When
the House of Representatives votes 371-to-1, you know it is time to
read the small print. The "sex trafficking" elimination act is no exception.
It is proof positive that the old bait-and-switch works as well today
as in the days of old.
Who could oppose a bill to end the worldwide traffic of "700,000 and
possibly millions" of women who are forced into brothels? But Patricia
Ireland, Gloria Steinem and the other "human rights" activists raised
suspicion when they claimed the United States alone has 50,000 woman
and children trafficked across its borders. It turns out, it all depends
upon what you mean by "trafficking."
Section 3 says that "trafficking in persons is not restricted to sex
trafficking but often involves forced labor and other violations of
internationally recognized human rights." Other violations cover "slavery-like"
practices, which include "harsh or degrading" working conditions. Get
it yet? Of course, there is some real sex trafficking but the real point
of this legislation is that the labor unions were frustrated in their
direct attempt get union job protections written into worldwide trade
agreements so they switched to the more appealing theme of protecting
women against being forced into brothels to get the same goal accomplished.
How was this major labor union priority passed almost unanimously by
a Republican-controlled Congress? The union bosses had a great idea.
Bait the social conservatives with the sex trafficking angle and let
them take the lead. So big labor won the sanctions against "sweatshop"
labor conditions they could not get directly in the North American Free
Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, or China trade treaties.
The social conservatives were sweetened-up with a ban on Internet sales
of alcohol, limits on teen-age drinking, and states forced to pay if
they released sex offenders too early. Economic conservatives were concerned
about the limits to trade and the overriding of federalism on drinking
and sex-offender policy, but who had the courage to fight "the enslavement
of women?" Only one very brave soul, Rep. Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Republican, did so — and he was retiring.
There are sanctions against countries in the bill but not on trade nor
even cutting most aid. In fact, nothing is really aimed at them because
the actual target is U.S. business. Any firm that "in any way, financially
or otherwise," knowingly benefits from harsh or degrading working conditions
suffers a penalty of up to 20 years to life in the slammer.
Physical coercion is not required. If children are involved, there do
not even need to be "abusive practices" at all. Indeed, anyone who "shares
in the profits" of the harsh and degrading working conditions "or any
part thereof" is guilty. That is how they will get the GAP, Nike and
the rest.
Any Westerner thinks Third World labor conditions are "harsh and degrading."
With that standard and the threat of life in jail, any business would
cave to the unions and not use cheap foreign labor.
As in other such laws, this will harm the very victims of the evil they
supposedly are out to eliminate. If the sanctions work against either
the poor countries where conditions are so bad that these poor women
risk emigration that leads to brothels and sweatshops or the companies
employing people there, naturally, conditions there would get worse
and more desperate women would be created. More would be forced into
brothels or sweatshops, only it would be in the worse conditions of
the poorer foreign nation, so the sensitive in the rich nations would
not have to see them.
The paltry $30 million in grants and training only salve the liberal
conscience. There are scores of laws on the books at local, state and
national levels already against the real evils. Yes, offenders under
the national law would now be given 20 years to life — up from 10 years
—but it is doubtful this addition will stop these wretched traffickers.
Again, the real purpose is to protect rich union workers here from competition
from women in terrible economic conditions in poor nations and to make
rich U.S. corporations pay. When more sex-trafficking and poverty results
for these women, well, just pass another law.
The bill passed the Senate last week and is ready for the president's
signature. He has indicated he will sign it — surprise — we all know
where he stands on sex-trafficking.
The only sanity in the whole sad story was the bravery of one lone congressman
to vote against this sham. He was one of the few who voluntarily limited
his term in office and even kept his word not to seek re-election, so
he was free to vote against this bad bill. Who says term limits make
no difference and are not needed any longer?
Donald
Devine, former director Of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
is a columnist and a Washington-based policy consultant and a Vice Chairman
for the American Conservative Union.
