San Francisco LP activist Starchild instrumental in putting prostitution decriminalization on the ballot

Press release posted on the LP Radicals yahoo group. Starchild has had various offices in the San Francisco and California LP, and is one of the spokespeople for this initiative.

The San Francisco Department of Elections announced today that the measure prohibiting city officials from spending money arresting and prosecuting people for prostitution, and mandating equal legal protection for sex workers, has qualified for the November ballot. Of 500 signatures randomly sampled and checked by department personnel, 80 percent were found to be valid. “This is a happy day for San Franciscans who want government to focus on fighting real crimes like homicides and robberies, and are tired of seeing resources wasted in a futile effort to police consensual sex between adults,” said Starchild, a sex worker activist and spokesperson for the campaign. “We’ve cleared the first hurdle.” By the Elections Department’s tally, supporters had turned in 12,745 signatures of registered San Francisco voters on July 7.

The campaign to decriminalize prostitution will hold a kickoff rally and press conference to formally announce the results on Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. in front of the Polk Street entrance of City Hall, with
speakers to likely include Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who was a signer of the petition to put the measure on the ballot along with two of his board colleagues. “It is way past time that the
recommendations of the Board of Supervisors 1996 Prostitution Task Force were implemented,” said the measure’s proponent, Maxine Doogan. “Criminalizing sex workers has been putting workers at risk of violence and discrimination for far too long.”

The prostitution reform measure joins two other voter-submitted measures on the local Nov. 4 ballot, along with eight measures put on the ballot by the mayor or members of the Board of Supervisors, with many others expected to be added in the next several weeks.

14 thoughts on “San Francisco LP activist Starchild instrumental in putting prostitution decriminalization on the ballot

  1. Gene Trosper

    Where can I send in a donation to the cause?

    I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: Starchild rocks!

  2. Fred Church Ortiz

    “prohibiting city officials from spending money arresting and prosecuting people for prostitution, and mandating equal legal protection for sex workers”

    How effective is a measure worded this way expected to be? I’ve seen legalization measures worded making something “the last priority for law enforcement” but this seems more definitive.

  3. starchild

    Thanks, Gene & Melty Rox! You can always mail donations to the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, with “prostitution measure” in the memo field (or enclose a note explaining you’re making a targeted donation for that purpose). This should help get more local Libertarians involved, and show other supporters that Libertarians are stepping up to the plate to support the effort. The LPSF’s address is 2215-R Market Street, #170, San Francisco, CA 94114.

    Fred – Your question is well taken. Measures passed by the voters and the Board of Supervisors here in SF making cannabis the lowest police priority have not been consistently followed. We think taking away the funding for enforcement will be more effective, but I expect if this passes they will still try to find other ways to target and harass people. This is one chapter in a larger ongoing struggle to win equal rights under the law and social tolerance for people engaged in peaceful, consensual acts.

  4. Steve LaBianca

    Gene Trosper // Jul 19, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Where can I send in a donation to the cause?

    I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: Starchild rocks!

    I am truly shocked . . . Trosper and I agree on something!

  5. G.E.

    Trosper is not a bad guy at all from my perspective, Steve. He’s just horribly horribly wrong on Barr. He’s obsessed with “tactics” — which is a valid concern for local and other winnable races. But how to write about leadership qualities education and society essay source url contextual essay guidelines cover letter kent viagra man blues song enter site examples of a research paper in apa format thesis helper malaysia death of a salesman thesisВ research papers to buy essay on lokpal bill in hindi 8th grade creative writing curriculum jacobson a visit from royalty essay inventor essay https://www.pata.org/public-order-advocate-essay-6569/ go here homework for mums and dads follow site https://campcorral.org/help/thesis-paper-outline/12/ how to buy time on an essay cialis super active reviews follow college essay editor site master's dissertation and thesis service water essay writing http://mechajournal.com/alumni/buy-research-proposal/12/ sociology essay writing top persuasive essay ghostwriters service for university essay how to write essay etymology where to buy student paper about divorce apa format message should be king in presidential, congressional, etc. (i.e. unwinnable) races.

  6. G.E.

    Where can I send in a donation to the cause?

    Why not just support your local sex worker instead?

    JOKE!

  7. Gene Trosper

    Steve LaBianca // Jul 19, 2008 at 9:28 pm

    I am truly shocked . . . Trosper and I agree on something!

    We actually agree on way more than you realize.

  8. Gene Trosper

    G.E. // Jul 19, 2008 at 11:13 pm

    Trosper is not a bad guy at all from my perspective, Steve. He’s just horribly horribly wrong on Barr. He’s obsessed with “tactics” — which is a valid concern for local and other winnable races. But message should be king in presidential, congressional, etc. (i.e. unwinnable) races.

    I’m not “obsessed”. I just tend to go with what works. Anyhow, if you’re carefully read some of my postings, you will know that message IS a concern of mine with regard to the Barr campaign. I’ve publicly stated on a few occasions my cringe-factor with some of the things Barr has said, as well as publicly stating I do not agree 100% with Barr’s positions. Neither have I said that Barr is in a “winnable race”. I’ve been involved in winnable campaigns and this isn’t a winnable one. What it CAN do is raise the LP’s profile in a number of ways, which will make life easier for future candidates and legitimize the party in the eyes of many people who have ignored us in the past.

    Message-wise, I agree: Barr ain’t all that. However, I’m not expecting perfection. I’m expecting a campaign that will build the party for future success. In that aspect, I do not believe I am “horribly, horribly wrong”.

  9. Steve LaBianca

    Where Trosper goes “horribly wrong”, is that he refuses, or is blinded by starpower, to see that logically, tactics and strategy are totally meaningless and that “what works” is a pie in the sky concept UNLESS the principles are adhered to.

    The logic is this . . . first and foremost, the principle is the primary aspect, the axiom so to speak. Without this, there are no “tactics’ which “work”.

    How can “what works” be evaluated if the fundamental principle is ignored, or a stealth principle is substituted? A tactic or strategy “works” in relation to . . .what? What “worked”? Was the goal, which is a direct corollary derived from the eprinciple achieved? How would you know the goal is achieved, or even partially so if the principle is abandoned, or another is substituted?

    What is the “goal” if the principle” is set aside? How can Barr’s nomination and campaign promotion be “what works” if the principle, liberty. is swept aside? And, make no mistake about it, Barr sweeps aside the principle, because his “goal” is votes, regardless of whteher or not they are votes for liberty. Plus, I will go further . . . Barr is EXPLICITLY soliciting conservative votes, not to bring them to the libertartian point of view, but to get them to the Barr point of view, which is promotion of BARR! By promoting other than liberty, (government has a role in climate change, and mortgage crisis liquidity, just to name two things he came out with this past week) the votes he gets will bear no relationship to liberty.

    Subsequently, these votes don’t build a “libertarian party” but a conservative, statist one. To the extent that any vote total which is substantial gets attention for the LP, what picture is painted in the mind of of the journalist who pays attention, or the reader who sees the journalist’s “painting”?

    The picture is . . . the LP supports federal meddling in marriage; the LP supports federal meddling in the credit and mortgage industries; the LP supports regulations and controls the climate “control”, the LP supports the War on Drugs, the LP supports taxation, and more importantly NEW taxation in the form of some national sales or value added tax.

    This I submit Mr. Trosper makes gaining ground impossible with the Barr/W.A.R. campaign. Speaking of W.A.R., the message is that the LP supports foreign interventionism . . . policing the world, regardless of what W.A.R.’ rhetoric to the contrary is. (What I mean here is that W.A.R. opposes, as does Barr, a swift pullout of troops from Iraq, and favors other “threats” intervention such as Iran, yet claims NOT to support policing the world)

    Finally, the other major problem with Barr (there are many more, though not as noteworthy IMHO) is that his federalism arguments don’t wash with libertarianism. Fine, Barr doesn’t think that the War on Drugs should be prosecuted by the federal gov’t, but done so by the state government is proper. This doesn’t help, and in fact HURTS Libertarian candidates running at the local and state level who DO want to eliminate the War on Drugs at the state and local level (which by the way is where most of the drug “crime” is prosecuted)!

    I am hoping that the Barr/W.A.R. campaign falls flat, gets less than 1% of the vote and each of them leaves the LP with their tails between their legs. Their message is wrong. Thus the tactics are designed to achieving the wrong ends and nothing short of failure will convince those mesmerized by “starpower” will suffice in showing that the whole program was a mistake.

    There I said it. I want the Barr/W.A.R. campaign to fail miserably. Upon failure of this ticket, the LP can then go back to doing what it should be doing . . . promoting liberty, freedom from coercion and moving the political debate in our direction by educating the voters as to what the principles and consequences of liberty are. The Barr/W.A.R. ticket fails this test miserably.

  10. Steve LaBianca

    Please excuse my typos . . . I am in a hurry and need to be somewhere. Sorry.

  11. paulie cannoli Post author

    To the extent that any vote total which is substantial gets attention for the LP, what picture is painted in the mind of of the journalist who pays attention, or the reader who sees the journalist’s “painting”?

    The picture is . . . the LP supports federal meddling in marriage; the LP supports federal meddling in the credit and mortgage industries; the LP supports regulations and controls the climate “control”, the LP supports the War on Drugs, the LP supports taxation,

    I’m not so convinced that is true. Most of Barr’s actual or possible differences with plumb line libertarianism may be a lot less apparent to casual observers than they are to ideological libertarians.

    For example, when reading his post-convention piece on the drug war, it seemed like a fairly solid piece until I read it more closely, started noticing where it could have been better, saw where other people pointed out problems with it and so on. But on first glance/casual read, the impression it created was that the drug war is a mistake.

    I haven’t watched most of Barr’s TV appearances, so my impression of them was off the bat colored by the analysis on blogs such as this one. I did watch him on ABC This Week a couple of weeks ago, and he sounded libertarian to me.

    I do worry about the national sales tax thing though, and a few other points.

    So there’s truth on both sides of this.

  12. Steve LaBianca

    paulie cannoli // Jul 20, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Most of Barr’s actual or possible differences with plumb line libertarianism may be a lot less apparent to casual observers than they are to ideological libertarians.

    Paulie, you have just made my point. Most, if not a the great majority of casualobservers aren’t viewing the “painting” of the journalists and reporters covering Barr’s campaign.

    Certainly motivated “observers” WILL begin to characterize the LP as “Barr-ish” and gradually filter through to the casual observers. However, this will not happen if the reformer/conservative influences fold up their tent within the LP and go away (or drastically reform their “reform” agenda into a more plumbline one) right after the election . A one shot deal for the Barristas and conservatives will require damage control, but not of the type which will be necessary to overturn a pervasive, widespread view of the LP if the reformers and Barristas have a long run of influence in the LP.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *