Song, which has described efforts to arrest and deport Chinese massage workers as “anti-Asian racism.” Red Canary Song formed in response to the November 2017 death of Yang Song, a 38-year-old immigrant from China, following a raid on the massage parlor in Queens where she worked under the pseudonym “SiSi.”

The New York Police Department (NYPD) had previously arrested Song three times for alleged prostitution, according to her lawyer, Chen Mingli. In 2016, she’d told Chen, a man claiming to be a cop held a gun to her head and threatened to arrest her if she didn’t perform oral sex on him.

Song’s third arrest happened after a September 2017 raid on her workplace and resulted in her being jailed overnight. Chen later told media that Song had said she would rather die than be arrested again.

No one knows for sure what happened on the day Song fell to her death, though witnesses saw her go flying through a fourth-story window and plummet to the street below. An investigation by the Queens District Attorney’s Office concluded that no police wrongdoing had contributed to the death. Yet the raid was part of a much larger wave of operations against similar businesses in the area. Starting in 2012, arrests of Asian New Yorkers for unlicensed massage and for prostitution jumped about 2,700 percent, according to a report from the Urban Institute.

Even if no one in the NYPD was directly responsible for Song’s fall, the city’s ethnically targeted raids were the backdrop for what happened that day. The police were there to round up immigrant women and collect a handful of misdemeanor arrests. Song may not have been pushed out of the window—but if she leaped, it’s because she preferred to chance death than find herself back in NYPD custody.

‘Penal Welfare’

Exemplifying the “penal welfare” mindset in the massage parlor realm is Polaris Project, an activist group known for trafficking in erroneous and misleading data about sex work while raking in government money. Between 2010 and 2018, the group—which was founded in 2002 by Brown University students who read an article about human trafficking and decided to “raise awareness” about the problem—got more than $12.3 million in public funding.

For years, Polaris was an enthusiastic disseminator of the wild claim that 300,000 U.S. children each year are sold domestically for sex. A number of media and government reports have cited the group as the source of this figure. In reality, it’s a nebulous stat pulled from a 2001 paper in which researchers “relied on a series of guesses,” as Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler put it in a 2015 investigation. More than a decade ago, the respected Crimes Against Children Research Center debunked the figure, pleading with people in all caps: “PLEASE DO NOT CITE” it.

Polaris has also aggressively perpetuated the idea that the Super Bowl turns host cities into temporary hotbeds of sex trafficking, a popular myth with no basis in evidence. But lately, the group has turned to warning about “illicit massage parlors,” claiming there are more than 9,000 such establishments in the U.S. and the “vast majority” of workers at these businesses are slaves. (Polaris did not respond to requests for comment for this story.)

This count is a projection from the number of Rubmaps ads in some cities—hardly a scientific analysis. But that hasn’t stopped Polaris from pushing a range of new state and federal regulations based on its manufactured crisis, nor has it stopped the media from running sensationalistic stories pegged to Polaris reports.

On a January 2018 press call, Polaris representatives recommended that city governments begin using “a code enforcement perspective,” passing regulations such as bans on back-door entry by customers and requirements that front doors be unlocked at all times during business hours. The group called for “a massive grassroots campaign to get these restrictions passed in as many jurisdictions as possible.”

Such recommendations may seem minor and harmless, but enacting and enforcing them could put workers in greater danger. Keeping doors locked and requiring people to buzz in, for instance, can be a way of protecting against potentially dangerous customers in businesses staffed solely by women. Enforcement means more reason to send police into these businesses and gives authorities a way to sanction them even if no sexual activity is found. And shutting down businesses for building code violations leaves employees jobless, sometimes shelterless, and all the more likely to turn to illicit work.

Even as a strategy to stop abuse, this is baffling. An exploitative boss, a rapist, or a human trafficker is really going to stop because massage customers have to use the front door? It’s enough to leave the impression that ending actual harm against massage parlor workers isn’t the primary goal.

The Epstein Paradox

In 2019, the feds signaled that they might start taking cases of actual abuse and exploitation as seriously as they do paid sex between consenting adults. In a welcome shift from their typical focus, U.S. attorneys indicted finance mogul Jeffrey Epstein and cult leader Keith Raniere for offenses that are both well-documented and tragic, accusing each of activity that had spanned more than a decade.

Epstein was indicted last summer on sex trafficking charges for flying teen girls to his homes and allegedly paying them to engage in sex acts with himself and others, employing force in some cases. Despite numerous red flags, public accusations, and even a 2008 conviction in Florida, federal prosecutors refused to get involved. Epstein’s actions were covered up or minimized, and he remained free for more than a decade following the initial allegations from multiple women and girls.

In the wake of Epstein’s arrest (and his subsequent death in custody), authorities have been doubling down on the same old approach that overwhelmingly nabs consenting adults, not predators. In August, the FBI rebranded its decade-old “Operation Cross Country”—touted as an initiative to stop child sex trafficking—as “Operation Independence Day.” But the outcome was unchanged: mostly arrests of adult sex workers and those who seek to patronize them.

The Trump administration continues to use fearmongering about human trafficking to call for stricter border control. Homeland Security’s “Blue Campaign” continues to blast out “see something, say something” propaganda in airports, at hotels, and online. Federal prosecutors continue to pursue their case against Backpage, a classified-ad site that was popular with sex workers before federal law enforcement shut it down. And the Department of Justice has started targeting new sites, including Rubmaps.

Meanwhile, at the local level, city administrators and politicians are using a few high-profile cases of genuinely horrifying behavior as an excuse to ramp up burdensome restrictions on massage businesses and workers. Beth Huber, owner of Quick Fix Massage in Minnesota, complained to her local CBS station in September that under new regulations, not only does her establishment need a license but each employee does, too. The switch could cost Huber thousands of dollars a year, she said.

The city of Santa Clara, California, took another approach that’s been gaining traction: prohibiting new massage parlors within a certain vicinity of hotels, schools, existing massage parlors, and certain other locations, much as is done with strip clubs and adult stores. The city has been reconsidering that move, however, after discovering it’s now impossible for massage businesses to launch anywhere but industrial areas on the outskirts of town.

Some cities are implementing stricter background checks for massage business owners; limiting the number of occupational licenses or business permits available for massage; imposing stringent health regulations merely to enable more inspections; allowing inspections of any massage business at pretty much any time for pretty much any reason; and starting “active monitoring” of massage parlors and their employees by police. Other cities have started barring new massage parlors from opening altogether.

Across the board, authorities ignore the needs of real victims while telling tales about international cabals and captive girls in need of clandestine intervention.

The Real Danger Is U.S. Policy

In September 2018, Yuqin Shu—a Chinese immigrant living in Bullhead City, Arizona—was charged with operating a house of prostitution and with money laundering, both felonies. As part of “Operation Human Touch,” agents with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) had shown up at her home-based massage business posing as customers and subsequently alleged that Shu offered them sex acts for a fee.

The purpose of the operation was supposedly to break up a human trafficking ring. But “it is unclear how an ICE officer having sexual relations with human trafficking victims in Mohave County, Arizona, protects the nation from terrorist attacks or secures the borders,” wrote attorney Brad Rideout in a motion seeking the real names of undercover HSI agents “Arturo” and “Sergio.”

Shu maintained that she was neither a sex trafficker nor a victim of forced prostitution or trafficking—just a mom trying to get by. The Mohave County Superior Court ordered local police to provide her with the identities of the HSI agents who visited her. But Homeland Security refused, saying agents were unavailable to testify in any of the Operation Human Touch cases. After an ordeal that lasted a year and a half, Shu’s charges are now likely to be dismissed.

HSI’s refusal to cooperate also led to the December dismissal of all charges against massage business owner Amanda Yamauchi and her associate Dean Michael Bassett. Police and media had initially portrayed the pair as international sex traffickers, a story that is hard to reconcile with the feds’ refusal to participate in their prosecution.

The two-year Homeland Security–aided investigation has yielded misdemeanor prostitution and solicitation convictions against a 45-year-old woman and the client with whom she was caught. The woman spent 56 days in jail and had to pay a $600 fine; her husband got a misdemeanor pandering charge for driving her to work; and a case against the owner of the massage parlor where she was arrested is ongoing.

If nothing else, the massage parlor panic is a massive waste of public resources. And as with so many previous federal criminal justice boondoggles, from the drug war to efforts to stop teen sexting, the crusade against Asian massage parlors is putting at risk the very people it purports to protect.

Credentials crackdowns, mandatory occupational licensing, and the growing number of regulatory burdens and fees a person must bear in order to work within the law mean that many immigrants are boxed out of legal employment—and thus more likely to need to turn to sex work or to accept unfair and unsafe labor conditions. Restrictive immigration policies and harsh enforcement thereof mean that people who want to come to the United States from another country are more reliant on middlemen, leading to more of the “debt bondage” situations law enforcement agencies are always warning about. Immigration restrictionism also yields a larger population of “illegals”—many of whom broke no law to get here but overstayed their original visas—who are easily exploitable via threats to report their immigration violations to the authorities.

The criminalization of voluntary adult prostitution and the aggressive enforcement of laws against it also render those engaged in the sale of sexual services less likely to go to authorities when crimes are committed against them. This makes them targets for violent clients, corrupt cops, and exploitative bosses.

Organizations like Polaris are training bystanders, hotel maids, and flight attendants on how to spot “signs” of human trafficking, an exercise that seems largely to lead to racial profiling and the harassment of sex workers. Meanwhile, vulnerable populations often remain confused and in the dark about their rights. Even anti-trafficking activist groups will occasionally admit that the dramatic, cinematic stories of abduction and captivity are mostly imaginary: Control, to the extent it exists, is more often exercised through psychological manipulation, withholding passports, and threats to get the worker deported.

Rescuing those who are exploited doesn’t require literally swooping in and saving them. It involves making them feel like they have allies and options—and seeing that they actually do.

Women like Yuqin Shu and Yang Song pose no threat to anyone. And politically vilified sites such as Rubmaps don’t “enable sex trafficking” any more than the Yellow Pages did when escort services were listed there. A panic over massage parlors has swept the nation thanks to cynical and misguided efforts by America’s political leaders and law enforcement authorities. Rather than improve the lives of supposed victims, it has created a class of easily exploitable people—and then terrorized them for just trying to survive.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ufzMTc
via IFTTT

On The Decline In US Strategic Thinking And The Creation Of False Stereotypes

On The Decline In US Strategic Thinking And The Creation Of False Stereotypes

Authored by Leonid Savin via OrientalReview.com,

In early January 2020, the RAND Corporation published its latest research report on Russia entitled “Russia’s Hostile Measures. Combating Russian Gray Zone Aggression Against NATO in the Contact, Blunt, and Surge Layers of Competition”.

The report is made up of four chapters:

1. Russian hostile measures in every context;

2. The evolution and limits of Russian hostile measures;

3. Gray zone cases and actions during high-order war; and

4. Deterring, preventing, and countering hostile measures.

There are also two appendices:

1) An evolutionary history of Russia’s hostile measures; and

2) Detailed case studies of Russia’s use of hostile measures.

By the headings alone, it is possible to gauge the kind of psychological effect that the authors of the monograph wanted it to have. They clearly wanted to say that Russia as a political entity is aggressive – it has been that way throughout history and it will continue to be so in the future – and it is therefore vital to prevent such aggression in a variety of ways.

It is also stated that the report was sponsored by the US Army as part of the project “Russia, European Security, and ‘Measures Short of War’” and that the research and analysis was conducted between 2015 and 2019. The purpose of the project was “to provide recommendations to inform the options that the Army presents to the National Command Authorities to leverage, improve upon, and develop new capabilities and address the threat of Russian aggression in the form of measures short of war.” In addition, the report was reviewed by the US Department of Defense between January and August 2019, and the RAND Corporation conducted seminars in European NATO member countries as part of the project. Notably, one of the first events was held in February 2016 at Cambridge University, which has become a kind of hub for visiting experts from other countries.

From a scientific perspective, the report’s authors adhere to the classical American school – Kremlinologist George Kennan and his concepts are mentioned, as is Jack Snyder, who coined the term “strategic culture” on the basis of nuclear deterrence. The sources referred to in the footnotes are also mostly American, with the exception of a few translated texts by Russian authors (both patriots and liberal pro-Westerners) and official government bodies. But, on the whole, the report is of rather poor scientific value.

Two interrelated topics are discussed in the first chapter that, over the last five years, the West’s military and political communities have steadfastly associated with Russia – the grey zone and hybrid warfare. It is clear that these phrases are being used intentionally, as is the term “measures”, since Western centres are trying to use the terminological baggage of the Soviet past alongside their own modern concepts, especially when it refers to military or security agencies (the term “active measures” was used by the USSR’s KGB from the 1970s onwards). It is noted that NATO officially began to use the term “hybrid warfare” with regard to Russia following the events in Crimea in 2014.

Examples given of active measures during the Cold War include: assassination (the murder of Stepan Bandera); destabilisation (training Central and South American insurgents with Cuba in the 1980s); disinformation (spreading rumours through the German media that the US developed AIDS as a biological weapon; disseminating information about CIA sabotage efforts); proxy wars (Vietnam, Angola); and sabotage (creating panic in Yugoslavia in 1949).

Although America’s involvement in such techniques was more sophisticated and widespread (from establishing death squads in Latin America and supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan by way of Pakistan to the Voice of America radio programmes and governing remotely during riots in Hungary and Czechoslovakia) and certain facts about the work of Soviet intelligence agencies are well known, the examples cited of measures taken by the USSR are not backed up by authoritative sources.

Russia’s hostile measures in Europe

Other methods for influencing the report’s target audience are noticeable, and these have been used before to create a negative image of Russia. These include a comparison with the actions of terrorist organisations: “the shock and awe generated by the blitzkrieg-like success of Russia in Crimea and the Islamic State in Iraq generated considerable analytic excitement. A few early accounts suggested that Russia had invented a new way of war” (p. 6).

According to the authors, the West had already clearly decided what to call Russia’s actions in 2016. With that in mind:

“– Gray zone hostilities are nothing new, particularly for Russia.

– Russia will continue to apply these tactics, but its goals and means are limited.

– Deterring, preventing, or countering so-called gray zone behavior is difficult” (p. 7).

The report also states that many articles on the subject written in 2014 and 2015 contained overly exaggerated value judgements, but, in 2017, analyses of the grey zone and hybrid warfare shifted towards a balanced and objective view of Russian power.

This should also be queried, because a relatively large number of reports and papers on similar topics have been published since 2017. Even the US national defence and security strategies had a blatantly distorted view of both Russia and other countries.

The only thing one can possibly agree with is the coining of the new term “hybrid un-war”, which emerged from debates in recent years. It’s true that Russia is employing certain countermeasures, from modernising its armed forces to imposing counter sanctions, but many of these are in response to provocative actions by the West or are linked to planned reforms. Evidently, the authors understand that it will be difficult to make unfounded accusations, so they are covering themselves in advance by choosing a more suitable word. Against the general backdrop, however, the reference to an “un-war” seems rather vague.

It should be noted that the first appendix contains a list of academic literature on Soviet and Russian foreign policy that supposedly backs up the authors’ opinions on the methods of political warfare being carried out by Russia (and the USSR before it). Among the most important sources are declassified CIA reports and assessments, along with similar files from the US National Security Archive that were posted online by staff at George Washington University. Needless to say, the objectivity of documents like these is rather specific.

The section on the institutionalisation and nature of Russian hostile measures is interesting. The authors point out that Russia has an existential fear of NATO and the West as a whole because it has been threatened by external invasion for centuries. The timeline begins in the 13th century with the Mongol invasion that ended with the destruction of Moscow, and it finishes with Germany’s invasion of the USSR and the deaths of 20 million Russians. Interestingly, the 20th century also includes the North Russia intervention by the US and its allies. Such selectivity is surprising, as if there had been no aggression from the Teutonic Order or other wars prior to the 13th century. The 18th century is excluded from the list entirely, yet it was a pivotal era for the Russian state (the Great Northern War, the wars with the Persian and Ottoman empires, the Russo-Swedish War and so on), when numerous external challenges had to be met.

But the report then mentions NATO’s expansion to the East and America’s use of soft-power methods, including the organisation of colour revolutions in the post-Soviet space, where there were Russian client governments. Although it says in justification that NATO never threatened Russia, it emphasises that NATO’s physical infrastructure and military capabilities forced Moscow to include it on its list of national security threats.

In addition to this, the RAND experts point out Russia’s worry over internal revolt. The report once again provides a selective timeline that includes the Decembrist revolt, colour revolutions in the post-Soviet space, and even the war in Syria, which is described as “a long-standing Russian client state” (p. 15).

It then goes on to paraphrase Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Centre, who said that the Kremlin fears US intervention and the Russian General Staff fears NATO intervention. It therefore follows that “[t]he perception of a threat influences behavior, even if the perceived threat is overblown or nonexistent. Whether or not one believes that worry, or even paranoia, is the primary driver behind current Russian actions in the gray zone and its preparations for high-order war, this essential element of Russian culture demands an objective and thoughtful accounting” (p. 16).

Following this is a description of the security apparatus that carries out hostile measures. A line is drawn between the NKVD, KGB and FSB, and these are also joined by the SVR, for some reason. The armed forces are considered separately, with a focus on the GRU and special forces. And that’s it. There is no mention of the police, the public prosecutor’s office and the investigative committee or even the FSO. It is even a bit strange not to see “Russian hackers” and private military companies, which are a regular feature of such reports. It is also noted that current actions are nothing other than a “continuity of the Brezhnev Doctrine” (p. 21), which only exists in the imaginations of Western experts. The authors themselves acknowledge further on that this is how speeches by Brezhnev and Gromyko, quoted in Pravda in 1968, were interpreted by Western observers.

On the next page, it claims that neo-nationalism is an ideological tool for Russian foreign policy! And there is another rather interesting passage further on, when the authors of the report confuse former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov with former Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov. Although they mention Igor Ivanov’s name in the context of grand strategy, foreign policy and neo-nationalism in Russia, they then refer to “Ivanov’s own 2003 military doctrine and reform plan” (p. 23). And this is given as confirmation of the aggressive neo-nationalist strategy that, according to the authors, is associated with Igor Ivanov! If the authors had been more attentive, they would have discovered that, at that time, Igor Ivanov was serving as the head of the foreign ministry, while the defence minister was Sergey Ivanov. Especially as they make reference to an article by a Western author, who, in 2004, analysed the Russian defence ministry’s reform and uses the right name (Matthew Bouldin, “The Ivanov Doctrine and Military Reform: Reasserting Stability in Russia,” Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2004). It seems that, when compiling the report, they simply copied an additional footnote to lend extra weight, but it was the wrong one.

It goes without saying that such a large number of errors undermines the entire content of the report. And this raises a logical question: what was the authors’ intention? To earn their money by throwing a bunch of quotes together or to try and understand the issues that exist in relations between Russia and the West?

Judging by the number of mistakes and biased assessments, it was most probably the former. There are also traces of a clear strategic intent, however.

This can be seen in the description of the grey zone where Russia is actively operating, because the case studies provided as examples of Russia’s activities in the grey zone are its bilateral relations with Moldova (1990–2016), Georgia (2003–2012), Estonia (2006–2007), Ukraine (2014–2016), and Turkey (2015–2016). According to the authors, then, the grey zone is independent sovereign states, including NATO members! And virtually all of them, with the exception of Turkey, are former post-Soviet countries that are in the sphere of Russia’s natural interests.

As for the methods that Russia allegedly employs, these are all heaped together in a big pile: economic embargoes, which have been imposed by Moscow for various reasons (the ban on wine imports from Moldova and Georgia, for example), support of certain political parties, compatriot policies, and diplomatic statements and sanctions (in relation to Turkey, for example, when a Russian plane was shot down over Syria).

Eventually, the report states: “Our five cases may not stand alone as empirical evidence, but they are broadly exemplary of historical trends. […] Russia applies hostile measures successfully but typically fails to leverage tactical success for long-term strategic gain” (p. 49).

From this, the report concludes that:

  1. Russia consistently reacts with hostile measures when it perceives threats.

  2. Both opportunism and reactionism drive Russian behavior.

  3. Russian leaders often issue a public warning before employing hostile measures.

  4. Short- and long-term measures are applied in mutually supporting combination.

  5. Diplomatic, information, military, and economic means are used collectively.

  6. Russia emphasizes information, economic, and diplomatic measures, in that order.

  7. All arms of the government are used to apply hostile measures, often in concert.

In their description of Russia’s actions, the RAND experts even go so far as to include resistance to the Wehrmacht in occupied Soviet territories during the Second World War, including the partisan underground, as an example of “Soviet hostile measures”, when “Soviet agents aggressively undermined the German economic program […] in the western occupied zone”! (p. 53). The report then goes on to say: “By the time the Soviets shifted to the counteroffensive, they had generated a massive, multilayered hostile-measures apparatus tailored to complement conventional military operations” (p. 53) and “[f]ull-scale sabotage, propaganda, and intelligence operations continued apace throughout the war” (p. 54). Immediately after this ludicrous statement is a paragraph on the actions of the KGB and GRU against insurgents in Afghanistan. This is then followed by an attempt to predict what Russia will do in the future.

So, from the report we can draw the following conclusions.

  • First, it is unclear why the “hostile measures” described in the report include fairly standard practices from international experience that are also used in the West as democratic norms.

  • Second, the report contains a number of distorted facts, errors, incorrect assessments and conclusions that undoubtedly undermine its content.

  • Third, such specific content with attempts to manipulate history is clearly intended to further tarnish Russia’s image, since it will be quoted by other researchers and academics in the future, including by way of mutual citation to reinforce credibility.

  • Fourth, if the US command and NATO are going to perceive this mix of speculation, phobias and value judgements as basic knowledge, then it really could lead to a further escalation, although the hostile measures will be employed by the US and NATO.

  • Fifth, the report clearly adheres to the methodology of the liberal interventionist school, which is somewhat strange for a study that claims to be a guide to action for the military, since the US military usually adheres to the school of political realism, in accordance with which the interests of other states must be respected. And since Russia’s sphere of interests is included in the grey zone, this suggests attempts to deny Russia its geopolitical interests.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 02/01/2020 – 23:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Of69Zd Tyler Durden