The debate is between those stuck in the 1960s and those of us with a modern view of rights
Earlier this week, the FBI released the results of a nationwide operation against child sex traffickers. After identifying children who were being sold for sex on the internet, in casinos, on the streets and at truck stops, they arrested 642 people and rescued 47 victims. The operation was carried out over three days last week, just as British journalists, academics and cheerleaders for legalised prostitution were arguing that sex trafficking in this country is mostly a myth.
"Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution," declared one headline. I wondered where it looked, given that British prisons are now home to such notorious traffickers as Luan Plakici and Viktoras Larcenko. In the debate that followed, I was struck by the nasty personal tone of much of the rhetoric, which dismissed campaigners against sex trafficking as evangelical Christians and ill-intentioned feminists. There was little mention of the international context – mainly, I suspect, because so many unimpeachable organisations are on the other side of the argument.
Since 2003, the FBI has rescued 886 child victims of sex traffickers and secured 510 convictions. According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the US is a trafficking destination for victims from other countries but "many US citizens are trafficked, usually run-away teenage girls, who are preyed on by pimps and trafficked for prostitution". Task forces identified 3,336 potential victims of human trafficking (for domestic labour as well as prostitution) by June last year.
Hillary Clinton launched the State Department annual report on human trafficking this year, and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) produced its own assessment. It said that more than 21,400 victims were identified in 111 countries in 2006, but the number of convictions for trafficking was not proportionate to the extent of the problem. Two out of five countries covered by the report had not recorded a single conviction, leading UNODC's executive director, Antonio Maria Costa, to a blunt conclusion: "Either they are blind to the problem, or they are ill-equipped to deal with it."
According to the UK Human Trafficking Centre, there were 105 convictions for trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation between 1 May 2004 (when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force) and 26 March 2009. Low conviction figures are being used to bolster claims that the extent of sex trafficking in the UK has been hugely exaggerated, and to discredit organisations and individuals who believe that conviction rates do not show the full picture. That's certainly the view of the Poppy Project, which runs a refuge for trafficking victims; it has received more than 1,300 referrals of women from 80 countries since 2003.
The Commons Home Affairs Committee has identified numerous reasons for the low conviction rate, including the brutality of traffickers – many victims are too frightened to testify – and the difficulty of proving trafficking offences; the authorities sometimes press alternative charges such as money laundering or false documentation. The MPs argue that "the comparatively low rate of prosecutions for trafficking ... adds to the confusion about the incidence of trafficking" and "may lead some authorities to underestimate the severity of the problem".
Here is an example of how confusion arises. Three years ago, West Midlands police trumpeted the success of an operation against alleged sex-traffickers in Birmingham, even taking Sky TV with them to film it; a police spokesman said the women had been tricked into the sex industry and were locked into a massage parlour called Cuddles each evening. Thirteen women who had EU passports were held in cells for two nights before being released; the remaining six – from Albania, Moldova, Romania and Thailand, all well-known countries of origin for trafficking – were taken to Yarl's Wood detention centre. Lawyers managed to stay their deportation and a representative of the Poppy Project was allowed to meet four of the women. Finally, 12 days after the raid, two were identified as sex-trafficking victims.
Just about everything went wrong with this operation, which is hardly surprising given that it was conducted under intense media scrutiny. The Poppy Project was not told about the raid in advance and the women were not interviewed in compliance with guidance on vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. A Birmingham man, Carl Pritchett, was jailed for two years for running a brothel and in August this year he was ordered to pay back £2m under the Proceeds of Crime Act, but specific charges of sex trafficking were never brought. The Government has now ratified the Council of Europe convention which gives suspected trafficking victims more rights, but existing figures for convictions cover a period when many potential witnesses were quickly deported.
Of course, this isn't really an argument about statistics. It's about a clause in the Policing and Crime Bill, currently being considered by the House of Lords, which would make it an offence to buy sex from anyone who is controlled for gain. Campaigners for legalised prostitution fear the testimonies of trafficking victims because they explode the notion that selling sex is a pleasant job, made risky only by its illegal status. When I hear about the "dignified living conditions" of women in the sex industry, I know the argument is more to do with ideology than figures. It's a clash between people clinging to antiquated ideas from the 1960s – that men are entitled to sex whenever they want it – and those of us with a modern view of the rights of women and children.
The vilification we're experiencing is a tactic which the great anti-slavery campaigner, William Wilberforce, would have recognised. His critics claimed on different occasions (depending on the sympathies of their audience) that slavery was a necessary evil, slaves were not badly treated and abolitionists were just a bunch of religious bigots: "pious divines, tender-hearted poetesses, and short-sighted politicians" according to one polemic published in 1789. Three years later, a pamphlet claimed that each slave family had "a snug little house and garden, and plenty of pigs and poultry". Wilberforce didn't believe a word of it. And when I'm told sex trafficking isn't really a problem in this country, neither do I.
Showing posts with label Sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sex. Show all posts
Europe and NZ poles apart on sex trade
Labels:
Brothels,
New Zealand,
Sex
0
comments
For the past six years, New Zealand has treated prostitution as a normal business. Brothels operate legally, and sex workers are subject to ordinary employment and health and safety rules.
Some European governments, by contrast, have chosen to restrict the trade. Sex workers are calling for New Zealand-style liberalisation, but as Henri Astier reports in the second of two articles, they stand little chance of being heard.
When Norway criminalised the purchase of sex services in January, it took its cue from next-door Sweden, which pioneered the policy in 1999, rather than far-off New Zealand.
Wholesale decriminalisation may work in a South Pacific island nation, but the suggestion that it could work on a continent where ruthless gangs move all too freely strikes many as fanciful.
"New Zealand might be different because it is so isolated," says Anna Narit of the Nadheim Women's Centre, a church-run shelter in Oslo that looks after prostitutes rescued from traffickers and criminals.
"We have a lot of migration in Europe, and the borders are open," she says, defending Norway's new law under which those caught paying for prostitutes can face a heavy fine or six months in prison.
The idea behind the approach is not to target prostitutes, who are regarded as victims, but to empower them.
Clamping down on demand for their services is expected to weaken the hold of those preying on them.
Big lie?
The same rationale applies to a bill making its way through the British parliament, which will make it a crime to pay for sex with someone "forced into prostitution" or "controlled for another's gain".
Supporters of the legislation argue that trafficking and other forms of coercion are rife in the sex industry.
"Something like 80% of women in prostitution are controlled by their drug dealer, their pimp, or their trafficker," MP Fiona Mactaggart told the BBC in November.
Another Labour politician, Denis MacShane, estimated in 2007 that there were as many as 25,000 sex slaves in Britain.
However those speaking for sex workers dispute the figures, and believe that their rights and safety would be better protected through liberalisation rather than further repression.
"We think the New Zealand law should serve as a model for the rest of the world," Cari Mitchell of the England Collective of Prostitutes told the BBC News website.
She calls the proposed legislation for England and Wales a "moral crusade", and says the popular picture of an industry dominated by criminals holding girls in virtual bondage is "a big lie".
Murky numbers
The numbers surrounding trafficking have long been a matter of controversy. This is partly due to the lack of a clear, agreed definition.
Most people think of "trafficked women" as girls lured abroad under false pretences and forced by violent men to work off some fictitious debt.
However police reports often use the term to refer to illegal migrants.
The Poppy Project, a British group that has carried out research into prostitution, has estimated that 80% of women working in brothels in London are foreign.
The report does not use the word "trafficking", but according to Julia O'Connell Davidson of the University of Nottingham, advocates quoting the report have used the term, contributing to public confusion.
"People understand it as meaning that 80% of sex workers have been brought in at the barrel of a gun and locked into buildings, which is not the case," she told the BBC news website.
No one knows how many prostitutes in Britain work under duress, but police raids carried out in more than 1,300 brothels nationwide in 2006 and 2007 suggest the numbers are not as high as many fear.
About 250 of the women rescued were said to have been victims of trafficking, police said.
The total number of people picked up is not known, but assuming an average of four prostitutes per establishment - a figure commonly used by support groups - this suggests that less than 5% meet the police definition of "trafficked". The number is no doubt disturbing, but a far cry from the most alarming figures.
That proportion, incidentally, is not much more than the 4% share of New Zealand prostitutes which a 2008 parliamentary report estimated were being kept by force.
The prostitution industries of both Europe and the South Pacific may not be poles apart after all.
Both the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective and European organisations representing sex workers argue that the overwhelming majority of women in the industry have made a conscious choice, and that Swedish-type laws are addressing a largely non-existent problem.
Effective lobbying
Liv Jessen of Pro Sentret, a Norwegian support group for prostitutes, contends that the rationale for Norway's new law is spurious, because trafficking is already punishable by 10 years in jail.
She says the most notable effect of the legislation is that it has made sex workers feel more vulnerable, as they view police as hostile.
Ms Jessen says it would have been "fairer and more honest" to ban prostitution outright. "The women would have a better status as criminals than as victims harassed by police for their own good."
Neither did sex workers in neighbouring Sweden support the 1999 ban on buying sex. Sans, a network of Swedish prostitutes' groups, was opposed to it and is calling for New Zealand-style decriminalisation.
Why is there such a discrepancy between what so many people across Europe assume about the sex trade and testimony from within the industry?
According to Julia O'Connell Davidson, public perception is heavily influenced by organisations that support those prostitutes who have had abusive experiences.
The cases are real and these groups play an important role, but they deal with extreme situations. The sex industry as a whole should not be judged on the basis of their advocacy, Ms O'Connell Davidson argues.
"It's a bit like judging the state of heterosexual relationships in Britain today by talking just to people who work in domestic violence units."
Deaf ears
Effective lobbying by anti-prostitution groups and the revulsion caused by human traffickers mean that calls for New Zealand-style liberalisation are falling on deaf ears in Europe.
Nordic-style prohibition is gaining recruits even in the liberal Netherlands, which legalised brothels in 2000.
Many Dutch politicians point to evidence that the reform has failed to sever links between prostitution and crime. As a result parliament is considering a government plan to ban the purchase of sex from trafficked women.
Sietske Altink of De Rode Draad (Red Thread), an advocacy group for Dutch prostitutes, says such a clampdown is unwarranted. Trafficking may be rife, she concedes, but it does not mean coercion is.
"Lots of trafficked women knew they were going to work as sex workers," she says.
In the Netherlands, Ms Altink notes, prostitutes are also strongly opposed to criminalising punters but few politicians are interested in their views.
"It's very curious they don't want to listen to the people they make the laws for," she says.
Some European governments, by contrast, have chosen to restrict the trade. Sex workers are calling for New Zealand-style liberalisation, but as Henri Astier reports in the second of two articles, they stand little chance of being heard.
 Even the liberal Dutch want to clamp down on the sex industry |
Wholesale decriminalisation may work in a South Pacific island nation, but the suggestion that it could work on a continent where ruthless gangs move all too freely strikes many as fanciful.
"New Zealand might be different because it is so isolated," says Anna Narit of the Nadheim Women's Centre, a church-run shelter in Oslo that looks after prostitutes rescued from traffickers and criminals.
"We have a lot of migration in Europe, and the borders are open," she says, defending Norway's new law under which those caught paying for prostitutes can face a heavy fine or six months in prison.
The idea behind the approach is not to target prostitutes, who are regarded as victims, but to empower them.
Clamping down on demand for their services is expected to weaken the hold of those preying on them.
Big lie?
The same rationale applies to a bill making its way through the British parliament, which will make it a crime to pay for sex with someone "forced into prostitution" or "controlled for another's gain".
 | 2003 NZ PROSTITUTION REFORM Brothels allowed to operate Up to four prostitutes can set up collective as equal partners Advertising sale of sex legalised Brothels require certificate and registration by court Sex work subject to normal employment and health and safety standards  |
"Something like 80% of women in prostitution are controlled by their drug dealer, their pimp, or their trafficker," MP Fiona Mactaggart told the BBC in November.
Another Labour politician, Denis MacShane, estimated in 2007 that there were as many as 25,000 sex slaves in Britain.
However those speaking for sex workers dispute the figures, and believe that their rights and safety would be better protected through liberalisation rather than further repression.
"We think the New Zealand law should serve as a model for the rest of the world," Cari Mitchell of the England Collective of Prostitutes told the BBC News website.
She calls the proposed legislation for England and Wales a "moral crusade", and says the popular picture of an industry dominated by criminals holding girls in virtual bondage is "a big lie".
Murky numbers
The numbers surrounding trafficking have long been a matter of controversy. This is partly due to the lack of a clear, agreed definition.
 An estimated 80% of sex workers in London are foreign |
However police reports often use the term to refer to illegal migrants.
The Poppy Project, a British group that has carried out research into prostitution, has estimated that 80% of women working in brothels in London are foreign.
The report does not use the word "trafficking", but according to Julia O'Connell Davidson of the University of Nottingham, advocates quoting the report have used the term, contributing to public confusion.
"People understand it as meaning that 80% of sex workers have been brought in at the barrel of a gun and locked into buildings, which is not the case," she told the BBC news website.
No one knows how many prostitutes in Britain work under duress, but police raids carried out in more than 1,300 brothels nationwide in 2006 and 2007 suggest the numbers are not as high as many fear.
About 250 of the women rescued were said to have been victims of trafficking, police said.
| NO SEX PLEASE Sweden: Paying for sex made outlawed in 1999 Norway: Buying sex outlawed in January 2009 England and Wales: MPs considering ban on purchase of sex from "controlled women" Netherlands: Ban on buying sex from trafficked people proposed by Cabinet |
That proportion, incidentally, is not much more than the 4% share of New Zealand prostitutes which a 2008 parliamentary report estimated were being kept by force.
The prostitution industries of both Europe and the South Pacific may not be poles apart after all.
Both the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective and European organisations representing sex workers argue that the overwhelming majority of women in the industry have made a conscious choice, and that Swedish-type laws are addressing a largely non-existent problem.
Effective lobbying
Liv Jessen of Pro Sentret, a Norwegian support group for prostitutes, contends that the rationale for Norway's new law is spurious, because trafficking is already punishable by 10 years in jail.
|  It's a bit like judging the state of heterosexual relationships in Britain today by talking just to people who work in domestic violence units  Julia O'Connell Davidson |
Ms Jessen says it would have been "fairer and more honest" to ban prostitution outright. "The women would have a better status as criminals than as victims harassed by police for their own good."
Neither did sex workers in neighbouring Sweden support the 1999 ban on buying sex. Sans, a network of Swedish prostitutes' groups, was opposed to it and is calling for New Zealand-style decriminalisation.
Why is there such a discrepancy between what so many people across Europe assume about the sex trade and testimony from within the industry?
According to Julia O'Connell Davidson, public perception is heavily influenced by organisations that support those prostitutes who have had abusive experiences.
The cases are real and these groups play an important role, but they deal with extreme situations. The sex industry as a whole should not be judged on the basis of their advocacy, Ms O'Connell Davidson argues.
"It's a bit like judging the state of heterosexual relationships in Britain today by talking just to people who work in domestic violence units."
Deaf ears
Effective lobbying by anti-prostitution groups and the revulsion caused by human traffickers mean that calls for New Zealand-style liberalisation are falling on deaf ears in Europe.
| Lots of trafficked women knew they were going to work as sex workers Sietske Altink De Rode Draad, Amsterdam |
Many Dutch politicians point to evidence that the reform has failed to sever links between prostitution and crime. As a result parliament is considering a government plan to ban the purchase of sex from trafficked women.
Sietske Altink of De Rode Draad (Red Thread), an advocacy group for Dutch prostitutes, says such a clampdown is unwarranted. Trafficking may be rife, she concedes, but it does not mean coercion is.
"Lots of trafficked women knew they were going to work as sex workers," she says.
In the Netherlands, Ms Altink notes, prostitutes are also strongly opposed to criminalising punters but few politicians are interested in their views.
"It's very curious they don't want to listen to the people they make the laws for," she says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
