I’ve always thought of “human trafficking” as instances of controlled/powerless (due to being underage or having no papers and being non-English speaking) girls & women being marketed as prostitutes by a pimp or handler.
In this sting setup the article refers to it’s simply the old saw of cops posing as underage girls looking for a paid hookup re the article, and the most gullible horny men in the world who have apparently never watched Chris Hansen’s “To Catch A Predator” eagerly jumping in.
It seems the term “human trafficking” is being stretched pretty wide these days to encompass all types of sex solicitation, even volitional self marketing on the internet. Is it being properly used in this scenario?
“Human trafficking” has rapidly become a catchy, headline-grabbing buzzword, like “autism” or “gluten”. As a result, nearly all types of prostitution, underage or otherwise, are being described as human trafficking nowadays. It’s the type of word phrase that wins votes and sells books. Accurate or not, we all might as well get used to it.
Actually, in first world countries the biggest lever when the trafficking refers to forced prostitution is often the prostitutes being terrified of going to the police: it can be because they don’t have papers, but also because they’re terrified of being sent back to parents they’re terrified of. They can be local girls, something for which backdoor has become world-infamous.
As the sting was looking both for johns and for procurers, it does refer to human traficking in its prostitution side.
Yes, there is some kind of movement out there to broaden the definition of “human trafficking” to include all sorts of sex crimes that most people would not intuitively think of as human trafficking.
The most brazen example is California’s 2012 Proposition 35which the voters passed overwhelming, mainly because it was called the “Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute” initially. I mean, who isn’t opposed to human trafficking, right?
“We’re not going to arrest our way out of this problem…and we will pursue these operations in small towns and big cities for as long as it takes.” :rolleyes:
Also, can anyone explain what “possession of minor” is?
Well here it refers to legal minors, and the phrase usually concerns slavery. So there is perhaps an interesting area of legal guardianship / responsible adult / exploitation.
The article is about women and girls who are forced into prostitution either at the end of their journey or en route. Is that not the textbook definition of human trafficking?
IMO, yes, it is, as it refers to the usual source of the girls. They are trying to cut off the supply by cutting off the demand. How effective this is is another question.
It says that because the smuggling network that moves women from Nigeria apparently operates on a sex-trafficking model. The article argues that the sex-trafficking rates for Nigerian women on that route is so high that women in this situation should be given immediate access to resources to prevent trafficking, as the current system has apparently allowed a exploitative sex trafficking network to flourish.
The juveniles being paid for sex are usually the victims of sex trafficking not the suspects. Human trafficking does not have to be a large network of slavery spanning the globe. It can be one guy controlling one juvenile and making them use their body to make him money. Same is true for adults.
Both Merriam-Webster’s dictionary and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime define “trafficking” to include purchase as well as sale. A person who buys one slave is a trafficker, by definition. Under-aged girls cannot give consent, so hiring one makes a person guilty of “human trafficking.”
In the sting operation mentioned in OP, there was no real under-aged girl for sale, and the sale wasn’t completed. Perhaps “attempted trafficking” would be more correct.
“Sexual predator” is another term that has become a term without meaning. It supposedly used to mean the baddest of the bad perverts, the trenchcoat men who would hide in bushes every night waiting to grab another victim. Nowadays, it means someone who has, in any manner and at any point in their life, taken advantage of another person in a sexual manner in a manner in which power dynamics were used against a victim (“prey”), and who allegedly is likely to do so again at some point in the future.
No, it doesn’t. It is a legal term with a specific statutory meaning. Sure you can say that you murdered the other team in sports but that doesn’t change the fact that the word murder has a specific statutory meaning.
ETA: that was meant more for the quote you were responding to but I won’t change it to avoid confusion.