Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:12, 18 November 2009

Crime and Criminal Biography Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Some questions and remarks

I think it an injustice that the sex trade article redirects to a broader subject article. Opinions?

Hi, am a criminal justice student and my research paper is on human trafficking, specificly, victims from Asia. Any help or referrel would be appreciated. in prayer, donna scott dscott2_at_lhup.edu

I find it odd (and funny) that the website from which the material was stolen actually referred readers to the (nonexistant) wikipedia article on Trafficking in human beings.

"Visit the Trafficking in Human Beings entry from the Misplaced Pages for more information."

- Gawka

NPOV disputed

Reading through the article there is an overemphasis on sex trafficking with other forms of trafficking being downplayed or excluded. Some editors have mentioned the debate around definition being confused have pointed to research which expands on this (Augustin et al). Other editors simply remove this or any mention to the debates. The casual reader would believe there was no such debate which would be misleading.

I think it essential that we at least highlight the fact that a debate exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinebrown (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Human Trafficking is often conflated with people smuggling, which is not necessarily exploitative, but it suits anti-immigrant Government politicians to deliberately conflate the two. Getting refugees from unpleasant regimes (such as Ba'athist Iraq under Saddam Huissein), even if for payment, is not necessarily exploitative, but often life-saving, especially when there are no other alternatives.--Streona (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not contest the removal of the NPOV tag at the moment but I think we need to ensure data is added to illustrate growing discomfort in a number of disciplines - sexual health, gay rights, immigrant/refugee rights, sex worker rights, sex positive feminists. The key themes are that :- 1. the issue has been hijacked by the christian right and gender feminists to generate public support for repressive policies. 2. That governments conflate trafficking with migration (as Streona points out) in order to deny people the right to migrate or seek refuge. 3. That the disproportionate concentration on sex trafficking in terms of resources has been at the expense of measures to tackle other forms of slavery. Some commentators believe that this is because many western economies benefit massively from trafficked labour - dwelling on sex trafficking diverts attention away from exploitation which they would rather turn a blind eye to.

Catherinebrown (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Need to be careful though that exaggerated claims by anti-prostitution lobbies like CATW are not countered by false claims that sex-trafficking is a myth. I could write in a book that chocolate is a myth. Does not make it so. You don’t counter exaggerated claims with exaggerated (or false) claims. Bad data with bad data.

There is a claim that there is a ‘rescue industry’ that exaggerates data. This may be true. But often these days, there is a tendency by writers to exaggerate claims as the only way to get published. To make a name for themselves. To get paid to write columns in news journals. Bad data vs bad data again.

And there are political agendas at work in both directions. Governments may exaggerate trafficking data, confuse it, or deny its existence.

Few mainstream human rights groups or international media like the BBC ignore trafficked labour. But yes, there is too much focus on sex-trafficking. But you don’t counter too much focus on sex-trafficking by claiming it’s a myth. Of course there is voluntary international movement of sex-workers. But again, mainstream human rights groups don’t deny that. And it seems that sex-work liberalisers get over-defensive on this issue. As if everyone discussing sex-trafficking is out to ban prostitution. I’m all for information about writers who point out the criticisms on this issue. But not ones who make false claims like its all a myth (or a conspiracy). Chwyatt (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Very few of the critics mentioned say it doesn't exist merely that it has been massively overestimated. In terms of retaining balance, I think you have nothing to worry about... the vast majority of the content on the page illustrates the theories of the anti trafficking NGO's and very little illustrates the wider perspective (sexual health, refugee rights etc). To selectively priviledge only data which supports one perspective on an emotive and complex issue would be misleading to say the least. Sadly, providing evidence derived from rigorous research is exceptionally difficult as a lot of the "research" in the field has been carried out by gender feminists (such as Melissa Farley). Not that the research is useless, merely a little one dimensional. For example, the testimony of sex workers and professionals who work with them is regularly excluded where it does not illustrate the pre-emptive theory.

Chywyatt, I am sure you are genuinely trying to represent a balanced perspective on an issue which is by its nature emotive. It's therefore crucial we present data from all perspectives (apart from that which is blatantly dishonest or manipulative) and allow people to make up their own minds based on how what they read resonates with their own, lived experience.Catherinebrown (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I fully support this article discussing the issues of poor data, focus on sex trafficking rather than labour trafficking and other issues. I’ve moved the criticisms you have added to the criticism without removing or editing them (in line with Misplaced Pages articles of a similar nature). I’ve added criticism sub-sections (poor data/over-estimation and excessive focus on sex trafficking (would welcome better titles)). I believe that this will actually highlight criticisms better visually, and therefore help achieve balance.

One thing though. You said that Fiona Mactaggart “admitted that the UK government concentrated on disrupting sex trafficking as they believe trafficking and prostitution are the same thing”. I don’t think she said that. She implies that legalised prostitution facilitates trafficking. But that is not the same as saying it’s the same thing. Chwyatt (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Recursive references

I find it odd (and funny) that the website from which the material was stolen actually referred readers to the (nonexistant) wikipedia article on Trafficking in human beings.

"Visit the Trafficking in Human Beings entry from the Misplaced Pages for more information."

- Gawka

This has been resolved now. Foant 20:05, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Removed possible copyright violation

I rewrote some text that was copied directly from a human rights watch page. I'm not sure if it needs to be posted on copyright problems or not.

• This would not be a copyright violation, provided that the source is quoted. It is clearly fair use (subject to sourcing). Zingi 05:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) s

There appears to be some material in this article that is identical to material on the High Road for Human rights web site<http://www.highroadforhumanrights.org/education/slavery.htm>, so I am not sure who is infringing on whom. However, the High Roads for Human Rights web site cites as its source the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and an article in the Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, June 2007, "Globalization and human trafficking" by Loring Jones, Daqvid Engstrom, Tricia Hillaird, and Mariel Diaz <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYZ/is_2_34/ai_n27265537>. This leads me to believe that the Misplaced Pages article, useful as it is, has not only plagiarized material, but also violated copyright. I am sorry I don't have more time to correct this, but I am grading student papers.Vriley2 (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse tag

I have removed the {{abuse}} tage. I think it is uninformative in this article. The Land 14:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Recently in the UK many trafficked children from Vietnam made to work as 'gardeners' in 'cannabis factories' were discovered. The Vietnamese are quietly taking over the illegal cannabis and vice trades in the UK.

Fact check

Recently in the UK many trafficked children from Vietnam made to work as 'gardeners' in 'cannabis factories' were discovered. The Vietnamese are quietly taking over the illegal cannabis and vice trades in the UK.

I recently heard a quote from National Geographic that "more people today are sold into slavery than were sold in the entire 400 year history of the trans-atlantic slave trade." Anyone have a cite for this? scazza 20:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a major controversy regarding how statistics are being cooked about sex trafficking. Here is one of many articles from Jack Shafer of Slate.com.

Anyone reading this, please do your homework and keep this article completely neutral. I am not touching it myself.

If you read the above cited link to the slate article, there is postscript note at the bottom citing that the "cooked statistics" were misquoted, not a fantasy. this is a very serious and underreported worldwide issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.68.0.68 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Another question: Did Misplaced Pages editors fact-check that the cute woman in the Canada Government photo was an actress posing for an advertisement or a real sex slave?84.56.26.19 13:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not just add your article rather than deciding yourself what people can and cannot see? Otherwise you are just censoring. Give people the benefit of the doubt that they can make up their own opinion. I've added it to the article's section and removed the word 'fact book'. The article is based on many studies done over many years in many countries. And it says that there are no accurate figures for trafficking, which Jack Shafer says is “real and horrific”.

The reliability of the statistics has been discussed on this talk page. Some of the articles you decided to stop other people seeing included detailed empirical studies. It is also worth bearing in mind that there are huge regional differences in trafficking trends between into Europe, North America, and Asia. And of course something is not necessarily a fact just because of an opinion from Jack Shafer. Like most areas, there is room for interpretation regarding the extent of trafficking. But there is plenty of evidence it exists in significant numbers.

And yes the woman in the poster is most likely a model. Just as children in posters raising awareness about child abuse are also models. That does not mean that child abuse does not exist. Chwyatt 13:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should we fact-check a claim we are not making? WP does not claim that the girl is really a sex slave. WP claims that the poster was released by the government of Canada. Since that claim is fairly well-supported, I think we're done here. Kasreyn 19:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re Fact Check:

As the number of victims of trafficking can not, by no means, be varified, you can not prove anything like that. To claim something like that (or, as I read in an article in the Germany 'Spiegel', to say that what happens to the (female) victims of trafficking would be 'much worse than anything anyone has suffered in the trans-atlantic slave trade') is highly problematic. - Anonymous

You can prove that there are "at least" a certain level of slave trafficking, you just can't prove an exact or maximum number. - Centrx 17:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget African soccer players

12 year olds from Africa coming to Europe with promises of fame and soccer glory by agents, and often abandoned and left to fend for themselves if they dont meet expectations.

If they are abandoned, then that has nothing to do with slavery and doesn't belong in this article. Edrigu 18:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge of People Smuggling and Human Trafficking

• Do not mergeI am against the merging of the two articles. Human Smuggling and Human Trafficking are two separate activities. The United Nations views the two as separate issues, as so I believe Misplaced Pages should as well. Briefly, Human smuggling is the moving of people across borders, where as human trafficing is the buying and selling of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelee (talk • contribs)

• Do not mergeI am against the merge as well. Those being smuggled across borders usually agree to be smuggled, whilst human trafficking, those being moved are usually forced (hence the comparisons with slavery). They are different activities. Chwyatt

• Do not mergeI vote do not merge. Human smuggling and trafficking are two different things, done for different reasons. Kasreyn 17:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do not mergeI vote NO -- do not merge the articles. Human trafficking involves exchanging the "ownership" of human beings for money; Human smuggling involves illegally transporting human beings for money (e.g. illegal aliens being brought across the southwestern U.S. border by coyotes in exchange for money). Very big difference. --TrustTruth 21:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not merge MPS 21:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Merge! Human Trafficking and People Smuggling are two completely different issues. As stated above, smuggling refers to crossing a national border illegally. In this case, both the smuggler and the person smuggled are committing a crime, and can be prosecuted accordingly. However, Human Trafficking is a crime commited by a trafficker to a victim, and thus only the trafficker has committed a crime.

• Do Not Merge Completely different. The Underground Railroad helping slaves escape in the USA was people smuggling not human trafficking- althouigh I expectt he slaveowners claimed the opposite.--Streona (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Some victims of human trafficking knew they would be working in prostitution

I like to refer to this document: Research based on case studies of victims of trafficking in human beings in 3 EU member states, i.e. Belgium, Italy and The Netherlands. It mentions that a big minority of the victims of human trafficking who were researched knew they would be working as prostitutes. I also like to refer to this article: Happy hookers of Eastern Europe It mentions two (former) police officers who have dealt a lot with victims of human trafficking. What they say is that the overwhelming majority of the prostitutes who work abroad knew that they would be working in prostitution. This article is heavily biased though because the author of this article refuses to see women who knew they would be working as prostitutes as victims of human trafficking. There's also another Dutch report written by Judith Vocks and Jan Nijboer. You can find a English translation here. Of a sample of 72 women, a small majority knew they would be working as prostitutes, most of them already worked in prostitution in their home countries. That is not to say that they are not victims of human trafficking! I miss this important fact in this article, and I hope you can appreciate my small contribution.--Bruno Junqueira 17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right to point out that some trafficking victims know they are entering prostitution or are prostitutes already.

As you mentioned, the Spectator article is heavily biased, the tone of the article wants to portray sex trafficking as a myth, regardless of evidence. The Spectator has a record of controversial articles based only on the writers opinion and little evidence. And the Spectator is a publication with an anti immigration agenda (which is behind its attempts to rubbish the overwhelming evidence of human trafficking). It claims that media coverage of trafficking in Romania is widespread when it is not, and media coverage is even less in Bulgaria and Moldova, other sources of women to the UK. And of course, former police officers can also have their own agendas. And also in this wikipedia article, there are links to the nature of organised crime in trafficking. The Spectator article claims that there is ‘no huge criminal structure with a mafia godfather running it’. But no one is saying there is. There is some organisation, but no one is suggesting it is something like the level of organisation is the drug cartels. The EC report on the three case studies you site suggest a degree of organisation. The EC report also concludes the majority of cases involve debt bondage and physical violence. Hardly happy hookers.

There are three scenarios in sex trafficking. One, some women will not know they are being trafficked. There are plenty of accounts (with links) on this wikipedia article of young women thinking they will be working in bars or hotels, but are then forced into prostitution. Two, some women may know they will work in prostitution but as you say ‘have a too rosy picture’. And three, some are prostitutes already.

The report shows that only a minority of women, not prostitutes already, are looking to work as prostitutes in the west. Most of the work offered is bar/restaurant/hotel or au pair or to just bring them to the West.

In one study, 34% in bar/restaurant/hotel or au pair, 8% marriage, 8% transport or study, 28% no offers of work at all and 13% prostitution.

In another study, 58% in bar/restaurant/hotel or au pair, 1% marriage, 13% forced and kidnapping and 23% prostitution.

It mentions a case study where the majority of Chinese victims are offered hotel and catering work (62%).

Most of this is in contrary to what the Spectator suggests. I recommend that the Spectator article is moved down with the other articles as it is heavily biased with no empirical research.--Chwyatt 13:33, 13 May 2006(UTC)

Interesting comment. But what about ex-prostitute Jo Doezema?
Loose Women or Lost Women?
.......there are emerging indications that it is sex workers, rather than 'coerced innocents' that form the majority of this 'traffic'. GAATW, whose report is based for a large part on responses of organisations that work directly with 'trafficking victims', found that the majority of 'trafficking' cases involve women who know they are going to work in the sex industry, but are lied to about the conditions they will work under, such as the amount of money they will receive (Weijers and Lap-Chew 1997: 99). They also conclude that abduction for purposes of 'trafficking' into the sex industry is very rare (p.99).......
She said it well, but I'm having difficulties with her opinions though. She doesn't question the clients who use the prostitutes. But from a client's point of view, every prostitute could be a victim of human trafficking. But that's just an opinion.--Bruno Junqueira 23:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As you know, this is a difficult area to find accurate statistics, the traffickers are criminals, and the women, be they willing or forced into prostitution, often live in fear (the EC report mentions that in most cases, women involved often experience violence). So finding out how many enter prostitution willingly is difficult. The EC report (there is another empirical study in the ‘Government and international governmental organisations’ links section of the wikipedia article looking at Costa Rica, Thailand and Ukraine) is one of the few detailed studies. A testimony of a prostitute is useful, but in one of the EC report case studies, that is based on the testimonies of 62 trafficking victims.--Chwyatt 15 May 2006

I don not agree with you. I believe there's no empirical evidence that a "minority" of the victims of human trafficking knew they would be working as prostitutes. Some statistics say a (big) minority knew it, other statistics will tell you that most knew. I think it's better to replace "a minority" by "many".--Bruno Junqueira 23:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we agree that statistics are difficult in this issue, and exact statistics are impossible, especially as this is an illegal activity. However, the two empirical case studies on this wikipedia article where trafficking victims have been surveyed do show that it is a minority, albeit a significant minority. The example of Belgium of 13% seems typical. I have not seen an empirical study that shows that a majority know they would be working as prostitutes. The problem with anecdotal ‘evidence’ is that it is difficult to draw overall conclusions, and there are plenty of anecdotal already in the articles section that do not suggest that most know they would be working as prostitutes.

I read all the case studies in the EU emperical study and the largest group (40%) involved the victims believeing they will be doing ‘legitimate’ work (waitress, bar, hotel, au pair, office), 25% knowing they will be prostitutes and 25% other (marriage, ‘feigned love’, forced/kidnapped, or not stated). Also what complicates matters is that there are different trends amongst, for example, trafficking of Chinese victims to Belgium compared to Albanians to Netherlands, or Nigerians to Italy. And that is before considering trafficking to the United States or trafficking in SE Asia. So drawing conclusions is difficult.

I have a problem with this word ‘many’, as it could imply ‘majority’, which would be inaccurate. As a compromise, I have swapped it for ‘some’. A reference to studying, kidnapping and marriage should also stay in (kidnapping and marriage are used in a larger number of cases in SE Asia). In one case study, 5% of victims were looking to study, 8% marriage was involved, and 8% were forced/kidnapped. Also, in the case studies, simply transport to the West, with no job offer, ‘legitimate’ or prostitution, is common. Chwyatt 11:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I know one report which states that most women know. I referred to it earlier. It's on the internet but you have to pay for it. I mean this report. I own a Dutch version of this report. Jo Doezema refers to another report by Marjan Wijers and Lap-Chew from 1997, but I've never seen that report, and I don't know how to lay my hands on it.
I believe also many women who already worked as prostitutes on their own become trafficked. I refer to the TAMPEP-reports:

for instance: I quote the first TAMPEP-report:
page 20:We register that majority of migrant sex workers worked in at least two - three EU countries and in two - three countries within their geographical region. This pattern of mobility is determined by pimps/traffickers because they place and move the women into and between different countries, because the women are sold to different pimps/traffickers in various countries but also because they escape from their perpetrators.
page 270: Ninety percent of the women from Central and Eastern Europe are - some way or the other - in the power of pimps, madams or traffickers. Many women accept it without much protest, but some of them want to change the situation. This means that the TAMPEP worker is regularly asked for advice on how to be liberated from the power of pimps.

Oh and can you show me a link to the SE Asian report? I don't know where it is.--Bruno Junqueira 12:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Organ selling?

In former Soviet republics, mothers are afraid to let their kids play out of their sight. They say they hear stories about children stolen, taken to a rich country, and killed for their organs. I don't know whether this really happens, but I know that the fear is real. Is this a form of human trafficking? Can anyone with more expertise or a little time to research contribute a paragraph on this? Thanks. BrainyBabe 10:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Kids can get kidnappedn, but who will take their organs? Wouldn't those countries have a well-estabolished law that prevent un-named source of organs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.75.181 (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

• There is a sentence saying `she commits the ultimate act of escaping from them` I am changing this to simply she commits suicide, it is far too romantic to be an encyclopedia phrase.

I agree with that Chwyatt 10:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Someone referred to the Canadian government poster as a ‘propaganda’ poster. I reverted it back to ‘Human trafficking awareness poster’ because calling it a ‘propaganda’ poster suggests some sort of deceit, that there is no trafficking in Canada, but trafficking cases are well reported. Chwyatt 10:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

But is it not propaganda? "Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information." It displays a weeping woman! And it says 'Trafficking is bad' Of course it is propaganda. I know that the word "propaganda" is used as a pejorative sometimes,butbutbut... it is used as NPOV on wikipedia elsewere. And, what else should it be called? "Awareness" is kind of silly. It isn't simple information - it's blatant appeal to pity. --CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A (hello!) 22:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it could be described as a "political" poster as well. But methinks propaganda is more suitable. --CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A (hello!) 11:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, almost everything could be argued as ‘propaganda’. Which undermines the use of the word ‘propaganda’, making it meaningless. And it does not say trafficking is bad, it says it is a crime, which under Canadian law it is. I don’t think there is any argument that trafficking produces victims. That is not to say all people who have been trafficked are victims, but many are, most going by the evidence. As your reasons for objecting to the word ‘awareness’ are almost the same as my objections to the word ‘propaganda’ (but from a different angle), how about we go for ‘political’ or simply ‘A poster from the Canadian Department of Justice’ if we are not going to agree on this? Fair compromise? Let people make their own mind up if it is ‘propaganda’. - Chwyatt 09:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. --CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A (hello!) 14:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian and international anti-trafficking laws

Would it be a good idea to include a short mention of the different anti-trafficking legislation in place in different countries? Perhaps a dot-point list of how different countries treat the trafficking threat, or major laws that have been passed. The page seems quite American-centric when in reality the trafficking threat is a global one.

Vietnamese people smuggling activities in the UK

Recent UK Police Operations Pentameter and Keymer discovered the extent of Vietnamese people smuggling. Vietnamese are smuggled into the country to work in Vietnamese cannabis factories and nail salons. Recently the UK authorities planned to deport over 500 children, who were smuggled into the country, back to Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.47.127 (talk • contribs)

This is great info, thanks for adding it. Could you please cite the source you found it in, like a news article or book? Thanks very much, delldot | talk 05:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

news.bbc.co.uk

www.ukcia.org

www.guardian.co.uk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4757023.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3965035.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5316664.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1939328,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,1860305,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1772195,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1772195,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,1731843,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1567386,00.html

http://www.ukcia.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=12256

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6445201.stm

http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/search/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&itemid=IPED16%20Mar%202007%2017:52:52:483&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=search

http://www.ukcia.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=12545

http://www.ukcia.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=12841 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.100.44 (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ukcia.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=12850 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.100.44 (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ukcia.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=12861 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.100.44 (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links and Articles

Ummmm the external links and articles section is almost as long as the article. Any help trimming them down would be appreciated. Sethie 04:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In the articles section, I have left some articles and made a start in cutting news stories, subscription links and only loosely related links to reduce length. I’ll edit a bit more later. Chwyatt 10:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Should ‘organisations’ be limited to just ‘well known’ groups like Amnesty International (and a couple of others) or should it be more extensive than that? Chwyatt 10:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, I just realized that maybe as we are cutting, we can scan the sources for things to put in the article... just an idea. As for organizations, no they don't need to be well known, and I think we need to cut them down some. Sethie 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

From so many countries in the world that thrive in human trafficking you have focused only on Kosovo and Bosnia? Trafficking of human beings is global problem.

What about Cambodgia, US, Middle East, Canada, other European countries and Asia?

Why haven't you mentioned all countries from Amnesty International? Trafficking of human beings is global problem.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.126.95.146 (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC). SIGNATURE: "Reader"

The article does say it is a global problem. Russia and Thailand have been mentioned and there are articles on other parts of the world. Chwyatt 10:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Reasons"

The reasons listed for human trafficking, which is defined as involuntary... include motives that would benefit the person being trafficked. These should not be listed as reasons why people are trafficked (again, involuntary). They instead belong in the linked to article of people smuggling.

1. Discrimination in employment against women
2. Anti-child labor laws eliminating employment for people under the age of 18
3. Anti-marriage laws for people under the age of 18, resulting in single motherhood and a desperate need for income
4. Restrictive immigration laws that motivate people to take greater risks

Mouse 09:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mouse, I removed it.Sethie 16:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Against Canada

This article is so bull - it seems to single-out Canada but does not give any prominent reason(s) why Canada is recieving a failing grade or why this problem is worst there than anywhere else. The figures for human trafficking quoted within the article itself don't show human trafficking in Canada to be any higher than anywhere else, so why is Canada being singled out? Scott 110 20:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It also singles out the UK, Bangladesh and Russia. Chwyatt 08:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

http://saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=71752&cat=3

http://saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=71752&cat=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.157.196 (talk) 04:57, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Extent

Coalition Against Trafficking in Women statistics are open to debate. But they have not been used. Those figures come from the State Department, not from Coalition Against Trafficking in Women.

I have not seen serious criticism of State Department methodology, and both the State Department and the article says that due to trafficking being an illegal activity, reliable data is difficult to come across. The best way to balance is to say “Due to the illegal nature of trafficking and differences in methodology, the exact extent is unknown.” Chwyatt (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also been looking for any critique of the various figures knocking around. They vary so wildly with ridiculous extremes (from a few hundred from deniers to a few million from others).. The state dept and CIA figures are often quoted but I cant find anything on their methods, sampling etc and aparently, the CIA have always refused to divulge theirs. Can anyone shed any light?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinebrown (talk • contribs) 02:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The following article published September 23, 2007 on page A01 of the Washington Post contains information about the source of recent government estimates of the number persons supposedly trafficked into the U.S. each year. If you pursue additional sources, I think you find that these estimates are highly unreliable. The article is entitled Human Trafficking Evokes Outrage, Little Evidence: U.S. Estimates Thousands of Victims, But Efforts to Find Them Fall Short. It is available here:

Another frequently cited estimate suggests that approximately 300,000 American youth are at risk for commercial sexual exploitation, but the methodology to obtain this estimate is also highly debatable. This estimate comes from: Estes, R.J., & N. A. Weiner (2001). The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children In the U. S., Canada and Mexico, and the study is available online from the University of Pennsylvania here: Todd2 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Trafficking in human beings in CIS

http://www.owl.ru/eng/research/thenatasha.htm Someone should check and verify all sources from this article. Sorry, I don't have enough time to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.135.237.18 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Title

I find the current title very euphemistic. These people aren't merely being trafficked (moved), they are being enslaved. That is the real problem. Thus I would suggest renaming this article as Modern slavery or something of the like. 207.69.137.43 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is one of definition. The common (wider public) understanding of the term trafficking is individuals transported against their will AND enslaved in forced labour, in a foreign location. This understanding could be synonymous with slavery.

However, there is now considerable confusion as the term is being applied to individuals who merely migrate to work in the sex industry - even if knowingly and willingly. In addition, the use of the phrase "internal trafficking" is being promoted which further misleads by removing the element of inter country movement. These re-definitions are driven a gender feminist approach which regards all people who sell sex as being enslaved or suffering from false consciousness. Other feminists regard this as hopelessly simplistic.

As it is highly unlikely that the majority of readers would regard someone who willingly moves from one city to another to sell sex as being enslaved, the use of the term "modern slavery" as a synonym for trafficking would be confusing. This is not because people trafficked to work against their will are not enslaved but that the term trafficking is now applied to people who are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.189.208 (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of UK - Vietnamese paragraph

I have removed this paragraph, as careful reading of operation keymer papers shows only that people were smuggled - there is insufficient evidence that people were trafficked. Operation pentameter only refers to a single Vietnamese and this has been changed to refering to Vietnamese in general.--Tayray (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New form of human trafficking

In February, a travel agent in Ghana chartered a Ghana International Airlines aircraft on the pretext that a group of 'Ghanian' tourists would be spending two weeks in Barbados. The aircraft left Ghana around 1 Feb 08, and was supposed to return to Barbados to 1) deliver any group of 'tourists' and 2) take the first lot back to Ghana. The aircraft didn't arrive as expected on 15 February, and to this day (15 April 08) most of those 'tourists', who turned out end up coming from both Ghana and Nigeria, are still stranded in Barbados, with the Ghanian government dragging its heels on their return. The rest have basically left Barbados for other countries (not long after arriving there). Due to the fact many of these 'tourists' are now working in Barbados (construction, etc), and some have gone on the record that they don't want to go back to Ghana, they want to be allowed to stay in Barbados to work, it is now believed that this is a new form of human trafficking. I think this would make an interesting addition to the Human trafficking article, and could also help build a Barbados-Ghana relations article as well. Having little time to add this, I am posting this at the following: Talk:Human trafficking, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Human rights. Perhaps contributors to the Human trafficking article or wikiprojects could look at it further and include it in the article, as this hasn't gathered much attention outside of Barbados and Ghana, and if it is human trafficking, it will change the modus operandi of traffickers. Searches of google and google news for barbados+ghana will return plenty of results, mainly from Ghana or Barbados which can be used. --Россавиа 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Alleged criticism of Agustin's work

The following sentence was inserted and claimed to be supported by the reference Brendan O'Neill, The myth of trafficking, New Statesman, 27 March 2008:

Critics of Agustín have claimed that Agustín is as guilty of statistical manipulation for her ideological perspective.

I removed the statement for the following reasons:

• Statistical manipulation is scientific misconduct, a severe allegation, so a high-quality source is needed.
• The New Statesman article itself does not contain the allegation.
• Some reader comments attached to the New Statesman article on the paper's website are critical of Agustin's book, though I can't find a specific allegation of statistical manipulation there (or elsewhere).
• In any case, a comment area on an open website cannot be used as a reliable source.

Properly referenced criticism of her book would be very welcome. AxelBoldt (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The work itself is highly questionable and could well be in breech of wikipedia’s recommendations on using sources. Just because something is written, does not make it so. We have a possible battle between those who may make a living exaggerating human trafficking, and those who make a living denying it. Each who put a hunger for attention and publicity above balanced analysis. Having been involved in this issue for ten years and read so much of this stuff, Agustín is just another example. There are so many books on human trafficking that the only way to sell one is to say "it’s a lie" or its "endemic slavery in every town". If an on-line version can be found, we can pick it apart.

Likewise, the New Statesman is notorious for spinning and selective use to support its editorial perspective. Just like any other magazine. That is how magazines and journalistic sociologists like Agustín make money. Agustín and O'Neill are not scientists, Agustín’s work is not a scientific study and the New Statesman is not a reputable journal. Chwyatt (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"We have a possible battle between those who may make a living exaggerating human trafficking, and those who make a living denying it." This statement seems to set up a false equality between "those who make a living exaggerating human trafficking and those who make a living denying it." I know of very few if not no human beings currently employed by an organization dedicated to denying human trafficking. On the other hard, the list of NGOs and international organizations declaring at high volume that human trafficking is the number one problem facing humanity today is not small. -RatSkrew (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The situation is not comparable with climate change (the exaggerators Vs the deniers). And unlike climate change, there are no organisations dedicated to saying there is no such thing as human trafficking (and trafficking in women in particular). But with regards to immigration debates and feminism debates, of which this issue touches, there are journalists and journalistic sociologists who know how to make a name for themselves. And often the only way to make a name for themselves is to oppose consensus opinion. There is no doubt that no one knows the extent of human trafficking. Any organisation, any sociologist, any journalist who writes with such certainty, should be treated with caution. Regardless of whether one is in the majority or minority camp, social research today is in such a poor state, and is such a saturated market. Chwyatt (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You now appear to have completely removed any reference to Augustins work. This appears to be a pattern in this article that you remove any entries which do not support your thesis on trafficking. The article is starting to look very poor in terms of neutral point of view. If research is applied which you do not support then counter it - do not merely delete it. Please reconsider or I will tag article NPOV disputed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.189.208 (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the editor above. The criticism of the so-called rescue industry is highly relevant to the human trafficking issue and thus deserves inclusion in the article. Deleting these criticisms supports a particular POV and thus gradually skews the article in a particular direction. The section about Agustíns criticism should be restored. If there should be any criticism of Agustín, it needs to be sourced per Wikipedias general guidelines. Alfons Åberg (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a second, I’m not the only one guilty of double standards here. When I mentioned criticism of Agustín, it was removed for not having references. Yet references to her and criticisms of Operation Pentameter have not had any references attached. I don’t remove comments that are referenced. Add properly cited references and I won’t remove them.

Secondly, the problem Agustín’s journalistic work, is that having it as the sole criticism of trafficking is like having Ann Coulter as the sole criticism of liberalism, or Michael Crichton on global warming. Her work should not be restored unless it is referenced. Either directly to her work, so people can see what is wrong with it, or to a properly peer-reviewed academic article. The only reference I have seen is in a magazine with an anti-immigration agenda. This article is slightly off balanced. But unreferenced comments from a journalistic sociologist is no way to balance it. Chwyatt (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that the disproportionate concentration of sexual trafficking (in terms of resources and communications) at the expense of other more widespread forms is unhelpful and offensive. Is a person trafficked to work 18 hours a day, 7 days a week in a sweat shop less exploited merely because no sex is involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.189.208 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference to Augustins book and criticism of the trafficking figures is legitimate and referenced as inline text. This is acceptable as per Wiki policy on referencing and is directly paralleled in many works you quote above - some of which give figures (such as the UN figure) themselves derived from unreferenced work thus making it impossible to check the veracity of the numbers. To avoid duplicity I have restored the original reference to Augustins book - it does not say it agrees with her theory merely that such a theory exists. Given the flexibility other editors have shown with works you reference (most of the CATW data for a start) it would be unwise to continuously remove counter references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.136.127 (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think I’ve added CATW figures. Several criticisms have rightly joined this article. Need to be careful though that the (un)balance does not shift the other way towards the deniers. Chwyatt (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Excessive trivia – TV shows

Misplaced Pages discourages excessive trivia. Films and TV series specifically about trafficking might just escape as non-trivia. But songs or minor plot lines in films or one off episodes in cop shows don’t. What’s more, probably every cop show in the world has had a trafficking episode. We can’t mention them all. Chwyatt (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiki page on human trafficking as ongoing project

Let me begin by introducing myself. I am a professor of international law & human rights and Special Rapporteur to UN.GIFT (United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking). My specialized area of scholarship (and passion) is human trafficking, contemporary slavery, forced labor and child soldiers. As a project of the Task Force on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking that I chair at my university we plan on monitoring, adding and editing the English Misplaced Pages page on Human Trafficking and other related topics. We hope to create mirror pages on other language sites. We look forward to working with all of you interested in this very complex area of study.--Cdestree (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, look forward to it. Thias page does need some work. I used to work for the Home Office in the UK on this issue and have been an ocassional contributor here Chwyatt (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Caution

Considering this topic's official assessment as being of low importance;

Considering the relative infancy of the human trafficking paradigm;

Considering the rather extreme claims of HT advocates;

Considering the tendentious and/or vested nature of sources claiming massive criminal incidence of human trafficking and the risk of them interpreting other events for their own personal gain;

Considering the risk of misinforming the issue;

- We should avoid over-stating our case and using any source for factual confirmation. forestPIG 15:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

and considering the rather extreme claims of HT denial and the vested interests of those who deny HT for their own agenda Chwyatt (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's highly debatable, Chwyatt, and in any event, pretty much a reflection of your POV. I am hereby asking that you adhere to Misplaced Pages standards of NPOV and verifiability and will be keeping an eye on this article to make sure this is adhered to. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course its my POV (and the comment I replied to was ‘highly debatable’). My point was, which you might have missed, the human trafficking debate is subject to bias and agendas on both sides. I did not dispute what ForesticPig said, only added that HT denial for vested interests and agendas also takes place. Anything and everything I post on the articles is within Misplaced Pages standards and appropriately sourced. Chwyatt (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know what the supposed "agenda" of someone like Laura Agustin is. On the other hand, I think I think its pretty clear what the agenda is of CATW, Melissa Farley, Laura Lederer, etc, who started out as anti-vice crusaders before rebranding themselves as "anti-slavery" activists. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, there are those who exaggerate the scale of human trafficking (HT) because…

1) they are part of the anti-vice lobby who talk of the “evils of prostitution”.

2) the so called rescue industry. Some organisations, set up with the best of intentions, find themselves exaggerating the scale of HT

3) some extremist feminists who see society as a continuing persecution of women, and the trafficking of women is another example for them

On the other hand, those that deny or downplay the scale of HT do so because…

1) The fact that forced prostitution and HT takes place in countries with liberal attitudes to prostitution is an inconvenient fact to prostitution liberalisers

2) amazingly, there are some feminists who don’t like organised interventions in ‘women’s matters’, and don’t like organisations or governments “rescuing women” even if there are cases of trafficking of women. This is an attitude common amongst American conservative feminists

3) some with an anti-immigration agenda don't like human trafficking. They want to see all movement’s of people as voluntary and see HT as weakening a strong anti-immigration position

And sadly, amongst the popular political and sociological media, controversy sells. You are more likely to sell a book or publish an article by exaggerating or denying human trafficking than offering sober, uncontroversial analysis. Every major political or social issue will have different interpretations. And different interpretations always lead to different agendas. Chwyatt (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Its clear to me that with regards to point number 2 & 3 that you don't even remotely have your facts straight. Yes, there are a lot of feminists who indeed are very opposed to the "raid and rescue" intervention. These are feminists associated with the sex workers rights movement and with NGO's that directly work with prostitutes in places like Cambodia. They base their opposition upon the fact that Cambodian prostitutes themselves have spoken against governmental raids, saying that it has essentially forced the "rescued" women into the criminal justice system and that it has broken up prostitutes collectives and networks that were essential for those choosing to remain in prostitution to protect themselves against predatory pimps and traffickers. And I don't know where the hell you get off calling such feminists "conservative". If there's anybody who could be considered "conservative" feminists, it would clearly be CATW, Laura Lederer, and other "abolitionists" who are closely aligned with evangelicals and neo-cons in that movement, who advocate a distinct "change from above" approach to sex work, and have actively tried to block self-organized efforts by sex workers who don't tow the abolitionist party line.

In regard to point number 3, what you've said above doesn't even make sense. The anti-immigration crowd is generally among the human trafficking exaggerators, as it gives them yet another argument why immigrants are not in the host country legitimately. Its no co-incidence that the most common outcome of anti-HT "raid and rescue" in destination countries is immediate deportation of trafficked workers/slaves back to their country of origin, typically right back into the social situation that got them trafficked to begin with. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

On point 2, you and I a referring to two different groups of feminists. On point 3, if you read The Spectator (British conservative leaning magazine), especially in the late 1990s/early 2000s, almost every week it ran an anti-immigration article. It then took an anti-human trafficking line, because it saw it as weakening a hard-line stance on immigration. There is an example of it somewhere on this discussion page. I suspect its editors saw those who talked about human trafficking as being wishy-washy liberals.

My basic point was, all political and social issues have extreme views and agendas from different sides. HT is no different. When I worked at the Home Office on this very issue, I’d read and heard voices crying that human trafficking was on a massive (therefore exaggerated) scale and others who said it didn’t exist, a fabrication of the so called ‘rescue industry’.

And, if you are going to start being rude, I'm not going to continue discussing this. Chwyatt (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved here from the article

I've moved the following here from the article:

According to the National Human Rights Center in Berkeley, California, there are currently about 10,000 forced laborers in the U.S. "Around one-third of the estimated 10,000 forced laborers in the United States are servants trapped behind the curtains of suburban homes, ... No one can say how many are children, especially since their work can so easily be masked as chores.... Once behind the walls of gated communities like this one, these children never go to school. Unbeknownst to their neighbors, they live as modern-day slaves."

citing in support: Callimachi, Rukmini. Child maid trafficking spreads from Africa to US, Associated Press, Dec. 28, 2008

The cited item contains the following:

The custom has led to the spread of trafficking, as well-to-do Africans accustomed to employing children immigrate to the U.S. Around one-third of the estimated 10,000 forced laborers in the United States are servants trapped behind the curtains of suburban homes, according to a study by the National Human Rights Center at the University of California at Berkeley and Free the Slaves, a nonprofit group. No one can say how many are children, especially since their work can so easily be masked as chores.

Once behind the walls of gated communities like this one, these children never go to school. Unbeknownst to their neighbors, they live as modern-day slaves, just like Shyima, whose story is pieced together through court records, police transcripts and interviews.

The 10,000 and one-third figures can be attributed to the National Human Rights Center, as can the assertion that some of these are children. The rest appears to be the opinion of an anonymous AP staff writer. This info might be appropriate for inclusion in the article, but it is misattributed. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Would removing the portion beginning with "Once behind the walls..." keep it properly sourced? Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten this slightly and put back into the article. I've placed it in the Extent section rather than in the lead. I would have done this originally, but I was in a big rush at that time. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Good summary with a better location. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammer Edits Needed

"from which escape is both difficult or dangerous" should be changed to "from which escape is both difficult and dangerous" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.180.144 (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Feel free to fix these yourself in the future, it's actually quicker than a talk page comment. Add the comment to the Edit Summary so everyone can see what you did. aremisasling (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Extent split

I split the extent section by continent to break it up and smooth the flow a bit. Most of it fit that paradigm already, but some of it, especially in the main section, doesn't fit perfectly wording-wise. Russia, of course, is always an issue given it's span over two continents. Fortunately the section about former Iron Curtain nations deals primarily with Europe, so that is a cleaner break than I expected when I first skimmed the article. There could be some improvements made on the syntax of references as well, but at least there are refs. Good page though, much needed regardless of the controversy on scope. aremisasling (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note as well on the edit. I didn't change much content-wise, just split it up. The only content change I made was to modify the wording on the future group reference to split it between the section summary and the North America section. The heart of the paragraphs is intact. Given all of the moves this may not have been apparent in a diff. aremisasling (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Note on NPOV corrections

Be sure when correcting POV issues on an article to avoid editing in POV statements from the opposing side. The idea is to make the article neutral, not equally representative of POV. It's not a debate forum, it's supposed to be an encyclopedic entry. That said, it is important to get both viewpoints represented. But to accuse advocacy groups of propaganda is as sensationalist and POV as it is to limit the definition of human trafficking only to the illegal forms. A better route would be to add sections on legitimate trafficking or even make separate headings for legal and illegal forms. You can even include a section detailing notable opposition veiwpoints. But keep inflamatory labels like "propagandists" to quotes from sources in the appropriate sections, and not accusations made in the article itself. aremisasling (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Human Trafficking definition

There seems to be an issue here of definition of human trafficking. I can't find any source that refers to human trafficking as anything other than an illegal trade. This includes UN definitions, definitions by the EU, Canada, and the US, and a search of scholarly articles that use the term. I found not one case where it was used to reference the legal migration of individuals. As a matter of technicality, the recent edit of the intro definition would be correct. My instinct on this one is that, while it may be the absolute literal definition, the legal migration of people for economic means would more qualify as an innovation in definition than the other way around. Honestly, I'm interested to see if the editor that reworded the intro has any references for their edit because frankly, it doesn't seem to be the case that it is used at all in that sense. If there aren't any references made to support the change, I think it needs to be reverted. aremisasling (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.

The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as "trafficking in persons" even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.

Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, Republic of the Philippines. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if you misunderstood and thought I was trying to refute the original definition in the intro or the recent edit. I know the definition you gave. It's the definition that was already there. The issue is with the recent edit which makes the claim in the edit summary that the original definition in the intro and by association the definition you gave are examples of propagandist thinking. My stance was that, in direct contradiction to the editor's summary, the definition of human trafficking that appears to be generally accepted by advocacy groups, nations, and scholars alike is the original illegal sense of the term. It just seems like you are trying to support my statement which confuses me slightly. aremisasling (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been tracking changes—I just reacted to seeing this article pop up on my watchlist. I didn't look at the history, but see that the WP:LEDE says, "Human trafficking is the commerce and trade in the movement or migration of people, legal and illegal, ...", and see that you said, "... I can't find any source that refers to human trafficking as anything other than an illegal trade. ...". The snippet which I quoted above isn't an example of "propagandast thinking"—at least it does not strike me so. That snippet is an extract the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, Republic Act No. 9208, which is current law in the Philippines. I provided a link to the full text above." OK, looking at it again, since this law does criminalizes certain acts, the acts which it criminalizes are by definition illegal trade. Id does seem to me, though, that it might be overbroad. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I mistated what I was looking for. The editor in question inserted wording into the preamble that suggested that human trafficking does not imply some form of force, coersion, or deception or abuse of the persons involved. In short, they were saying that any kind of economic migration where money is exchanged is considered people trafficking regardless of circumstances. I'd contend that by even the widest definition, yours included, there is a distinct sense that the trafficker either forces, deceives or abuses the persons being trafficked. They went further in labelling anyone who limits it only to unwilling or abusive situation propagandist, which is why I brought that word in.

I did correct it to be far less inflamatory, but I think the distinction is still a big one between a violation of human rights and simple economic migration. No definition I have read seems to allow for the wider definition. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that. You certainly answered the original request I posed in that it isn't necessarily illegal in all jurisdictions. I'm not sure if this clarifies the point any. aremisasling (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "traffick(ing)" i think, refers originaly to any "dealing", "transportation" or "commerse", allthough it also has a meaning/connotation in "illegal dealing" (look it up in a good dictionary). That means human trafficking is basicly just another word for trading in people. Threre is fundamentally no differense between this and slave trade / forced labour. The differens on the other hand lies in jurisdiction and the fact that it is being illegal/criminal, i.e. a veiw and reaction on slave trade by society (and thereby the manner in witch it is conducted, wich is by no means insignificant). If this is an articel about (international) law, the UN-definition should be used. If a broader perspective is wanted, the definition should be opened, to "illegal trading in humans" ,"illegal slave trade", "illegal forced labour" etc. 22. oct 2009 - Alenepaagata (norwegian wikipedia)

Article Comment

this article is written in such an unprofessionally empathetic way it's almost disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.110.133 (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Mexico?

How come Mexico is not mentioned in this article? Mexicans make up most of the illegal aliens in the United States. Some were trafficked into the U.S. do to hard labor for little to no pay. Some are sexually exploited. B-Machine (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Source-supported info on that should probably be added to the Extent->North America subsection. A little googling showed no shortage of potential sources: , , , , , , , , , , etc., etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Capitalism

Is there a reason for this? Josh (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Some might say Globalisation has resulted in an increase in forced human trafficking as well as in other forms of global human movement. So Globalisation would make a better category

Bias in Map

Template:Globalize/US

I think that the map (File:Trafficking in Persons Report 2005.png) is a little too US-biased to be used as the first picture in the lede. (It'd be okay deeper in the article though, under "5 Efforts to reduce human trafficking" or "5.7 United States law", say.) It's from a US government report on compliance with a US law. (It's not even a *prevalence* of human trafficking, it's just legal compliance.) Would it be possible to find a more international source of data? Something like a UN report or data from some NGO like Amnesty International? -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the map should stay, but agree that it is US-centric, and not a reflection of prevalence, and putting it in section 5.7 would be better. Chwyatt (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wage & MNC links

May I add links to Multinational Corporations and wage and or wage slavery? Stars4change (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

==Debt bondage]]

I resent being taught (by ads) & forced to live my entire life in debt bondage and there's nothing I or anyone can do about it. Isn't that slavery? Yes it is. Stars4change (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• Start-Class Sex work articles
• High-importance Sex work articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English