1) The Canadian Supreme Court’s striking down of the anti-prostitution laws. This was an important step in the direction of sex worker liberation. Not the only step that needs to be taken, but a meaingful one nonetheless.

2) Chelsea Manning’s continued heroic stand against the warfare state. It landed her in jail, but she has many supporters on the outside. Those of us who oppose American warfare statism have much to thank her for.

3) Radley Balko’s book on police militarization earns a spot in this piece, because those police powers are often used against the marginalized and oppressed. The War on Drugs is a notable example, because it predominantly targets African-Americans.

4) Edward Snowden’s revelations about the surveillance state. Glenn Greenwald has been instrumental in helping us find out about the spyng of the NSA. He deserves accolades for this principled behavior. It goes to show that he is one of the more reasonable left-liberals or centre-leftists out there.

“Dialectics is the art of context-keeping. It is a thinking style that emphasizes the centrality of context in the analysis of systems across time. As applied to libertarian social theory, it counsels us not to disconnect politics from economics, culture, social psychology, ethics, epistemology, and other factors. It views these seemingly disparate aspects as interrelated within a wider totality. Hence, any attempt to understand–or change–society must entail an analysis of its interrelations from the vantage point of any single aspect. This brings forth an enriched portrait of society, and underscores the indivisible connection between theory and practice.”

This brief exploration follows in his footsteps.

Contextually speaking, political legality is important, but it doesn’t exhaust all the factors necessary for sex worker liberation. There is still the necessity of addressing the economic and cultural levels of analysis. Both of which help to provide us with a broader more systemic view of the issue at hand. Without this broader context we risk losing sight of the total picture. This comprehensive picture allows us to grasp the interconnections spoken of by Sciabarra above.

Economically speaking, the mere political legality of sex work matters not without assurances that property owners will not discriminate against sex workers. It also matters not without sex workers receiving a comfortable share of the economic pie. It’s certainly true that the absence of coercive political penalties by the government assists in this, but it isn’t the end of relevant analysis. Private property owners could still use control of economic resources to deny access to sex workers. This is still true with formal legality.

Our final level of analysis is the cultural. In the absence of a sex worker friendly culture, formal legality could be rendered irrelevant by the restrictions of oppressive social mores. This would lead to the economic discrimination mentioned above and induce agitation to restore the laws on the political level. All the more reason to wage an interrelated struggle for sex worker liberation. These three levels of analysis are preferably dealt with simultaneously.

A própria existência de “operações de cilada,” por meio das quais pessoal da área de repressão instiga atividade ilegal — em outras palavras, atos em princípio ilegais no curso do cumprimento de suas obrigações oficiais — diz muito acerca da natureza do estado e de suas leis. Quando criadas as primeiras forças policiais em Londres e em New York no início do século 19, elas eram vistas como formadas de funcionários apenas contratados, mas pagos para desempenhar as mesmas funções de “posse comitatus” (preservadas na arcaica prática de “detenção por cidadão”) com a mesma abrangência da competência de todos os cidadãos. A proposição de à polícia profissional ser conferida condição especial acima da de seus concidadãos nunca teria sido tolerada.

Nunca entendi a lógica por meio da qual alguém uniformizado pode cometer ato definido como ilegal em lei escrita, no curso de operação de cilada, sem esse alguém ele próprio violar a lei. Se é ilegal cidadão oferecer para venda drogas ou atos sexuais, ou instigar sua venda por outrem, como poderá ser legal policial oferecer-se para comprar ou vender drogas de um cidadão?

A resposta, naturalmente, é que o estado não consegue funcionar usando a mesma lógica aplicável a seus cidadãos. De certa feita eu disse a colega de trabalho que, no tocante a operações de cilada de drogas e sexo, os policiais deveriam estar sujeitos às mesmas leis referentes a instigação que eles nos fazem cumprir. A resposta dela: “Mas então como eles poderiam pegar pessoas que fazem essas coisas?”

Boa pergunta. Obviamente, não poderiam. O estado simplesmente não consegue funcionar a menos que conceda a seus próprios funcionários, com uma piscada de olho e um toque de cotovelo, isenção das leis que todo mundo mais está obrigado a obedecer.

O estado não conseguiria fazer cumprir leis contra drogas, trabalho sexual ou qualquer outra atividade consensual se fosse literalmente restringido pelas leis como o processo devido garante na Carta de Direitos. Imaginem como a Guerra às Drogas se sairia se a Quarta Emenda fosse feita cumprir literalmente, sem qualquer das ressalvas de  “expectativa razoável de privacidade” ou “causa provável” ou “boa fé” que os tribunais têm lido nela — se os policiais realmente tivessem de ter mandado especificando o lugar e o que estão procurando antes de poderem pôr o pé na propriedade de vocês? Imaginem se o confisco civil fosse tratado como violação da quinta emenda, e o estado não pudesse tomar os haveres de vocês sem primeiro acusar vocês de crime e persuadir um júri a condenar vocês. Nesses termos, não importaria se as restrições substantivas às drogas fossem tão severas quanto em Cingapura — elas seriam letra morta na prática, pois seria impossível fazê-las cumprir.

O confisco civil foi primeiro instaurado nos setores de coleta de receita do governo, porque entendeu-se, desde o início, que interpretação literal da proibição, na lei consuetudinária, de confisco de propriedade sem o devido processo legal tornaria as leis tributárias impossíveis de serem feitas cumprir. O processo legal criminal ordinário para arrecadar de evasores de tributos custaria mais do que o valor da receita.

O confisco civil efetuado por legislação administrativa, baseada na preponderência da evidência, foi originalmente uma forma de lei prerrogativa na Inglaterra. Tribunais prerrogativos como a Câmara da Estrela derivavam suas regras procedimentais da lei civil romana, tal como codificada no governo de Justiniano. A proliferação de tribunais prerrogativos sob os Stuarts contou-se entre as coisas que levaram tanto Charles I quanto James II a perderem seus tronos. Contudo, mesmo depois da ascensão de William e Mary, entendia-se que alfândega e receita eram exceção às exigências  “universais” do processo devido da lei consuetudinária.

Foram as autoridades alfandegárias, funcionando sob a lei do Almirantado, que alisaram o pelo dos colonos estadunidenses no sentido contrário e provocaram a Revolução Estadunidense. Mesmo, entanto, depois da ratificação da Constituição e da Carta de Direitos, foi rapidamente estabelecido na jurisprudência que a proibição de confiscar propriedade sem julgamento por júri não se aplicava a alfândega e a receita — porque seria impossível fazê-lo.

Portanto, no final das contas, não importa o que a lei diga, e nem mesmo como, no papel, ela restrinja o estado. Se o governo precisar de isenção não escrita da lei para fazer o que deseja, obtê-la-á.

Artigo original afixado por Kevin Carson em 1o. de novembro de 2013.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

The very existence of “sting operations,” by which law enforcement personnel solicit illegal activity — in other words, perform acts which are illegal on their faces in the course of their official duties — speaks volumes about the nature of the state and its laws. When the first professional police forces were created in London and New York in the early 19th century, they were regarded as simply hired functionaries who got paid to perform the same “posse comitatus” functions (preserved in the archaic practice of “citizen’s arrest”)  within the competency of all citizens. The proposition that professional police be granted special status over and above that of their fellow citizens would never have been tolerated.

I’ve never understood the logic by which someone in uniform can commit an act that’s defined as illegal by statute, in the course of a sting operation, without themselves breaking the law. If it’s illegal for a citizen to offer drugs or sexual acts for sale, or to solicit their sale from others, how is it legal for a cop to offer to buy or sell drugs from a citizen?

The answer, of course, is that the state cannot operate on the same logic as its citizens. I once told a coworker that, when it came to drug and sex work sting operations, cops should be subject to the same anti-solicitation laws they’re enforcing on us. Her response: “But then how would they catch people who do that stuff?”

Good question. Obviously, they couldn’t. The state simply can’t function unless it gives its own functionaries, with a wink and a nudge, an exemption from the laws that everyone else is supposed to obey.

The state couldn’t enforce laws against drugs, sex work, or any other consensual activity if it were literally bound by laws like the due process guarantees in the Bill of Rights. Imagine how the Drug War would fare if the Fourth Amendment were enforced literally, without any of the “reasonable expectation of privacy” or “probable cause” or “good faith” lacunae the courts have read into it — if cops actually had to have a warrant specifying the place and what they were looking for before they could set foot on your property? Imagine if civil forfeiture were treated as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and the state couldn’t take your possessions without first charging you with a crime and persuading a jury to convict you. Under those terms, it wouldn’t matter if the substantive restrictions on drugs were as harsh as those in Singapore — they would be dead letters in practice because they were unenforceable.

Civil forfeiture was first introduced in the revenue collecting arms of government, because it was understood from the beginning that a literal interpretation of the common law prohibition on seizure of property without due process of law would render the tax laws unenforceable. Going through the ordinary criminal law process to collect from tax evaders would cost more than the revenue was worth.

Civil forfeiture by an administrative law body, based on a preponderance of the evidence, was originally a form of prerogative law in England. Prerogative courts like Star Chamber derived their procedural rules from the Roman civil law, as it was codified under Justinian. The proliferation of prerogative courts under the Stuarts was among the things that led to both Charles I and James II losing their thrones. But even after the accession of William and Mary, it was understood that customs and revenue were an exception to the common law’s “universal” due process requirements.

It was customs officials, operating under Admiralty law, who rubbed American colonials the wrong way and helped bring on the American Revolution. But even after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it was quickly established in case law that the prohibition against seizing property without a jury trial didn’t apply to customs and revenue — because it couldn’t.

So in the end, it doesn’t matter what the law says, or even how it explicitly restrains the state on paper. If government needs an unwritten exemption from the law to do what it wants, It will get it.

Translations for this article:

• Portuguese, O Estado Não Consegue Fazer Cumprir Suas Leis Sem Desobedecê-las.

The Times report quotes Gary Ridgway, who admitted murdering 48 women, as explaining, “I picked prostitutes because I thought I could kill as many of them as I wanted without getting caught.”

The prospect of being murdered without repercussion is the ultimate point of disempowerment. Sure, serial killers do get caught and ultimately punished, but only after numerous people are victimized.

How do prostitutes become such easy prey for the predators? It is ultimately due to a lack of respect and visibility. As people who exist outside of “respectable” society, prostitutes enjoy few protections from that society.

One cannot overlook the responsibility of “moral” crusaders for this pattern of marginalization. As something that’s “dirty,” prostitution is already off-limits in many forums of discussion, removing the prostitute from consideration. More serious is the extreme condescension shown toward those who trade sex for money. It’s one thing to be a little uppity about the choices you make, but it is quite another to regard someone as below the threshold of consideration because she’s “just a whore.”

Criminalization is a key factor in pushing prostitutes, among others, to the dangerous margins of society. Who can you turn to when the organization that largely monopolizes crime fighting is against you, and the other offers of “protection” are likely to lead to exploitation? The power that cops have over sex workers often manifests itself in the corruption and oppression one could expect from such an unequal relationship.

Criminalization makes further victimization easier in other ways too. A feeling of disempowerment leaves one with a sense of helplessness. Even if the law-breaker has access to weapons, getting caught armed would make just make them more serious “violators.” In the margins it’s difficult to trust, communicate, or bring to bear resources for redress. Fortunately outreach projects bring some measure of understanding and communication to those who work in the sex industry.

One should also consider the economic situation that prostitutes face. Whatever the motivations of the numerous individuals involved, it is clear that there are prostitutes who would rather be doing something else. It is also clear that victims of lower income tend be of less concern to authorities. The squeezing of the workforce by politicians and plutocrats, as well as the obstacles to advancement that regulations and artificially high costs of living create, leave many pursuing more dangerous and less-rewarding jobs than they would in a freer society.

However the story of disappearance and bodies in a swamp turns out, hopefully the victims will at least be afforded the dignity of presentation as people, not mere props. Raising the dignity of the individual, making room for them in a caring society, goes a long way in expanding their freedom to live. When society’s prejudice and state regulations make a person into an unperson, there is a shorter distance to go for a murderer to make her a dead person.