Liberal Senator Asking Tough -- But Wise -- Questions About Human Trafficking Bill

Unlike other critics, Lilian Eva Dyck could improve the bill

Unlike some other individuals who have opposed Bill C-258 -- Conservative MP Joy Smith's bill to impose mandatory minimum sentences on the human trafficking of children -- Liberal Senator Lilian Eva Dyck has raised some very reasonable concerns about the bill.

"While I agree that we do need such a bill, and while I believe that the intentions of the bill are laudable, Bill C-268 will not have any real impact on preventing child trafficking unless it is amended to incorporate tougher penalties and defines the criminal offence specifically as trafficking of minors for commercial sexual exploitation," Dyck recently told the Senate.

Dyck is precisely right about the length of the mandatory minimum sentence imposed by the bill -- five years is actually far too short. (A case clearly exists against Dyck's second suggestion. Conservsely, the bill should define the trafficking of a human being for the purpose of sexual exploitation as a criminal offense, with separate sentencing provisions for cases where the victim is a child defined within the bill.)

The issue of human trafficking is important however, and as Dyck points out, the links between the sex trade and human trafficking must be addressed.

"Honourable senators, there are basically two types of human trafficking," Dyck explained. "People are trafficked to work in the sex trade or other forms of servitude, such as domestic labourers, agricultural workers, hotel or restaurant workers, or other forms of servitude. Sex trafficking, or trafficking of persons specifically for the purpose of sexual exploitation, is the most common type of trafficking. In fact, the US Department of State estimates that 80 per cent of all victims of international human trafficking are forced into the commercial sex industry."

Smith suggested that the bill should be amended to match the mandatory minimum sentence in the United States.

"I think we all agree that Bill C-268 ought to be passed but, unless we strengthen it by setting a minimum sentence of ten years to match the American legislation, how can we expect to stop American traffickers who are next door to us from setting up shop here in Canada?" Dyck asked.

(Some would actually argue that the American mandatory minimum sentence itself is too lenient -- a mandatory life sentence would be more appropriate.)

But as Dyck points out -- and Smith would agree -- additional protections for children must become a goal of this bill.

"The vast majority of children are trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation," Dyck said. "Everyone agrees that trafficking of minors for commercial sexual exploitation is heinous. It is a despicable act that should be punished severely. The US Department of State estimates that 80 per cent of all victims of international human trafficking are forced into the commercial sex industry. In most circumstances, children under the age of 18 are channelled into the sex trade industry and, because of this, child trafficking is considered one of the worst manifestations of human trafficking."

Moreover, Dyck suggests that Smith's bill doesn't pay sufficient attention to human trafficking for the purpose of slavery. Nor does it recognize the differences between human trafficking for the purpose of slavery and human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

"Virtually every email message and letter that we received about Bill C-268 mentions the trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation," Dyck explains. "None, however, mention trafficking for forced labour. Trafficking for forced labour is not mentioned on the main page of Joy Smith's website, and she spoke almost exclusively about the trafficking of women and children, using examples of sex trafficking. There was very little mention of trafficking for forced labour in her speeches and letters."

Unlike some other critics of the bill, for whom an ideological opposition to the notion of mandatory minimum sentences was the animating motivation for their opposition, Dyck has at the forefront of her mind the protection of children from the sex trade.

"Though the horrific stories of child trafficking victims evoke deep emotional responses, we cannot let emotion outweigh reason," Dyck announced. "I fear that the bill in its present form will not do justice to children because it does not address sex trafficking directly. Most children are trafficked for victimization and commercial sex trade, but Bill C-268 does not differentiate between children trafficked for exploitation in the sex trade and those trafficked for forced labour. These two forms of trafficking are not equivalent; they are significantly different. A child trafficked to work in the commercial sex trade is in a far worse situation than a child forced to work as a labourer in a hotel, restaurant, agricultural industry or other type of servitude."

These are certainly tough concerns to raise about the bill. But they also raise important concerns regarding the bill itself, and don't detract from the ultimate end: toughening Canada's criminal justice system to properly deal with the atrocious crime of human trafficking -- unlike the objections raised by individuals like Libby Davies.

Another Reason Why that Conservative Senate Majority Can't Come Fast Enough

Precisely what does Anne Cools think she needs to "think about"?

With the Conservative Party on the verge of a Senate majority -- following the upcoming retirement of a number of Senators, and the inevitable appointment of Conservatives to take their place -- Canadians should be asking them if such a Senate majority is necessary, or even desirable.

The truth is that, based on how the current Liberal majority tends to act, a Conservative majority is both necessary and desirable.

The recent ongoing episode regarding the Senate and Conservative MP Joy Smith's anti-human trafficking bill is a splendid example of this.

The bill is currently being held up in the Senate. The culprit seems to be independent Senator Anne Cools, backed by the Liberal caucus.

The bill, which seeks to set a five year mandatory minimum sentence for cases of human trafficking involving children, will be proclaimed before the Olympics, when human trafficking in Vancouver is expected to spike considerably.

"We have to protect our children," Smith insisted. "These people in the Senate think they are the fountain of knowledge against all the experts."

But Senator Cools seems to think that there's actually something to think about regarding this bill.

"It's such an infantile statement it needs no answer." Cools retorted. "It stands on its own ignorance."

The truth of the matter is that the very notion that an anti-human trafficking bill needs to be subject to any amount of "investigation and thought" is itself infantile. It sends the message that Cools either doesn't understand how dangerous and immoral a crime like human trafficking is, or that she simply lacks the moral and ethical maturity to act against it.

As it turns out, Cools' objection to the bill is the same as that offered by NDP MP Libby Davies -- an ideological opposition to mandatory minimum sentences.

"I do not believe that mandatory minimum sentences will cure either the problems of the criminal justice system or the social problems that cause these offences," Cools insisted. "This is a deep matter, and these are deep questions that need serious attention from government and I would admit, deep study in this place."

It apparently just doesn't occur to Anne Cools that those who traffick other human beings simply belong in jail, for as long as it's possible to keep them there.

If Joy Smith's bill has any deficiency at all, it's that the mandatory minimum sentence is too lenient. The mandatory minimum should be life in prison.

It seems that the Conservative Party understands this, and that the current crop of Liberals in the Senate simply doesn't. The retirement of each and every one of them -- and a Conservative majority in that chamber, to be followed by reform -- cannot come soon enough.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Maria S Nunes - "Senator Anne Cools Needs to Know How a Connection is Made"

Let's Talk About "Serious", Shall We?

Bill Siksay clearly not serious about human trafficking -- or crime

Weeks after Conservative MP Joy Smith's private members' bill setting a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for child trafficking was passed by the House of Commons, at least one of the MPs who voted against it is still making excuses.

NDP MP Bill Siksay -- who, along with Libby Davies, was one of the only non-Bloc Quebecois MPs to vote against it -- insists that the government isn't being serious about child trafficking.

But Siksay is defending his actions based on the same limited ideology on criminal justice: the insistence that criminal law exists only to prevent crime and rehabilitate convicted offenders.

“I voted against it because I don’t believe this bill will do anything to prevent the crime, to stop human trafficking or to assist the victims of the crime,” Siksay insisted. “Mandatory minimum sentences have been proven to be utterly ineffective as a crime prevention tool and there’s just absolutely no evidence that they do anything to make the situation better.”

But Siksay is missing the mark. Locking human traffickers away does help protect their victims. Benjamin Perrin notes that "In order to come forward, the victim needs to know they are safe."

Or at least, needs to believe that they will be safe. Keeping their assailant behind bars would go a long way toward creating that sense of safety.

There is one valid point that Siksay does raise: the handling of victims by officials often provides a distinct disincentive for them to come forward.

“Victims are often deported from Canada if they’re discovered and often that puts them right back in the hands of the traffickers who sent them here in the first place,” Siksay explained.

This is a good point. But it's no excuse for Siksay to not support Smith's bill.

For example, Siksay could have offered his own private member's bill devoting more funding to the investigation and pursuit of human trafficking rings. He could have tabled a private member's bill that would automatically extent refugee status to people brought to Canada against their will by human traffickers.

Nothing about Joy Smith's bill would permanently close the books on the topic of human trafficking.

Even then, it's odd that individuals like Siksay simply can't grasp the notion that people who traffick in other human beings -- especially children -- belong in prison for the protection of those who would be their victims if they were allowed free.

Bill Siksay doesn't get it. He just. Doesn't. Get it. And he most certainly is not serious about the topic of human trafficking, or about crime.

If he were, he would have discarded his ideological views on crime and supported Joy Smith's bill.

They Perpetually Just Do Not Get It, Redux

Libby Davies votes against anti-child trafficking bill

A few days ago, in a blog post published on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Jeff Jedras demonstrated one of the weaknesses of Canada's ideological left: the inability to get it right on the topic of crime.

NDP MP Libby Davies recently underscored this troubled ideological attitude toward crime when she voted against an anti-child trafficking bill.

The bill, introduced by Conservative MP Joy Smith, is one of the rare bills to achieve quick passage through the House of Commons and is expected to quickly pass through the Senate as well.

The bill will institute five year mandatory minimum sentences for child trafficking, with tougher sentences if the child is killed, kidnapped, or sexually abused.

By the estimation of anyone who understands what human trafficking entails -- which is only more disgusting when it involves children -- one also understands that five years is actually an extremely lax sentence for such an act. In fact, the mandatory minimum sentence is not nearly hard enough (for this particular offence, the mandatory minimum sentence should be life in prison).

The problem of human trafficking is particularly troubling in Vancouver's downtown east side -- the riding that Davies represents.

"Whenever I give public presentations across the country, I bring up the Downtown Eastside," explains UBC Law professor Benjamin Perrin, who helped draft the bill. "It's the end of the line for people who have been exploited. Trafficking victims are found there under the control of hard narcotics. Why is the elected official of a riding in this horrible state of sexual exploitation unwilling to take a stand against the traffickers of children?"

The answer, as it turns out, is pure ideology.

"This is another ad hoc approach by the Conservatives to appear tough on crime when there is no evidence to show mandatory minimums have any effect on deterring human trafficking," Davies insists.

Once again, Davies has missed the mark incredibly in the name of an ideology that believes the only role of criminal law is to deter crime and rehabilitate offenders.

Once again, Davies has forgotten two key principles of the law: punishment and protection.

In fact, Smith's bill is important not only for the protection of those who would be victimized by human traffickers if allowed free again, but for the protection of those they've already victimized.

"In order to come forward, the victim needs to know they are safe," Perrin explains.

Not to mention the fact that there really are few punishments befitting the vile act of human trafficking. A proper-thinking country would maintain the death penalty for dealing with criminals who are this immoral and this dangerous. Moreover, human trafficking would be one of the few instances in which it would actually be used.

One can imagine that Libby Davies -- who is currently involved in a challenge to Canada's laws on prostitution and has seemingly never found a far-left cause she isn't eager to front -- would bellow to high heaven if such an act were ever contemplated by government.

Libby Davies, Jeff Jedras, the Bloc Quebecois and the other two other NDP MPs seem to share one common affliction:

The inability to separate the issue of crime and justice from ideology. It's one of the key afflications that prevents Canadians from taking them too seriously.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Jamie Lee Hamilton - "Rabid Reporter Hasiuk Again Takes Aim at Libby Davies"

Liberties Taken, Freedom Forfeit

Human traffickers should be no given no quarter in the eyes of the law

In some of the darkest corners of the world a secret underground economy trades in human misery on a nearly unimaginable scope.

Human trafficking is a grisly practice in which women -- normally very young women -- are kidnapped, intentionally addicted to drugs then forced into prostitution.

If Taken accomplishes anything as a film, it will make the viewer positively hate human traffickers. The viewer may even excuse themselves for wishing the villains were killed a little more slowly and much more painfully.

Liam Neeson stars as Bryan Mills, a former CIA operative quietly retiring so he can spend time with his 17-year-old daughter Kim (Maggie Grace). When Kim wants to go to Paris with her older friend Amanda (Katie Cassidy) Bryan has his reservations. Eventually at the urging of his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) Bryan relents and allows her to go.

Kim isn't in Paris for more than a few hours when she's kidnapped. Upon conferring with some friends from his days as a spy Bryan quickly concludes that Kim has been taken by human trafficking. He has 94 hours to get her back before she'll never be seen again.

Slowly but methodically Bryan violently dismantles the human trafficking ring that has kidnapped his daughter. No lives are spared, save that of Bryan's French intelligence acquaintance-turned-criminal-conspirator -- and even then only as a small courtesy.

Taken is an unflinching -- even if faintly gleaming with typical Hollywood polish -- look at the world of human trafficking.

The film reminds the viewers of the threat posed by human predators with no sense of morality. Countless lives are corrupted, destroyed and ultimately ended by these individuals in the name of petty monetary profit.

In Canada, Conservative MP Joy Smith is pushing to institute mandatory minimum sentencing for human trafficking.

However, in proposing a five-year mandatory minimum sentence of a mere five years in prison falls far short of the penalty this heinous crime should entail.

Considering the scope of the human misery caused by human trafficking, even if the current maximum sentence in Canada -- 14 years -- were the mandatory minimum proposed by Smith it would fall far short an appropriate punishment.

The mandatory minimum sentence for human trafficking should be life in prison. The maximum should be the death penalty -- a punishment that Canada hasn't practiced since the 1960s.

In lieu of the legislative tools to suitably end the lives of anyone caught engaging in human trafficking in Canada, Canadian courts should be provided the tools to do with such individuals as is fit: locking them away for the remainder of the lives they have forfeit by so horrifically taking liberties with the lives of others.