World in denial about trafficking, says UN

By Archie Bland

Friday, 13 February 2009

Many of the world's governments are in denial about the extent and seriousness of human trafficking in which women are often significant offenders, according to a report by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

The study is the first comprehensive look at the world's trade in humans, drawing on evidence from 155 countries. It warns that the failure to prosecute modern-day slave traders means that efforts to fight the practice are severely hampered. And it draws the conclusion that in many countries most traffickers are female.

"It's sick that we should even need to write a report about slavery in the 21st century," said UNODC's executive director, Antonio Maria Costa. The report found many countries, including China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, failed to collect useful data on the problem.

Global conviction rates for human trafficking remain as low as 1.5 per 100,000 people. While a fifth of countries, many of them African, have no such offence on their books, the problems extend to many countries which have legislation in place: nearly 40 per cent of the countries examined have failed to record a single conviction.

"The problem is enforcement," said Tomoya Obokata, an expert in human trafficking, at Queens University Belfast. "Law enforcement officers just don't know the legislation, and they can't identify what trafficking is."

In eastern Europe and central Asia, women account for 60 per cent of the traffickers, many of them former slaves themselves, the report said.

The British Government has seen 79 of the 217 prosecutions brought against traffickers between 2004 and 2007 result in a conviction. "We are doing fine in the global context," said Dr Obokata. "But the conviction rate is low when you think of the number of victims."

The report's publication is part of a wider UN effort to turn the spotlight on the issue. Yesterday the actress Mira Sorvino was named a goodwill ambassador to combat the problem.

Article from Women Asylum News, Issue No 80, February 09

RWRP case: Trafficking of a minor

This article documents a recent RWRP case.

The case involves a young girl who had been forced to work in the sex industry from the age of 11. The case has been ongoing for a number of years and several complications and errors have occurred. RWRP have now secured humanitarian protection for the girl and this article will discuss the details and process below.
For this article the girl involved will be referred to as ‘M.’
Case details
M is a minor born in Ghana who was orphaned from birth. At age 11 M was taken to Uganda by a man who promised money and new clothes. Shortly after arrival in Uganda, M was raped and forced to work as a domestic help where she continued to be physically and sexually abused until she ran away. M befriended prostitutes and ended up working in the sex industry in Uganda for over a year. During this time, M’s pimp promised her that she could go to school abroad and made arrangements for her to have a passport and visa. The age on the passport was 24, therefore M’s pimp organised her to dress up and look older.
When M arrived in the UK she was immediately given to a group of men who detained and repeatedly sexually assaulted her for weeks. M managed to escape and for over a year and half lived with different people she met on the streets. M stated with one couple as a babysitter; however, the husband began to sexually abuse her so she left.

Arrest and First Application for Asylum
M was arrested in November 2006 by police in South East London. Directions were set for her removal to Ghana, however as she applied for a visa from Uganda and had a Ugandan passport the removal to Ghana was suspended. M claimed asylum under Ugandan nationality and her asylum application was fast tracked. An asylum organization represented her at her asylum interview however they refused to represent her further and consequently she represented
herself at the appeal in Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre.

Civil Claim and Judicial Review
On 21st December 2006, M was advised that removal would take place on 4th January 2007; however removal did not proceed due to an incident between her and the security guards on transit to the airport. A civil claim was pursued against the security guards by her civil liberties
lawyers. A judicial review application was lodged on grounds that her removal was unlawful. These lawyers also referred her to The Poppy Project as they believed she had been trafficked into the UK. M was assessed by the Poppy Project in March 2007 and in their view she was a victim of trafficking, an issue not considered by the Immigration Judge in her claim. The Poppy
Project referred the case to RWRP.

Fresh application for asylum
RWRP took instructions from M in which she gave details of her background; sexual
abuse as a child; working as a child prostitute; sexual abuse in the UK; fear of her pimp in Uganda and her lack of understanding of the asylum process in the UK. RWRP referred M to a
paediatrician for an age assessment who concluded that M was a minor. M was also
examined by numerous mental health experts who concluded that she was suffering from a ‘complex posttraumatic stress disorder’ and they too concluded she was a minor. RWRP submitted the evidence in line with paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules which states that:
“when a human rights or asylum claim has been refused or withdrawn or treated as withdrawn under paragraph 333C of these Rules and any appeal relating to that claim is no longer
pending, the decision maker will consider any further submissions and, if rejected, will then determine whether they amount to a fresh claim. The submissions will amount to a fresh claim
if they are significantly different from the material that has previously been considered.”
Expert reports including psychiatric and psychological reports were gathered and
served with the representations for asylum. A fresh claim was submitted in July 2007 and RWRP argued if M was returned to Uganda, she would be at risk of re-trafficking. The human rights arguments centred on her mental health and the risk of attempted suicide; risk of
further child prostitution on arrival and her physical and moral integrity. In respect of Ghana, it was also argued that she would be at risk of trafficking. For both countries, RWRP argued that internal relocation was not an option due to her profile as an orphaned, poor, vulnerable, female minor with a mental disorder and no familial support.
Procedurally, RWRP argued that there were a number of [recognised] barriers deterring M from being willing to reveal and report officially the details of her exploitation at the first instance. Although no reports were available at that stage of her case (notably, she was unrepresented)
RWRP argued there was a duty to reasonably assess whether M was a minor.
Notably all parties who had interviewed M after her first application stated that her appearance and demeanour provided a strong indication that she was a minor. Furthermore, M had said that she was a child prostitute and the initial decision makers were neither mindful nor sensitive to this issue and failed to give the anxious scrutiny required in such cases. In RWRP’s submission, if scrutiny of age and trafficking had been sufficiently assessed a different decision would have been reached about the Fast Track and detention process which could have influenced her asylum application. RWRP concluded that the process was unfair and the findings of the Secretary of State and the Immigration Judge cannot be relied on.

Delay
After submitting her fresh application to the Home Office in July 2007, the Home Office misplaced her file and did not acknowledge nor respond to any of the representations lodged for over a year until ECPAT UK intervened. M was invited for an interview in August 2008 but the
interview was deferred after it was identified that M’s file had been misplaced and there was no information on M’s case.
The interview was re-scheduled for September 2008 and M was informed that a decision would be made as soon as possible. The decision to grant M Humanitarian Protection was finally served
in January 2009.

Grant
According to the decision letter, the Home Office accepted that the representations amounted to a fresh application for asylum and although they refused the refugee protection aspect of the case, they accepted that M had given a credible account and that she would be at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. M was granted humanitarian protection for 5 years leave to remain.

Human Trafficking in the West Midlands: Conference Evaluation

Held on Friday 12 December 2008

Several SAHT members attended this conference last December in Birmingham. Here is the evaluation for those interested!

The Objectives of the conference were to:

· provide information about signs of trafficking to individuals and groups who may encounter trafficked people.

· examine and challenge the culture in which trafficking takes place.

· develop collaboration and joint actions in response to trafficking in the region.

Overall the event successfully met its objectives and provides a potential springboard for the development of future action on Human Trafficking in the West Midlands.

Participants

The Conference achieved its aim to bring together participants from statutory, commercial and third sectors whose activities are likely to bring them, or their colleagues, into contact with trafficked people. The statutory and third sectors were well represented, but the commercial sector had least representation. This could be an area for future focus – as human trafficking affects the commercial sector and countering human trafficking could be improved by greater participation by commercial organisations (especially in relation to their supply chains).

The following categories/organisations were represented at the conference:

• Health, Police, UK Border Agency, Education, Children’s and Social Services
• Students (University and Theological)
• Policy makers, NGOs
• Community and faith leaders

107 participants were involved in the conference, exceeding the target (100 participants). A list of the roles/organisations participants represented at the conference is attached (appendix 1).

The conference was supported by many organisations including those whose logos appear in the publicity and programme for the day (attached). We also had messages of support from local MPs Richard Burden and Clare Short..

Programme

Survey

A survey was used at the beginning of the conference (appendix 2). The results (from 35 respondents) revealed wide variations and some serious gaps in knowledge and confidence.

Definitions of Human Trafficking ranged from comprehensive to very limited (eg only involving sexual exploitation, or limited to women/women and children) and misleading (people entering another country without legal paperwork).

Respondents were split almost equally between those who would know who to contact in the case of human trafficking and those who would not know.

With regard to taking steps to ensure that victims could immediately be made safe and offered support, almost two thirds of respondents did not feel confident that they would identify a process which would be effective.

With regard to accurate identification of trafficked persons, almost ¾ of respondents would not feel confident.

All but one respondent had come across trafficking 5 or less times during the past year. Many of these may not have come across trafficking at all, however more than half the respondents felt they were likely to encounter trafficking for forced labour (60%) sexual exploitation (60%) or domestic servitude (54%).

Nearly half the respondents felt that they represented organisations which could be equipped to deal with forced labour/human trafficking.

Additional resources, especially information, were identified as being necessary to equip organisations to counter human trafficking more effectively.

Main Speakers and Workshops

Sue Anderson (Cabinet member for adults and communities, Birmingham City Council) provided the initial input, talking about her concerns about the issue and her commitment to taking actions necessary to eradicate human trafficking, especially in relation to the buying and selling of women for sex.

Steve Titterton (UK Human Trafficking Centre) stepped in at late notice to replace Ron Craigie who was ill. Steve talked about the UK context, with a brief look at trafficking for forced labour and stories of trafficking in the west midlands followed by a brief address on signs which might indicate human trafficking is taking place in different contexts. Steve stated that the UKHTC’s first priority is victim rescue, followed by tackling trafficking networks and prosecution.

Klara Skrivankova (Anti Slavery International) gave a talk on the international context of trafficking, what constitutes trafficking, and the UK action plan in relation to the signing of the UN Convention on Trafficking (due in January) with the subsequent minimum standards of care offered to all victims. In the UK this will include 45 days for victims’ recovery and reflection, during which time accommodation and support will be offered

All participants heard information which could help identify signs of trafficking in the West Midlands, the impact of trafficking (locally and globally) and what local and national politicians were thinking about the issues. 25% of responses to what was the most useful thing about the conference identified one or more of the main speakers.

As planned, workshops took place in relation to:

• Labour: Klara Skrivankova (Anti Slavery International)
• Law - Legal Issues: Ian Frost (Crown Prosecution Service)
• Sexual Exploitation and Tackling demand
  (i) Sexual Exploitation and Parents: Cat Gerry (CROP)
  (ii) Sex Trafficking: From Global Markets To Individuals: Tackling Demand And Caring For Survivors: Colin Darling and Fr Raphael Farmour (CHASTE)
• Safe spaces and returning home: Sally Montier (Poppy Project)
• Child Trafficking: Nicola Clarke and Safia Mun (Children’s Society)
• Taking risks to counter trafficking: Gary Hall and Rezarta Kardellena (Open Horizon)
• Developing educational resources: facilitated by Clare Daley (WMSMP)

In addition a workshop was offered on

• Challenging culture: Challenging Attitudes Embedded In Cultures Which Make the Possibility Of Trafficking Greater, e.g. Domestic Slavery: May Ikeora (Afruca)
  
  

Each workshop participant was invited to fill in a pledge form as a result of the workshops or the day in general. We received 50 (appendix 5) many of them specific and practical – so difficult to summarise. For example there were pledges to:

• feature an article on trafficking in the Barbershop Magazine
• develop a Daphne III bid
• extend accommodation to support victims.

25% of responses specifically identified a workshop or the workshops generally as the most useful part of the day. The legal issues workshop was highlighted for its usefulness.

More feedback on workshop and speaker content is included in appendix 3, and also in the evaluation summary (appendix 4)

Networking and Response Panel

Space was provided for networking over lunch with stands/information available from some key services and organisations including CROP, UKHTC,IOM, WMSMP. This opportunity to network and gain information about trafficking and organisations was appreciated (appendix 4).

A response panel including representatives from ASIRT, UKBA, UKHTC, and CPS were able to respond to questions and offer reflections on the day, which included positive indications that members of the panel and participants had found the day informative and useful.

Evaluation summary (appendix 4)

The final evaluation which was completed by 51 participants. All the responses received indicated that objectives for the day had been fully (74%) or partially met and that the event was useful (90%) or parts of the day were useful (remainder).

Things that people would have changed about the day focused mainly on timings and perhaps the desire for more information. In particular people would have liked more time for workshops. It is perhaps indicative of a wider gap in provision of focused, accurate and relevant information that there was such a demand for it.

Looking forward, all those who responded to the question whether they would be interested in a follow up event said that they would.

There were many pledges and actions which agencies and individuals were committed to take forward (see appendix 4, bullet 6 and appendix 5).

Budget and Cost Reimbursement

We are hopeful that when all the expenses and donations have been received this conference will be fully paid for. So far we have been promised £500 from the Safer Birmingham Partnership and we are hopeful of a grant of £250 from the CPS as well as donations from Believing in Birmingham. We have received individual donations of money towards work on trafficking which, if necessary, could be used to cover conference costs. The generosity of Carrs Lane Church Centre and the donations of time from many organisations and individuals was crucial to the success of this conference. Final figures for the expenses etc. will be available when all grants have been paid and donations and expenses received. We are grateful to the staff of Methodist Central Mission for their support and willingness to process payments.

SAHT DEBATE: Thursday 12th of february

Open Discussion #1: Victimization vs. Agency

Thursday, February 12th, 3:30 pm
Russel Building Room 29

Agency refers to someone's ability or capacity to enact a decision he/she's made.
The purpose of this meeting is to explore the common conception of trafficking persons as 'victims', and to discuss the notion of 'choice'. To what extent are these individuals shaping their own destinies? Is it possible to choose to be exploited? What does exploitation mean anyway? we look forward to a lively debate!