UK needs its public's voice, not EU directive, to curve human trafficking

A few weeks ago, UK public and advocacy groups were upset when they found out that the UK administration decided to opt out on EU anti-human trafficking directive. According to these group, the directive would have bound UK to improve prosecution of UK traffickers abroad and bound the UK government to better assist victims, including child trafficking victims. Because currently legislation, according to these group, fail to meet the needs of victims, they argue that the UK government needs an accountability from a higher authority like European Court to carry out better anti-human trafficking measures. However, analysis of research studies on UK human trafficking shows that the urgency of change in system rather lies on elsewhere than opting in for EU directive.

PROBLEM OF UK ANTI-HUMAN TRAFFICKING MEASURE

One research by antislavery.org, among many other things, points out lack of services and assistance available for child trafficking victims. While the central government, whose staff has a minimal training on victim identification and human trafficking, has a sole discretionary power to identify victims, it often fails to recognize many people's victim status. For instance, the government does not identify one as a victim, if he or she arrived in UK voluntarily and later forced into slavery. Also, according to the U.S. Department of State TIP report, under the strict government work permit system obtained by the employers on behalf of employees, migrant workers are frequently subject to labor exploitation, including passport confiscation in the UK territory Bermuda. What's more, one research highlights that re-victimization of child trafficking victims from foster care or shelters because they have no access to adequate legal guardians, suitable foster parents, and adequate accommodation to protect these victims from re-victimization.

One report also points out a general attitude of the UK system towards the trafficking victims as another problem. Though TIP report in 2011 states that the UK government continues to take steps to establish victim centered approach, many cases show that trafficking is viewed rather as an immigration issue. One victim said that she was trafficked to UK for forced marriage. When she finally escaped four years later and reported the crime, the immigration officer didn't believe her and said that she could have escaped sooner. Another victim who was forced into domestic slavery "was told that as this had happened in 2008, she should now have 'overcome any trauma'."

SOLUTION IS NOT EU DIRECTIVE

Though many anti-human trafficking groups argue that the UK government needs a higher authority like European Court to improve its own system, this is unlikely a solution to the current problem. The issue of UK's human trafficking is not lack of legislation that UK directive can fill the loopholes in. In fact, UK has more legislation regarding human trafficking than it knows what to do with. They include:

The Immigration Asylum, and Nationality Act 2006 – makes employers who employ illegal migrants subject to a civil penalty. Furthermore if they knowingly employ illegal migrants they will be subject to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 allows authorities to confiscate criminal assets of traffickers

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture – this can be evoked under the Human Rights Act 1998

Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits slavery – this can be evoked under the Human Rights Act 1998

UK is not some developing country, where legislation is implemented through outside pressure and assistance. Its hundreds of years of its history proves that it is fully capable of governing, implementing and legislating its own laws.

THE SOLUTION IS IN PEOPLE

The advocacy group in UK should rather focus on raising the awareness among UK public and assist government authorities to train their staff on human trafficking. Closing the legislative loopholes, such as lack of provision of legal guardians in child trafficking cases, will come once people and government officials are educated enough to realize that human trafficking is a problem of economic, political, and civil rights issue, rather than immigration issue. And so does change of their perspective on human trafficking victims. In particular, once the UK public learns the lesson that inadequate victim assistance program only proliferates human trafficking and organized crime through re-victimization, they will be more than willing to push for more victim centered approach legislation through their own local representatives. Some advocacy group says that opting in for EU directive will help UK government more accountable to improve its own system. But, UK government is already accountable to its own citizens. Why should the citizens turn over their sovereignty to European Court when the UK citizens, not the judges in European Court, are the ones who are directly affected by human trafficking policies on UK's own soil?