From the Examiner:

Today’s Providence Journal has a column by Ed Achorn that is so misguided, that it is difficult to figure out where to start.

The column criticizes the loophole in Rhode Island law which makes prostitution legal, if it occurs indoors. For a multitude of reason, the current law is effective and should remain unchanged. It makes prostitution on the streets illegal, yet doesn’t criminalize consensual sex between adults that occurs behind closed doors. Edward Achorn seems to get side-tracked, and confuses several issues. This particular passage is a good example:

By refusing to pass a good law specifically banning indoor prostitution, Rhode Island is saying yes to the brutal exploitation of teenage girls and young women, many of them foreigners who are held in this strange land as virtual slaves. Their pimps are experts at preying on young women, with the help of drugs, coercion and “protection,” to keep them in slavery, miserably toiling in the fields of prostitution — serving perhaps a dozen men a day to help earn pimps hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Mr. Achorn brings up crimes that are troubling and serious. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that there are already laws on the books to address these issues. The state and federal government already have human trafficking laws on the books. If a prostitute is under the age of consent, statutory rape laws would apply. If she is being held against her will and assaulted, then charges of assault, sexual assault, and kidnapping could be brought against the perpetrator. Why does Edward Achorn want prostitution laws to apply? Is it so we can arrest the victims of human trafficking who have been assaulted and put them in jail? Of course not. More

The 150-page report, Human Trafficking, Sex Work Safety and the 2010 Games, was commissioned by Vancouver’s Sex Industry Worker Safety Action Group (SIWSAG). Warning that ill-informed assumptions about 2010 and trafficking may actually endanger sex workers, its recommendations focus on the real concern: that Games-related street closures and the planned security regime risks displacing sex workers into more dangerous and isolated areas. The report also notes community fears that street-level sex workers may be moved in an effort to “clean up the streets”. More

An amended, compromise version of this landmark legislation has been passed. And by the looks of it so far (more after we have a chance to really digest the bill’s language) the controversial labeling of all prostitution in the U.S. a s a form of sex trafficking has been left on the cutting room floor.

More here, here, and here.

A sex worker in the UK Guardian speaks out against a recent report on sex workers, Like many of her counterparts in the U.S., she struggles to straighten the facts about the work conditions of sex workers. Specifically, she represents the group of sex workers who do not come from poverty. Instead, she is one of the several women who choose sex work to supplement her income.

“I am an off-street sex worker. I don’t live a Belle de Jour-type existence, but nor am I the trafficked/drug-addled/pimped victim the Big Brothel report would have you believe. The reality of my working life lies somewhere between the two.

I feel obliged to state at this point that I have a good degree from a good university, as so many people assume we do this job because we are poor, uneducated souls. I say “we” because I am not alone – I know many, many women who work the length and breadth of the UK in the same way as I do. I cannot speak for all these women, of course, and I do not intend to try to do so, but suffice it to say that my situation is not an unusual one.

So, what is my situation? I am a single mother with two young children aged 4 and 6. Prior to doing this job – and it is a job – I was employed as a PA in a large, city-based firm. My job was a typical 9-to-5 – which, as everyone who has ever worked in such a job will know, means 7:30am to 6:30pm by the time you take into consideration travelling and (unpaid) overtime. I was dropping my children off at breakfast club at 8am and collecting them at 6pm, by which time we would all be completely knackered. The children go to bed at 7:30pm, meaning we were left with precisely 90 minutes to prepare and eat our evening meal, have baths, get ready for bed and read bedtime stories. It was like we were living in a whirlwind. I felt I never saw my kids – let’s face it, I didn’t (much) – there was certainly never much time for playing or talking or simply just sitting cuddling on the sofa. The guilt was getting to me. I was unhappy. I hoped they weren’t, but I was never sure. Yet, despite the long hours I spent away from home, I was earning just enough to make ends meet. Sure I could pay the mortgage, but we’d never had a family holiday. By the time my monthly pay packet came around, I would have literally just a few pounds in the bank.” Read More

The New York Times published today a letter to the editor from an anti-trafficking supporter opposing H.R. 3887. Finally–some discussion from those at the forefront of the trafficking issue. Published letters and articles such as this one are desperately needed. The news media must help re-balance the the discussion about H.R. 3887′s controversial provisions.

From the NYTimes, in response to “Taking On the Traffickers” editorial on August 23:

“Human trafficking is a terrifying problem, and federal law enforcement has identified only a fraction of its victims. But expansion of the Mann Act to include federal prosecution of state prostitution cases would be counterproductive to antitrafficking efforts.

The barrier to successful prosecutions has not been the burden of proving force, fraud and coercion, but the lack of resources for investigating these difficult cases.

By shifting the focus of the law from human trafficking, which includes people in all areas of forced labor, to prostitution, the House bill threatens to divert scarce and necessary resources from victims. Expanding the definition of trafficking would also harm those who are in sex work because of economic necessity.”Read More

“The federal anti-trafficking law, enacted in 2000, already defines anyone under 18 who is involved in commercial sex acts, and anyone in prostitution who experiences force, fraud or coercion as a victim of human trafficking. Changing the definition of trafficking so that law enforcement does not need to look at a person’s age or experience of coercion (the heart of the trafficking crime) will put the focus squarely on prostitution, rather than on labor and prostitution situations in which people are living under a climate of fear and experiencing genuine human rights abuses.”

“The idea of sex workers fighting for their human rights is a foreign concept to most people, even those who identify politically as progressives or feminists. Sex workers have lived on the margins of society through most of human history, and despite the prevalence of this work all over the world, sex workers are often treated as less than human, both in cultural attitudes and public policy. In fact, it cannot be said enough: sex workers are people — friends, neighbors, family members, wage earners, and parents — and they deserve the same human rights as everyone else.”More

The Windy Citizen recently published an article that seemed to support H.R. 3887. It made several arguments for the bill, pointing out the problems of prostitution in Chicago.

Trafficking Watch.org responded with a comment:

“This bill has several issues with it.

The bill has two provisions that would define prostitution and related activities a kind of “sex trafficking” crime. As such, the bill robs real trafficking victims of resources and protection.

By no longer requiring force, fraud, or coercion as proof that a trafficking crime occurred, the bill offends real trafficking victims and their experiences. Contrary to this article’s opinion, the absence of the elements of force, fraud, and coercion would not make it easier for trafficking victims to prove that they were trafficked.

By adding a new class of people who are not truly trafficked, the provision puts trafficking victims’ lives in danger. And with approximately 70-100,000 prostitution-related cases occurring yearly, H.R. 3887′s provisions would dilute the real trafficking victims’ experience, skewing data currently available on trafficking victims. To date, there has not been more than a few thousand trafficking victims cases since the first anti-trafficking legislation passed in the U.S.” More

The BBC News wrote an article on Amnesty International, detailing the findings of its new report on trafficking in Scotland. The report provided evidence that sex trafficking cases were not as common in Scotland as once believed.

The report focused on trafficked women and children for the purposes of sexual exploitation or domestic servitude. While attempting to address the sex trafficking problem in Scotland, researchers found that sex trafficking was not the most common form of trafficking in the region. Trafficking victims of domestic and agricultural labor also made it into the findings.

“Amnesty International UK director, Kate Allen, said: “To date, most attention has been given to the plight of women trafficked into the sex trade, but we have also found evidence of trafficking into Scotland for domestic and agricultural labour.”

The report may indicate a greater need for research and attention for other forms of trafficking other than sexual exploitation. This not only would apply to Scotland but in all places where the focus on sex trafficking persists. More
The full report

The Baptist Press’ article today misrepresents the reasons that the Department of Justice and several anti-trafficking advocates have opposed H.R. 3887. The writer attacks the DoJ and the Senate for backing S.3061 instead of H.R. 3887.

Writing critically of the S.3061, the article relies on an argument from Janice Crouce a few weeks ago. Crouce’s article argued the position that abolitionists and conservatives have held on prostitution — that prostitution is inherently wrong and should be banned under the guise of sex trafficking.

Despite Crouce’s position, Baptist Press falsifies the support for H.R. 3887 and the link, if any, between prostitution and human trafficking.

From the beginning, several anti-trafficking advocates, including organizations like the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking and the Freedom Network, have strongly opposed the provisions of H.R. 3887 that make prostitution a sex trafficking crime. More than 50 organizations signed on to a letter opposing the bill. They have pointed to the bill’s inherent flaws, such as its failure to protect real trafficking victims and provide funds to the DoJ to prosecute real trafficking crimes. Other organizations have opposed H.R. 3887′s provisions for other reasons. The conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, wrote a nine-page analysis criticizing the bill and its provisions as unconstitutional.

The Baptist Press also misrepresents the current laws surrounding human trafficking. In the article, the writer quotes Crouce:

“Considering that the average age of entry into prostitution in the United States is 12-14 years old, the House bill and abolitionists recognize that requiring proof of force, fraud or coercion in cases involving prostituted adults is a very high burden of proof and the burden falls on the victim,” Crouse wrote. “Prostituted minors are de facto trafficking victims, but victims not identified until after age 18 are often so scared or traumatized that they will not testify against their pimps and traffickers.”

While fraud, force or coercion is required to prove that someone has been trafficked for the purposes of labor, and required for all victims of trafficking over 18, the sex trafficking of a child requires no such proof. This article gets it wrong by stating that the elements of fraud, force or coercion are required for sex trafficked victims under the age of 18. The article falsely attempts to sway readers to believe that these elements make it difficult to assist children who are trafficked for sexual exploitation.

Also, the writer wrongly argues that sex trafficking is more common than other forms of trafficking. Anti-trafficking advocates and scholars have found that labor trafficking occurs more than sex trafficking. However, the media, because of its subject matter, reports sex trafficking stories more often than those involving other forms of trafficking. There is no evidence that sex trafficking is more pervasive than other forms of trafficking.