Human Trafficking

Monday, November 21, 2011

Alyssa Janks - November 21

In Pardis Mahdavi’s book, Gridlock: Labor, Migration and Human Trafficking in Dubai, she examines the misconceptions linked with human trafficking all around the globe. I will be examining her chapter called “Trafficking Trafficking” which sets the framework for the book. Mahdavi believes that the popular discourse on trafficking does not adequately address the issue and is often more harmful than helpful to trafficking "victims." Currently, “trafficking discourse is focused on sex work and operates within a criminalization framework” (33). Many people think of sex work when they hear the word trafficking. Because this is the most sensationalized and flashy part of trafficking, it automatically becomes the most “interesting” -- and thus the focal point of popular discourse. However, trafficking also includes forced and migrant labor. In fact, “many of the most harrowing tales of abuse came from those working in industries such as construction work, domestic work, or other types of service employment” (33). This element of trafficking is just as if not more harmful than sex work. However, because it both lacks the hysteria created by sickening images popularized by the media and carries the stigma associated with “migrant labor,” it does not receive enough attention to adequately help these victims.

When considering policies, Mahadvi points out that many which are set up to “help” trafficking victims are either misdirected efforts or political agendas masked with philanthropic intentions. What is more, many policies “fail to acknowledge the larger macro-social forces that shape migrants’ decision-making processes” (32). Mahdavi wishes to make the point that “the majority of migrant workers who do face instances of abuse (in the Gulf) work in industries outside of sex work” (33). Finally, she believes that “creating a labor and migrants’ rights framework would alleviate many of the challenges migrants face and help avert further instances of force, fraud and coercion” (33).

Mahdavi makes several points in her work; there are two main points on which I will focus. The first is the fact that the popular discourse on trafficking does not adequately address the issue and creates more harm for victims. I would agree with this statement to a certain extent. I would consider myself an educated person; however before these trafficking readings, I did not realize it was comprised of more than just sex work. After reviewing Mahdavi's work & the other trafficking readings, it is clear that migrant labor is also an important issue that must be addressed in the trafficking discourse. Mahdavi makes an interesting point when discussing the terms associated with trafficking. She mentions that the term “trafficked” is often only used to refer to women in the sex industry while the word “migrant” has a masculine and class-based connotation. The term “migrant” usually has a negative connotation as well – a person who comes in to a country without citizenship or the right -- and performs manual labor. The work is usually some type of farming and is performed for extremely low wages, thus “stealing” the jobs of (in our case) Americans. In Mahdavi's opinion, this definition of a migrant worker is not accurate -- it is the connotation that the word carries. It is no wonder with such a negative attachment that migrant workers -- “job stealers and illegal immigrants" -- would not receive equal treatment or attention by philanthropists, the media, and politicans as sex workers -- “helpless women forced into a life of depravity and corruption.” In this case, I would agree with Pardis Mahdavi that we must push education initiatives so that people are aware and changes can be make to help the people who truly need help.

I mentioned there are two points I will focus on. The second is Mahdavi’s last point of the “Trafficking Trafficking” chapter; she believes “creating a labor and migrants’ rights framework would alleviate many of the challenges migrants face and help avert further instances of force, fraud or coercion.” While I agree that migrant’s rights must be addressed, I think this will be the more challenging of the two goals to accomplish. There are economic implications of the implementation of these migrant rights that will not be easy to avoid or deny. For example, I will focus on the United States (rather than the UAE), as the US often sets the standard around the world because of the power it possesses. The implementation a migrants' rights framework would become very “sticky” very fast and it would be nearly impossible to push through the American justice system. 

At the present time, there are a shortage of jobs in the US. Creating such a protection would allow migrants, despite their circumstances, the chance to remain in the US while using American taxpayer dollars. This would create more of an incentive for migrant workers to come to the US because they know that they will be afforded protection if all else fails. One could make the argument that migrant workers might not have the education or the knowledge of such rights and thus the act will not have such a negative economic impact. It is true that right now, I am not making a distinction between willing migrant workers and trafficked migrant workers. However, I do not believe such a framework would be able to distinguish between the two either. Therein lies the problem. Such a set of rights would require funds that many countries physically could not provide. If this type of law was enacted at the international level, there would be an extreme difficulty with actual implementation. While I agree that each and every human being deserves rights and protections, the economic implications of such an act are difficult to deny.

Today's Clip: This act of trafficking is often called “modern day slavery” in today’s media. While a strong statement, I cannot say that it is deniable. It is interesting that on the week we are discussing trafficking I happened to stumble upon an article on the home page of CNN part of a series called the “CNN Freedom project." The particular article that I found focused on domestic servitude and used the term “trafficking” in the article. Perhaps there is more progress than we think if a major news source is featuring such an article on their homepage. http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/17/domestic-servitude/?hpt=hp_c1 .

After reading this, my question is this: Would it be better and more realistic to simply promote awareness using channels such as CNN and other forms of media. Or, is Mahdavi correct in saying that a complete policy overhaul needed in order to make the changes necessary?