Pages

Showing posts with label victim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label victim. Show all posts

Friday, March 21, 2014

Talibés: Victims of Forced Begging


Annie Vulpas is a MPH intern from The University of Illinois - Chicago with IOFA.  She reflects on her experience studying abroad as an undergraduate student in Senegal and bearing witness to a human rights violation.

               It wasn’t until recently that I realized I had been a witness of child trafficking everyday for nearly a year.  To the group of American women studying abroad at the Université Gaston Berger in Saint Louis, Senegal, the talibés were mainly a nuisance and many techniques were employed to avoid the filthy, poorly dressed little boys begging for money.  Sometimes we changed directions or crossed the street while walking when we saw a talibé coming; other times, we rudely ignored them or told them “bayyi ma!” (leave me alone!).
               The word talibé is from the Arabic word for student – talib.  The talibés in Senegal are young boys enrolled in Qur’anic schools, called daara in Wolof, where they live, often hundreds of miles from home.  In many of the daaras, boys are sent out early in the morning and forced to beg all day long for money, about $1-2 (500-1,000 fCFA), rice and sugar each day.  Failing to return with the required amount of goods or cash, the talibés will not be fed and are often brutally beaten.  The Qur’anic teachers, or Marabouts, are responsible for the treatment of these children and support their schools, which are often unsanitary and built out of poor building materials such as plastic and corrugated tin.
               As a young woman in my early 20’s, I acknowledged that something was wrong with the talibé situation in Senegal but acceptance of talibé begging by the general population clouded my understanding of the issue.  Many people saw the talibé experience as a rite of passage and since they begged as children, it only made sense that their children would also enroll in a daara under the tutelage of a Marabout.  Now, interning with IOFA and learning of the various ways that children are trafficked, I can see a bigger picture and, sadly, understand the crime that I bore witness to in Senegal.
               According to the 2013 Trafficking in Persons Report, Senegal – categorized as a Tier 2 country – is a “source, transit, and destination country for children and women who are subjected to forced labor, forced begging, and sex trafficking.”  Other forms of trafficking in Senegal include prostitution, domestic servitude and forced labor.  The government supports various shelters and rehabilitation programs in Senegal that provide shelter, food, medical and psychological care to victims of trafficking but statistics related to trafficking prosecutions and convictions are not maintained or published.  It is believed that approximately 50,000 boys between the ages of 3 and 19 are forced to beg for their daaras.
               Reflecting on my interaction with the talibés during that year, I feel a sense of guilt.  Although I was kind – or hoped I was kind to them – I feel guilt for being aware of the issue and instead of addressing my beliefs, letting others dictate my understanding of the situation.  The widespread moral disengagement of the Senegalese, or self-conviction that ethical standards do not apply to certain situations such as the forced begging of talibés, is fueling the abuse of these children.  Efforts have been made by various organizations in recent years to end the forced begging of talibés as awareness of the issue is growing, but such an obvious violation of human rights must be ended.  The boys of Senegal deserve to spend their days in classrooms learning rather than out in the streets begging and being rudely told to “go away” by unknowing and apathetic passersby.

For more information on this topic, please refer to the following sources:


Friday, February 7, 2014

What’s in a word: “Prostitution”

The FBI's recent recovery of 16 juveniles in a joint operation targeting commercial sex trafficking in New Jersey around the Super Bowl demonstrates law enforcement's vigilance and effectiveness in combating the sexual exploitation of children. However, it also conjures a somewhat misleading image of juvenile victim's experience in the commercial sex trade. 

IOFA program development intern, Alexa Schnieders, shares her thoughts on "child prostitution" and how our terminology reflects the identity we impose on a subject: 

I sat in on a discussion recently that began with, “Sex trafficking should be called rape trafficking.” Others in the room cringed over the harsh four-letter word. All innocuous and/or glamorous connotations of the sex trade disappeared as the reality of violence and exploitation took their place. Does semantics wield that much power? When speaking about sex trafficking, misuse of the term “prostitution” has the ability to strip sexually exploited women and men of all victimhood.

Prostitution is generally defined as “the act of engaging in sex acts for hire,” necessitating both consensual sex and received payment. According to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), victims of sex trafficking engage in sexual acts under “force, threat or coercion.” This definition of sex trafficking aligns with rape, i.e. victimhood, however in sex trafficking situations there is the added element of rape for the profit of someone other than the survivor/victim.

The word “prostitution” becomes further problematic when it is partnered with the word “child.” Just as the TVPA informs us that someone forced to engage in sexual acts under force, fraud, or coercion is a survivor/victim of trafficking, so too does it state that any child under the age of 18 who engages in a commercial sex act is the survivor/victim of sex trafficking. Based on this legislation, a “child prostitute” simply cannot exist.

While the difference between the terms “survivor/victim of child sex trafficking” (also correctly referred to as “commercially exploited children”) and “child prostitute” may sound like a matter of political correctness, it is much more than that. Using the correct terminology signifies that children are the survivors or victims of a heinous, brutal crime. “Child prostitutes,” on the other hand, are young criminals. While the term “child prostitute” may more effectively grab the attention of a public who responds to sensational language, calling exploited children “prostitutes” perpetuates incorrect notions that these children willingly engage in sex (to which they are too young to consent) and that they are to blame for a choice (that they did not make).

This difference must be understood by all of us, including partners in the field. As advocates, learning and employing the appropriate terminology is our first step towards making change. Our language conveys our understanding of the issue as well as our intentions in our work. While we adopt language that correctly describes the population of survivors and victims we serve, it is our responsibility to encourage our partners to do the same. As the anti-trafficking movement uses this language more consistently, it is our hope that it will begin to affect the language used by those around us as well and that, little by little, the larger paradigm will shift towards one in which survivors of child trafficking are recognized as just that – survivors.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Should a Minor Engaged in Commercial Sex Be Labeled as a Prostitute or a Victim?


            On December 13, 2012 a 17 year old girl in Iowa was arrested after she solicited an undercover officer for sex on Backpage.com.  This girl told police that she was being forced into prostitution by her abusive boyfriend who has allegedly beat her and threatened to kill her.
Now, the Polk County, Iowa attorney’s office wants to prosecute her for prostitution as an adult.  The girl’s attorney, Paul White, has tried to argue that she should be protected by Iowa Code 710A which gives “an affirmative defense” to human trafficking victims who could not escape due to threat of injury.  The law is supposed to target pimps and others who have forced someone into the sex trade for financial gain.
A prosecutor’s job is to seek justice.  If the girl is prosecuted as a prostitute in this case, what justice is being served?  Charging this girl does nothing to prevent other people from being forced into the sex trade.  It does nothing to help improve this girl’s life and get her out of the sex trade.  Wouldn’t justice best be served here if the prosecutor, John Sarcone, focused his efforts not in prosecuting this minor who has been forced into commercial sexual activity but in prosecuting the pimp who forced her into the sex trade?
Iowa’s neighbor, Illinois, has passed sweeping legislation when it comes to minors in the sex trade.  The Illinois Safe Children’s Act was signed into law in 2010.  Instead of placing minors who have been found to be engaging in commercial sexual activity in the criminal system, the Act places these minors in the child protection system.  Illinois has recognized that minors (anyone under the age of 18) do not have the capacity to consent to their own commercial sexual activity.  The law also states that these minors are victims of exploitation and not perpetrators of prostitution.  Iowa has tried to come up with new human trafficking legislation, but it needs to go further, as do many other states The Illinois Safe Children’s Act should be a model for the nation.  It is only through protection not prosecution of minors, that justice can truly be served for those forced into the sex trade.

Laura Horner
Intern