Mayor Proposes Ban of Massage Parlors

City Ordinance! What a Great Idea!!! *sarcasm*

Today, Mayor David Cicilline proposed a ban on indoor prostitution.  In a letter he wrote to the City council Cicilline proposes an amendment to Section 14-251 of the City Ordinances, which requires that massage parlors and health clubs be licensed by the city Bureau of Licenses.

“Anyone who knowingly permits, offers or receives any person into any place for the purpose of committing any commercial sexual activity would be subject to a $500 fine and/or imprisonment of up to 30 days.
Anyone determined to be a customer shall be found guilty of a violation and subject to a fine of $500 and/or imprisonment of up to 30 days.”

While it is obvious that Mayor Cicilline is trying to jump into the limelight and “save the day” from the Asian massage parlors, there are a few other things that should be looked at in regard to city ordinances.  I am not a lawyer, I am just a filmmaker, but while browsing through the city ordinances, I didn’t see any ordinance that had prison time. Sure I didn’t read them all, (there are a ton about keeping swine in city limits and burying horses), but even in the ones that looked important, those didn’t have any prison time.

Also lets look at the idea that Providence has become a “victim” and over run by spas.  Recently an email was sent to me about Mesa, Arizona.  Mesa is a city outside of Phoenix and about 2 and a half  times the population of Providence.  Providence reports to have 20 spas, and Mesa reports to have 120.  Because of the size difference I would expect Mesa to have 50 spas.  Actually, I take that back.  Prostitution is illegal in Arizona, so I would expect Mesa not to have any spas, never mind having six times the amount that Providence has.  So I guess criminalizing doesn’t work, or at least it isn’t working in Arizona.

Advertisements

3 responses to “Mayor Proposes Ban of Massage Parlors

  1. Thank you for tracking this — the question I’ve got is, how exactly is “commercial sexual activity” being defined? That’s one of the broadest frames I’ve ever seen in a piece of legislation. It doesn’t specify body parts, genders, ages, nothing.

    Would selling or purchasing pornography count? Viewing nude dance or masturbation shows, or performing the same? Watching two people have sex without touching them? These are all forms of “commercial sexual activity” protected in other legal contexts.

  2. What I found interesting was the comment section for the Mesa article. Not really any pro crackdown comments. Thank you for your efforts Tara. It is incredible that the politicians and the Projo continue a full court press on this matter. The majority of the Projo polls and article comments show most people disagree with the politicians and the Journal editorial staff on this. It gets to the point of be nauseating with the lies being printed and spoken.

  3. Criminalising has never worked – or at least has at most produced temporary changes in behaviour such as bans on loitering in the UK and bans on purchase in Sweden. I often cite Justice Marcia Neave in Australia – the law shaps but does not affect the extent of prostitution

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s