| Home | About Diana Russell | Pornography As a Cause of Rape (book excerpt) | Publications | Other links | |
THE REDDY SEXUAL SLAVERY CASE
IN BERKELEY: UNFINISHED STORY
©by Diana E. H. Russell, Ph.D., part III
Boycott Campaign and Vigil
On January 22, Diana Russell -- a feminist Professor Emerita of Sociology
at Mills College in Oakland,
and well-known researcher on sexual violence -- was
incensed by the revelations published in a San Francisco Chronicle
article describing Lakireddy Bali Reddy's sexually abusive behavior.
Unable to find anyone to join her picket outside Reddy's Pasand
Restaurant, she decided to protest alone that evening.
Carrying a large sign denouncing Reddy's sexual slavery, trafficking, and
repeated acts of rape of young girls, the author's action infuriated the Pasand
managers and other staff, who threatened to have her arrested for trespassing. When she told them to go ahead and call the police, they
backed off.
![]() |
|
Unbeknown to Russell, Berkeley resident Norine Smith arrived for a vigil
organized by Narika -- a
facility that assists abused South Asian women.
When no one else arrived (the vigil had been postponed for a week), Smith
decided to stay and picket on her own. She
only picketed on a few occasions before returning to her involvement in a
campaign on another issue. In
contrast, Russell continued her evening pickets for several months.
After about two months she was joined by radical feminist activist BJ
Miller, who became a major long-term picketer against Reddy's acts of sexual
trafficking and slavery.
A week after the start of the boycott campaign, Narika organized a vigil
for Chanti and Reddy's other victims outside the Berkeley Pasand Restaurant on
January 29, 2000. About 200 women
and men participated and the media were there in force to cover the event.
The same day, Maitri -- another organization that services abused South
Asian women -- organized a similar vigil outside Reddy's Pasand Restaurant in
Sunnyvale, Santa Clara County, California.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
Purpose of Boycott
Lone WASS picketer Russell -- later joined by two or three others -- advocated -- and continues to advocate -- that Berkeley residents and visitors boycott the Pasand Restaurant to show Reddy and his collaborators that the Berkeley community deplores their participation in the global sex trade. Another important goal is to inform the public about the growing problem of sex slavery in the United States and the rest of the world -- including the following paragraph:
A U.S. government study in 1999 reported that an estimated 50,000 women and children are brought into the U.S. under false pretenses each year from Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe and forced to work as sex slaves or prostitutes, and/or exploited as servants or laborers. Sexual exploitation includes being used in the pornography industry, serving as "escorts," being imported as "mail order brides," etc. Sexual trafficking of girls and women has now replaced narcotics as the favored illegal trade activity.
The Founding of WOMEN AGAINST SEXUAL SLAVERY
WOMEN AGAINST SEXUAL SLAVERY was founded by Russell and Miller in June
2000. WASS's
members advocated (and
still advocate) that Berkeley residents and visitors boycott the Pasand
Restaurant. They continued to
picket, sometimes with one or two others, until January 2001. Russell, alone or with one other person, also picketed
outside the Federal U.S. Court House in Oakland, when court proceedings were
held regarding Reddy. She/they
handed out information about the Reddy case and the boycott campaign when
picketing outside the Pasand Restaurant or the Court.
During the many months to follow, several other women joined
Russell and
Miller in picketing outside the court and attending the court proceedings regarding all five of
the members of Reddy's family who were charged with crimes -- particularly
witness Marcia Poole, Grace Christie, Jill Hutchby, Carol de Witt and Charlotte Collins.
Poole had been strongly advised by Berkeley police St. Garen Nielsen -- the
second police officer in charge of the Reddy case -- to avoid talking to anyone
before she testified in court about what she had witnessed on November 25, 1999,
when Reddy and his collaborators attempted to escape with Reddy's cargo of
incriminating evidence. However,
when she never was called to be a witness in Reddy's prosecution, she finally
decided that remaining incognito had became counter-productive.
Poole told her story at a press conference outside the Pasand Restaurant
on April 10, 2001. Even before that
date, Poole had become very active in WASS, initiating and participating in
numerous campaigns, lobbying, and public statements.
WASS members attempted to educate Berkeley residents about the Reddy
scandal by handing out and sending information to the media and members of the
public on a regular basis. We also
wrote
numerous letters to Judge Armstrong urging her to take certain stands,
criticizing her when we considered it appropriate -- particularly for her
shockingly light sentence for Reddy -- and praising her when this was warranted.
In addition, we initiated a motion that came before the Berkeley City
Council to endorse the WASS boycott of the Pasand Restaurant and to denounce
sexual slavery in general. We continue to engage in these kinds of activities as well as
attending all court proceedings regarding Reddy's relatives.
Russell Sued by Reddy and Other Family Members
In an effort to end the boycott campaign, Reddy and some of his relatives sued Russell on May 26, 2000. One of their complaints was that she seriously impeded their business! This charge did not stop the author from continuing to picket as before; however, it had a chilling effect on several women who had planned to join the picket.
Despite the few picketers, the boycott campaign was very successful in turning business away from Pasand and in educating the public about the heinous charges against Reddy. However, the picketers haven't achieved their goal to close down the Pasand Restaurant. Presumably, even if this business were running at a loss, Reddy's wealth would enable him to keep it open to avoid having to concede defeat.
Go to part IV