CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
Multimedia News
Newsom: Keep prostitution illegal
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
“There are few cities in the world that have more problems with sex trafficking than San Francisco,” Newsom said. “All this does is further the prospects that that will continue.”
Last month, Supervisor Jake McGoldrick asked the city attorney to draft legislation directing San Francisco police to make prostitution one of its lowest enforcement priorities. McGoldrick said reducing enforcement would help curb trafficking and exploitation in the sex industry.
The City spends $11.4 million enforcing prostitution laws, according to a Budget Analyst’s Office estimate.
Prostitution is not a victimless crime, the mayor said.
“I think the legalization of prostitution would be a terrible mistake,” the mayor said. “Any time you see a security gate and a security camera, you know something inappropriate is happening in there.”
McGoldrick told The Examiner he is pushing the idea in an effort to bring out from the shadows the problems of trafficking and exploitation by muting legal repercussions for sex workers.
“By driving sex workers underground, what you do is create opportunity for crimes to be committed against them,” McGoldrick said.
Dawn Trennert, a resident in the Middle Polk neighborhood, has worked with police to cut down on prostitution there, and said she disagreed with McGoldrick’s proposal.
“The vast majority of prostitutes who work in San Francisco don’t live in San Francisco,” Trennert said. “They commute here because we’re easy on crime. How much more of this trafficking would occur if the police don’t even address the issue?”
Comments from Examiner Readers
11:05 AM MST on Tue., Dec. 18, 2007 re: "Newsom: Keep prostitution illegal"
Report as inappropriate
1:11 PM MST on Sat., Dec. 15, 2007
re: "Newsom: Keep prostitution illegal"
Report as inappropriate
1:25 PM MST on Thu., Dec. 13, 2007
re: "Newsom: Keep prostitution illegal"
Report as inappropriate
11:40 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 13, 2007
re: "Newsom: Keep prostitution illegal"
Report as inappropriate
10:35 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 13, 2007
re: "Newsom: Keep prostitution illegal"
Report as inappropriate
10:25 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 13, 2007
re: "Newsom: Keep prostitution illegal"
Report as inappropriate
10:18 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 13, 2007
re: "Newsom: Keep prostitution illegal"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
The lights go out in Amsterdam´s Red Light District, it was announced yesterday. Seems they can´t control exploitation of women, trafficking, pimps, money laundering, etc. Well, they have re-thought their position and here are some of their conclusions and actions. Interesting how the censorship of this issue has been promoted by Supervisor McGoldrick and the convicted trafficker in his office, who works with Austrailian´s profiters, trying to bring these failed systems here. Just might work in "progressive" SF. What the F___ does progressive mean? Anything goes-exploitation, trafficking, pimps, ignoring facts, turning a blind eye, ignorance is bliss. These, as Joan Ready said, TRICKSTERS rely on an ignorant public. Good for Newsom. He took this step, without knowing what was around the corner and this major change in the world landscape of legalized prostitution. Gee, what ever happened to the argument--it is safe where it is legalized---zero trafficking, zero exploitation?
49 agree | 56 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Joan Ready said:
The supervisor proposing this has convicted traffickers and madams volunteering in his office offing themselves as sex workers. Who is this supervisor and his motivation? By his lie, "Where prostitution is legal, there is zero trafficking." he is the mouth piece for pimps and traffickers. Germany, leading recieving country of trafficked human beings. prostitution. Germany also has legalized prostitution. The Green Party in Germany is rethinking it's policy on legalized prostitution. Netherland, 2 receiving country of trafficked humans, also has leagalized prostitution and the Green party is retihinking it's policy. Supervisor McGoldrick, who are you? The TRICKSTER? Apologist for the pimps and traffickers? Why are you lying? Who is really benefitting from your lies? By the way the Proposition in Berkeley to decrimialize began with the same trafficker in the Sups office, her first move was to make prostitution there a low priority. The measure lost 79 to 21. Check out www.SWOP
72 agree | 43 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
FrankG said:
Finally there is someone who will step up and say the obvious. Ignoring prostitution is a stupid idea. There is a strong pimp lobby in SF who pass themselves off as sex workers but their real goal is to get their hands on sweet young things to sell. If the pimps and the massage parlors and the strip clubs can get the cops to ignore the prostitution going on under their nose, there are huge profits to be made. The pimp lobby is going to spend big and fight hard for their right to make money selling other people for sex. This is not over. We need the whole city government to say no in a big way to these thugs.
73 agree | 56 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Brian Goodwin said:
If Gavin Newsom thinks that legalization of prostitution is a "terrible mistake", does this mean he has changed he has changed his mind regarding his vote on how "massage" should be regulated in SF? In 2003 Gavin Newsom voted in support of Chris Daly's bill (endorsed by members of the Sex Workers Outreach Project, pioneered by Terrence Hallinan) to "help prostitutes practice prostitution" by rewriting laws regulating "massage". Does Gavin Newsom support full state licensure and title protection for nonerotic therapeutic massage practitioners? How does this issue relate to the nurses strike? Should prostitution be regulated? How and Why? Should "massage" be regulated? How and Why? Remember the movie "There's Something About Mary"... Should prostate checkers be regulated? How and Why?
72 agree | 45 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Yet another stupid idea from the board of supervisors. this one beats the ban on plastic bag and meaningless posturing on impeaching the president. prostitutes are a blight on this city and should be driven from SF by law enforcement officials. perhaps the supe who proposed this is receiving inducements of one form or another from pimps to have the cops turn down the heat on their streetwalkers?
76 agree | 68 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I don't understand how legislation can be enacted to prioritize criminal behavior. As if one crime is more important than the other. So if this legislation passes and a resident is complaining about prostitution in their neighborhood, what should the police do? Explain to the resident that prostitution is a low prioriry and drive away? Someone please explain how its going to work? Are there other crimes that the SFPD should put higher on their list? Auto Boosting, Homicide, rape, Robbery, burglary, domestic violence, child abuse ? Lets rank them in order of importance.
82 agree | 55 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Seeing as the city appears to have trouble balancing the budget, perhaps prostitution could be "monitored" and "taxed" as a revenue source for other city needs? Whether we approve or disapprove of the "world's oldest profession," it continues to be a profitable business in this city as in others.
66 agree | 84 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree