Routledge Handbook of Human Trafficking

by Piotrowicz, Ryszard; Rijken, Conny; Uhl, Baerbel Heide

  This is not to propose a return to the old system: criminalisation of the industry and marginalisation of its workers will never lead to the protection of their human rights and the eradication of abuses, as recently acknowledged by Amnesty International.50 What is clear is that while decriminalisation is a first step towards recognising the human and labour rights of sex workers, this is not itself sufficient. The willingness to actively intervene in labour relations, to take account of the interest of sex workers in the protection of their privacy and to actively involve them in the design and implementation of policies is as important. Failing to do so not only risks weakening rather than strengthening the position of sex workers, but also goes at the cost of addressing abuses in the sector.

  Notes

  1 Van Doorninck, M. and Wijers, M., “They Get What They Deserve: Labour Rights for Sex Workers”, in Canter, D., Iannou, M., and Youngs, D. (eds.), Safer Sex in the City: The Experience and Management of Street Prostitution (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), p. 101, at p. 109.

  2 Daalder, A.L., Het bordeelverbod opgeheven. Prostitutie in 2000–2001 (The Hague: WODC Ministry of Justice, 2002), p. 8.

  3 Brants, C., “The Fine art of Regulated Tolerance: Prostitution in Amsterdam” (1998) 25 Journal of Law and Society 621.

  4 Van Doorninck, M. and Wijers, M., “They Get What They Deserve: Labour Rights for Sex Workers”, in Canter, D., Iannou, M., and Youngs, D. (eds.), Safer Sex in the City, The Experience and Management of Street Prostitution (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), p. 101, at p. 107.

  5 Van Doorninck, M., Mr. A. de Graaf Stichting, 30 jaar Instituut voor Prostitutievraagstukken. Een retrospectief (Amsterdam: Mr. A de Graaf Stichting, 2004), pp. 2–3; Altink, S., Handel in hartstocht. Het prostitutiebedrijf in Nederland (Zutphen: Alpha, 1995), p. 130; Van Mens, L. and van der Helm, T., Mobiliteit in de Nederlandse prostitutie. Een inventarisatie uitgevoerd in het kader van EUROPAP 1998–1999 (Amsterdam/Utrecht: GG&GD/Stichting SOA-bestrijding, 1999).

  6 Outshoorn, J., “Pragmatism in the Polder: Changing Prostitution Policy in the Netherlands” (2004) 12(2) Journal of Contemporary European Studies 165, at p. 167.

  7 Pheterson, G., Dutch Prostitution Law “Reform”. Emancipation Strategy or Colonial Instrument of Migration Control (Presentation Panel Discussion on Sex Work, Feminism, Trafficking in Women, and Migration Policies, De Balie, Amsterdam, 12 February 2001), pp. 1–2.

  8 Van Doorninck, M. and Wijers, M., “They Get What They Deserve: Labour Rights for Sex Workers”, in Canter, D., Iannou, M., and Youngs, D. (eds.), Safer Sex in the City: The Experience and Management of Street Prostitution (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), p. 101, at p. 107.

  9 Nota bestrijding van sexueel geweld tegen vrouwen en meisjes, Parliamentary Papers, TK 1983–1984, 18 542, No. 2 (The Hague: Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, 1984), p. 50.

  10 Verbeek, H., Goede bedoelingen. Zaakwaarnemers in een hoerenorganisatie (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1996), p. 14.

  11 Kempadoo, K. and Doezema, J., Global Sex Workers: Rights, Resistance, and Redefinition (New York and London: Routledge, 1998), pp. 20–21.

  12 Van Doorninck, M. and Wijers, M., “They Get What They Deserve: Labour Rights for Sex Workers”, in Canter, D., Iannou, M., and Youngs, D. (eds.), Safer Sex in the City: The Experience and Management of Street Prostitution (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), p. 101, at p. 108.

  13 Nota bestrijding van sexueel geweld tegen vrouwen en meisjes, Parliamentary Papers, TK 1983–1984, 18 542, No. 2 (The Hague: Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, 1984), pp. 34–35.

  14 Buijs, H.W.J. and Verbraken, A.M., Onderzoek naar aard, globale omvang en de kanalen waarlangs vrouwenhandel naar Nederland plaatsvindt (The Hague: Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, 1985).

  15 Van Doorninck, M., and Wijers, M., “They Get What They Deserve: Labour Rights for Sex Workers”, in Canter, D., Iannou, M., and Youngs, D. (eds.), Safer Sex in the City, The Experience and Management of Street Prostitution (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), p. 101, at p. 108.

  16 Lap-Chew, L., Traffic in Women – Exploitation and Survival (Presentation at the Women and Development Public Seminar Series “Gender, Power and Resistance”, The Hague: Institute of Social Studies, 12 February 1990), p. 8.

  17 Pheterson, G., Necessity of a Warm Welcome to Foreign Women (Presentation at the “Day on Trafficking in Women”, Soeterijn, Amsterdam, 15 April 1989), p. 1.

  18 Haveman, R. and Wijers, M., “Vrouwenhandel als politiek spel. Over Onbeheersbare Stromen van Pros-tituees” (1992) 5 Nemesis 30, pp. 30–31.

  19 Parliamentary Papers, TK 1988–1989, 21 027, No. 3, p. 8. Quoted in: Haveman, R. and Wijers, M., “Exploitatie van prostitutie en mensenhandel. Over rijpe vrouwen en onschuldige meisjes” (21 May 1992) 21 NJB 664, p. 666.

  20 International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women of Full Age, Stb.1935, 598.

  21 Haveman, R. and Wijers, M., “Exploitatie van prostitutie en mensenhandel. Over rijpe vrouwen en onschuldige meisjes” (21 May 1992) 21 NJB 664, p. 666.

  22 Ms. Soutendijk (CDA), Handelingen Tweede Kamer, 20 mei 1992. Quoted in: Haveman, R. and Wijers, M., “Vrouwenhandel als politiek spel. Over onbeheersbare stromen van prostituees” (1992) 5 Nemesis 30, p. 33.

  23 Haveman, R. and Wijers, M., “Vrouwenhandel als politiek spel. Over onbeheersbare stromen van pros-tituees” (1992) 5 Nemesis 30, pp. 30–35.

  24 Zuidema, R., Aerts, M.C.M., and Boonstra, K., Arbeidsrecht voor prostituees? de (on) mogelijkheid van toepassing in het arbeidsrecht op arbeidsverhoudingen in de prostitutiebranche (Amsterdam: Hugo Sinzheimer Instituut, 2006), p. 5.

  25 Haveman, R. and Wijers, M., “Exploitatie van prostitutie en mensenhandel. Over rijpe vrouwen en onschuldige meisjes” (21 May 1992) 21 NJB 664, p. 669.

  26 Haveman, R., “Een prostitutieverbod voor de buitenlandse vrouw. Opheffing bordeelverbod en de Wet arbeid vreemdelingen” (1997) 9(10) Migrantenrecht 195–199.

  27 Wagenaar, H., Altink, S., and Amesberger, H., Final Report of the International Comparative Study of Prostitution Policy: Austria and the Netherlands (The Hague: Platform 31, 2013), p. 67.

  28 Pitcher, J. and Wijers, M., “The Impact of Different Regulatory Models on the Labour Conditions, Safety and Welfare of Indoor-based Sex Workers” (2014) 14(5) Criminology and Criminal Justice 549, at p. 553. doi:10.1177/1748895814531967.

  29 Daalder, A.L., Prostitutie in Nederland anno 2014 (The Hague: WODC Ministry of Justice, 2015), p. 15; Van Wijk, A., Van Ham, T., Hardeman, M., and Bremmers, B., Prostitutie in Nederlandse gemeenten. Een onderzoek naar aard en omvang, beleid, toezicht en handhaving (Arnhem/The Hague: Beke/WODC Ministry of Justice, 2014), pp. 15–19, 70–72.

  30 Pitcher, J. and Wijers, M., “The Impact of Different Regulatory Models on the Labour Conditions, Safety and Welfare of Indoor-based Sex Workers” (2014) 14(5) Criminology and Criminal Justice 549, at p. 557. doi:10.1177/1748895814531967.

  31 Wagenaar, H., Altink, S., and Amesberger, H., Final Report of the International Comparative Study of Prostitution Policy: Austria and the Netherlands (The Hague: Platform 31, 2013), p. 31; Felicia Anna, Behind the Red Light District (blog), “Amsterdam Putting Another 135 Prostitutes Out of a Job” (15 January 2016), http://behindtheredlightdistrict.blogspot.nl/2016_01_01_archive.html.

  32 Buijs, L. and Duits, L., Amsterdam Plan to Save Prostitutes Is a Billion Euro Gentrification Project (blog), https://medium.com/@lalalalinder/amsterdams-plan-to-save-prostitutes-is-a-billion-euro-gentrification-project-375183088650; The Guardian, “Amsterdam’s Sex Workers: The Unlikely Victims of Gentrification” (15 January 2016), www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jan/15/amsterdam-sex-workers-unlikely-victims-gentrification-red-light-district.

  33 NOS, “Prostituees Protesteren in Amsterdam” (9 April 2015), http://nos.nl/artikel/2029383-prostitueesprotesteren-in-amsterdam.html.

  34 Altink, A., Van Liempt, I., and Wijers, M., “The Netherlands”, in Jahnsen, S. and Wagenaar, H. (eds.), Assessing Prostitution Policies in Europe (Milton Park, UK: Routledge
, 2018, forthcoming), pp. 98–118.

  35 Daalder, A.L., Prostitutie in Nederland anno 2014 (The Hague: WODC Ministry of Justice, 2015), pp. 15, 27–28; Van Wijk, A., Van Ham, T., Hardeman, M., and Bremmers, B., Prostitutie in Nederlandse gemeenten. Een onderzoek naar aard en omvang, beleid, toezicht en handhaving (Arnhem/The Hague: Beke/WODC Ministry of Justice, 2014), pp. 54, 58–59, 84–88, 99.

  36 Daalder A.L., Prostitutie in Nederland na opheffing van het bordeelverbod (The Hague: WODC Ministry of Justice, 2007); Biesma, S., R. van der Stoep, H. Naayer, and B. Bieleman, Verboden bordelen. Evaluatie opheffing bordeelverbod: niet legale prostitutie (Intraval/WODC, 2006).

  37 Van Hout, M.M.J., and van der Laan, F.J., Schone Schijn. De signalering van mensenhandel in de vergunde Pros-titutiesector (Driebergen: KLPD, Dienst Nationale Recherche, 2008).

  38 Altink, A., Van Liempt, I., and Wijers, M., “The Netherlands”, in Jahnsen, S. and Wagenaar, H. (eds.), Assessing Prostitution Policies in Europe (Milton Park, UK: Routledge, 2017, forthcoming), pp. 98–118.

  39 Nijkamp, R., Sijtstra, M., Snippe, J., and Bieleman, B., Verboden Rood in Beeld. Onderzoek naar aard en omvang van niet-legale prostitutie in 2014 (Groningen/Rotterdam: Intraval, 2014), pp. 89–98.

  40 Daalder, A.L., Prostitutie in Nederland anno 2014 (The Hague: WODC Ministry of Justice, 2015), pp. 23–24, 31; Bleeker, Y., Heuls, L., and Homburg, G., Sekswerkers aan het woord. De sociale positie van sekswerkers in Nederland in 2014 (Amsterdam: Regioplan, 2014), pp. 17–18, 77–78.

  41 Wagenaar, H., Altink, S., and Amesberger, H., Final Report of the International Comparative Study of Prostitution Policy: Austria and the Netherlands (The Hague: Platform 31, 2013), p. 35.

  42 Ibid., at pp. 67–68.

  43 Zuidema, R., Aerts, M.C.M., and Boonstra, K., Arbeidsrecht voor prostituees? de (on) mogelijkheid van toepassing in het arbeidsrecht op arbeidsverhoudingen in de prostitutiebranche (Amsterdam: Hugo Sinzheimer Instituut, 2006), pp. 2–3; Van Doorninck, M. and Wijers, M., “They Get What They Deserve: Labour Rights for Sex Workers”, in Canter, D., Iannou, M., and Youngs, D. (eds.), Safer Sex in the City: The Experience and Management of Street Prostitution (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), p. 101, at p. 111.

  44 De Rode Draad, Sekswerk in 2011. Trendrapport (Amsterdam: De Rode Draad, 2012); Pitcher, J. and Wijers, M., “The Impact of Different Regulatory Models on the Labour Conditions, Safety and Welfare of Indoor-based Sex Workers” (2014) 14(5) Criminology and Criminal Justice 549, at p. 555; Ketelaars, E., “Opting-in in de relaxbranche, een legitieme oplossing?” (2015) 36(1) Recht der Werkelijkheid 18–40.

  45 De Rode Draad, Notes on the Bill to regulate prostitution and combat abuses in the sex secto r, Second and First Chamber of Parliament (Amsterdam: De Rode Draad, January 2009, 15 December 2009, 12 June 2012); Coalition of NGOs, sex workers, service providers, academics, jurists, etc., Letters to the Second and First Chamber of Parliament on the Bill to regulate prostitution and combat abuses in the sex sector (1 December 2009, 20 April 2010, 20 June 2010); VVR (Association Women & Law Clara Wichmann), Letters to the Second and First Chamber of Parliament on the Bill to regulate prostitution and combat abuses in the sex sector (Leiden: VVR, 1 December 2009, 20 April 2010, 25 January 2011, 15 March 2011, 11 April 2011, 9 May 2011, 27 November 2011, 7 May 2012, 12 June 2012; 18 March 2013, 24 May 2013, 2 July 2013); PIC (Prostitution Information Centre), Letter to the Second Chamber of Parliament on the Bill to regulate prostitution and combat abuses in the sex sector (Amsterdam: PIC, 7 November 2011); Wijers, M., “Registratieplicht voor prostituees. Een sprong voorwaarts naar de negentiende eeuw” (2011) 2(2) SEKSOA 23–27.

  46 VVR, Juridische analyse inzake mogelijke strijdigheid van de voorgestelde algehele registratieplicht voor prostituees met de Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens (Leiden; VVR, 2011); Wijers, M., “The concept of ‘sensitive data’ and mandatory registration of sex workers as an anti-trafficking measure: the case of the Netherlands”, in Roth, P., Uhl, B.H., Wijers, M., and Zikkenheiner, W., Data Protection Challenges in Anti-Trafficking Policies: A Practical Guide (Berlin: KOK e.V. –German NGO Network Against Trafficking in Human Beings, 2015), pp. 48–53.

  47 PROUD, Letter to the Second Chamber of Parliament on the Bill to Regulate Prostitution and Combat Abuses in the Sex Sector (Amsterdam: PROUD, 4 October 2015, 5 April 2016); VVR, SWexpertise, Rutgers, TAMPEP, SoaAids.nl & Shop, Letter to the Second Chamber of Parliament on the Bill to Regulate Prostitution and Combat Abuses in the Sex Sector (5 October 2015); SoaAids Nederland & Rutgers, Letter to the Second Chamber of the Parliament on the Bill to Regulate Prostitution and Combat Abuses in the Sex Sector (27 May 2016).

  48 Weitzer, R., “Human Trafficking and Contemporary Slavery” (2015) 41 Annual Review of Sociology 223–242.

  49 PROUD & SWexpertise, Netherlands’ Sex Workers and Activists Denounce Proposed Flawed Research (Letter to the Members of Parliament, Amsterdam/The Hague: PROUD/SWexpertise, 26 January 2015); Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Lugtig, P., Bos, P., Elevelt, A., and Helms, A. Aan de grenzen van het meetbare. De methodologische kwaliteit van internationale studies naar de omvang van aan prostitutie gerelateerde mensenhandel met nadruk op Noordwest Europa (Utrecht/The Hague: Universiteit voor Humanistiek, WODC, 2016).

  50 Amnesty International, Amnesty International Publishes Policy and Research on Protection of Sex Workers’ Rights (Press Release, 25 May 2016).

  39

  A critical engagement with the “pull and push” model

  Human trafficking and migration into sex work

  Sealing Cheng

  Introduction

  It has now become commonplace to use a set of ‘push-pull factors’ to talk about cross-border movements – migration, smuggling, and human trafficking. Rooted in modernisation theory, scholars of migration in the 1960s developed the push-pull model to understand migration both within and across countries, as part of broader social, economic, and cultural transformations.1 Embedded in this framework of theorising is a binary of developed and developing, city and countryside, modern versus traditional:2

  Modernization theory splits causes of migration into “push” factors associated with “traditional” societies and “pull” factors located in “developed” areas and evaluates how they influence individual decision making of migrants and stay-at homes.3

  In the new millennium, the relative simplicity of the push-pull model has become a popular way for the media, activists, and States to frame a particular understanding of migration flows, while simultaneously articulating the relationship between sending and receiving countries. This is particularly the case for women’s migration into sex work.

  The common factors that get identified as ‘push’ factors of migration from a country include poverty, unemployment, high crime rates, police corruption, poor security, and war and conflicts, as well as natural disasters such as drought, crop failure, and flooding. On the receiving end, where migrants are ‘pulled’ in, there are usually relatively better living standards, employment opportunities, peace, and security. When it comes to sex work and migration, which is commonly conflated with sex trafficking and the victimisation of women and children,4 patriarchal traditions, gender inequalities, and structural vulnerabilities of women would be added to the list of ‘push’ factors to accentuate the gendered nature of such a migration flow – even though migrant men and transgender persons also engage in sex work. Furthermore, in this perspective, globalisation processes generate unrealistic expectations of migrant women in the developing world that ‘pull’ them into migration, giving them false hopes for wealth and modernity, as well as glorifying prostitution overseas.5 In host countries, the existence of a ‘demand’ for sex work, police corruption, and powerful transnational organised criminal networks – often embodied in the ‘evil traffickers’ –come to dominate the imagination of victims’ suffering.6

  This chapter will argue that the push-pull model is not only limited in scope in the consideration of migration flows, but further deflects consideration from the respons
ibilities of States in engendering unsafe migration, including, but not exclusive to, migration into sex work. The persistence of the push-pull model perpetuates two major problems in understanding migration: a bipolar framework of analysis opposing sending and receiving countries7 that reinforces the borders between the two; and a myopic focus on the individual migrant as the site of intervention. It concludes with a discussion of the need to go beyond the push-pull understanding of migration into sex work, for both policy considerations and theoretical understanding of women’s sexuality, cross-border travel, and neoliberalism.

  The push-pull model has conceptual overlaps with the ‘supply-demand’ model that has become popular in discussions about human trafficking in the new millennium. While the former has its roots in the migration literature, the latter was borrowed from the field of economics, and therefore sought to understand migration flows as market forces. They both assume that sending and receiving countries are distinct, and that the flow of workers is shaped primarily by pull factors/demand (the superior labour and national conditions that attract migrants/the availability of jobs and high wages in a receiving State). Both models rely on quantitative data, and both fail to grapple with the knowledge, desires, and networks that facilitate migrant workers’ decisions to move to a particular destination, or the particular form of labour that they take up. Furthermore, the supply/demand framework gives rise to an explanatory compulsion that “trafficking is demand-led.” This assumption has been powerfully debunked in empirical studies.8 Yet it has not prevented the globalisation of the ‘End Demand’ approach to human trafficking first promulgated by the Swedish government.