Why is this illegal

[Prickly]

I've come to the conclusion that pressure groups are using trafficking as a means to demonise and shock people into turning against prostitution. Concerned that not everybody shares their personal moral outrage they take what is a very serious issue and try to convince all and sundry that all escorts are trafficked.
Of course the problem is people get used to it and eventually stop caring. And who suffers? Those women who are genuinely trafficked. Legalise independent escorts. Give them boundaries within which to operate and free up the police, etc to investigate real trafficking.
People who try to impose their religous or moral beliefs on others should not be allowed to get involved in making legislation.
I believe trafficking does happen - but the witch burning moral crusaders aren't going to stop it by their methods.

[LaBelleThatcher]

I found something interesting out today.

Google are slowly compiling a news archive going all the way back to 1992...doesn't seem complete yet, as in, only certain time periods are available for certain phrases, but the briefest of glances found me these two little gems:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0505/trafficking.html
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/con...ex-trafficking

In the first they are arguing with garda claims I mention the second more because of this little gem that made my blood run cold:

''We also legislate for things we may not be able to police a lot but the legislation is a means of educating people that its wrong. They are buying a commodity that is part of a criminal underworld, up until now they were acting with impunity.''

The "commodity" referred to? Ladies, that would be *YOU*.

...and that is no red top twisting words, it is "The Irish Catholic".

[doodlebug]

I found something interesting out today.

Google are slowly compiling a news archive going all the way back to 1992...doesn't seem complete yet, as in, only certain time periods are available for certain phrases, but the briefest of glances found me these two little gems:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0505/trafficking.html
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/con...ex-trafficking

In the first they are arguing with garda claims I mention the second more because of this little gem that made my blood run cold:


The "commodity" referred to? Ladies, that would be *YOU*.

...and that is no red top twisting words, it is "The Irish Catholic".

Telling indeed, an attitude that harks back to the "good old days' of the Magdalene laundries and clerical abuse!!!!

[Anna23]

Forget about legality....did the reporter even read his own article?????????

The report clearly states that the escort was ENGLISH. Poor girl was obviously evicted or asked to leave -which goes to show the unfairness of the system, given that escorts are treated with disdain, but I digress.....

The rest of the article jumps straight to trafficked women linking this lady with trafficked women!!!!!

Hello!!!!!!! The escort was English!!!!! She doesn't need to be trafficked into Northern Ireland which last time I checked was still part of Britain!!!!!

It just goes to show how the media is determined to equate escorts with trafficked women!!!!!!!! I am beyond mad!!!!!

Yeah, that's what I found most hilarious about it. A BRITISH woman checking HERSELF into a BRITISH hotel and they speak about trafficking.
I'm becoming bit lost from all this propaganda re what trafficking does exactly mean. Doesnt it something to do with crossing borders ilegally and being forced to work and exploited for profit?

BTw paying tax makes me feel forced to work and severely exploited. We should do smthg about that.

[LaBelleThatcher]

Yeah, that's what I found most hilarious about it. A BRITISH woman checking HERSELF into a BRITISH hotel and they speak about trafficking.

...the penny just dropped here on that!

I'm becoming bit lost from all this propaganda re what trafficking does exactly mean. Doesnt it something to do with crossing borders ilegally and being forced to work and exploited for profit?

Banjaxed dug out the legal definition in the 2008 act:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/...0001.html#sec1

“trafficks” means, in relation to a person (including a child)—

(a) procures, recruits, transports or harbours the person, or
(i) transfers the person to,
(ii) places the person in the custody, care or charge, or under the control, of, or
(iii) otherwise delivers the person to,
another person,
(b) causes a person to enter or leave the State or to travel within the State,
(c) takes custody of a person or takes a person—
(i) into one’s care or charge, or
(ii) under one’s control,
or

(d) provides the person with accommodation or employment.

Now THAT is SCARY broad...technically, if one of ye touring ladies is stuck and asks me to come and get you from the airport, I will be trafficking.

But, better yet...it would appeared (unless m'learned friend, Banjaxed has anything to say to the contrary?) that the Law has even neglected to specify that the person in question be a foreign national or resident ...

BTw paying tax makes me feel forced to work and severely exploited. We should do smthg about that.

True, always hated "the state as pimp" and had to be physically restrained to prevent me storming into the Police in Germany and laying a formal complaint of "living off immoral earnings" (still on statute there at the time) against the German Government for it...

BUT...

If you restrict that to the sex industry it will only cause bitterness and resentment in the wider society...so better campaign for everyone else too.

[LaBelleThatcher]

Telling indeed, an attitude that harks back to the "good old days' of the Magdalene laundries and clerical abuse!!!!

I just could not BELIEVE that wording...and while I am sure it wasn't deliberate, the type of language we automatically choose speaks volumes about how we really feel...

[kingbee]

based on the definition of trafficking above ironically a girl who arranges and stays in a hotel is the safest option!!!

are landlords traffickers? even if unwittingly

[LaBelleThatcher]

based on the definition of trafficking above ironically a girl who arranges and stays in a hotel is the safest option!!!

are landlords traffickers? even if unwittingly

Based on the above definition as soon as ANYONE checks into a hotel the hotel can be accused of "trafficking" as far as I can see.

It is the kind of legislation that can be used to harass just about anyone, but in terms of conviction for real, serious abuses a half decent barrister could get a fleet of slaveships under full sail out through it.

"Unwittingly" being one of the keys to the gates, because, of course "mens rea" of "ill intent" is the greater part of criminal law.

This gets even worse later, as the consent of the trafficked person is considered no defence:

4.— (1) A person (in this section referred to as the “trafficker”) who trafficks another person (in this section referred to as the “trafficked person”), other than a child or a person to whom subsection (3) applies, for the purposes of the exploitation of the trafficked person shall be guilty of an offence if, in or for the purpose of trafficking the trafficked person, the trafficker—

(a) coerced, threatened, abducted or otherwise used force against the trafficked person,

(b) deceived or committed a fraud against the trafficked person,

(c) abused his or her authority or took advantage of the vulnerability of the trafficked person to such extent as to cause the trafficked person to have had no real and acceptable alternative but to submit to being trafficked,

(d) coerced, threatened or otherwise used force against any person in whose care or charge, or under whose control, the trafficked person was for the time being, in order to compel that person to permit the trafficker to traffick the trafficked person, or

(e) made any payment to, or conferred any right, interest or other benefit on, any person in whose care or charge, or under whose control, the trafficked person was for the time being, in exchange for that person permitting the trafficker to traffick the trafficked person.

(2) In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall not be a defence for the defendant to show that the person in respect of whom the offence was committed consented to the commission of any of the acts of which the offence consists.

So, it would seem that your your awareness of consent is could be irrelevant - you would be nicked anyway. Beyond that, ridiculously, the definitions are so broad as to make it impossible to define "unwitting" in any context, asa result, I think a landlord could be deemed guilty of trafficking, through harbouring, just about anyone who isn't a squatter.

It is insanely worded legislation and the more you try to apply it the more insane it looks.

[carlos marvado]

I trust that the definition of "trafficks" is a bit tighter than the below quoted piece from the 2008 Act (in bold). If it is not qualified any further, than quite a large number of people are guilty:


Originally Posted by S.1, CL(Human Trafficking) Act 2008

“trafficks” means, in relation to a person (including a child)—

(a) procures, recruits, transports or harbours the person, or

All employers, recruitment agencies, transport companies, taxis, hotels, guesthouses, B&B owners, landlords and guest families are guilty.

(i) transfers the person to,

transport companies, taxi drivers, the prison service etc. are guilty.


(ii) places the person in the custody, care or charge, or under the control, of, or

The judiciary, the gardai, the prison service, the HSE are all guilty.

(iii) otherwise delivers the person to,
another person,

Again all the transport companies and taxi drivers, and also those who give lifts are guilty.

(b) causes a person to enter or leave the State or to travel within the State,

Any employer who requires of their staff that they travel either within Ireland or abroad on business is guilty.

(c) takes custody of a person or takes a person—
(i) into one’s care or charge, or
(ii) under one’s control,
or

That the judiciary, gardai, prison service, HSE f**ked again. Boarding schools might also be up shits creek here, as would foster parents and adoptive parents.


(d) provides the person with accommodation or employment.

This has been dealth with before and is just getting repetitive at this stage.


In conclusion, I can draw two possible conclusions from the above. Firstly, either somebody has left out key phrases such as "for the purposes of forced prostitution" or "for the purposes of forced labour" and words such as "coercion", "false prentences" etc, etc, etc. Alternatively, this is an ingenious scheme to solve the state's financial problems by criminalising vast sections of the population and screwing them with a new "criminal tax", while at the same time solving the unemployment problem by putting 450,000 people (give or take a few thousand behind bars).

Meanwhile thousands will be forced under the threat of destitution to embark on a life of prostituting themselves in order to make ends meet. If the English are known as a nation of shopkeepers, we'll soon be known as a nation of traffickers and prostitutes. The saints and scholars must have all emigrated it would seem.

But don't be depressed my friends, in 2016 we will get to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the event that set this whole wonderful train of events in motion. I can't f**king wait for the reenactment of P.H. Pearse reading the proclamation from in front of the G.P.O.:

"Irish traffickers and Irish prostitutes:

In the name of Sodom and Gomorrah and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of debauchery, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her genitalia and gags for a good shagging........."

[LaBelleThatcher]

I trust that the definition of "trafficks" is a bit tighter than the below quoted piece from the 2008 Act (in bold). If it is not qualified any further, than quite a large number of people are guilty:

Banjaxed and I have gone over it, and we can't find any further qualification (I only realised this morning that it doesn't even seem to specify "foreign national" )

In conclusion, I can draw two possible conclusions from the above. Firstly, either somebody has left out key phrases such as "for the purposes of forced prostitution" or "for the purposes of forced labour" and words such as "coercion", "false prentences" etc, etc, etc. Alternatively, this is an ingenious scheme to solve the state's financial problems by criminalising vast sections of the population and screwing them with a new "criminal tax", while at the same time solving the unemployment problem by putting 450,000 people (give or take a few thousand behind bars).

On the surface that would seem a viable explanation, except, why so many expensive prison sentences when we could have lucrative fines instead?

Meanwhile thousands will be forced under the threat of destitution to embark on a life of prostituting themselves in order to make ends meet. If the English are known as a nation of shopkeepers, we'll soon be known as a nation of traffickers and prostitutes. The saints and scholars must have all emigrated it would seem.

Ah but at least they will have to go abroad to do that...because even without the Swedish model, nobody will be able to afford to pay them.

But don't be depressed my friends, in 2016 we will get to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the event that set this whole wonderful train of events in motion. I can't f**king wait for the reenactment of P.H. Pearse reading the proclamation from in front of the G.P.O.:

"Irish traffickers and Irish prostitutes:

In the name of Sodom and Gomorrah and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of debauchery, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her genitalia and gags for a good shagging........."