review of Modern Slavery by Kevin Bales

This book isn't just about prostitution. There is one chapter on prostitution. The first sub-heading is Forced Prostitution in the West. Kevin Bales writes "The women and girls are commonly tortured if they  do not comply". The reference for this statement is for a 2004 paper by Gijsbert Van Liemt. This paper does not mention torture once. It does mention violence and the threat of violence without specifying the nature of this violence. It does not mention girls. So there is no physical torture.

Is there psychological torture? The paper mentions isolation for sex workers and domestic maids. It says that women are moved from brothel to brothel to prevent them from 'establishing relations of trust'.

There are two things wrong with that statement. Firstly women are moved to another brothel because some men don't want to see the same sex worker again and again. Secondly women in brothels often work with other women and are not isolated. If they do work alone then it isn't really a brothel and it will often be because it is illegal for women to work together.

Also they all have smart phones so they are in contact with anyone they choose either here or in their home countries. They have an app which means that even if they don't speak English they can have a conversation with anyone.

There is no doubt that some women are coerced into prostitution and some forms of coercion are subtle, but it's a bit of a stretch to call that psychological torture. In any case Kevin Bales isn't calling it psychological. Then to tack onto women 'and girls' seems deception to me.

The second sub-heading is Forced Prostitution in Africa and Asia. Kevin Bales writes about Japan as a destination for migrant sex workers.

"But another part of Japan's slavery problem is its euphemistically titled "Entertainment Industry," which includes brothels, strip clubs, bathhouses and street prostitution. The government has a special "entertainer visa," supposedly given to singers and dancers that will be giving performances in theatres and nightclubs. If this were true, then Japan would have more professional entertainers than the rest of the world combined.

In reality, the visa is used to import large numbers of foreign women to meet the demands of Japanese men for sex and "entertainment." Between 1996 and 2003, the number of visas issued each year more than doubled (see table 10).

In 2003, approximately 80,000 "entertainers" came from the Philippines and, over the years, around 40,000 women have come from Latin America on entertainer visas. Under intense pressure from human rights groups and other countries, Japan agreed to better police the entertainment visa system from March 2005, but no figures have been released showing a fall in the number of "entertainers" brought to Japan."

Kevin Bales has got this completely wrong. These entertainers were not prostitutes. Sociologist Rhacel Parreñas worked among them, interviewed them and saw the reality of their lives. She put it all in her book 'Illicit Flirtations: Labor, Migration and Sex Trafficking in Tokyo'.

70,000 out of 80,000 Filipina women have had their livelihood taken away from them. They were not prostitutes but some of them will now be. These do-gooders have forced women into prostitution. If Japan chooses to classify women who serve drinks and sing karaoke in nightclubs as 'entertainers' that is up to them and that shouldn't be a subject of sarcasm.

Professor Parreñas knows how to help these women. They should be paid during not just at the end of their contract. Middlemen brokers who take much of the profit should be removed from the system. This goes to the heart of the issue, do you avoid what exploitation there is by improving their conditions, or do you take away their livelihood? If you take away their chosen source of income they will be poorer and more likely to engage in actual prostitution. Whatever you do, you must be willing to try to understand the reality of their lives. Not making assumptions based on your (American conservative) world view.

The third sub-heading is Prostitution. In this section Kevin Bales states that some people believe all prostitution is slavery. For example, CATW. He mentions legalization but not decriminalization. He doesn't mention the Palermo Protocol.

He mentions the Nordic model in Sweden and writes that there is little evidence that it is working. He writes that there is no evidence that prostitution has been pushed underground in Sweden, which is odd because if there is just as much prostitution but it is now illegal then it is underground.

This is an interesting paragraph:-

"Ann Jordan, director of Global Rights' Initiative Against Trafficking in Persons, also points out that while "current federal law enables prosecutions of all enslavers and provides protection for all victims," the broad scope of the law "equates prostitution with trafficking, and is redirecting resources to end prostitution rather than to end trafficking." She suggests that the investigative and prosecutorial arms of the federal government are being diverted from their primary goals of eradicating all types of slavery, in order to pursue a war on prostitution."

This is something I have believed a long time. If we apply it to the case of the Filipina women who have been stopped from working in Japan, not only is there no evidence that they were prostitutes, even if they had all been prostitutes there is no evidence that they were forced into it. "If no one is forcing her to engage is such an activity, then trafficking does not exist." This is what one group of NGOs said in 1999, according to Bales.

This is the clearest case that we're not just talking about the desires of men here, we are also talking about the needs of women. The need for poor women to earn money. Having said that, it must be true that a few of these women might have chosen prostitution while in Japan. A few might even have intended to engage in prostitution before they applied for a visa to Japan.

Modern Slavery is not a good book about the subject. A much better book is The Truth about Modern Slavery by Emily Kenway.

It was John Miller of the American State Department who put pressure on the Japanese government to severely restrict entertainment visas. I have written about him here.

review of The Truth About Modern Slavery by Emily Kenway

I have read 'The Truth About Modern Slavery' by Emily Kenway. Her belief is that exploitation exists and we need to combat it but current methods are counterproductive. Chapter 3 is about prostitution and trafficking. It has helped me to understand why there used to be many brothels in Liverpool but few now.

She writes that the police shut down many long established brothels in the mid-2010s. She spoke to Niki Adams from the English Collective of Prostitutes.

"So loads of brothels that were long term and had really good security systems, regular clientele, were expert at dealing with troublesome clients and so on, suddenly they were bust up, so they moved to new premises and didn't feel secure, and then the police would come and make them move on."

This explains what happened with most of the Liverpool brothels, and also Sandy's Superstars in Manchester, but not why most Manchester brothels survived. The crackdown seems to have started in 2005 though.

"The 2005 raid on Cuddles 'massage parlour' in the West Midlands is regarded by sex worker activists and academics as pivotal, marking the start of a distortion in media coverage regarding sex work and a shift from tolerant to interventionist policing, all legitimised under the banner of anti-trafficking. Women found inside the brothel were marched out in front of the media, their faces exposed in the press in what has been likened to an American 'perp-walk', despite the fact that they were supposedly victims."

6 of the 19 women taken away by the police 'were detained under immigration powers and scheduled for deportation'. Catherine Bennett writing in the Guardian in 2005 doesn't mention deportations though (It's all very well condemning the sex traffickers, but what about the punters who keep the trade going?). This is what Catherine Bennett wrote:-

"In the recent raid on Cuddles, the Birmingham massage parlour where 19 women were immured, police had to use battering rams to knock down locked internal doors, windows had been boarded up, and an electric fence stopped anyone trying to escape from the back of the building. What kind of person lives in a house like this?"

The answer is nobody. Prostitutes don't live in brothels, not unless they are held captive, and I'm pretty sure this was not the case. I don't believe that there was an electric fence to stop women from escaping. Someone, perhaps Ms Bennett, invented this to try to drum up support for brothel closures. Three of the women working at Cuddles were part of the ECP.

Emily writes about police raids on Soho walk ups (in 2013 and 2016), in Newquay in Cornwall and in Redbridge in London. The media stated 'police rescue 15 women from pop-up brothels during Redbridge raids'. Emily made Freedom of Information requests and found that none of these 15 women had been referred to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM). This means the women did not consider themselves victims of trafficking. What's more, no Duty to Notify submissions were made. This means that the police did not consider them possible victims of trafficking either. She gives more examples of this happening.

These women were not prisoners in brothels and did not require rescue. Instead of being rescued many will have been detained for deportation or prosecution for brothel keeping. Not rescued from imprisonment but imprisoned.

Part of chapter 3 is her assessment of the Nordic Model. This is the final paragraph of her assessment.

"In sum, this legislative model provides no concrete evidence of combating trafficking but does provide conclusive evidence of creating vulnerabilities which may lead, at best, to more poverty, more abuse, riskier working conditions and, at worst, to severe exploitation itself."

The final paragraph of chapter 3 says this

"The 'radical feminists' and religious interests that promote models which harm women want us to think we have to take a side; against sex work entirely and therefore exploitation, or for it entirely and therefore comfortable with exploitation. This in totally untrue. In fact, we can be against exploitation and support those in sex work, recognising sex work as work and recognising trafficking for sexual exploitation as abhorrent and wrong."

Emily Kenway is a writer and activist. As a former advisor to the UK's first Anti-Slavery Commissioner she was at the heart of modern slavery action. She has written for a variety of publications including the Guardian and TLS. This book will have a place on my bookshelf alongside 'Revolting Prostitutes: The Fight for Sex Workers' Rights' by Molly Smith and Juno Mac and 'The Sex Myth' by Dr Brooke Magnanti as essential reference works on this subject.

In Catherine Bennett's article she suggests:-

"Perhaps the language barrier explains why so few of the men who are using - effectively raping - women who have been trafficked in this way never wonder if their young, obliging Moldavian, Lithuanian and Estonian companions might not prefer to be here as au pairs, or even to be back home, instead of submitting to sexual abuse from 30 strangers a day."

I have often wondered if Eastern European sex workers would have preferred to stay at home or to do menial work. Fortunately we have their words to answer that question. I will repeat my quote from the biography of the 6th Duke of Westminster who paid for the services of many of them. None of them have 30 clients a day. This is what a reporter who was watching the Duke told the author of the biography after questioning many sex workers emerging from his flat.

"They told me that it was either being an escort girl or doing cleaning jobs, which paid almost nothing and were often degrading. One said, 'If I had stayed at home it was poverty - no job, no life, no fun. In London I could live like a princess but only working as an escort girl. I could have been a cleaner or worked in a coffee bar for the minimum wage so I had to choose. I thought it would be better to sleep with the super-rich - even if they were old and boring and sometimes ugly!'"

So, I am not a rapist. But you, Catherine Bennett, do not know what you are talking about. There are good journalists, investigative journalists like Nick Davies, but you are not one of them.