Marjan Wijers
Dr. Marjan Wijers was a pioneer in the field of human trafficking and is closely involved in the sex worker movement. Among others she was one of the co-organizers of the first European sex workers conference in 2005 and one of the founders of ESWA, the European Sex Workers' Rights Alliance. Her PhD research explores the tensions in the use of human rights by both the sex worker rights and the anti-sex work movement. She is a board member of SekswerkExpertise, Dutch platform for the advancement of sex workers' rights, the Dutch CEDAW-Network, and a member of the UK Sex Work Research Hub.
less
Related Authors
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Marjan Wijers
the publication of a Concept Note to serve as a basis for dialogue during the two-year international consultation period. The Concept Note is a vital link in a textual chain because it frames the policy problem and actively constructs its own ‘documentary reality’. This article provides a critical analysis of the CEDAW Concept Note on the grounds that such analysis provides an understanding of its discursive construction of trafficking, migrant labour and sex work, by an institution responsible for international jurisprudence on human rights. Analysis of the Concept Note explores the documentary constructions including narratives that merge adult women with girls, the symbolism of exploitation, the silencing of scientific research, the elision of sex worker voices, and sex work as work. The analysis leads us to conclude that the General Recommendation should define what counts as ‘exploitation’, and ‘forced labour’, and address the growing international recognition of best evidence on the wider impact of sex work laws, in order that legal framing and constructions of sex trafficking are not erroneously used to curtail rights of sex workers.
met dit wetsvoorstel de bescherming van vrouwen tegen uitbuiting,
dwang en misbruik werd beoogd, bleek allengs de grootste zorg te zijn hoe
vrouwen van buiten de EG te weren van de Nederlandse prostitutiemarkt. Opheffing van het bordeelverbod kan er namelijk toe leiden dat tewerkstellingsvergunningen moeten worden verleend aan prostituees van
buiten de EG. Dat moest worden voorkomen, door strafbaarstelling. Vreemdelingenbeleid via de strafwet. Hieronder wordt geschetst
hoe het zover heeft kunnen komen, hoe het zal en hoe het kan eindigen.
vrijwel zonder enig parlementair debat, het verbod op vrijwillige werving van prostituees in het buitenland ongewijzigd in het nieuwe artikel overgenomen. Vraag is echter of een dergelijk verbod, voorzover het EU-onderdanen betreft, verenigbaar is met het EG-recht. Die vraag is sinds kort weer actueel, nu als gevolg van internationale wetgeving het mensenhandelartikel opnieuw moet worden aangepast.
The main objective of the study was to explore how police, public prosecutors and the judiciary deal with victims in their position as witnesses and, in particular, to learn whether it can be said that victims routinely experience an aggravation of their suffering as a result of their participation in the criminal proceedings. The study particularly focused on victims of serious crimes. The central research question was whether there are indications that - in the Netherlands – victims of crime regularly experience secondary victimisation due to their position as a witness in the trial, and if so, what the main causes are.
The study was commissioned by the Scientific Research and Documentation Centre of the Ministry of Justice (WODC). It consisted of two phases. In the first phase a literature study was conducted to explore the concept of secondary victimisation more closely. The results from the first phase were presented to mental health experts in two focus group meetings. In the second phase of the study, a total of twenty-one interviews were conducted with police, prosecutors, investigating judges and trial judges. The focus of the interviews was to learn whether professionals in the criminal justice system actively try to reduce the risk of secondary victimisation and, if so, how they are doing this. Questions concentrated primarily around the balancing of interests between the accused, the criminal process, (fact finding and procedural interests,) and the interests of the victim. Do professionals in the criminal justice system balance the interests of the victim against those of the suspect and the criminal process? Can they give examples showing how they do this and at which points in the criminal process? Finally, a focus group meeting was held with victim support staff (including lawyers and staff of Victim Support Services Netherlands) and interviews were conducted with four victims of serious crimes, namely, robbery, mugging, sexual abuse and human trafficking.
Secondary victimisation has been defined as 'the aggravation of the suffering or harm to the victim caused by the initial crime as a result of the criminal process'. The study identified four different types of secondary victimisation: negative psychological effects on the victim’s self-esteem, faith in the future, trust in the legal system, and faith in a just world; an increase in the frequency of posttraumatic stress reactions to the original trauma caused by the crime; the hindering of the process of recovery; and the experience of a second, new trauma, resulting from the trial. The two forms that came most clearly forward out of the literature study, focus groups and interviews with victims were negative effects on the victim’s self-esteem and their faith in the future, the legal system and a just world, and, for those victims who were already traumatised by the crime, the increase of post traumatic stress reactions to the initial trauma. The latter we understand under the term re-traumatisation. These two forms of secondary victimisation should be distinguished from each other. The first relates to all victims of crime while the second impacts only on those victims already traumatised by the crime. Re-traumatisation, (also called secondary traumatisation,) resulting from the criminal trial is thus a narrower concept than secondary victimisation. Secondary victimisation in relation to hindering the process of recovery was mainly mentioned, either directly or indirectly, in the focus groups and in the interviews with victims. Secondary victimisation through a second, new trauma resulting from the trial process was only mentioned as an exception in the literature as well as in the focus groups and interviews.
Secondary victimisation may not only be experienced by the victim witness during questioning by the investigating judge or by the trial judge in court. Other factors may also play a role such as the imbalance between the position of the accused and that of the victim, a lack of information provided to the victim, the interaction between criminal justice officials and the victim, the long duration of the trial and discontent about the outcome of the trial.
Key concepts in the prevention of secondary victimisation seem to be predictability, control, safety, and justice. The higher criminal proceedings 'score' positively on these factors the lower the chance of secondary victimisation. However, the question of whether secondary victimisation occurs not only depends on factors within the criminal proceedings, but also on other factors such as the severity and nature of the crime (for example, ‘what happened’ type of crimes may directly put the credibility of the victim at stake, contrary to ‘who’s done it’ crimes), personal characteristics of the victim such as gender, age and resilience, and the social context (in particular the presence of a supportive environment). These factors also 'score' along the dimensions of predictable/unpredictable or safe/unsafe etc. For example, factors stemming from the personal characteristics of the victim that tend to increase the need for predictability and security are previous traumatic experiences or an intellectual disability. This is relevant for the trial process because it means that some victims, (given the nature of the crime, their personal characteristics or environmental factors) are particularly vulnerable or susceptible to secondary victimisation.
With regard to predictability, the provision of information to the victim, the procedures around the interrogation by the investigating judge or in court, and the length of time of the criminal process are particularly problematic. A sense of lack of control is especially experienced by victims around decisions relating to prosecution, pre-trial detention and the manner of settlement of the case, in which the wishes and interests of the victim play only a very limited role. A clear problem relating to control is the inability of victims to obtain or access a copy of their own testimony and the case file, whether through a victim lawyer or otherwise. Points of concern related to safety include the decision of the location where the victim statement is recorded, confidentiality around personal data and address of the victim, the gathering of information from third parties (in particular the fact that the victim should be aware that all information is recorded in the criminal file and thus available to the accused) and the interrogation by the investigating judge or in court, in particular the treatment of the victim by the accused's lawyer and the protection of the victim against intimidating or unjust questions. In addition, it is unclear where the responsibility lies for the preparation of the victim for the interrogation. In some cases things go wrong around the trial, such as seating arrangements, where victims and suspects are seated together in the waiting room or next to each other in the courtroom.
In regard to the sense of justice, many victims experience the imbalance in the position of defendant and victim as especially unfair: they feel as if the accused has all the rights while they have none. This includes the fact that the accused has access to the entire case file, including information about the victim, while often victims do not even get a copy of their own statement. Other issues impacting on a victim's perception of justice are an adequate motivation of the verdict, which currently is often lacking – if victims are provided with the judgment at all - and the final outcome of the proceedings. Regarding the latter, it is interesting to note that all of the victims interviewed mentioned prevention of further crimes as an important element of the outcome.
The professionals involved in the criminal process think very differently about the position of the victim in the criminal process. This goes especially for prosecutors, investigating judges and trial judges, who had opinions ranging from "it's fine the way it is and should not change" to "it needs to change". There seems to be only very limited awareness among them of the implications of new legislation which strengthens the position of victims. This is particularly true with regard to the introduction of a similar "presumption of innocence" for victims as there already is for the accused: a victim should be regarded as a victim until the contrary is established. Also, opinions about their task in protecting the interests of the victim vary greatly. A shared view about this, particularly within the judiciary, seems to be missing. In general, the various respondents are willing to weigh the interests of victim along with other interests but this does not happen automatically. The impression is that not all respondents always consciously take into consideration the victim's interests when making their decisions and respondents almost never take the initiative to involve the victim when weighing the interests of all parties. When victim interests are included this is mainly in cases where it brings limited additional costs and where there is no contradiction to the interests of the accused or the trial process.
Finally, it is striking that very little (empirical) research has been done on the issue of secondary victimisation of victims as a result of the criminal proceedings. For any follow-up research it is important to not focus only on victims of legally defined serious cr...
verordeningen of praktische obstakels het steeds moeilijker maken om legaal te werken?
Achter de legale façade zien we de positie van sekswerkers verslechteren, de toegang tot zorg afnemen en het risico op geweld toenemen. Door vergunningenstelsels, toezicht en handhaving tracht de overheid meer greep en zicht te krijgen op de sector. Dit heeft onbedoeld nadelige gevolgen voor de werkomstandigheden en gezondheid van sekswerkers en hun toegang tot zorg. Dat geldt extra voor soa en hiv zorg wanneer de plannen van het kabinet doorgaan voor de invoering van verplichte
intakegesprekken en gedwongen registratie van sekswerkers door de GGD's.
Een van de oorzaken is dat veel beleid over het hoofd van sekswerkers heen wordt gemaakt. Dat geldt voor het gemeentebeleid en het vergunningenstelsel, maar ook voor de bestrijding van mensenhandel en andere misstanden in de sector. Daardoor bereiken veel maatregelen niet hun doel of zijn ze minder effectief dan zou kunnen. Maar bovendien gaan ze regelmatig ten koste van de mensenrechten, de veiligheid en de autonomie van sekswerkers. Precies het omgekeerde van wat je zou willen.
Oplossingen voor het huidige beleid
Maar hoe zou het anders kunnen? Wat zijn alternatieven en oplossingen voor het huidige beleid? Over die vraag gaat deze brochure. Daarbij komen verschillende manieren van beleid maken aan bod, het gemeentebeleid en het vergunningenstelsel, de aanpak van mensenhandel en de toegang tot zorg. Maar ook onderwerpen als ‘kunnen we een voorbeeld nemen aan Nieuw Zeeland’, ‘wat weten we over cijfers’, ‘rechten zijn leuk voor zelfstandige sekswerkers, maar hoe zit het met de slachtoffers’, ‘waarom is verplichte registratie niet zo’n goed idee’, ‘wat is het verschil tussen onvergund, illegaal en strafbaar’, en ‘hoe zit het met discriminatie en geweld tegen sekswerkers in Nederland’.
Sekswerk is werk
Uitgangspunt is dat volwassenen die zelf kiezen om werkzaam te zijn als sekswerker dat werk onder veilige en vrije omstandigheden moeten kunnen doen, met dezelfde rechten als andere werkende burgers en dat zij daarin door de overheid beschermd moeten worden. Grondslag daarvoor vormt het zelfbeschikkingsrecht van mensen en het recht op vrije arbeidskeuze.
Sekswerkers zijn niet het probleem, maar deel van de oplossing
Rode lijn door alle onderwerpen heen is ‘samenwerking’. Samenwerking tussen alle partijen die met sekswerk te maken hebben, zoals gemeenten, gezondheidszorg, hulpverlening, de arbeidsinspectie, belasting, politie en justitie. Maar bovenal samenwerking met sekswerkers zelf, of het nu over werkomstandigheden, arbeidsverhoudingen, keuzevrijheid, veiligheid, gezondheid, de aanpak van misstanden, of de stap naar ander werk gaat. En dan niet vrijblijvend, maar echt. Als gelijkwaardige en waardevolle partners in het ontwikkelen, uitvoeren, monitoren en evalueren van beleid dat hen aangaat. Dat verbetert de kwaliteit van beleid en voorkomt ongewenste negatieve neveneffecten. Zoals een van de leuzen van de internationale sekswerkersbeweging luidt: ‘Sekswerkers zijn niet het probleem, maar deel van de oplossing!’
‘Thousands of victims of trafficking in the Netherlands’: fact or frame?
In this article, Dutch figures for (high) numbers of victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation in the sex industry are critically examined. The authors conclude that there is good reason to consider these figures frame rather than fact. They argue that the promotion of such a frame is detrimental to both an effective fight against trafficking and sexual exploitation and to the position of sex workers. Some recommendations for more productive ways to fight abuses in sex work are provided.
Trafficking in human beings (THB), in all its forms, is a serious crime affecting
fundamental rights, health, social life, economy and justice. THB knows no boundaries
and most reported victims are female EU nationals from Central and Eastern Europe.
THB can be tackled effectively only through a coherent approach at the levels of
legislation and executive powers and through strategic policy-making. Proper
investigation and prosecution are important and enhance victim protection and
assistance as well as prevention. However, taking into account the gender dimension of THB is essential to ensure adequate support for the victims as well as effective
prevention. The 2011 EU Anti-Trafficking Directive represents a landmark piece of
legislation in that respect.
The Ex-Post Impact Assessment Unit of the European Parliament has asked several
groups of experts to analyse the implementation and application of the Directive, from a gender perspective, in 12 Member States: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, the UK and Spain. The
contributions received point to an uneven implementation of the Directive's requirements across the EU Member States.
The findings emphasise the need to improve the identification of victims, which is key for granting them protection, to establish better training on the gender aspects of the
different forms of human trafficking for front-line officers, to enhance cooperation
between public administration and competent NGOs, and to expand prevention via
public awareness campaigning.
the publication of a Concept Note to serve as a basis for dialogue during the two-year international consultation period. The Concept Note is a vital link in a textual chain because it frames the policy problem and actively constructs its own ‘documentary reality’. This article provides a critical analysis of the CEDAW Concept Note on the grounds that such analysis provides an understanding of its discursive construction of trafficking, migrant labour and sex work, by an institution responsible for international jurisprudence on human rights. Analysis of the Concept Note explores the documentary constructions including narratives that merge adult women with girls, the symbolism of exploitation, the silencing of scientific research, the elision of sex worker voices, and sex work as work. The analysis leads us to conclude that the General Recommendation should define what counts as ‘exploitation’, and ‘forced labour’, and address the growing international recognition of best evidence on the wider impact of sex work laws, in order that legal framing and constructions of sex trafficking are not erroneously used to curtail rights of sex workers.
met dit wetsvoorstel de bescherming van vrouwen tegen uitbuiting,
dwang en misbruik werd beoogd, bleek allengs de grootste zorg te zijn hoe
vrouwen van buiten de EG te weren van de Nederlandse prostitutiemarkt. Opheffing van het bordeelverbod kan er namelijk toe leiden dat tewerkstellingsvergunningen moeten worden verleend aan prostituees van
buiten de EG. Dat moest worden voorkomen, door strafbaarstelling. Vreemdelingenbeleid via de strafwet. Hieronder wordt geschetst
hoe het zover heeft kunnen komen, hoe het zal en hoe het kan eindigen.
vrijwel zonder enig parlementair debat, het verbod op vrijwillige werving van prostituees in het buitenland ongewijzigd in het nieuwe artikel overgenomen. Vraag is echter of een dergelijk verbod, voorzover het EU-onderdanen betreft, verenigbaar is met het EG-recht. Die vraag is sinds kort weer actueel, nu als gevolg van internationale wetgeving het mensenhandelartikel opnieuw moet worden aangepast.
The main objective of the study was to explore how police, public prosecutors and the judiciary deal with victims in their position as witnesses and, in particular, to learn whether it can be said that victims routinely experience an aggravation of their suffering as a result of their participation in the criminal proceedings. The study particularly focused on victims of serious crimes. The central research question was whether there are indications that - in the Netherlands – victims of crime regularly experience secondary victimisation due to their position as a witness in the trial, and if so, what the main causes are.
The study was commissioned by the Scientific Research and Documentation Centre of the Ministry of Justice (WODC). It consisted of two phases. In the first phase a literature study was conducted to explore the concept of secondary victimisation more closely. The results from the first phase were presented to mental health experts in two focus group meetings. In the second phase of the study, a total of twenty-one interviews were conducted with police, prosecutors, investigating judges and trial judges. The focus of the interviews was to learn whether professionals in the criminal justice system actively try to reduce the risk of secondary victimisation and, if so, how they are doing this. Questions concentrated primarily around the balancing of interests between the accused, the criminal process, (fact finding and procedural interests,) and the interests of the victim. Do professionals in the criminal justice system balance the interests of the victim against those of the suspect and the criminal process? Can they give examples showing how they do this and at which points in the criminal process? Finally, a focus group meeting was held with victim support staff (including lawyers and staff of Victim Support Services Netherlands) and interviews were conducted with four victims of serious crimes, namely, robbery, mugging, sexual abuse and human trafficking.
Secondary victimisation has been defined as 'the aggravation of the suffering or harm to the victim caused by the initial crime as a result of the criminal process'. The study identified four different types of secondary victimisation: negative psychological effects on the victim’s self-esteem, faith in the future, trust in the legal system, and faith in a just world; an increase in the frequency of posttraumatic stress reactions to the original trauma caused by the crime; the hindering of the process of recovery; and the experience of a second, new trauma, resulting from the trial. The two forms that came most clearly forward out of the literature study, focus groups and interviews with victims were negative effects on the victim’s self-esteem and their faith in the future, the legal system and a just world, and, for those victims who were already traumatised by the crime, the increase of post traumatic stress reactions to the initial trauma. The latter we understand under the term re-traumatisation. These two forms of secondary victimisation should be distinguished from each other. The first relates to all victims of crime while the second impacts only on those victims already traumatised by the crime. Re-traumatisation, (also called secondary traumatisation,) resulting from the criminal trial is thus a narrower concept than secondary victimisation. Secondary victimisation in relation to hindering the process of recovery was mainly mentioned, either directly or indirectly, in the focus groups and in the interviews with victims. Secondary victimisation through a second, new trauma resulting from the trial process was only mentioned as an exception in the literature as well as in the focus groups and interviews.
Secondary victimisation may not only be experienced by the victim witness during questioning by the investigating judge or by the trial judge in court. Other factors may also play a role such as the imbalance between the position of the accused and that of the victim, a lack of information provided to the victim, the interaction between criminal justice officials and the victim, the long duration of the trial and discontent about the outcome of the trial.
Key concepts in the prevention of secondary victimisation seem to be predictability, control, safety, and justice. The higher criminal proceedings 'score' positively on these factors the lower the chance of secondary victimisation. However, the question of whether secondary victimisation occurs not only depends on factors within the criminal proceedings, but also on other factors such as the severity and nature of the crime (for example, ‘what happened’ type of crimes may directly put the credibility of the victim at stake, contrary to ‘who’s done it’ crimes), personal characteristics of the victim such as gender, age and resilience, and the social context (in particular the presence of a supportive environment). These factors also 'score' along the dimensions of predictable/unpredictable or safe/unsafe etc. For example, factors stemming from the personal characteristics of the victim that tend to increase the need for predictability and security are previous traumatic experiences or an intellectual disability. This is relevant for the trial process because it means that some victims, (given the nature of the crime, their personal characteristics or environmental factors) are particularly vulnerable or susceptible to secondary victimisation.
With regard to predictability, the provision of information to the victim, the procedures around the interrogation by the investigating judge or in court, and the length of time of the criminal process are particularly problematic. A sense of lack of control is especially experienced by victims around decisions relating to prosecution, pre-trial detention and the manner of settlement of the case, in which the wishes and interests of the victim play only a very limited role. A clear problem relating to control is the inability of victims to obtain or access a copy of their own testimony and the case file, whether through a victim lawyer or otherwise. Points of concern related to safety include the decision of the location where the victim statement is recorded, confidentiality around personal data and address of the victim, the gathering of information from third parties (in particular the fact that the victim should be aware that all information is recorded in the criminal file and thus available to the accused) and the interrogation by the investigating judge or in court, in particular the treatment of the victim by the accused's lawyer and the protection of the victim against intimidating or unjust questions. In addition, it is unclear where the responsibility lies for the preparation of the victim for the interrogation. In some cases things go wrong around the trial, such as seating arrangements, where victims and suspects are seated together in the waiting room or next to each other in the courtroom.
In regard to the sense of justice, many victims experience the imbalance in the position of defendant and victim as especially unfair: they feel as if the accused has all the rights while they have none. This includes the fact that the accused has access to the entire case file, including information about the victim, while often victims do not even get a copy of their own statement. Other issues impacting on a victim's perception of justice are an adequate motivation of the verdict, which currently is often lacking – if victims are provided with the judgment at all - and the final outcome of the proceedings. Regarding the latter, it is interesting to note that all of the victims interviewed mentioned prevention of further crimes as an important element of the outcome.
The professionals involved in the criminal process think very differently about the position of the victim in the criminal process. This goes especially for prosecutors, investigating judges and trial judges, who had opinions ranging from "it's fine the way it is and should not change" to "it needs to change". There seems to be only very limited awareness among them of the implications of new legislation which strengthens the position of victims. This is particularly true with regard to the introduction of a similar "presumption of innocence" for victims as there already is for the accused: a victim should be regarded as a victim until the contrary is established. Also, opinions about their task in protecting the interests of the victim vary greatly. A shared view about this, particularly within the judiciary, seems to be missing. In general, the various respondents are willing to weigh the interests of victim along with other interests but this does not happen automatically. The impression is that not all respondents always consciously take into consideration the victim's interests when making their decisions and respondents almost never take the initiative to involve the victim when weighing the interests of all parties. When victim interests are included this is mainly in cases where it brings limited additional costs and where there is no contradiction to the interests of the accused or the trial process.
Finally, it is striking that very little (empirical) research has been done on the issue of secondary victimisation of victims as a result of the criminal proceedings. For any follow-up research it is important to not focus only on victims of legally defined serious cr...
verordeningen of praktische obstakels het steeds moeilijker maken om legaal te werken?
Achter de legale façade zien we de positie van sekswerkers verslechteren, de toegang tot zorg afnemen en het risico op geweld toenemen. Door vergunningenstelsels, toezicht en handhaving tracht de overheid meer greep en zicht te krijgen op de sector. Dit heeft onbedoeld nadelige gevolgen voor de werkomstandigheden en gezondheid van sekswerkers en hun toegang tot zorg. Dat geldt extra voor soa en hiv zorg wanneer de plannen van het kabinet doorgaan voor de invoering van verplichte
intakegesprekken en gedwongen registratie van sekswerkers door de GGD's.
Een van de oorzaken is dat veel beleid over het hoofd van sekswerkers heen wordt gemaakt. Dat geldt voor het gemeentebeleid en het vergunningenstelsel, maar ook voor de bestrijding van mensenhandel en andere misstanden in de sector. Daardoor bereiken veel maatregelen niet hun doel of zijn ze minder effectief dan zou kunnen. Maar bovendien gaan ze regelmatig ten koste van de mensenrechten, de veiligheid en de autonomie van sekswerkers. Precies het omgekeerde van wat je zou willen.
Oplossingen voor het huidige beleid
Maar hoe zou het anders kunnen? Wat zijn alternatieven en oplossingen voor het huidige beleid? Over die vraag gaat deze brochure. Daarbij komen verschillende manieren van beleid maken aan bod, het gemeentebeleid en het vergunningenstelsel, de aanpak van mensenhandel en de toegang tot zorg. Maar ook onderwerpen als ‘kunnen we een voorbeeld nemen aan Nieuw Zeeland’, ‘wat weten we over cijfers’, ‘rechten zijn leuk voor zelfstandige sekswerkers, maar hoe zit het met de slachtoffers’, ‘waarom is verplichte registratie niet zo’n goed idee’, ‘wat is het verschil tussen onvergund, illegaal en strafbaar’, en ‘hoe zit het met discriminatie en geweld tegen sekswerkers in Nederland’.
Sekswerk is werk
Uitgangspunt is dat volwassenen die zelf kiezen om werkzaam te zijn als sekswerker dat werk onder veilige en vrije omstandigheden moeten kunnen doen, met dezelfde rechten als andere werkende burgers en dat zij daarin door de overheid beschermd moeten worden. Grondslag daarvoor vormt het zelfbeschikkingsrecht van mensen en het recht op vrije arbeidskeuze.
Sekswerkers zijn niet het probleem, maar deel van de oplossing
Rode lijn door alle onderwerpen heen is ‘samenwerking’. Samenwerking tussen alle partijen die met sekswerk te maken hebben, zoals gemeenten, gezondheidszorg, hulpverlening, de arbeidsinspectie, belasting, politie en justitie. Maar bovenal samenwerking met sekswerkers zelf, of het nu over werkomstandigheden, arbeidsverhoudingen, keuzevrijheid, veiligheid, gezondheid, de aanpak van misstanden, of de stap naar ander werk gaat. En dan niet vrijblijvend, maar echt. Als gelijkwaardige en waardevolle partners in het ontwikkelen, uitvoeren, monitoren en evalueren van beleid dat hen aangaat. Dat verbetert de kwaliteit van beleid en voorkomt ongewenste negatieve neveneffecten. Zoals een van de leuzen van de internationale sekswerkersbeweging luidt: ‘Sekswerkers zijn niet het probleem, maar deel van de oplossing!’
‘Thousands of victims of trafficking in the Netherlands’: fact or frame?
In this article, Dutch figures for (high) numbers of victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation in the sex industry are critically examined. The authors conclude that there is good reason to consider these figures frame rather than fact. They argue that the promotion of such a frame is detrimental to both an effective fight against trafficking and sexual exploitation and to the position of sex workers. Some recommendations for more productive ways to fight abuses in sex work are provided.
Trafficking in human beings (THB), in all its forms, is a serious crime affecting
fundamental rights, health, social life, economy and justice. THB knows no boundaries
and most reported victims are female EU nationals from Central and Eastern Europe.
THB can be tackled effectively only through a coherent approach at the levels of
legislation and executive powers and through strategic policy-making. Proper
investigation and prosecution are important and enhance victim protection and
assistance as well as prevention. However, taking into account the gender dimension of THB is essential to ensure adequate support for the victims as well as effective
prevention. The 2011 EU Anti-Trafficking Directive represents a landmark piece of
legislation in that respect.
The Ex-Post Impact Assessment Unit of the European Parliament has asked several
groups of experts to analyse the implementation and application of the Directive, from a gender perspective, in 12 Member States: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, the UK and Spain. The
contributions received point to an uneven implementation of the Directive's requirements across the EU Member States.
The findings emphasise the need to improve the identification of victims, which is key for granting them protection, to establish better training on the gender aspects of the
different forms of human trafficking for front-line officers, to enhance cooperation
between public administration and competent NGOs, and to expand prevention via
public awareness campaigning.
The applicant sex workers turned to the Court hoping that for once it would be about their human rights and not about morality and ideology. However, by confining itself to Article 8, the ECtHR reduced the case to the question of whether sex work can be consensual [149], thereby putting into question the capacity for self-determination and bodily autonomy of sex workers, and disregarding the actual effects of the law on the human rights of sex workers.
In this thesis I explore these tensions in the use of human rights, and show how human rights can be both a tool of empowerment and a tool of repression. Through in-depth interviews with sex worker rights activists and analysis of litigation and court cases, I explore how sex worker organisations mobilise human rights to address violence against sex workers, resist their dehumanisation as victims or deviants, build alliances, challenge repressive laws and policies, and advocate for the decriminalisation of sex work as a precondition for the protection of their human rights. Conversely, while the sex worker movement builds on an emancipatory and labour-based perspective on sex work, the abolitionist movement moves sex work back into the realm of (female) victimhood and crime, with a focus on repression and control rather than empowerment. Focusing on the cases of Germany, France and Spain, I also show how through the gateway of human dignity and female victimhood the anti-sex work movement uses human rights to create a hierarchy of ‘human-ness’ and to call for the further criminalisation of sex work while relieving states of their accountability for the protection of sex workers’ human rights. In this way, human rights are turned into a double-edged sword.
El objetivo de este juego de herramientas es proporcionar a los organismos no gubernamentales y a las organizaciones de la sociedad civil un instrumento que puedan utilizar para evaluar los efectos previstos y los no previstos de las políticas públicas que buscan erradicar la trata de personas, pero que las perjudican y, por ende, a sus derechos humanos. Los resultados, producto de la evidencia basada en la información, te servirán para presionar a través de iniciativas más efectivas que combatan la trata y la explotación desde una base de promoción y respeto a los derechos humanos.
rights of trafficked persons and other people affected by anti-trafficking laws, policies and practices, like sex workers and migrants. An illustration of these concerns is the 2007 report of the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women ‘Collateral Damage: the impact of anti-trafficking measures on human rights around the world’. The report documents a wide range of examples of how anti-trafficking policies negatively affect the people they are supposed to benefit. These concerns, and the need for policies that respect the human rights of all people affected by trafficking and anti-trafficking policies, gave rise to the development of this tool.
The aim of the toolkit is to provide NGOs and other civil society organisations with an instrument they can use to assess the intended and unintended effects of anti-trafficking policies on the human rights of the people affected by those policies. The outcomes will provide them with evidence-based information to lobby for more effective measures that combat trafficking and exploitation while respecting and promoting human rights.
The tool and the factsheets are also available in Spanish and French
The aim of the toolkit is to provide NGOs and other civil society organisations with
an instrument they can use to assess the intended and unintended effects of anti-trafficking policies on the human rights of the people affected by those policies. The
outcomes will provide them with evidence-based information to lobby for more effective measures that combat trafficking and exploitation while respecting and promoting human rights.
The tool and the factsheets are also available in Spanish and French.
Maar betekent deze gelijkheid op papier ook dat de rechtspositie van vrouwen daadwerkelijk is verbeterd? Hebben alle vrouwen werkelijk zeggenschap over hun lichaam, ook waar het gaat om wel of geen seks (seksueel geweld, maar ook sekswerk) of wel of geen kinderen (abortus)? Hoe gelijkwaardig zijn partners
in het huwelijk, en in hun ouderschap? Worden arbeid en zorg eerlijk gedeeld en wordt het werk van vrouwen net zo goed beloond als dat van mannen? Kunnen alle vrouwen wel gebruik maken van hun rechten; ook migranten en vrouwen zonder papieren? Hoe staat het met de rechtspositie van lesbiennes?