In this blog I will be: 1.) connecting two prior posts Female Tourists Sexual Relations in the Caribbean: Condom use and HIV/AIDS and Human Trafficking: A Global Social Problem; 2.) present sex work-prostitution debate; 3.) present the basics of the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, including critics response to the policy; and 4.) present some aspects of the harm reduction model.
The post on female sexual relations takes a sex worker stance on the sexual encounters between the female tourists and local Caribbean males, while focusing on the importance of reducing harm by protection against HIV/AIDS. The other post on human trafficking uses more language associated with sex tourism, sexual exploitation and prostitution.
The topics of sex tourism, sex work/prostitution and human trafficking are distinct but intersect with one another. Leaving out the human trafficking component, there are different perspectives (debate) on sex work and prostitution. Briefly, the sex worker stance is to legitimize “prostitution” as a form of work and decriminalize it so that the industry could be better regulated to prevent harm. Where then the sex workers could be protected by laws. I would say they use a harm reduction model to promote safety for the worker and client. The other side of the debate thinks that prostitution is terrible and should be banned. The United States policy—Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) 2000—takes an abolitionist approach to prostitution. Funds for anti-trafficking work through NGO’s are only distributed to organizations that come out against prostitution. The “sex work vs. prostitution” debate is important here because it is a frame of reference; it changes how you view, work with and the services provided to people who have sex for an income. It is also important because it is at the base of United States policy against human trafficking.
In the late 1990’s, the U.S. government became concerned with human trafficking. Bill Clinton set out an anti-trafficking strategy which encompassed three main objectives: 1) prevention, 2) protection and support of victims, and 3) prosecution of traffickers. This strategy became the basis for the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA). The VTVPA was created by combining the Violence against Women Act of 2000 and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (Miko, 2002). I am focusing just on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act section of the overall policy. The TVPA, interestingly, is a domestic policy as well as a United States foreign policy.
TVPA created:
1. Definition of “severe forms of trafficking”
2. ‘Minimum standards’ for the elimination of human trafficking
3. Trafficking in Persons report (TIP)
4. Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
5. “T” visa
6. Domestic Prosecutions
7. International Programs
8. International Sanctions
Critics of the TVPA, state numerous latent intentions of the policy. Desyllas (2007) states that the policy promotes ethnocentric language and a hegemonic position of the Global North, which defines the problem and creates the policy. Others argue along the same line, that the TVPA perpetuates imperialism by imposing the United States’ requirements and values on other countries and cultures (Clawson, 2003). Some critics say the victim-centered approach to human trafficking perpetuates the above characteristics by viewing “3rd” world women as weak and helpless and need to be saved or rescued (Desyllas, 2007 & Sharma, 2005). The Global Alliance against Trafficking in Women (GAATW) believes that the victim-center approach, represented in the TVPA, actually violates human rights, rather than upholding them (Huckerby, 2007). Others believe that the policy and anti-trafficking legislation is a form of immigration control, which arises and becomes a public concern with historic periods of increased migration (Desyllas, 2007, & Sharma, 2005).
Ten years sense the signing of the TVPA in 2000, many new programs have been formed to implement the policy; however, the long term impact is still not fully known. A variety of sources claim, it is hard to prove if the TVPA has had any significant impact internationally or domestically on ‘combating’ human trafficking, due to the unreliability of statistics. There are large variations in the numbers of trafficked persons into the United States; reports show that 14,000 up to 50,000 people are trafficked into the United States annually. Large fluctuations occur in governmental statistics in just a few years, making it hard to evaluate the impact of the TVPA (Tiefenburn, 2004, Huckerby, 2007, Miko 2002). The Department of Justice has also recognized that the data on the numbers in the U.S and worldwide need to be re-examined (Huckerby, 2007). Another problem with gauging the actual number of human trafficking victims is escalated by the lack of agreement of who should or is considered a victim. Often smuggled humans and trafficked humans are counted together, leading to inconsistent data (Schauer et al., 2006). As you can see, the TVPA has its share critics and problems. But what is the root cause of the human trafficking problem?
Poverty.
Personally, I look at sex work and sex trafficking on a continuum. Sex work is on one end of the continuum where two consenting adults are choosing sexual relations (often as a means to alleviate poverty). A lot of sex work is not tied to human trafficking at all. Sex trafficking is way on the other side of the continuum where women, men, and children are forced, coerced, kidnapped, or deceived into sex trafficking. I, like many others, believe that poverty is the greatest contributing factor to sex trafficking.
Sex work itself does not come without high levels of risk. Cusick (2006) describes within the various sex market there are a mixture of heightened vulnerability that increases harms to sex workers including: pimps, drug use, traffickers, violence, child abuse, sexually transmitted infections, effects on self-esteem and mental health. The author made clear that levels of vulnerably and harms are not universal in all sex markets. Money, drug dependency and sometimes status and lifestyle factors reinforce sex work. The article found a few personal vulnerabilities thought to lead to sex work including: mental health issues, low self-esteem, childhood neglect or abuse, family inadequacy, moral failing, and youth deviance (p. 2).
Cusick (2006) promotes the harm reduction (drug use model) approach to sex work, which does not mean that harm reductionists reject the abolitionist/prohibitionist ideal but rather recognizes that “abstinence programs cannot reduce harm to current users (sex workers)” (p. 7). To the author, promoting the harm reduction model means reducing existing vulnerability among sex workers.
As with any issue, the complexity is enormous but social workers can work on many levels to reduce harm associated with sex work. Social workers, as harm reductionists, working with sex workers need to be aware of the personal backgrounds, circumstances, motivations, and heightened vulnerability of the sex worker populations. Micro and macro practice are needed to insure their health and safety. While the TVPA does not use a harm reduction framework, it has created a domestic and international policy that has created a common ground for discussion, created definitions, and offered solutions to alleviate human trafficking on a global level. Wood (2008) identified a common ground: “What are the areas of agreement between the abolitionist/prohibitionist perspective and the human rights/harm reduction perspective?... We all agree that forced labor is wrong. We all agree that nonconsensual sex is wrong” (p. 2).
Clawson, H., Small, K., Go, E., & Myles, B. (2003). Needs assessment for service providers and trafficking victims. Prepared for U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Cusick, L. (2006). Widening the harm reduction agenda: From drug use to sex work. International Journal of Drug Policy. 17(1); 3-11.
Desyllas, M. (2007). A critique of the global trafficking discourse and U.S. policy. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare. 34(4); 57-79.
Huckerby, J. (2007). United States of America. Collateral damage: the impact of anti trafficking measures on human rights around the world (pp. 230-256). Thailand: Global Alliance Against Trafficking in Women. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from http://www.gaatw.org/
Miko, F. (2002). Trafficking in women and children: The U.S. and international response. Congressional Research Services Reports 98-647 C. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Schauer, E., & Wheaton, E. (2006). Sex trafficking into the united states: A literature review. Criminal Justice Review. 31(2); 146-69.
Sharma, N. (2005). Anti-trafficking rhetoric and the making of a global apartheid. NWSA Journal. 17(3); 88-111.
Tiefenbrun, S. (2005). Sex slavery in the united states and its law to stop it here and abroad. William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law. 11; 1-28.
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, P.L. No. 106-386, Div. A., 114 Stat. 1464, enacted October 28, 2000. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Wood, E. (2008). Sex in the public square presents: Sex work, trafficking, and human rights: A public forum New York, February 20, 2008. Retrieved April 1, 2010 from http://www.speardmagazine.org/blog/?p=146
No comments:
Post a Comment