Contributed by Juhu Thukral, Esq., the Director of the Sex Workers Project at the Urban Justice Center in New York City. She has been an advocate for the rights of immigrant women in the areas of health, work, and sexuality for over 15 years.
Friday's post about the anti-trafficking law that Congress is in the process of reauthorizing explained the basics of the dangerous and unnecessary change to the Mann Act that the House has adopted. This proposed change may not seem problematic, but it actually harms women and victims of trafficking, and does not even address the problem of trafficking in persons, as intended.
The federal anti-trafficking law already defines anyone under 18 who is involved in commercial sex acts, and anyone in prostitution who experiences force, fraud or coercion—regardless of immigration status—as a victim of human trafficking. The law does not prevent anyone from being arrested for prostitution, since most trafficked persons are not identified immediately. 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) is not going to help victims be identified—in fact, it is just going to create more problems.
The proposed change is based on the notion that all sex workers are victims, and that work in prostitution is inherently victimizing, even when no actual incident of violence or psychological abuse occurs. Sex workers actually do want help from the police when they are victims of violence—46% of the sex workers we interviewed in a 2005 study had been victims of violence during the course of their work —but often find the police ignoring their needs when they try to file a complaint. Broadly categorizing all prostitutes as trafficking victims means that police will go looking for victims who look and act like “victims,” allowing for even less focus on prostitutes who really have been abused in some way, but who have made the decision to enter into sex work for reasons far more complicated than a local police department might understand.
As law enforcement look for more victims, they will inevitably arrest more sex workers—because arresting people is the way that police reach them. Arrests can have a devastating effect—a recent arrest of sex workers affected a woman trying to get professional credential. Arrests drive people away from mainstream work and toward sex work. Our clients express incredible fears of being arrested and having their neighbors or family find out about their other life.
The reality is that people go into this work for a variety of reasons, often complicated, but usually based on financial need—for example, we found in a study we did a few years ago that 67% of the sex workers we interviewed in that 2005 study did not make a living wage in other jobs such as waitressing, administrative work, or retail.
The proposed Mann Act expansion will also hurt people who truly are victims of human trafficking. People are trafficked into all sorts of labor sectors, and an increased focus on prostitution will mean that immigrant workers in coercive situations will receive even less attention from law enforcement than they do now. The Department of Justice and other law enforcement groups are opposing this change because they want to keep their focus and resources on actual cases of human trafficking.
Broadly proclaiming any group as victims is a dangerous road for women and feminists. Denying people their own voice as activists, workers, and members of their community falls in line with the many policies that have historically been used against women in the name of protecting them.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why the Mann Act expansion is bad for women.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/7603
Since most women's sexuality doesn't involve crime or sleeping with other peoples husbands/boyfriends for money, I think it's good for women, just bad for prostitutes.
Since most women's sexuality doesn't involve crime or sleeping with other peoples husbands/boyfriends for money, I think it's good for women just bad for prostitutes.
iq59, How exactly is it good for all those other women whose “sexuality doesn't involve crime or sleeping with other peoples husbands/boyfriends for money”?
Oh, and by the way that’s the most condescending and hurtful comment I’ve read in a while.
iq, are you really fucking serious with that comment?
What I read the posts about trafficking and sex work (both Juhu's and Jennifer's) was that trafficking is defined more broadly than sex work, and that limiting its definition, and responses to trafficking to just sex workers:
(1) hurts trafficked persons in other social and employment sectors by focusing on just one sector where there is a risk of trafficked persons to be sure, but focusing on it so much and diverting so much resources and money to that one sector that others get ignored;
(2) makes assumptions about sex work and sex workers that are based on prejudice, stereotypes and morality that cannot and should not be imputed onto just anyone and everyone.
Some sex workers are trafficked. Some aren't. Some domestic workers are trafficked and some aren't. Some factory workers are trafficked and some aren't.
The common ground between all instances of trafficking is that of coercion. Eliminating that from the definition of trafficking is a mistake.
Focusing on moral outrage towards sex workers also distracts from the other points that Juhu raises in her article – the need for a living wage, to address the widening gap between the haves and the have nots – even within the US, and out constant use of the criminal justice system to address social problems that are better dealt with outside of prisons and detention centers.
iq159, not to point out the obvious, but what's bad for sex workers IS bad for women.
The thing is, in terms of classifying sex workers as victims, this is a true statement. Anyone who is required to have sex for money, whatever the reason, is a victim of something. In terms of reducing the overall numbers who choose sex work, in the long run, it may have this effect. The example of the woman who could not obtain a professional license because of the arrest should be an example to women in similar situations that other, less lucrative options, are ultimately a more effective choice. The worst consequence would be if law enforcement were significantly rerouted away from trafficked people, but the true solution is to not ignore the victims of sex crime in general, but to provide increased funding to certain sectors (since it is evident from Jen's post that they are not suitably funded to begin with). HR 3887 is actually quite a reasonable expansion for sex trafficking, since overt coercion may have been a barrier that was difficult to prove in previous cases.
@sunshine007 "since overt coercion may have been a barrier that was difficult to prove in previous cases."
Good point. Sure, law enforcement may bust up a few trafficking rings now and then, but when it gets down to the level of women on the street, traffickers do everything possible to make sure that these women have no voice and little credibility in terms of proving coercion.
And I am speaking from a European country where prostitution is legal and trafficking is rampant nonetheless. I can only imagine what kind of burden of proof these poor women have to demonstrate to prove coercion.
I was surprised to see that so many men were found, 15% of subjects, none trans.
"The reality is that people go into this work for a variety of reasons, often complicated, but usually based on financial need—for example, we found in a study we did a few years ago that 67% of the sex workers we interviewed in that 2005 study did not make a living wage in other jobs such as waitressing, administrative work, or retail."
In addition to dealing with the socioeconomic issues which lead people to sex work, I dare say some education is also necessary. It's not as if a "living wage" or reasonable cost of living is any more common where I live (Hawaii), than it is in New York City, nor do I expect it to change appreciably. The reality that 69% of sex workers interviewed (higher findings elsewhere) would like to get out of the work right now, and that there ARE millions of people willing to endure even decades long careers in waithelp, administrative work or retail, highly suggests that there are things more important to work or life, than money. Just one more reason to be against capitalism and materialism.
Pardon. "Eventually" get out of the life, in this report. "Now" elsewhere.