Government & Legal Efforts on Human Trafficking
Action: Tell the House to Fund Crucial Services for Human Trafficking Survivors Today
Published October 06, 2009 @ 11:00AM PT
Today, we are at a crucial moment in the fight against human trafficking: the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies is about to decide whether or not to provide $15 million for services for survivors of human trafficking. Please, write to Committee Chairman Mollohan and Ranking Member Wolf to urge them to fund services for victims of human trafficking today!
The upwards of 17,500 people who are trafficked into the United States, plus the tens of thousands of Americans trafficked internally each year, are in desperate need of services like medical care, counseling, legal assistance, shelter, education, and employment in order to recover from horrific abuses and rebuild their lives. Without adequate funds those services in the U.S. will be underfunded and inaccessible for many survivors. For many trafficking survivors, these services are the key to a new life after the horrible ordeal of slavery.
The Senate Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Subcommittee has already agreed to fund trafficking victims’ services at $15 million. Now, we are asking the House to support the highest possible funding level to provide trafficking survivors the resources they desperately need. Specifically, we are asking the House conferees to commit to the following:
- To provide the highest possible funding level for Department of Justice grants for programs to end human trafficking and slavery;
- To provide a funding floor for foreign nationals in the Justice grants to ensure continuity of programs;
- Retain the Senate report language requiring the Department of Justice to establish a point of contact in each U.S. Attorney Office to better coordinate human trafficking and slavery efforts in each jurisdiction; and additionally I
- Thank you for the funding for Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit. Support the Senate report language for Justice's specialized Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit.
Please, write to Reps. Mollohan and Wolf and urge them to support the highest possible funding level for Department of Justice grants for programs to end human trafficking and slavery. By doing so, you can help trafficking victims get the resources they need to build a better, freer life.
Photo credit: Jenna Carver
UN to Russia: Prevent Exploitation, Protect Migrants
Published October 05, 2009 @ 03:00PM PT
The UN criticized Russia today for spending about as much time trying to protect migrant workers from exploitation as Donald Trump spends on his hair. And what little effort they've expended on laws and programs aiding migrants has left results about as palatable as Trump's. It's time for Russia to stop relying on abused, exploited, and enslaved migrant labor.
Millions of migrants, many of them from former Soviet bloc countries, are currently working in Russia. Most of them work in low-paying jobs like construction, factory production, agriculture, and domestic service. Migrant workers from the former Soviet Union not only provide a primary labor pool for Russia, they are vital to the economic health of their home countries. For example, money sent to Tajikistan by citizens working abroad represented 45% of its gross domestic product, an earlier U.N. study found. Most of Tajikistan's migrant workers are employed in Russia. So Russia and supplier countries both need this migration to work to continue.
Russian law, however, does not support even the most basic human rights for these workers, nor does it allow them access to social services. Because of this lack of legal protection, migrant workers in Russia are vulnerable to and suffer from exploitation, violence, and even slavery. The kicker for this whole situation is that Russia needs these workers to simply function as a country of production and industry. Their population has been steadily decreasing since the mid-1990s, and they have relied primarily on migrant labor from former Soviet bloc countries to bulk up their workforce. Perhaps this is the real reason Russia has been reluctant to engage in legal reform: fear that raising workers' wages will prevent companies from importing more workers and ultimately reduce the workforce.
But Russia should realize that creating legal protections for workers that prevent human trafficking and exploitation will eventually increase their labor force. When workers are paid fairly and given good working conditions, they will tend to stay in Russia longer to work and return to Russia (instead of another country) if they return home and need to work abroad again. It's a win-win situation for Russia and the migrant workers. But who knows how long it will take for Russia to see what needs to be done and then do it.
Photo credit: vokabre
DOL Commits $59 Million to End Child Labor
Published October 01, 2009 @ 01:00PM PT
It's nice to see a government agency putting their money where their reports and public statements are (for once). Following up their in-depth report identifying consumer goods made by child and/or forced labor in a number of countries, the Department of Labor has now committed $59 million dollars in grants to help end those practices and remove victims to safety. You can't see it, but I'm having a personal little party right now.
Here's how the breakdown of dollars went regionally:
- Africa: $20.4 million
- Latin America: $15.8 million
- Asia: $15.3 million
The rest of the funds will go to research and the development of a best practices model to prevent child labor. While I'm usually a fan of anything that channels more money to my often-ignored and under-funded friend Africa, I have to question their distribution between Africa and Asia. While Africa has some incredibly serious child trafficking and forced labor issues to address, the industries in Asia which enslave children and workers are much more diverse. Plus, the sheer logistics of getting to rural areas in Asian countries is much harder based on their size, and rural areas is where most of the exploitation is taking place. Arguably, African countries will be less able to put forth their own funds than relatively wealthier Asian countries like India and China, but I would still reconsider the expense of implementing a diversity of programs in the vast rural regions of Asia. It's going to be a huge undertaking.
But despite my difference of opinion on the funding allocations, I'm still celebrating. The reason for my party is that unlike previous administrations, <cough> Bush <cough>, it's good to see that the DOL under Secretary Solis isn't going to talk a big game and then sit on the cash and refuse to take any concrete action. The DOL is also modeling a behavior that we as consumers should pay attention to: if you say you care about this issue, be willing to pay for it. That means we have to be willing to spend a little more for t-shirts, coffee, rugs, and everything else that is made without child or forced labor. But if we're all willing to pay a little more, than no one has to pay a lot, especially enslaved children.
Georgia Supreme Court: Let Teen Strippers Take It Off
Published September 29, 2009 @ 01:00PM PT
Yesterday was a good day for Atlanta area men who like to see young women take their clothes off -- they're about to get to see a lot more of it. The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously ruled that young women ages 18, 19, and 20 have a right to work in strip clubs that serve alcohol, overturning an Atlanta city ordinance raising the age to 21.
Legislators claim the law was created to discourage underage drinking, not to target adult entertainers. However, workers ages 18 to 20 in a number of other industries like convenience stores, concert venues, and stadiums would have been exempt from the law. Adult entertainment clubs where alcohol sales are a major source of revenue, were not. In the end, the court decided the case based on the argument that 18 to 20-year-olds have a right to handle alcohol in their jobs; their right to strip in public was never officially questioned.
This case may have an impact on a growing suggestion within the anti-trafficking movement: move the age of consent for commercial sex from 18 to 21. Some advocates have suggested this change should only apply to prostitution, but others have petitioned for the age increase to apply to young women in pornography, stripping, escort agencies, and other adult services as well. The argument for an age of consent increase is that it gives young women more time to mature enough to make an active decision to enter the potentially dangerous field of commercial sex. As a society, we feel young people are not mature enough to make responsible choices about alcohol until they are 21, how could we expect them to make responsible choices about commercial sex, which can be arguably more dangerous for women, before then? The argument against the age increase is that it unfairly limits 18 to 20-year-olds, who are legally adults, from choosing commercial sex. Young people are considered mature enough to consent to sexual activity at ages ranging from 15 to 18, depending on the state, why should they have to wait until they are 21 to consent to commercial sex? Young women can choose to join the army and put their bodies in front of bullets at age 18, why should they not be able to handle the dangers of commercial sex until 21?
I have no doubt that raising the age of consent for commercial sex to 21 might help some women who are stuck in prostitution get out, and might prevent other women from being tricked or coerced into the industry in the first place. But I also have no doubt it would take away the livelihood of some women who are in legal adult industries, like the Atlanta women who fought for their right to strip. It's a tough issue, but one we don't even need to tackle right now.
The fact is there are plenty of truly underage girls -- 11-17 years old -- in prostitution and other commercial sex industries. Before we even consider raising the age of consent for commercial sex to include a broader number of young women, let's focus on helping the children who are in commercial sex right now get help to get out. We don't have enough shelters, enough social workers, enough counselors, and enough lawyers for all the child trafficking victims in the U.S. as it is. Let's focus on increasing services for child victims, not the age of consent.
I hope Atlanta realizes that 18 is still the low-end cut-off age for teens to be allowed to dance nude or strip in clubs, because I've seen 15 and 16 year old girls who have been exploited in strip clubs in the city. Maybe they will use the resources they would have applied to 18-20 year olds to find and help the younger children who need it the most get out of the industry and on with their futures.
Photo credit: Thomas Hawk
Denmark Considers Prostitution Ban
Published September 22, 2009 @ 02:00PM PT
Denmark may be soon joining European neighbor the Netherlands in the growing club of countries who once thought laissez-faire legalized prostitution was a good idea, but are now changing their minds. The Social Democrat party has proposed instituting a full to partial ban on prostitution to prevent the country from becoming "a haven for the sex trade."
Prostitution has been legal in Denmark since 1999 and was actually legalized by the same party which is now trying to ban it. I know here in the U.S. the concept of a political party objectively evaluating the effectiveness of a policy and then changing that policy when they see a better alternative is incredibly foreign, but here is proof it can happen. The change has come after some Danish leaders noticed that they were the only country in their part of Europe with such free-for-all open prostitution allowed. Hmmm, they wondered, could this be drawing criminals, pimps, and traffickers to Denmark to take advantage of the lax laws? If the Netherlands is any sort of predictor, it sure could. Pimping and brothel ownership have never been legal in Denmark, but where there are legal commercial sex markets there are often illegal ones that follow. And like all countries with legalized prostitution, Denmark has had its share of trafficking victims.
The proposed legislation is "in line with legislation in Norway and Sweden," which I understand to mean it focuses on criminalizing the act of buying prostitution and pimping, as opposed to the act of selling sex. The goal of this style of legislation is to remove the onus of prostitution from women, where it usually falls, and place it on men, who have the social and economic power in prostitution transactions. The effectiveness of this sort of law is still a little up in the air since it's so new, but proponents claim the law reduces the exploitative parts of the commercial sex industry without throwing women in jail.
Despite increased popular support for the bill, the Danish people are not buying it just yet; only about 26% support the measure. The Social Democrat party has an uphill battle to convince the rest of Denmark that the prostitution ban could prevent their country from becoming a major destination for women in the sex trade, both forced and voluntarily, from all over the world. Of course, the pro-legalization contingent has pulled out the same arguments as usual, claiming that banning prostitution (even the Swedish model which doesn't criminalize the act for women) will drive the trade underground and into the hands of criminals. That would be a more compelling argument if such large portions of the commercial sex industry were not already controlled by criminals, even in places where prostitution is legal.
As countries like South Africa consider legalizing prostitution for the first time, we should note that the Netherlands and now Denmark who have both had legalized prostitution for over a decade are seriously rethinking their policies. There is a valuable lesson to learn from the Dutch and the Danes: a prostitution free-for-all may sound like a good idea, but it's not.
Photo credit: Ange Soleil
Guatemalan Army Admits to Trafficking Kids for Adoption
Published September 21, 2009 @ 12:07PM PT
When it comes to talking about the human rights abuses that took place during their long and painful civil war, the Guatemalan military has acted like a cat next to a bathtub: willing to make a lot of noise but not jump in to the issue at hand. Surprisingly, however, the Guatemalan army has finally admitted to kidnapping and selling hundreds of children in international adoptions from 1977 to 1989.
If you're not up on your Guatemalan history, here's the over-simplified version: From the 1960 to 1996, Guatemala was engaged in a bloody, brutal civil war between right-wing, pro-Reaganonmics type government and the left-wing, Che-had-the-right-idea type insurgents. Over 200,000 people were killed or "dissapeared" by the government and the insurgents committed their share of murders and rapes as well. Human rights were about as well-respected as Paris Hilton's quantum physics term paper. And throughout the whole bloody mess, the army kidnapped kids and sold them as part of "international adoptions" both as a way to generate revenue and punish parents who spoke out against the government.
International adoption in Guatemala is nothing new; it has been a source of income there for decades. The chaos and brutality of the civil war meant less regulation of the army's activities and more opportunities for abuse. Guatemala has the highest per capita adoption rate in the world and is a leading provider of children for adoption to the U.S. In fact, 1 in 100 babies born in Guatemala are eventually adopted to parents in the U.S. who are willing to pay up to $30,000 in fees for a child. This money is a huge financial incentive in a country where 75% of the people live below the poverty level and $30,000 may represent untold hope for a desperate family. Advocates fear that mothers may be coerced, financially or politically, into putting their children up for adoption. Similarly, child advocates want to be sure children aren't being adopted into families which will abuse or exploit them.
The issue of international adoption as a front for human trafficking is international, and has affected several countries, including Guatemala. Romania actually banned international adoptions because the problems with exploitation were so severe. Many international agencies and the U.S. government have since asked Romania to lift or relax the ban, since the country cannot support the number of children who need care and Western families are eager to adopt Romanian children. There are a number of model policies for how to screen potential families and set up protective mechanisms to prevent children from being adopted by unscrupulousindividuals and couples. There are not, however, very many model policies for how to prevent mothers from being coerced into giving up their children. That is an area the international adoption community should look into more thoroughly.
It takes some guts to admit that you did something as heinous as kidnap kids for political reasons and then sell them for profit, but the Guatemalan army did the right thing by telling the truth. Their revelation has helped hundreds of families reunite with lost children, most of whom are now adults. It has also shed light on the important issue of international adoption used as a front for trafficking, which will hopefully help other countries identify policy measures to take in order to protect both mothers and children.
Photo credit: cotaro70s
Government Funded Feminist Porn
Published September 14, 2009 @ 03:39PM PT
Sweden has famously taken a unique stand on how to end the exploitation of women in the commercial sex industry -- promote gender equality in prostitution. Now, they're expanding that philosophy to the porn industry by using government cash to pay for "feminist porn." But will by-women, for-women skin flicks free the porn industry from exploitation and misogyny?
The idea behind the feminist porn initiative is that porn can be wonderful and empowering for women both watching and acting in the films when it's not driven by a profit motive based in male sexual desires and couched in a culture which views women as sex objects. In other words, give the cameras to feminist filmmakers, fund the project with tax revenue, and you'll have "empowering erotica," not just male-centric porn. The project also aims to end exploitation in the industry, including ensuring everyone who takes it off on screen is at least 18, and no one is there as a result of force, coercion, or desperation. In theory, state-funded feminist porn avoids the degradation and exploitation the mainstream, commercial porn industry propagates.
Sweden poses (as usual) a creative solution to the problem of human trafficking and exploitation of women and children in the porn industry, but one with flaws as transparent as the costumes in these films. First of all, what exactly is "feminist porn?" Just like men in the mainstream porn market demand different things from their porn, so would women as porn consumers. Who gets to decide what makes a feminist hot? Secondly, the success of this initiative is based on the assumption that all women in the porn industry will act ethically and respect other women by not exploiting them. I got news for you Sweden -- women traffic other women and girls into prostitution and porn, too. I wish ending exploitation in pornography were as easy as funding feminists to make their own porn, but the fact is women can commit crimes of exploitation just like men. And finally, isn't there a better use for this money? Out of all the ways we can end exploitation and improve equality for women, is making more porn really the answer? I'm not sure it is.
Regardless of whether or not the porn initiative is effective, or whether Swedes decide that it's a good use of their tax dollars, Sweden's idea poses some interesting philosophical questions. If you could somehow make society gender-equal, would porn cease to be exploitative? Is using tax dollars to fund pornography ethical if the goal of that pornography is to represent a traditionally marginalized group? Pornography, like art, has always been a subjective category. But does that reduce its value in achieving social equality?
This initiative might have a prayer in Sweden, but I can safely predict it won't take in the U.S. Unless, of course, we manage to sneak a provision for feminist porn into the new health care reform bill that everyone's already skimming and arguing about. And that would bring a whole new meaning to Republican complaints of getting screwed by the government on health care reform.
Photo credit: pnoeric
