A somewhat expected theme discussed at theconference was the debate on how to exactly define the crime of human
trafficking. Most importantly, are the terms modern-day slavery and human
trafficking equivalent? Are there similarities and differences between the
Atlantic Slave Trade and human trafficking?
In order to properly define the crime of human
trafficking, activists need to not only know what it is but also what it isn’t.
There are two major issues with that.
First, there are those who view the enslavement of
Africans during the Atlantic Slave Trade as something so horrible that no other
practice could possibly compare to it. As Jowl Quirk, a Senior Lecturer in
Politics at the University of Witwatersrand, shrewdly observed, the tendency,
labeled as strategic minimization, to minimize and excuse slave-like practices
is responsible for the lack of acknowledgement of human trafficking as akin to
what has now been termed “the old slavery.”
I am sure that upon significant research and
examination, we can determine (and many already have) that there are numerous
similarities between the practice of slavery in the past and the contemporary
crime of human trafficking. Of course, since the context is different, we can
also find a lot of differences. This, however, should not prevent us from acknowledging
that the conditions most human trafficking victims live in significantly resemble
the conditions enslaved Africans lived in.
The second major issue with defining slavery is
the tendency to expand the boundaries of slavery, labeled as rhetorical
inflation, for the purposes of sensationalism. For those who become entangled
in the tentacles of rhetorical inflation, it becomes very difficult to define
what slavery is not. Basically, it creates the perfect conditions to refer to
any mild inconvenience as slavery.
The above is the issue I seriously have a problem
with. Rhetorical inflation seems to be a common side effect of living in a
world of instant gratification and convenience. The moment something goes
wrong, some are immediately inclined to label the situation as slavery, or
torture, or any other example of extreme pain and suffering.
Somehow I feel that this obsession with defining
the crime detracts from the very real and very torturous experience survivors
go through, but I am not sure what the solution to the problem would be. There
is a need of a clear definition in terms of the law, but how can we make sure
that we include and exclude what is actually appropriate to be included or
excluded?
-
Krasi
No comments:
Post a Comment