Sex for Sale~Prostitution, Pornography and the Sex Industry (60 page)

Normalization is seen in the very premise behind state-regulated, legal prostitution. CATW’s mission is broad: to “challenge acceptance of the sex industry, normalization of prostitution as work, and to de-romanticize legalization initiatives in various countries.”70

A second assertion is that legalization causes or serves as a magnet for increased sex trafficking. The claim is based on the notion of least resistance: legalization removes the constraints on a formerly illegal and circumscribed enterprise and thus leads to its proliferation. CATW’s co-director declares that

“legalized or decriminalized prostitution industries are one of the root causes of sex trafficking.”71 And Linda Smith, director of Shared Hope International, testified in Congress that the government should “consider countries with legalized or tolerated prostitution as having laws that are insufficient efforts to eliminate trafficking. . . . Where there is a strong adult sex industry, the commercial sexual exploitation of children and sex slavery increases.”72

Concerned Women for America claims that “legalizing prostitution does not remedy the problem of sex trafficking but rather increases it.”73

The causal link between legal prostitution and trafficking has not been empirically established. In fact, the State Department’s own assessments appear to undercut this claim: in its 2005
Trafficking in Persons Report
, several nations where prostitution is legal (Australia, Germany, Holland, New Zealand) were found to “fully comply with minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.”74 Moreover, the
Report
reveals that the Dutch authorities report a “decrease in trafficking in the legal sector,” a finding confirmed by other analysts.75 Rather than being a magnet attracting migrants into a country, it appears that legal prostitution may help
reduce
trafficking due to enhanced government regulation and oversight of the legal sector. And the obverse may also be true: “Traffickers take advantage of the illegality of commercial sex work and migration, and are able to exert an undue amount of power and control over [migrants]. . . . In such cases, it is the laws that prevent legal commercial sex work and immigration that form the major obstacles.”76 As Murray writes, “It is the prohibition of prostitution and restrictions on travel which attract organized crime and create the
338

SEX TRAFFICKING: FACTS AND FICTIONS

possibilities for large profits, as well as creating the prostitutes’ need for protection and assistance.”77

Research indicates that, under the right conditions, legal prostitution can be organized in a way that enhances workers’ safety, health, and job satisfaction. This includes studies of legal prostitution systems in Australia, Holland, Nevada, and New Zealand.78 None of this is to suggest that these systems are problem free, but the evidence from these sites contrasts strikingly with the image of proffered by the antiprostitution crusade.

In short, the core claims of this moral crusade are either exaggerated, unverifiable, or demonstrably false—depending on the claim in question.

Common to all of these claims are sweeping declarations that ignore counterevidence and give prominence to anecdotal stories describing worst cases.

Crusade claims are contradicted by a large body of social science research. This research shows that prostitution and trafficking take multiple forms and exists under varying conditions, which translates into diverse experiences for workers—a complexity that undermines sweeping generalizations.79

I N STITUTI O N A L IZ ATI O N O F C R U S A D E C L A I M S

Some moral crusades fail to achieve any of their goals, while others succeed in influencing public opinion, legislation, or organizational practices. If the social problem identified by activists is accepted by the authorities as a bona fide problem, the crusade may gradually become institutionalized in state policy.
Institutionalization
may be limited or extensive—ranging from consultation with activists, inclusion of leaders in the policy process, material support for crusade organizations, official endorsement of crusade ideology, resource mobilization, and new legislation and agencies to address the problem. The institutionalization of the antiprostitution crusade follows this trajectory.

During the final years of the Clinton administration, there was some limited accommodation of crusade demands. The TVPA was passed in late 2000, which created the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. Antitrafficking activists were pleased with the new agency but dissatisfied with the statute’s definitions and provisions regarding trafficking. TVPA distinguished “sex trafficking” (which may be voluntarily entered into) from “severe trafficking” (which involves “force, fraud, or coercion” or persons under age 18); TVPA protections and sanctions apply only to severe trafficking.80 The Clinton administration distinguished forced and voluntary prostitution, did not link prostitution to trafficking, did not
339

RONALD WEITZER AND MELISSA DITMORE

claim that legal prostitution increases trafficking into a country, and resisted mandatory sanctions against nations with poor records in combating trafficking. Abolitionists unsuccessfully lobbied the Clinton administration to reconsider each of these positions.81

After George Bush took office in January 2001, the movement’s access to policymakers steadily increased. The director of the State Department’s trafficking office, John R. Miller, revealed in 2005 that the federal government has been “working closely with faith-based, community, and feminist organizations” to combat all forms of prostitution.82 Miller credits these groups with keeping trafficking on the front burner: “They’re consumed by this issue. I think it’s great. It helped get the legislation passed, it helped spur me. I think it keeps the whole government focused.”83 Antiprostitution forces frequently network with government officials during private meetings, at conferences, and at hearings—giving them unique opportunities to shape the terms of the debate and subsequent policy changes. Groups that do not share the crusade’s views have been denied such access.84

Consultation evolved into a more formal, ongoing collaboration. Many antiprostitution and antitrafficking groups are now official “partners” with government agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), for example, created a Rescue and Restore Coalition, which formally aligns HHS with many of this crusade’s organizations.85 An even stronger indicator of inclusion is the circulation of actors between a social movement and government agencies, with the resulting amalgamation of their ideological positions. Some former antiprostitution activists are now working in key government agencies. For example, a prominent antipornography activist in the 1980s, Laura Lederer founded the antitrafficking Protection Project in the 1990s, and was later hired as a senior advisor in the State Department’s trafficking office. Lederer’s inclusion within the government is part of the reason the State Department has adopted a discourse and policies identical to those advocated by the Protection Project.

Government funding of movement organizations is a third type of institutionalization. Groups that shared the Bush administration’s perspective on the sex industry benefited materially in several ways. First, the government has spent considerable funds sponsoring antitrafficking conferences throughout the world, which occur frequently; one in Washington, DC, in February 2005 had a $1.8 million price tag.86 Organizations critical of U.S.

government trafficking policy have not been invited to these events. Second, under the Bush administration’s Faith-Based Initiative, a huge amount of federal grant money has been awarded to religious organizations in the U.S.

and abroad that are involved in promoting a conservative social agenda,
340

SEX TRAFFICKING: FACTS AND FICTIONS

including antiabortion programs, abstinence education, and church-run social services.87 Among the organizations receiving government funding are prominent abolitionist feminist organizations (CATW, Protection Project, SAGE), faith-based organizations (Catholic Conference of Bishops, Salvation Army, International Justice Mission, World Vision, Shared Hope International) and their allies around the world.88 These groups receive funding to conduct research and/or to identify and rescue victims. For example, Raymond and Hughes received $189,000 from the National Institute of Justice to write a report on trafficking, a report that drew sweeping conclusions based on interviews with just 40 persons.89 In fact, the quality of much of this funded research has been questioned by the GAO, which cited the State Department’s own inspector general’s concern with “the credentials of the organizations and findings of the research that the Trafficking Office funded”; the inspector general called for rigorous peer review and greater oversight of the funding process.90 And the former director of HHS’s antitrafficking program, Steven Wagner, went even further in criticizing the distribution of millions of dollars to antitrafficking groups and the lack of accountability involved: “Those funds were wasted. Many of the organizations that received grants didn’t really have to do anything.”91

The ultimate type of institutionalization involves changes in government discourse, policy, and law consistent with crusade interests and demands. In other words, the movement’s central goals become a project of the government. This has occurred under the Bush administration. In a remarkably short time span, the crusade’s ideology was accepted, incorporated into official policy, and implemented in agency practices. This institutionalization is apparent in (1) the public pronouncements of government officials,92 (2) the official positions of government agencies, including State, Justice, USAID, and HHS, (3) the State Department’s annual
Trafficking in Persons Report
, (4) the State Department’s seminal document,
The Link between Prostitution and Sex
Trafficking
, (5) and the laws reauthorizing the TVPA in 2003, 2005, and 2008—hereafter, TVPRA. Leading antiprostitution activists played a key role in shaping this legislation.93

The publications and websites of HHS, State, and Justice cite or provide links to the writings of prominent crusade members (e.g., Donna Hughes, Janice Raymond, Melissa Farley), which effectively privileges their opinions.

Such references can be found on the State Department’s website, which also proclaims that prostitution “is inherently harmful”; that it “leaves women and children physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually devastated”; that legal prostitution “creates a safe haven for criminals who traffic people into prostitution”; and that prostitution is “the oldest form of oppression.”

341

RONALD WEITZER AND MELISSA DITMORE

Activists successfully pressed the U.S. government to adopt a policy denying funding to organizations that were not sufficiently committed to abolishing prostitution or that dispensed condoms and other assistance to workers without trying to rescue them. Today, to be eligible for U.S. funding, any foreign NGO working on the trafficking front must declare its opposition to legal prostitution. The State Department’s website is unequivocal: “No U.S.

grant funds should be awarded to foreign non-governmental organizations that support legal state-regulated prostitution.” Similarly, the AIDS funding law of 2003 (known as the Global AIDS Act) requires that any international organization working to curb AIDS must “have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” if it wishes to receive such funding. This applies to American groups insofar as they work with or subcontract work to international organizations. Organizations that do not take a position on prostitution, as well as those that favor decriminalization or legalization, are thus ineligible for AIDS funding from USAID or HHS. Similarly, the Justice Department now requires anyone applying for funding to conduct research on trafficking to certify that they do “not promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution.”94 Failure to do so results in summary denial of funding.

These funding restrictions eliminate consideration of competing points of view or research findings and further institutionalize the perspective of antiprostitution forces. Because of the restriction, several NGOs have rejected government funding. In May 2005, 171 American and foreign organizations signed a letter to President Bush opposing the antiprostitution pledge because they believe the policy interferes with promising interventions that require building trust with sex workers and only heightens the stigma associated with sex work.

Activists have pressed the government to criminalize not only trafficking but also “the commercial sex trade as a whole,”95 and they have met with some success thus far. The key legislation on sex trafficking refers to “commercial sexual activities,” defined as “any sex act on account of which anything of value is given to, or received by, any person.”96 The 2005 TVPRA contains a section on combating domestic trafficking in persons that repeatedly refers to the need to investigate and combat not only trafficking but also the “demand for commercial sex acts in the United States” (§201[a]). A recent assessment indicated that some antitrafficking agents equate trafficking and prostitution in their enforcement activities: “Some local task forces have focused exclusively on prostitution, making no distinction between prostitution and sex trafficking.”97 (Since 2006, the Justice Department has funded 42 multi-agency law enforcement task forces to identify and assist trafficked persons.)98 The 2005

342

SEX TRAFFICKING: FACTS AND FICTIONS

TVPRA authorizes $25 million a year for increased prosecution of those who

“purchase commercial sex acts” (§204[1b]) as well as other local efforts to crack down on customers (§204[1c]).

The TVPRA was reauthorized in December 2008 for another 3-year period.99 The 2008 law enhances enforcement capabilities—with the creation of an integrated database, expanded surveillance of the sex trade, and funding

“to examine the use of Internet-based businesses and services by criminal actors in the sex industry” (§237[c]). Funding is significantly increased for foreign and domestic antitrafficking programs run by the State Department, Labor Department, and HHS (§301). The antiprostitution pledge remains in the 2008 TVPRA.