by Sini Ramo on 17 Mar 2011 in Features
Slavery assumes multiple forms of subjugation and abuse in the twenty-first century. Crucially, the trafficking of migrant domestic workers constitutes a grave yet unacknowledged and neglected form of exploitation. “Trafficking for the purposes of domestic servitude is one of the worst forms of trafficking occurring in the context of a highly under-regulated sector,” says Dr Maria Grazia Giammarinaro, the Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings for The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
Trafficking in human beings involves transferring people for the purposes of exploitation through the use of force, coercion or deception, and is estimated to have an annual turnover of $32 billion. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) estimates that around 2.4 million people worldwide are trapped in forced labour as a result of human trafficking – this figure includes forced prostitution, begging, organ removal, forced marriage, and labour in fields such as agriculture, the garment industry and domestic work.
Trafficking in human beings in general, and the exploitation of domestic servants in particular, is a deeply gendered phenomenon. Sex trafficking accounts for 79 per cent of all trafficking, whereas trafficking for forced labour accounts for 18 per cent. Within these categories women make up the majority of victims: according to Anti-Slavery International, 98 per cent of those trafficked for sexual exploitation are women, and women also make up the majority within forced labour with approximately 56 per cent. The majority of domestic servants are also women due to the “feminine” nature of care work and cleaning.
While trafficking for sexual exploitation is the most well-known form of trafficking, trafficking for the purposes of domestic servitude is increasing and extending its reach globally. Trafficking in domestic workers seems to constitute a hidden form of exploitation that stands outside of public scrutiny due to its containment within the private realm of the household.
Unprotected Work, Invisible Exploitation: Trafficking for the Purpose of Domestic Servitude, an OSCE report launched on 7th March in London, highlights the gravity of this hidden form of slavery performed mainly by migrant workers, au pairs and children. “People trapped in domestic servitude are sleep and food-deprived, often have to work seven days a week and be at the disposal of their employer at all times. They are often not allowed any outside social contact and suffer from severe trauma. There are also many reported suicides following from these conditions,” says Giammarinaro.
Domestic servants are also often not paid at all, or paid randomly and not enough. Domestic servants assisted by Kalayaan, a London-based migrant domestic workers’ rights organisation, are generally paid around 50 pence an hour. Jenny Moss, Community Advocate at Kalayaan, emphasises that trafficking for domestic servitude constitutes a serious problem in the UK: “Domestic servitude is damaging and traumatising. Women and men suffer a loss of personal dignity and often also sexual abuse.”
A case study included in the OSCE report sheds further light on the slave-like and dehumanizing conditions endured by domestic servants. During her seven-year ordeal, “Ms. J,” an Eastern European au pair working in Switzerland, was severely beaten and raped by the family members. She was also forced to clean all night, consume food that had gone bad and eat anything she threw up. To date, she has not received any compensation and the perpetrators were never found guilty. Her trafficker was an “acquaintance”, as is often the case; however, workers are frequently lured in through private “employment agencies” charging huge fees for organisation and transport.
A major problem with the exploitation of domestic servants exists within diplomatic households. Domestic workers travelling with diplomatic staff are extremely vulnerable and do not enjoy the same rights as those on a domestic worker visa. “One-third of all of the cases Kalayaan referred to the UK government support system for trafficked people in 2009 came from diplomatic households,” Moss says, “the already-existing huge power imbalance between the domestic servants and diplomatic staff is exacerbated with diplomatic immunities and the employer’s elevated status.”
Domestic workers accompanying diplomats to the UK do not currently have the right to change their employer without losing their immigration status. “Unscrupulous diplomats use the ‘tying’ of the visa as a way of extracting compliance from the domestic worker,” Moss notes. In order to give victims of exploitation a viable escape route, immigration rules must be altered to allow workers to change to another employer outside the diplomatic mission. Although the survivors would likely not receive any compensation due to the employer’s immunity, they could find new work in order to support their families at home and reduce the chances of being re-trafficked. “It is unthinkable that the UK Government has not yet acted to provide the bare minimum of protection for these very vulnerable workers. It is simply not acceptable to stand by and allow what is effectively bonded labour,” Moss says.
Migrant domestic workers are often not in a position to seek justice or escape exploitation due to their immigration status, and employers are generally very skilled in taking advantage of their fears and vulnerability. Exploitation is also facilitated through states’ immigration policies. “As opposed to opening up options and giving people opportunities, states do the opposite and seriously increase the likelihood that those exploited will not come forward for fears of deportation,” says Bridget Anderson from Oxford University’s Centre for Migration, Policy and Society. Trafficking is often not conceived of as a grave human rights violation but as an immigration issue: “People looking at the issue through a ‘migration lens’ often end up blaming the victim for illegally entering the country,” Giammarinaro notes.
In her research on migrant domestic workers in London, Anderson has encountered blatantly racist and demeaning attitudes towards domestic staff. As an example, Anderson cites a British housewife who uses strong racial stereotyping in describing her servants: “The Nepalese are so quiet and discreet. Filipinos are brasher. They’re more social and they like to chat and gossip. They are quite pushy. Some people would say they were greedy.”
Domestic servitude is therefore a highly racialised form of work. Anderson highlights that it is the personhood of the worker, and not the labour power as such, that the employer is attempting to buy. Often middle-class employers exploiting domestic servants are not even wholly aware that their conduct is illegal or that they are involved in human trafficking. Another British employer interviewed by Anderson emphasises the benefits of servants’ vulnerability:
“They’re foreign and they’re illegal and they’re scared and timid so they are not going to take up space. They’re going to be very, very small, and that is generally easier to live with than someone who feels that this is their home. They’re in really bad situations… They’re terrified .”
Domestic workers are frequently subjected to sexual abuse, a fact that works to blur the distinction between sex traffic and traffic for domestic servitude. According to a 2009 report by Eaves, another London-based organisation providing support for vulnerable women, around 10 per cent of trafficked domestic servants have also experienced gender-based violence in the form of sexual harassment and rape. However, since sexual violence is highly underreported, real figures are likely to be much higher. “In some cases a sexually exploitative component is introduced in the labour situation, for example being forced to clean the houe naked, and in some cases re-trafficking into other sexually exploitative situations such as prostitution,” Eaves states.
The UK has been reluctant to opt into an EU directive that seeks to create common standards for combating human trafficking in the region. The directive imposes harsher penalties against human traffickers and requires states to provide victims with witness protection as well as legal and medical assistance. “The UK has to ensure that it’s at the forefront of adopting this legislation, and by not opting in it is essentially undermining the efforts of other EU states to ensure prosecution for traffickers and protection for victims,” says Paul Donohoe from Anti-Slavery International, “It is obvious that when we have cross-border problems we need cross-border solutions.”
It is of paramount importance that the UK opts into the new directive while also ensuring that domestic workers accompanying diplomatic corps reclaim their rights. As Donohoe puts it, “we need to transform human trafficking from a high-profit crime with low risks to a low-profit crime with high risks.” There are more slaves today than ever before in human history – until a tremendous change in public attitudes and government policies takes place, the silent exploitation practiced behind closed doors will continue and is only likely to intensify.
Source: thebeaveronline.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment