Joeldi wrote:If New Zealand is anything like Australia, it would be physical isolation combined with stronger immigration policies. It would not be cheap or easy to traffic someone across the 'border' without a really legitimate looking reason for them to be there.
By all accounts I've come across, international sex trafficking is a huge problem here in Victoria, Australia.
Illegal brothel prostitution is 4-5 times larger than the legal industry. Only the line is blurry, and most of the 'legal' industry is pretty closely connected to the 'illegal' one; sex entrepreneurs, often associated with traffickers, own and operate legal and illegal brothels indiscriminately, and women and girls swap between the two sectors (voluntarily and not), and street prostitution - all illegal - increased in line with the overall industry.
Estimates for the number of women trafficked into Australia for prostitution are wildly inconsistent, completely uncertain, but generally pretty small. Still, there have been more than a handful of cases against alleged sex traffickers, and part of the problem is that we're not really actively looking for . Sex industry bodies like the Scarlett Alliance are pretty forward about the massive numbers of non-English speaking sex workers working in brothels and massage parlours (I think about 25% in NSW?), but naturally assume that only those that come forward, say they're trafficked and request assistance (a tiny proportion - 10 at a time) are actually trafficked. Pretty much nobody else believes the figures are so low. Project Respect - an NGO that provides support to women in the sex industry - has documented way more cases, and estimates the number at something closer to 1,000 at any time.
And, of course, based on the little evidence available, our prostitutes are pretty damn miserable on the whole; 64% in Victoria want to leave the industry.
I can't be fucked with reason.com atm, but it's hilariously wrong about exactly what the U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children actually defines trafficking in persons for the purpose of prostitution as. Also:
Reason.com wrote:Two months before the demonstration outside the Voice, feminist icon Gloria Steinem held court in the brothels of India as part of a humanitarian junket sponsored by the NoVo Foundation, one of the largest private women’s charities in the United States. NoVo’s money is Warren Buffett’s money: $1 billion, transferred by the second wealthiest American to his son Peter, who chairs the effort along with his wife, Jennifer. Steinem accompanied Peter and Jennifer Buffett on a tour of Sonagachi, Calcutta’s biggest red light district. Steinem came away from her visit with an astounding proposal: What would really benefit the women who worked there—whom she described to the Calcutta Telegraph as “prostituted,”characterizing their condition as “slavery”—would be to end sexual health services and peer education programs in brothels, programs that have been recognized by the United States Agency for International Development as best-practices HIV/AIDS interventions. Steinem described the women leading those health and education programs as “traffickers” and those who support them “the trafficking lobby.”
And the article they're basing this complete bullshit on:
Gloria Steinam wrote:It’s very hard to look at women — or men — treated as if they were objects, as if they have no feelings, no will of their own. Their phrase in many countries is “survival sex”. It’s very painful to watch. I feel guilty as an American because I know the Gates Foundation has been paying huge sums — at least $500 million so far — to AIDS control programmes in India that pay salaries to brothel owners and pimps and traffickers in Sonagachhi and Sangli to become “peer educators” and distribute condoms, though there’s no proof that women have the power to make men use condoms, and there is proof that men pay more to have sex without a condom.
I know there is an academic position that all this should be legalised, and it’s tempting to believe from a distance it would somehow protect the women — especially since now, they are way more likely to be arrested than the pimps and traffickers. Certainly, legalisation is what the sex-trafficking industry, which is now close to the profits of drugs or arms worldwide, lobbies for in both our countries. But in real life, legalisation has tended to bring huge and tragic problems.
If prostitution is a job like any other, then women can be forced into it. Holland pioneered legalisation, but the mayor of Amsterdam now regrets it because there’s no way to keep out organised crime. The more customers, the more need for illegal trafficking because there aren’t enough women who want to do this by choice; an understatement.
Experience now reveals that what works — and has worked in Nordic countries, where trafficking has actually diminished — is to de-criminalise the women or men who are prostitutes, offer them services and practical alternatives, and prosecute the pimps, traffickers and brothel owners to the full extent of national and international law. After all, there is a greater percentage of the world’s population in slavery now than there was at the peak of the slave trade — with sex slavery about 80% and labour slavery about 20%, according to the UN, though the line between the two is sometimes academic.
The point is: you may have a right to sell your own body, but you have no right to sell the bodies of others. We must stop arresting the victim. In Nordic countries, they fine and educate the customer, not just to embarrass him, but to give them the facts of human trafficking for which he is part of the market.
The good news is that though the trafficking lobby and a few academics tell us there are only two alternatives, legalisation or criminalisation, we now know this Third Way actually works. It’s not about being moralistic and anti-sex — on the contrary. It’s pro-sex and mutual pleasure. We have a T-shirt that says, Eroticize Equality.
One of these things is not like the other one - it's pretty fucking telling that they couldn't even find anybody expressing anything remotely similar to the attitudes they're attributing to "anti-sex work feminists" as a group.