Last week on Friday, Bill C-310, which many of you asked your MPs to support, was expected to pass through its Third Reading.  Through the first stages of the Bill, there had been unanimous support from all parties, and all parties had expressed that they would support the Bill in the Third Reading. However, this is what I received from MP Joy Smith:

Today (Friday) , Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), was expected to be adopted unanimously by the House of Commons at Third Reading and sent to the Senate. However, at the last minute, the NDP prevented debate on Bill C-310 and delayed the Bill from passing until the end of May.

“I am absolutely stunned by this,” said MP Joy Smith. “Bill C-310 will strengthen Canada’s efforts to combat human trafficking and this should not be a partisan matter. I have worked so hard to secure the support of all parties and have appreciated the support of all MPs for this Bill up until today.”

“At each stage of this Bill, I have reached out to members of other parties,” stated MP Smith. “In advance of today’s Report Stage and Third Reading, I spoke with the NDP and Liberal House Leaders to secure their support for Bill C-310 to be adopted today. They assured me that they were fully supportive of Bill C-310 being adopted today. Then, about 10 minutes before debate was to begin, I was shocked to find out that the NDP would be opposing Bill C-310.”

“What is most astounding is that the NDP have been fully supportive of Bill C-310 at Second Reading and Committee stages. They have even jointly seconded this Bill,” says MP Smith. “My heart sank when I watched as they stood, smiling and shouted ‘NO!’ when the Speaker of the House sought consent.”

As a result of today’s actions, Bill C-310 will be voted on next Wednesday, and will drop to the bottom of the Order of Precedence instead of heading to the Senate.

“I don’t have any answers as to why this happened,” said MP Smith. “I would invite Canadians to write or call NDP members for an explanation of why they would vote against such an important, bipartisan Bill and deliberately hold it up.”

“Today, modern day slavery exists in all corners of our globe and our resolve to eliminate it must only grow stronger,” said MP Smith. “In fact, only yesterday, a judge handed out the toughest penalty for human trafficking in Canadian history for an egregious case of forced labour.”

Bill C-310 amends the Criminal Code by adding the current trafficking in persons offences [s.279.01, s.279.011, s.279.02, and s.279.03] to the list of offences which, if committed outside of Canada by a Canadian or permanent resident, could be prosecuted in Canada. The Bill also adds an interpretive aid for courts to provide greater clarity of the definition of exploitation in s.279.04 of the Criminal Code.

Since introducing Bill C-310, MP Joy Smith has presented petitions containing 1000’s of signatures from Canadians calling for the adoption of the legislation. Many organizations have also lent their support for this legislation, representing stakeholders such as law enforcement, victim’s services, and non-governmental organizations.

The NDP decided to act in a partisan manner with Bill C-310 and needlessly delay it OR the NDP made a grave procedural error.

Regardless of what the reason was, the NDP’s actions halted the debate and passage of an important human trafficking bill that the Conservative, Liberal, Green, and Bloc parties were prepared to debate and support.

Note: The NDP could rectify this by offering to move Bill C-310 back to the top of the Order of Precedence by trading one of their Private Members Bill spots with Bill C-310.

My husband Jay and I wrote to several NDP MPs, asking them why they blocked debate on this bill, as we wanted to understand what happened.  We have waited for several days and not received a reply.

TODAY there will be a debate on this bill in the House of Commons.  If the Member of Parliament that represents you is part of the NDP party, please contact them today and ask them to support this bill. Ask them also to grant a position change with one of their private members bills and move Bill C-310 to a sooner vote for the 3rd reading.

I don’t know what happened here.  Some anti-trafficking bills are more controversial, but this one had unanimous support.  I think the NDP made a procedural mistake.  You can read this great article about the NDP’s decision to get more info.  You can also contact MP Joy Smith’s office with any questions: 613-992-7148 or joy.smith.a2@parl.gc.ca.

Update: C-310 just adopted at Report Stage with all in favour. Could have been sooner if it had not been blocked earlier, but grateful it is now to the next stage!  I will update this post once I hear more.

Monday was an important day in Canada, as millions headed to the polls and ushered in a majority government.  I am personally non-partisan and always vote for people based on their character and their commitment to vote either with their party or against it, depending on the issue.

Manitoba’s MP Joy Smith, who is a woman of deep character and the champion of the abolitionist movement in Parliament, was re-elected. This is great news. With a majority backing her up, Canada’s National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking will now be able to move forward with vigour.

However, my years of studying political science and international development at the University of Guelph have taught me that everything is interconnected.  When big business and corporate interests gain momentum and power, laws can, in a sense, contradict themselves.  For example, one of Joy Smith’s proposals is to introduce penalties for Canadian companies which knowingly import or use products made by forced labour or child labour.  Will a majority that is generally known to be pro-corporation and laissez faire support legislation that could jeopardize company profit?

My childhood in Africa and my travels throughout Southern Africa and Central America have imprinted the plight of the poor on my heart.  Why is it that women and children from impoverished countries are usually the ones who are trafficked across international borders and exploited?  The capitalistic structure of the international economic system has created a glass ceiling which has stunted the growth of many in the developing world.  Traffickers are able to use this to their advantage.

I am a huge proponent of preventative strategies, and hope that the new Canadian government will look at structures of economic injustice as they push forward MP Smith’s National Action Plan.  I know that her goal is to be as thorough and comprehensive as possible, and it is my hope that the majority will back her up as she seeks to make a difference.

And in the words of Philip Yancey, “Politics can legislate justice but not compassion.”

That’s our job.

Michelle Brock

Some concerned HFTS readers recently sent me articles about a shocking proposal coming from Toronto Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti:  the creation of a red light district on Toronto Island.  This really should not come as a surprise, as a regulated brothel district was one of Mammoliti’s central campaign tenets in his (cut-short) run for mayor last year.

His argument?  It would provide millions of dollars in revenue for the city and provide a well-defined area where the sex trade can flourish.  Mammoliti told CBC news that such a place would increase Toronto tourism as well, and is planning to discuss it with Toronto’s mayor Rob Ford soon.

In response to these developments, I am writing a letter to both the councillor and the mayor (you can read it here).  I would encourage our readers, especially those living in Toronto, to write to them as well.  Contact information for Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti is:

Toronto City Hall
100 Queen Street West, Suite B27
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2

councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca

Mayor Rob Ford’s contact information is:

Office of the Mayor
Toronto City Hall,
2nd Floor,
100 Queen St. West,
Toronto ON M5H 2N2

mayor_ford@toronto.ca

Here are some points you can include in your letter:

• Though a sex island would probably increase tourism, are large groups of men seeking paid sex the kind of tourist we want more of?

• When Amsterdam lifted its brothel ban and began a regulated prostitution industry, sex trafficking became easier and organized criminal groups moved into the area.  The City Council has since tried to back track by shutting down huge sections of the red light district and the mayor has called the lifting of the brothel ban an abysmal failure.

• When demand for paid sex begins to increase, it will be impossible to contain it to an island. Brothels, massage parlours, and escort services will likely spring up in other parts of Toronto as well.

I will give Mammoliti the benefit of the doubt that he is simply seeking tax revenues and is unaware of the implications a red light district would have on Toronto Island and the rest of the city as well.  Now it is our responsibility to tell him that the big picture looks very different, and that increasing demand for paid sex is a recipe for more sex trafficking, exploitation of women, and organized crime.  An island like the one proposed would draw crowds for the novelty of it, and it would be difficult to back track later on.

For articles on Giorgio Mammoliti’s proposal, check these out:

• Red light district pitched for Toronto Island by CBC News
• Mammoliti pushes for Toronto Island brothels by TheStar.com

Get more informed on the legalization debate – this will help you as you write your letters/emails. You can also download and sign this letter from EVE and send it to your member of Parliament.  Special thanks to Carly Romano for raising this to my attention and dialogging with me this weekend!

**Update: read my letter to Mayor Ford and his response here**  Read more about legalization of prostitution in Ontario here.

**Read about the Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling on prostitution (spring of 2012), as well as Max Waltman’s explanation on how it was based on misrepresented evidence.

September 2012 update: we are making a documentary about legalization of prostitution, its connection to sex trafficking, and preventative models that decrease sexual exploitation.  Here is how you can help!

Last Friday Xtra put out an article entitled “Critics slam Conservative MP’s pitch to make buying sex illegal in Canada,” in response to MP Joy Smith’s National Action Plan to Combat Trafficking.  The article is available here.

One of MP Smith’s proposals was for Canada to adopt the Swedish model of reducing demand for paid sex.  In Sweden, the men who purchase sex from prostituted women are criminalized, while the girls who sell it do not suffer penalties but are instead offered help to leave the industry.  Because many of these girls and women are in fact victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking, decreasing demand for paid sex is the only way to ensure that trafficking dries up.

But as the Xtra article demonstrates, there are some who oppose the Swedish model and claim that prostitution and human trafficking are separate issues altogether.  Our thoughts:

• In response to MP Smith’s proposal, Liberal Justice Critic Marlene Jennings stated the following: “Typical Conservative, simplistic, not based on evidence, not based on fact…Human trafficking and prostitution are two different things, and that’s what the Conservatives like to mix up.  They like to mix it up together in the same bowl so that they can confuse people and they can make outrageous statements.”

Our response:  Ms. Jennings, how dare you make this a partisan issue?  Your remark is distasteful and immature, as we are talking about exploitation on a national and global scale.  Busting out the Conservative card makes it sound like you did not read the entire report, but merely base your comments on your disdain for an opposing party.  For the record, we are not Conservatives.  But if you insist on playing partisan ball, may we remind you that your party, the Liberals, wholly supported the Status of Women report from 2007 which contained evidence and recommendations supporting the Swedish model?  Your statements fly in the face of your party’s previous decisions, making you guilty of some serious political flip-flopping.

• Next in the article, University of Ottawa criminologist Christine Bruckert says that “pushing the industry underground makes sex workers more likely to turn to people they feel can support them, such as pimps.”  We can’t picture sex workers like Sweden’s Pye Jacobsson aligning with pimps for protection and support just because buying sex is a crime in her country.  (Which it is.  And no, she is not).

• Bruckert goes on to say that “if [we] really want to address sex workers, if [we] really want to make things better for sex workers, give sex workers rights.” There seems to be some confusion here. MP Smith’s first priority is to help trafficking victims, not sex workers who want more rights. The aim is to criminalize Johns for buying sex and decriminalizing prostituted women who want to get out of the industry.  Several studies have concluded that trafficking increases in countries where prostitution is legalized, so giving sex workers ‘rights’ comes at the expense of the trafficking victims that are funneled into the country to fill demand.  The goal is to abolish human trafficking – and if the end of the sex trade is a be a by-product of that, so be it.

• Regarding the statement that there is nothing coming out of Sweden indicating that there is a link between the Swedish model and decreased trafficking, please refer to the July 2010 Swedish Justice Department Report stating that the ban on buying sexual services acts as a barrier to human traffickers who want to set up shop in Sweden.  An article by Gunilla Ekberg explains in more detail why this is the case.

• Finally, Green Party leader Elizabeth May tops off the debate with a bang by saying that the Swedish model is a “disastrous and dangerous idea”, and offers the following statement: “Since the Conservative government has committed to building $9 billion in new prisons and the crime rate is going down, I guess they want to create some new crimes to fill the prisons.”

While we appreciate many of May’s excellent ideas concerning the environment and her service to our country, we feel that she is literally out in “left field” on this one.  If attempting to rescue victims of the world’s most hideous atrocity against women is a “disastrous and dangerous idea”, then we suggest that Ms. May attend Jon Stewart’s upcoming Rally to Restore Sanity.

For more reading, check out the following:

• Evaluation on the Ban on Purchase of Sexual Services by The Ministry of Justice, Sweden
• The Booming Escort Service Industry, Another Reason Why Legalization of Prostitution is a Bad Idea by Hope for the Sold
• Proposal for a National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking by MP Joy Smith
• Prohibiting Purchase of Sex in Sweden: Impact, Obstacles, Potential and Supporting Escape by Max Waltman

With Much Concern for the Status of Exploited Women,

Jay & Michelle Brock

Last week MP Joy Smith came out with her Proposal for a National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking, and in my previous post I brought up some of the things that Canada has already done in its effort to end this injustice.  Focusing on the victories serves as a good foundation for us as we attempt to understand the different components of the proposal.

MP Smith’s recommendations are split up into four main categories: prevention, protection, prosecution, and partnership.  To continue in our journey through the report, today I would like to focus on one action point under the prevention category:

Ensuring that female immigrants aged 15 to 21 arriving in Canada alone be met by a CBSA officer within a week of their entry in the country and on a monthly basis during the following six months to ensure their safety and legitimate working conditions. (p.17)

Here’s the deal:  many girls do not know they are being trafficked until after they leave the airport when their documents are taken away.  This makes it difficult for Canada Border Services Agency Officers to distinguish between those who are victims of trafficking and those who are refugees or immigrating on their own terms.  Once a person has been ushered through the system and leave the airport, any ‘signs’ that could have initially indicated a trafficking situation are lost. For this reason, following up with them would provide for one more level of protection for those who need it.

Naturally, the question that arises is this: how will this follow up be done? What is the best, most efficient and effective way to reconnect CBSA officers to those who are at risk of being commercially exploited?

How will extra hiring and training be funded?  Are we as Canadian citizens willing to pay for this?  What questions will the girls be asked and will that require the use of translators?  If one of the girls cannot be located, will their case be dismissed or are there resources to search for her? If she is located, is there a secure place where she can receive help and protection?

These are difficult questions, but that should not excuse us from finding the answers.  Your thoughts?

Michelle Brock

Though buying sex is generally frowned upon in Canada, most of the time men who use massage parlours or escort services receive a slap on the wrist or nothing at all.  But if MP Joy Smith had it her way, Canada would be addressing demand for paid sex in a much more vigorous manner.  Why? Because demand creates supply.  In a sense, targeting demand is like repairing a hole in your sinking raft instead of merely trying to get the water out.

Addressing demand is just one of the brilliant initiatives MP Joy Smith is proposing in her fresh-off-the-press proposal for a national action plan called Connecting the Dots: A Proposal for a National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking.  I had the privilege of attending a round table meeting in Toronto last week with a bunch of stakeholders in Ontario to discuss what our part should be as a province, and was happy to see that many of the ideas in our conversation are reflected in MP Joy Smith’s proposal.  As I read the proposal I was literally squirming in my seat from excitement because a National Action Plan is most certainly the next necessary step for our country.

MP Joy Smith’s recommendations are bang on, and I found the document itself to be written in a way that is easy to understand.  She has record of getting things done in Parliament, and I am thrilled to have someone like her lead us in this next phase.

Over the next little while I would like to discuss the different sections of this proposal and hear what your thoughts are.  I believe that conversation is what sparks ideas and I am anxious to know yours! Maybe this will give you some ideas about how you can use your strengths to get involved.  You can read the full document here.

The first section I wish to highlight is what Canada has already done (pp.9-11 of the report), because unfortunately many Canadians are unaware that our country has been making some serious efforts in the past nine years.  On the global stage, Canada has signed and ratified a number of international agreements related to human trafficking, and nationally it has done the following:

• 2001: introduced the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) which addresses human trafficking and provides serious penalties with fines of up to $1 million or up to life imprisonment.

• May 2006: the first National Human Trafficking Coordination Centre was staffed with RCMP officers and a civilian analyst.

• May 2006: the Canadian government announced Temporary Residence Permits (TRPs) would be available to international victims of human trafficking.  A permit would allow a victim to stay in Canada for up to 120 days and provided access to healthcare and social assistance.  Victims would not be required to participate in legal proceedings or testify to receive a TRP.

• February 2007: the House of Commons unanimously adopted Motion M-153, which recommended that a comprehensive strategy to combat the trafficking of persons be adopted.  This received support from all parties.

• March 2007: the federal Finance Minister announced $6 million annually for law enforcement to assist in protecting children from online sexual exploitation and human trafficking.

• May 2007: the federal goverment announced amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to end a loophole where vulnerable foreign workers were being brought to Canada for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

• June 2007: New measures to protect victims where announced by the government, including the extension of the TRP from 120 days to 180 days, and letting international victims to apply for work and resident permits without the regular fees.

• September 2009: the Canadian government supported the passage of Bill C-268, minimum sentence of child traffickers.  (Thanks to those of you who made your voice heard by writing to your MPs and Senators!)

• September 2010: Canadian government joined the RCMP to launch the Crime Stoppers Blue Blindfold Campaign to bring awareness about human trafficking to Canadian citizens and provide opportunities for Canadians to help combat human trafficking.

Wow.  Good work Canada.  It’s nice to know that this issue is gaining priority in our government.  But as MP Joy Smith says, “there remains an urgent need for a collaborative, federally-led approach to combat human trafficking that would connect the dots among federal/provincial/territorial agencies and NGOs.” Let’s all be a part of how that happens, and start by reading the proposal.

For more on this, check out the official release and an article by Montreal Gazette.

Michelle Brock

On Tuesday Public Safety Minister Vic Toews joined the RCMP and Crime Stoppers to announce the “Blue Blindfold” campaign to fight human trafficking.  The campaign aims to increase the public’s understanding of what trafficking is and how people can identify suspicious activity.  It allows for people to come forward anonymously to Crime Stoppers and report what they have experienced or seen.  The campaign is using newspaper, TV, and radio ads to educate the public.

Why the name Blue Blindfold?  Because we must stop closing our eyes to the injustice going on around us. The idea came from Britain’s similar campaign which was launched in 2007.

Author Benjamin Perrin shares some of his thoughts on the campaign and on human trafficking in Canada in an interview with CBC.  In his words, Blue Blindfold is filling in some gaps but a national action plan is necessary if Canada is serious about ending modern day slavery.

For more on the Blue Blindfold campaign, you can check out:

• Tories Target Human Trafficking in Campaign CBC News
• Blue Blindfold Campaign Launched by Federal Government and Crime Stoppers SUN Media
• Critics Say Campaign to Fight Human Trafficking Falls Short PostMedia News
• Blue Blindfold UK
• Crime Stoppers Canada (1800 222 8477)

Keep your eyes and ears open for the ads – and more importantly- for victims of trafficking.

Michelle Brock

On the surface British Columbia’s Kenneth Klassen appears to be a pretty average guy. He is a 59 year-old divorced father of three and an international art dealer.  But Klassen’s travels were not just for business – which was discovered when customs officers seized a suspicious package from the Philippines that he had sent to himself.  It was commercial child pornography.

Some of the DVDs police found had titles such as “First Timer” and “Child Abuse,” and showed him having sex with young impoverished kids between the ages of 8 and 18.  He had hired a woman to take a computer course so she could blur out his face from the clips, but these attempts to hide his crimes did not work.  Klassen was arrested when he came to pick up the package.  When searching his house and a storage locker in Vancouver, the police found 21 DVDs containing more than 200 images of child pornography, with girls as young as three years old, which he had purchased overseas.

Crown Counsel Brendan McCabe said that Klassen “said he was attracted to women that were extremely thin and that he had tried to find thin women, older women, but in Canada he found that impossible.”  Klassen also told the police that he targeted his victims because they were extremely thin, cheap, and easily available. As the Montreal Gazette reports, one of his 11 year-old victims agreed to have sex with him so she could buy herself a new set of clothes for her 12th birthday.

His was the third sex tourism case that has been heard in a Canadian court, and yesterday the judge handed him the harshest sentence to date: 11 years. Ten years for having sex with 14 underage girls in Colombia and Cambodia, and one year for for importing child pornography.  The first case involved another British Columbia man, Donald Bakker, who was given a 7 year sentence for sexually exploiting young girls in Cambodia. The second case involved two Quebec men who received 2 and 3 year sentences for sexually exploiting boys at an orphanage in Haiti.

Though Klassen claimed to be sorry from the bottom of his heart, he also tried to challenge Canada’s sex tourism law by arguing that the incidents happened in other countries where Canadian courts have no jurisdiction. Hmm.  Sounds like a truly “repentant man.”

I asked Brian McConaghy, founder of the Ratanak Foundation (which operates safe houses in Cambodia for rescued victims) what he thinks of the outcome, and he had this to say:

“While this is the longest sentence handed down in a Canadian court we are still short of where we need to be. I want sentences of 18 to 20 years for this. We may get there eventually but it will take time, more public awareness and political will. So we are on the right track but still need more work.”

In other words, this is a bittersweet victory.  However it demonstrates that these cases are coming before Canadian courts more regularly, which will hopefully begin to discourage predators from victimizing children abroad.  Unfortunately there are numerous sex tourists that are not caught like the four individuals who have now been successfully sentenced in Canada.  We are moving slowly, but at least it is in the right direction! For all those involved in this investigation, I applaud you for your hard work.

For more information on the Klassen case, check out the following links:

B.C. man gets 11 years for child sex tourism by CBC News

CBC Video News Report on Klassen

B.C. Sex tourist gets 11 years for abusing girls by the Montreal Gazette

Sex tourist Kenneth Klassen sentenced to 11 years by the Globe and Mail

Michelle Brock

The president of Spain announced last week that the government wants to ban sex ads from the nation’s newspapers.  The classified sections of Spain’s newspapers are currently full of explicit advertisements, bringing in about 40 million euros to the struggling print media industry.  El Pais alone, one of the countries leading newspapers, makes 5 million euros from sex ads.  Banning these is part of the government’s anti-trafficking strategy, and there is quite the storm in the media about it.

In a BBC article, the president is quoted as saying, “As long as these advertisements exist, they contribute to the idea of this activity as normal.”

Currently, prostitution accounts for 60% of Spain’s classified ad market.  According to the 2010 Trafficking in Persons Report, 90% of those engaged in prostitution in Spain are victims of forced prostitution, controlled by organized criminal networks.  If this is indeed the case, it makes sense that newspaper sex ads are not generally placed my individual women but by the mafias, largely from Romania, Nigeria, and several Latin American countries.  Recently in Madrid, one of these networks was discovered by police who followed the newspaper sex ads.

It is sad that traditional print media in Spain is surviving only because of sex ad profits.  This has to change.  I believe that the president is making the right move by proposing a ban on something that traffickers have manipulated in their favour for way too long.  The government and newspapers should come up with a creative agreement to bring in money when sex ads are no longer providing profit. Your thoughts?

Michelle Brock

You’ve been a victim of human trafficking.

You’ve been rescued.

Now What Are They Gonna Do With You?

One question I get a lot is about what happens to human trafficking victims when they are found. Does government policy help them or re-victimize them? Do they have any rights in a country that is not their own? I was personally confused as to why victims were so afraid of deportation that they would not seek help from police – wouldn’t it give them an opportunity to escape their current situation and return home?

All these questions prompted me to do some reading.  Here is my attempt to pull together some of the information I have covered this week and summarize it in a way that makes it easier for us to understand.  All sources are listed at the bottom of the post.

So far, governments have responded to human trafficking victims in one of three ways:

1.  ARREST & DEPORT THE VICTIM:

• Prosecutors do not want to take on the difficult challenge of prosecuting a trafficker when they can win the easier charges of prosecuting the victim for prostitution, document fraud, or immigration & labour violations.

• In Bosnia, a woman that had been accepted into an IOM program as a trafficked person agreed to testify against her ‘owner.’  On the stand as a witness, the judge charged her with the use of false documents, despite the fact that she had just testified that the owner had purchased her, provided her with a fake passport, beaten her regularly, and forced her to work in a brothel without pay.

• Why is this approach a problem? Victims are afraid to come forward, as they are the ones who will face punishment.  Deportation re-victimizes these women, because often traffickers are waiting for them back home to re-traffic them or punish them for going to the police.  Even when the victims are not re-trafficked, many feel too ‘dirty’ to have a normal life and return to the sex trade, their dreams shattered.

2.  JAIL THE OFFENDER:

• Often governments offer protection to the victim and allow them to temporarily stay in the country, on the condition that they testify against their traffickers.

• In 2000 the European Union stated that their residence permits were not to be granted for the benefit of the victim, but for the sole purpose of facilitating prosecution of those engaging in human trafficking.

• In the U.S., the TVPA (Trafficking Victim’s Protection Act) allows for the provision of temporary visas (T-visas) to victims of human trafficking, with a possibility of permanent residency.  However, they only offer 5,000 of these each year, regardless of how many human trafficking cases come forth.  Last year, only 213 T visas were granted.  The 2010 TIP Report claims that testimony against the trafficker, conviction of the trafficker, or formal denunciation of the trafficker is not required in order to be eligible for a T visa. However, the report immediately follows this by stating “however, such support counts in an applicant’s favor.” In other words, chances are victims will not get a T visa unless they are willing to testify.  This reveals the TVPA to be about prosecution, though they claim to focus on victim protection.

• Why is this approach a problem? The prosecution model would be great if it actually gave out punishments that fit the crimes.  In Austria, a man guilty of human trafficking, bodily harm, rape, forced abortion, forgery, and damage to property received only 8 years in prison, though two victims had enough courage to come forward.  What do you think will happen to those victims in 8 years when he gets out, angry and full of revenge?  Sadly, 8 years is a high sentence for a trafficker; usually it is much lower even with more witnesses.  Dayna F. Haynes says this:

“If states with strong anti-human trafficking laws are unable or unwilling to prosecute and sentence traffickers for a number of years sufficient to cause traffickers to reconsider the benefits of human trafficking, then it is quite unlikely that states without sophisticated legal systems and laws will be able to do so.”

3.  PROTECT THE VICTIM:

• Measures to protect victims include psychological and social services, temporary employment, legal services, safe houses, and protection during the prosecution of their traffickers.
• Helping the victim regardless of their willingness to testify is good because it is legally easier to identify a victim of human trafficking and provide assistance to them than to identify and prosecute a trafficker.

• Why is this approach a problem? Victim-oriented models fail to get to the root of organized crime.

So what is to be done?  Haynes suggests that the best way to combat human trafficking is to take the best from the prosecution based model and the victim protection model, and add the missing elements:

1. ALTER PERCEPTION AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES A HUMAN TRAFFICKING VICTIM

• People should be given the term if at ANY point they were not allowed to exercise control.  Even if their original mind-set had been to work in the sex trade but then found themselves enslaved in horrifying conditions they did not agree to, the term ‘victim’ should be applied to them.

• Fortunately, the U.S. is taking some steps in the right direction. Last Wednesday they passed legislation that enables victims of human trafficking to clear their records of prostitution-related offenses.  Read more about this victim protection legislation from articles in Newsweek and Ms.Magazine.

2.  DURABLE IMMIGRATION SOLUTIONS:

• Italy grants 5,000 work visas annually to Albanians, because Albania is its largest source country for human trafficking and smuggling.  Though limited visas are offered, if people understand that they may legally be able to migrate, they might not get lured by traffickers as easily.  This is something other countries could try as well.

• Offering asylum for victims, so that they can stay in the country where they ended up, could be determined on a case-by-case basis if the following conditions apply:  (a) the victim experienced persecution by a group the government in their home country cannot/will not control, (b) there is a well-founded fear of being re-trafficked or experiencing retaliation from traffickers, and (c) there is a well-founded fear of social and economic ostracization based upon status as a victim.

• The most serious obstacle to extending asylum status to victims of human trafficking lies in the state’s fundamental power to preserve its own gate-keeping power.  Some argue that this would open the floodgates and encourage women to seek out opportunities to be trafficked so they can get permanent residency. There is no way that people will volunteer for enslavement, rape, torture, and humiliation with the sliver of chance that they will be rescued and given residency in the country in which they end up.  This fear of gatekeeping, therefore, is unfounded.

3.  AN EMPHASIS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW

• Human trafficking should be made less economically appealing to traffickers.  The penalties for human trafficking should be higher, including the forfeiture of assets and restitution to victims.

• The key here, however, is strong enforcement.  Laws must be fully implemented at every level. Police, border security, prosecutors, judges, and NGOs must all be engaged.  Funds available, shelters, repatriation, and integration procedures must be known by EACH official likely to encounter a victim.

• As it stands now, traffickers will continue their operations until they know anti-human trafficking laws are actually being enforced.

4.  A LOOK AT THE USERS OF TRAFFICKED WOMEN:

According to p.51 of an ILO report, a survey was conducted with 185 clients (johns) in Italy, Japan, and Sweden, finding that only half would report an unfree trafficked prostitute.  Others openly admitted to a preference for young unfree persons because they are more “docile.”

Therefore, education campaigns aimed at deterring users of brothels must be more widespread.  Cut the demand.

5.  IMPROVED INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN THE PROSECUTION OF TRAFFICKERS

• Each country should have investigative teams that seek out their citizens who are engaging in child sex tourism. Furthermore, since peacekeeping forces and international workers are known to regularly and knowingly obtain services from trafficked women, governments must punish this type of behaviour.

From all this we can see that victim-based models and prosecution-based models do not have to butt heads, but can work together under the banner of immigration.

Michelle Brock

Used, Abused, Arrested, and Deported: Extending Immigration Benefits to Protect the Victims of Trafficking and to Secure the Prosecution of Traffickers by Dina Francesca Haynes **note: this link is to the free online version of the paper. For students who need the citing, you can search your school online archives for this paper, which was published in Human Rights Quarterly, Vol 26 no.2, May 2004, pp.221-272.

Trafficking in Persons Report 2010, Country Profiles by the US State Department

A Global Alliance Against Forced Labor: Global Report Under the Follow Up to the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labour Office, Geneva