Contrasting the Conceptualisation of Victims of Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation: A Case Study of Brazilians in Spain and Portugal

Abstract

Despite the significant emphasis given to the trafficking of Brazilians to the sex industry of the Iberian Peninsula, the concepts of "victim of trafficking for sexual exploitation" used in these three countries vary. This article analyses the positions of Brazil, Spain and Portugal regarding the conceptualisation of "trafficking victim," focusing on their legislation and policies, as well as on relevant narratives which show how these policies are being applied. It showcases how the incompatible definitions being used compromise genuine anti-trafficking actions and may be an indicator that stopping trafficking may not be the primary concern of the policies developed by these governments. KeywordsBrazil; Human trafficking; Portugal; Spain; Trafficking victim; Trafficking policy This is a pre-print version of the published article. The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10610-014-9265-3. Pérez, J.L. (2014). Contrasting the conceptualisation of victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation: a case study of Brazilians in Spain and Portugal. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. doi: 10.1007/s10610-014-9265-3 Contrasting the conceptualisation of victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation: a case study of Brazilians in Spain and Portugal IntroductionBrazil is considered one of the major source countries of women who are trafficked to the European Union (EU) for sexual exploitation. Among the receiving states, Portugal and Spain, countries with which it has strong historical and cultural ties, have held at times some of the largest declared numbers and percentages of its victims (Ministério da Justiça 2011).This noteworthy human trafficking flow has been recognised as a problem by all three countries. It has resulted, from a policy standpoint, in a number of transatlantic meetings, declarations and agreements between the parties to ensure that traffickers are dealt with and victims protected. Considering the prominence given to the issue and the high level of multilateral cooperation involved, it would be reasonable to assume that all three countries would have compatible policies and definitions of human trafficking and that these would be based upon minimum international standards, particularly the United Nations (UN) Trafficking Protocol. 1 We thus turn specifically to the Protocol's condemnation of the "exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation" in the framework of human trafficking. The exact same language is used in the two foremost European instruments on the subject, the Council of Europe Trafficking Convention 2 and Directive 2011/36/EU. 3 However, in none of these documents is the term sexual exploitation defined, being left to the discretion of each state. There is thus no guarantee that these three countries use the same definition when considering what constitutes a victim of trafficking for sexual exploitation. The main objective of this article is thus to assess whether the concepts of (transnation...

“You are merely a Nigerian prostitute”: Sexual stigma and labeling of Nigerian victims of trafficking in Italy.

“…Jones et al (1984) describe how a label is applied during the process of stigmatization, which leads to “devastating consequences for emotions, thoughts and behavior” (p. 4). Labels or labeling are in this article thus connected during the process of stigmatization and used similarly to Butler (2009) use of “frames,” which are “politically saturated ways to present a person or deed that lead to assumptions being made about them” (De Pérez, 2015, p. 22). Experiences of stigma and labeling are evident in studies among sex workers (Benoit et al, 2018; De Pérez, 2015; Rocha-Jiménez et al, 2018), victims of sexual violence (Schmitt et al, 2020; Verelst et al, 2014), and victims of human trafficking for sexual exploitation (Dahal et al, 2015).…”

“…Labels or labeling are in this article thus connected during the process of stigmatization and used similarly to Butler (2009) use of “frames,” which are “politically saturated ways to present a person or deed that lead to assumptions being made about them” (De Pérez, 2015, p. 22). Experiences of stigma and labeling are evident in studies among sex workers (Benoit et al, 2018; De Pérez, 2015; Rocha-Jiménez et al, 2018), victims of sexual violence (Schmitt et al, 2020; Verelst et al, 2014), and victims of human trafficking for sexual exploitation (Dahal et al, 2015). An important aspect of stigma in those groups is that of “sexual stigma,” “the negative regard, inferior status, and relative powerlessness that society collective accords any nonheterosexual behavior, identity, relationship, or community … They are grounded in society’s power relations” (Herek, 2007, pp.…”

Trafficking Women for Sexual Exploitation: A Systematic Review

“…The articles' publication dates range from 2015 (e.g., [15]) to 2020 (e.g., [10,15,16]). The year with the most publications was 2019 (n = 4), followed by 2020 (n = 3), 2016 (n = 2), 2018 (n = 1), and 2015 (n = 1).…”

“…Of the ten qualitative studies, three utilized semi-structured interviews [5,10,16], one, a case study [15], the General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ) [14]), documentary research [16], semi-structured interviews and a field diary [17], semi-structured interviews and a literature review [12], and semi-structured interviews, observations, and documentary research [4,9].…”

Exploring the role of Spanish judges in the investigation and prosecution of human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation

“…Among the obstacles related to procedures in the police and judicial investigation, a series of aspects identified in different studies (e.g. de Pérez, 2015) are worth highlighting: the lack of consensus on the definition of trafficking that muddles the boundaries with other crimes (migrant smuggling, enforced prostitution, sexual exploitation or inducement or incitement to prostitution); the absence of agreed indicators for identification, since they vary among countries (Piscitelli, 2012; Surtees, 2008) and even among professionals from the same country (Villacampa and Torres, 2017); the lack of training of the professionals involved in the process of identification and protection (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2019); the places where the identifications are conducted – many through raids with the traffickers present – are not perceived as safe or comforting and neither do they instil a sense of security in the victims, who, thus, resist being identified; the lack of manpower and various resources in the crime investigation (Meneses-Falcón et al, 2015); and inadequate police practices in the procedure (Bjelland, 2017). Some studies of judicial cases of sex trafficking have revealed aspects that have led to the low level of convictions of this crime in the EU.…”