This essay first appeared in Cliterati on March 9th; I have modified it slightly to fit the format of this blog.
For most of the Twentieth Century, “authorities” in many Western countries (especially the United States) chose to portray sex workers as either criminals to be jailed or “problems” to be solved, “social evils” as the Victorians had termed us. But by the 1970s, that narrative was wearing thin: the sexual revolution had opened many people’s eyes to the fact that sex is not some magical polluting force, and early feminists campaigned for sex workers’ rights. Though mainstream feminism went anti-sex in the ‘80s, the legacies of the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement and the sexual revolution had by then undermined the official narrative; the portrayal of sex workers in movies and TV shows had become much more positive, and the average person was beginning to see anti-harlot crusades for what they are: authoritarian interference in people’s private lives. Clearly, that couldn’t be allowed to continue; something had to be done, so prohibitionists…
…created the “sex trafficking” hysteria as a means of rallying the public behind criminalization again. As the “Nation Strategy” of Swanee Hunt’s Demand Abolition organization states, “Framing the Campaign’s key target as sexual slavery might garner more support and less resistance, while framing the Campaign as combating prostitution may be less likely to mobilize similar levels of support and to stimulate stronger opposition.” In other words, “since people now recognize it’s wrong for the government to stick its nose into private bedrooms, we have to pretend this is really about something else.”
Nowadays, it’s rare to hear old-style police talk about locking up the dirty whores to protect the public from them; far more often, armed raids in which women are terrorized, handcuffed, evicted in freezing weather, humiliated, caged, gang-raped or otherwise brutalized are described as “rescues”. “Sex trafficking” does far more than let cops rebrand their usual sadism as heroism, however; it also produces more practical results, such as immigration control:
Specialist anti-slavery teams are to be based inside UK airports in a bid to clamp down on human trafficking…The first team will be based at Heathrow from 1 April before the scheme is rolled out to other airports. They will be tasked with identifying victims and disrupting criminal gangs involved in international trafficking. The government says the scheme will ensure there is “no easy route into the UK for traffickers”…
“The scheme is part of a larger plan to ensure there is no easy route into the UK”. There, fixed it for you. But pandering to xenophobia is only one way in which “sex trafficking” hysteria is useful to politicians:
[Maine state] Rep. Amy Volk…would give courts permission to vacate prostitution convictions against people who [can prove they] were forced or coerced into the crime. [Her] bill…also would set up a compensation fund for victims, paid for with increased fines for those who are convicted of promoting prostitution. It also would make the crime of furnishing drugs to a prostitute an aggravated offense…Ben Grant, chairman of the Maine Democratic Party, accused Volk, a pro-life legislator, of trying to “soften her edges” on women’s issues by sponsoring the bill…
This is, of course, a nonsensical accusation; a bill which infantilizes women (compare “furnishing drugs to a prostitute” with “furnishing alcohol to a minor”) would hardly seem out of character for an anti-abortion politician, and the “sex trafficking” hysteria is so thoroughly grounded in Protestant Christian morality that the politician Linda Smith, founder of Shared Hope International, once described “anti-trafficking” activism as “an extension of the ‘pro-life’ cause”. Yet the most important advantage of the hysteria to governments is only hinted at in the article above; it is spelled out clearly in the one below:
Recently the Virginia House of Delegates passed two bills ostensibly aimed at…human trafficking…HB 235 forces people convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute to register as sex offenders. HB 660 enables prosecutors to seize the earnings of sex workers. The bills were submitted by…Rob Bell…who in 2012 voted in favor of a bill requiring all women to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound prior to having an abortion. In the same session, he was the primary sponsor of a bill…requiring police to inquire into the citizenship of anyone arrested, regardless of criminal charges…[So-called] abolitionists want to eliminate sex work through more punitive legislation. Generally motivated by moral opposition to sex work, they have moved into using outrage and concern over human trafficking to push for harsher laws aimed at punishing sex workers. HB 660 is exactly this sort of bill. It allows police to take possession of these women’s property, including cash and vehicles, upon their arrest. The women don’t even need to be convicted…incentivizing cops to arrest more grown women by allowing them to seize their earnings will do nothing but line the pockets of police department at the expense of an already-vulnerable population…
All three strands come together in the person of Rob Bell: the fundamentalist Christian crusade to control women’s bodies, a xenophobic anti-immigrant agenda and an opportunity to fill the state’s coffers by legalized theft. Official narratives pretend that government actors want to “help” sex workers, but in reality the only people these “authorities” are “helping” is themselves.
#facepalm
I try to tell Christians that we have a lot of idiots running the country right now – and that all they really have to do is be sensible – and not elect the fundamentalists among them that just can’t resist stupid clown tricks – and they could be a force for good in government.
But they keep doing shit like this and it’s what turns everyone else off to Christians – well that, and the innate human need to hate SOMEONE in order to feel better about themselves.
Over a year ago, I started actively searching for a blog like Maggie’s. What motivated me was reading an article with “Sex Trafficking” as part of the title but as I read the article it became clear that it was describing a run of the mill prostitution crackdown by the police with the word “trafficked” substituting for terms like “prostitute” and “selling sex”…realized the whole “trafficking” meme was bullshit and figured there had to be someone else on the net who reached the same conclusion.
Interesting that you mention civil rights and gay rights movements. As these two movements have reached respectability, so sex work and trafficking have become more ostracised. You could easily imagine that both movements included those who were ‘others’, those in society whom so many wish to blame for so much. So, if there is a ‘need’ for ‘others’ to blame, this has shifted to a group that once was tolerated. Before 1967, homosexuality was a crime in UK; from midnight tonight (28 March) gay or equal marriage arrives in England (though not, of course, in N Ireland). And yet in 1957, in a parliamentary debate on the Wolfenden Report (into homosexuality and prostitution), a speaker took:
“the old-fashioned view…that men have every right to a reasonable supply of prostitutes and should not in any way be restrained from resorting to them.”
The speaker was Geoffrey Fisher, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England.
Racial tensions have eased somewhat in the past 50 years; where once it was common to see on rooms available for rent the message, “No Blacks, No Irish” such discrimination is now illegal.
And if prostitution was available to (young) men in Fisher’s time, the sexual revolution, it could be argued, has worked against the institution of prostitution as a necessity. It’s also possible, at least in the UK, to suggest that the emphasis on trafficking rose more or less in parallel with the opening of borders within the European Community, and the ability for any citizen to migrate anywhere to work within the EU. Romania and Bulgaria didn’t have this free right of passage when they joined the EU; it was delayed for seven years after their accession. But now, so we are warned, a vast influx can be expected; some politicians speak as if the entire populations of both countries will descend on the UK. They are now the ‘other’.
I’ve never really made the connection between opposition to trafficking and opposition to illegal immigration. I don’t see a connection between the two in the minds of most folks.
I discount the “trafficking” meme because I recognize it as feminist bullshit. Yet – I still believe in enforcing borders simply because it makes no sense not to. I don’t leave my house unlocked … ever … and I don’t know anyone who does. This does not mean I’m racially motivated. I actually favor a comprehensive solution to the illegals currently in the U.S. and I’m fine with the hard working ones who aren’t involved in crime staying here and becoming citizens.
So there’s no connection in it for me whatsoever. When I talk to friends and the word “trafficking” is mentioned – they very clearly prove to me that they see “trafficking” as some kind deal where innocent women are whisked off to become sex slaves by either White or Black Americans. They never apply the “trafficking” notion to illegals.
So I think that those on our side who try to make such a link are using a lazy debate tactic – and trying to instill doubt in the MOTIVES (not the arguments) of those who believe in Trafficking. And … of course – you’re going to be able to find people who buy into the Church of Trafficking and who ALSO think all illegals should be deported … like yesterday! But those people are indicative of the rational whole … at least not in my experience.
The potential immigrants to the UK are legal. But many people think that they will take “our” jobs away, so they aren’t wanted. Unfortunately, they do the jobs that we don’t want to do—at least, that is the common belief.
As for illegal immigrants and trafficking: surely, it’s the “illegal” bit. Trafficking is illegal, so people being trafficked must be being brought for nefarious reasons. It’s a mixture of moral outrage and prurient titillation, the sort of thing that appeals to so many readers of the yellow press, not that they would ever admit it.
I have often wondered if a simple change in the law would have much effect on the nastier aspects of the trade — trafficking and vicious pimps. Consider the prostitutes Alice and Bob and the client John who enjoys one or both; I cannot see that any of them are doing anything that should be illegal if all are of age and no-one is forced, drugged into non-resistance, etc.
But what if Peter the pimp does force A or B? In my view, Peter is guilty of rape, even though it is J who actually does the deed. John is too if he knows — or in the view of the court should reasonably have known — that A was underage, B under coersion or whatever.
I rather like the idea that a pimp or trafficker who forces multiple people into sex work might get convicted of a few dozen or a few hundred counts of rape and therefore whacked with some really heavy penalty (subject of course to the judge’s discretion), but I am not certain the notion would be practical.
Rape, abduction, false imprisonment, slavery, assault and anything else which constitutes such behavior is already illegal. So-called “pimp” laws have only one purpose: the criminalization of sex workers.
Indeed, the next thing I expect to see in this campaign is interviews with alleged victims who tell their (supposed) stories and agree that they needed to be rescued. It will turn out that they are phonies, either paid or given clemency in exchange for the favorable fake publicity.