Since then, while covering the topic of human trafficking, I have heard Lloyd talk at numerous events and panels. I have called her up for quotes and insights, like the time football star Lawrence Taylor was arrested. I had needed to get a lucid response on why the media was portraying an under-age trafficked girl as a “hooker.”

Lloyd always speaks the truth to power. It may be to a New York City police commissioner, or an affluent Manhattan audience learning for the first time that 13-year-old African-American girls in Bedford–Stuyvesant, Brooklyn are being bought and sold. Lloyd frequently notes that they are part of an estimated 200,000-300,000 adolescents who are at risk annually for commercial sexual exploitation in the United States.

Consequently, it was no surprise to me that the memoir Lloyd had penned, Girls Like Us: Fighting for a World Where Girls Are Not for Sale, an Activist Finds Her Calling and Heals Herself, would be a tough, gritty and brutally honest account. Lloyd traces how a difficult childhood led to a hair-raising journey that encompassed risk, recruitment, violent abuse, breaking free from sexual exploitation—and ultimately healing. She now is a top activist in the anti-trafficking movement.

Finding her purpose in working with girls “in the life,” Lloyd connects to those in crisis based on shared experiences, understanding without judgment, and respect. Founding Girls Educational and Mentoring Services (GEMS) in 1998, Lloyd went back to school to attain her GED, going on to receive a Bachelors degree in Psychology from Marymount Manhattan College and a Masters in Applied Urban Anthropology from the City College of New York. She has racked up numerous awards for her efforts, all while “owning her experience.”

Girls Like Us presents a dual story. One is Lloyd’s personal narrative; the other is a primer on what trafficked American girls are up against. Lloyd outlines the elements that make girls vulnerable, examines how they are sexually exploited, and discusses the role of pimps, johns, and cops in the equation. The inherent difficulties of overcoming the trauma of sexual servitude often mimic the symptoms of Stockholm syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Lloyd breaks down one fallacy after another, many unfortunately believed by social workers, law enforcement officials, and those making decision calls in the judicial system. If misconceptions could start to be addressed, perhaps a real awareness toward new solutions could be innovated.

There is so much that needs to change, and Lloyd points out the problems with crystal clarity. One of her frequent talking points is the statistic that the estimated median age of entry into the commercial sex industry occurs between the ages of 12 and 14. Defining the difference between an “exploited child and a prostitute” is a full time endeavor. She explains that “leaving the life takes practice,” and that girls need to have the unfailing support of a person who will not “give up on them.” Most important to note are the socioeconomic causes, that for some baffling reason appear more comprehensible when they occur in foreign countries, but which are insufficiently grasped on our own national turf.

Lloyd posits that too often the wrong questions are asked. Instead of taking a facile approach to a girl’s situation with the query, “Why doesn’t she just leave?”—Lloyd suggests an examination of the impact of lack of income, homelessness, and neglect, along with “race and class factors.” There are over 500,000 children in New York City living in poverty.

For police who don’t understand that captivity isn’t an issue of being physically tied and bound, it can be frustrating to translate the depths of a “trauma bond” in an existence predicated on terror. Leaving the life and making the transition is difficult. As Lloyd says, “Healing is a messy, complicated process that’s rarely linear.” It doesn’t help that society—even those tasked with supporting victims—often relay the message that the girl’s “exploitation was their choice,” leaving them with a burden of shame and a “policy that blames the victim.”

One of the major challenges is the need to reframe not only attitudes, but also language. The United Nations and UNICEF have adopted the term commercially sexually exploited child/youth to reference those who are underage.  New terminology will help grow novel thinking. Once assimilated into the collective mindset, a change can start to be reflected in the media and popular culture. As Lloyd emphasizes, most of America didn’t have trouble understanding the trauma of Elizabeth Smart. But when you shift from her story to a 14-year-old girl of color in the Bronx, the reaction is totally different.

Girls Like Us puts it all out there—no holds barred. In addition to the contribution that Lloyd has made with a book filled with visceral punch and detailed veracity, she has left the public with nowhere to hide.

There can no longer be the question, “Who knew?”

The movie is structured in a style reminiscent of the 1980s Costa-Gavras narratives.  The dramatization is based on actual events. Some characters have been merged, with names and timelines changed for the sake of a streamlined plot. One of the anchoring characters is Madeleine Rees (Vanessa Redgrave), who was the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bosnia.

Shot in palettes of blues and browns, the facts are laid out as Bolkovac—who is of Croatian descent—takes her belief in “doing her job” into the field.  After ten years of experience on the domestic violence beat back home, Bolkovac finds herself up against a web of corrupt players ranging from local police and United Nations peacekeepers, to State Department brass and “Democra” bigwigs.

Bolkovac discovers that the area’s bars and clubs are serving as a front to sites where girls from the Ukraine, Russia, and Eastern Europe have been enslaved. Many of the girls being sold to an international clientele are between 12 and 15 years old.

The story’s trajectory follows Bolkovac (who served as a story consultant) from her discovery of trafficking corruption, complicity, and cover-ups through her efforts to report her findings—despite files of evidence disappearing and witness tampering. Death threats are the precursor to her being fired, when she gets too close to the truth.  The multilayered cover-up finally sees the light of day when she files a wrongful dismissal case against “Democra,” and feeds the information from her findings to the British press.

Director Larysa Kondracki spent time with her co-writer in Eastern Europe doing background research.  There are two key scenes that speak volumes.  One is revelatory, the other is searing.  In the former, Bolkovac—and the audience—begin to understand the magnitude of what she is up against as she scrutinizes the first photos and bits of information she had pinned to her office wall.  The camera pulls back to show how the original findings have grown exponentially.  The latter is an indelible image of one of the girls being raped, tortured and killed in front of the others, as an example of why compliance is the only way to survive.

The Human Rights Watch Film Festival showcased the New York premiere of The Whistleblower in June. HRW has done extensive work documenting post-war abuse in the Balkans.  Their website article “Bosnia and Herzegovina: Traffickers Walk Free” gives an overview of the material covered in the movie.  In addition, they issued a report in 2002 that breaks down their findings into twelve comprehensive sections.

I interviewed Kondracki by e-mail to get additional insights about her vision and aspirations for the movie.  She explained that as a Ukrainian Canadian, the issue of sex trafficking was widely discussed within her community.  When she read Bolkovac’s book, The Whistleblower: Sex Trafficking, Military Contractors, and One Woman’s Fight for Justice, she was overwhelmed by the breadth of the crime of trafficking.  She was surprised that a film had not already been made.

What made you decide to do the movie as an indie film? Did you think it would give you more latitude to portray the story as you best saw fit?

To be honest, I didn’t see another way. We set out to do it. We spent some time in studios, which was a valuable experience and I think the script was improved when we were there. But ultimately, this was the way that made sense. That’s where I have to hand it to the producers. Once we got the project out, we were shooting within nine months.

Do you see the film reaching people about the issue of human trafficking in a way that a news story or article cannot?  Are you hoping that the “political thriller” tag will pull people in, which might otherwise be afraid of the subject matter?

Absolutely. Kathy’s story is practically a Robert Ludlum novel. Sex, scandal, corruption, governments, international cover-ups. It’s something you would usually make up. Our primary goal was to make a good thriller with a great character at the center. Is she going to get the girl? Are they going to get our heroine?

Was it Bolkovac’s experience with domestic violence in the United States, combined with how she got a conviction on her first time at bat in Bosnia, that made Madeleine Rees reach out to her?

Yes. That conviction made Kathy really stand out.

How did you decide how far to go with graphically showing the abuse and torture of the trafficked girls?

I wasn’t going to make this movie and not be realistic. But I also had no intention of deterring audiences. We tested it several times, and found the right balance. You don’t see anything. It’s not unlike Silence of the Lambs in a way. It’s what’s inferred.

How is the United Nations dealing with the film? I understand there was an internal memo that was circulated that advocated a “no comment” policy. Does that suggest that they haven’t learned anything from their experience about transparency?

The internal memo left it at the UN being split. But we have learned from sources that they are sticking with a “damage control” policy. I really have no idea what they’ve learned, and why they aren’t seizing the opportunity not only to right these wrongs, but in doing so, to gain some faith from so many cynics that are watching. Show us you want to be the organization you’re meant to be. I’ve written a letter to Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, and we have offered to screen the film wherever and whenever they want. So far…No Comment.

cultureID specifically deals with connecting those doing cultural work with political and social intent/content with audiences.  How do you see The Whistleblower within this context?

I genuinely believe that films have one of the loudest voices. And I believe that if we can get this story into public discourse, the State Department and the United Nations will be embarrassed. Hopefully, enough to do something. Look at Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions…I’m not saying that’s done with, but at least they aren’t snatching people in plain sight out of airports anymore. Same thing here. U.S. tax dollars should not be going to the buying and selling of girls. Period. There’s no grey area to that.

This article originally appeared on the website cultureID.

The exact numbers of sexually trafficked persons, including children, varies from organization to organization.  Sexual trafficking is now the world’s second top crime, tied with the illegal sale of guns. The drug trade is number one.

Individuals are taking personal steps to get involved and lobby for change.  Some are coming out of the faith-based arena.  One of them is Peggy Sakow, the U.S. Outreach Coordinator for Temple Emanu-El-Beth Sholom, a Canadian Reform congregation.  The synagogue has partnered with the Israeli group ATZUM, and their Task Force on Human Trafficking (TFHT).  Jointly, they have launched a North American letter writing campaign directed to prominent cabinet ministers of the Israeli Government.  It urges the leaders to pursue tougher measures against human trafficking and sex slavery in Israel.

Sakow, who definitively identifies herself as an “abolitionist,” was in New York City on January 7^th, the day before she was scheduled to leave for Israel.  She is traveling as part of a group that is advocating for the passage of a bill drafted in 2008, but not yet approved. It is The Prohibition of the Use of Paid Sexual Services Law, now languishing in the Israeli Knesset.  It calls for criminalizing the clients of the sex industry, with punishment consisting of six months’ imprisonment—or an education program for first-time offenders.

The legislation is based on the “Nordic model” (laws which have been enacted in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland), which targets the demand for paid sex. The Swedish law has a ten-year success record.  Framed within the context of gender equality and an explicit human rights perspective, Sakow told me that after passage in those countries, “demand had dropped by 45 percent.”  On the buying of sex, Sakow said, “Where there’s men, there’s trafficking.  It has nothing to do with religion.”

Norma Ramos, Executive Director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, commented by telephone on what the passage of the bill would mean.  She said, “It would be a beacon of hope.  It would represent a huge human rights stand in that part of the world, signaling the seriousness with which Israel takes ending human trafficking.”

Founding director of ATZUM, Rabbi Levi Lauer, has noted that the human trafficking industry in Israel is a $500 million dollar industry.  Sakow, speaking in the context of Jewish activism, told me, “We are commanded to do this.  We have a partnership with Israel.”  She e-mailed me the Temple Committee Against Human Trafficking booklet, written by Rabbi Leigh Lerner.  In it, a range of points brought up in the sexual trafficking conversation are addressed within the context of Jewish law.  They include:

• Gender equality
• Prostitution as a human rights abuse constituting violence against women and girls
• Victimization through deception and kidnapping
• The inability of victims to free themselves
• Prostitution as a “choice of no choice”
• Human traffickers, pimps, men who buy sex—and criminality
• Disputation of prostitution as a victimless crime
• The relationship between pornography and prostitution

Tackling trafficking in Israel from another angle is the Boston-based filmmaker iLan Azoulai.  Currently working on the documentary Holy Ghetto, he spoke with me at length by telephone on how his commitment to this cause evolved.

Southern Tel Aviv: A Trafficking Hub ©Emese Benko/Anzenberger

Three years ago, Azoulai was part of a film project detailing the sexual traffic flow from Nepal to India.  He was shocked to learn about young women and girls being lured into leaving their homes for what they anticipated would be a “better life.”  It seemed like a news story from a far away location.  The revelation that confronted him when he next visited Israel on his annual trip, was that he recognized his hometown neighborhood of southern Tel Aviv as “a major hub for slavery, drugs, and trafficking.”

Azoulai decided to track down the truth behind the women living on the streets and those who were being forced into prostitution.  He connected with an American running a shelter for homeless women in prostitution and volunteered at the facility. Many of the women he met there had been illicitly brought to Israel, primarily from the territories of the former USSR.  Several were facing deportation by the state of Israel, despite the fact that they have children who are considered citizens.

The story line of Holy Ghetto centers around three women who are trafficking victims.  Two were introduced to Azoulai through secret sources.  The narrative of the third includes her addiction to drugs.  Israel’s policy is to deport women who have been trafficked into the country after they receive one year of rehabilitative services.  They are then sent back to their countries of origin— despite whatever dangers await them.  Azoulai is closely monitoring the potential ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court on the fate of these women and their children.

Having spent over $40,000 of his own money, Azoulai is trying to raise the additional $300,000 he needs to finish his account—which he believes will bring light to a woefully under-reported story.  His goal is to make a final visit to Israel to shoot remaining key scenes and interviews, and to be present to cover the judicial hearings that are integral to the narrative.  Once that is completed, he will face the hurdle of post-production expenditures.  Despite the obstacles, Azoulai believes that raising awareness is at the root of having the public understand this vast international problem.

Why is sexual trafficking such an epidemic?  Ramos emphasizes, “You can’t end sex trafficking without ending commercial sexual exploitation, which is the end point of sex trafficking.

As Rabbi Lerner points out in the final section of “Jewish Teachings on The Crime of Human Trafficking,” where he posits that the demand for paid sex fuels human trafficking for prostitution:

“Everyone knows that it is a sin, a crime against religious ethics and law, to steal.  But not everyone knows that in the matter of theft, Judaism also holds the receiver responsible.  If no one were willing to receive stolen goods, crimes of theft would drop markedly.  It’s a function of the free market.

Comparably, if no one bought sex, virtually no sex would need to be for sale.  Human trafficking for prostitution would come to a near standstill.  Those who buy sex must reckon with the fact that their presence in that “market” gives unscrupulous and violent men cause to dominate, enslave, and abuse women and children, moving the enslaved across the country or across borders in order to profit from willing buyers of sex.”

In 2005, Winn was introduced to feminist legal theory and its application to women’s human rights violations by her law professor, Kate Nace Day.  Deeply impacted, she founded BITAHR, which “has a particular interest in the right of women and children to be free from forced prostitution and commercial sexual exploitation (CSE).”  As Winn’s work in human trafficking was grounded in Day’s teachings, she asked her former teacher to join the BITAHR Board of Directors.

Day’s philosophy was that utilizing the imagery and visceral impact of film could bring a real understanding of sex trafficking to the public.  Basing that point of view on the premise that “film reaches people in a way that print journalism simply can’t,” the two women began to examine the “feasibility of organizing a film festival.”

A year and a half ago they traveled to New York City to meet with the co-founder of Equality Now, Jessica Neuwirth, and the organization’s Executive Director, Taina Bien-Aimé.  Winn describes them as “two of the most generous and impactful feminist activists in the world.”  The insights they garnered from their discussion were instrumental in helping to jump start their concept.

Co-sponsors of the festival include Amnesty International USA, Documentary Educational Resources, and the Harvard Kennedy School Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. Ms. Magazine, PeaceKeeper Causmetics, and The Body Shop signed on as donors.  Others have offered support based on “long-standing personal, professional, and academic relationships.”

Winn explained that speakers were chosen based on their “immeasurable” insights and perspectives. Each panelist has been in the forefront of making vital contributions to the anti-sex trafficking movement. They come from diverse backgrounds—encompassing survivors, filmmakers, researchers, and activists.

The keynote presenter, Ambassador Swanee Hunt, met Winn when they crossed paths at The Protection Project in Washington, D.C.  Hunt’s initiative, Demand Abolition, a program of Hunt Alternatives, has been a multi-dimensional sponsor of the gathering—giving funding, time, and participation.

During the four-day forum, there will be a performance by Sarah Jones, a speech delivered by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), and an exclusive preview of Holy Ghetto, which “traces the narratives of marginalized women within Tel Aviv’s red light district.”

I asked Winn how she envisioned film as being instrumental in amplifying the issue of sex trafficking.  She responded by e-mail:

“As a law professor, and a recent law school graduate, respectively, Kate and I had powerful experiences with documentary’s unique ability to capture the victim’s humanity. Film—as compared to case law, for example—was the driving force behind my decision to pursue human rights oriented work.  So it is through personal experience that we started sharing film, and we actually saw some concrete outcomes.  Policymakers have moved on the issue based on film. In the United States Congress, Congressman Jim McGovern (D – MA) opened hearings on domestic minor sex trafficking in the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission as a direct result of seeing Playground, which is playing on Sunday. For every person who views a documentary, there is an exponential effect. They talk about it, they write about it, and sometimes they turn activist.”

The movies were chosen based on intensive research and extensive viewing.  The deciding factors embraced the films being powerful, accessible, non-gratuitous, innovative, and geographically representative.  There was a pointed focus on including narratives that examined the crisis in the America.  As Foley pointed out, “It wasn’t until this year that the United States, which has been assessing every other country for nearly ten years on their efforts to combat human trafficking, actually published a self-assessment in its annual G-TIP Report.  She added, “I think people are just starting to realize that we in the United States also have a major problem with trafficking.

As the information started to come in, the public learned that Taylor was being charged with third-degree rape and soliciting prostitution – a reference to the young girl who was brought to his room at the Rockland County hotel.  The accounts asserted that Taylor paid $300 for the “encounter.”

For those unfamiliar with New York State law, a Class A felony rape in the third degree occurs when an adult is over 21 years old and the minor is under 17.  The man who presented the girl to Taylor, Rashee Davis, was repeatedly referred to in the press as the “girl’s pimp.”

Pimp is a term that has a specific connotation.  If Davis had been characterized as a trafficker, a very different and more complete understanding of the story would have been advanced.

In March, the authorities were informed by the family that the girl was missing.  The Associated Press detailed that she met Davis two to three weeks ago at a Bronx bus stop. She described to investigators how the 36-year-old man offered her a place to live and a way to earn money.

When a girl is under-age, she is automatically classified as a trafficking victim.  Norma Ramos, Executive Director of Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, spoke to me about the rapidity with which traffickers “identify runaways and move in on them.”  The statistics show that these children are picked up between six to eight hours after they have gone missing from their homes.

The girl’s uncle received a text message from his niece stating that she was being driven back to the Bronx.  She gave him an address, where she was found with Davis.  She had a black eye and facial bruising.

Most of the local news stories gave little to no insight to the aspects of human trafficking apparent in this case, nor the prevalence of this activity on New York City streets.  There were, however, repeated references to Taylor’s stature as “one of the greatest defensive players in NFL history,” his past brushes with the law, and his drug and alcohol problems.

Ramos pointed to the “perceived entitlement to buy sex” and in a release written about the event stated that it was:

“yet another example of the most powerful, respected and privileged among us demonstrating the normalization of the sexual exploitation of women and girls. Mr. Taylor is part of what we in the anti-trafficking movement call the demand that fuels sex trafficking. Without the demand for commercial sexual exploitation there would be no 16-year-olds or 26-year-olds for that matter, being offered for sale, to Johns by traffickers.”

I contacted Rachel Lloyd, Executive Director of Gems, based in New York City. The organization works to get girls who are between the ages of 12-21, “who have experienced commercial sexual exploitation and domestic trafficking, to exit the commercial sex industry and to develop to their full potential.”  “It’s not a unique story,” she emphasized.  “It’s only unique because a celebrity is involved.”  Gems has worked to bring attention to the fact that the entry point for girls into the commercial sex industry is between 12 and 14 years old.  For underage girls, it is not a question of choice – as they are lured, misled, forced, and manipulated into the role. The numbers show that annually, 100,000 children in the United States are victims of trafficking. During a discussion about the media’s presentation of the story, Lloyd explained, “We don’t use the words prostitution or prostitute. We see it as commercial sexual exploitation and domestic minor trafficking.”

Bradley Myles, Executive Director and CEO of Polaris Project weighed in via e-mail writing,  “It is important to highlight that cases like this happen throughout the United States, where minors are sexually exploited and bought by men every day.”

A look at the responses to one Internet report showed 3,000 views and 2,000 comments.  An oft-repeated question asked, “Was he supposed to ask for the birth certificate of a prostitute?” Another recommended, “Write him a ticket and let him go.”  Only a few observers engaged with the issue of human trafficking.  There were numerous calls to legalize prostitution, but few reflections on where the culpability of customers and traffickers fits into the equation.

This is a conversation that goes far deeper than Lawrence Taylor’s personal actions.  It’s time for the media to take responsibility for how the language used in telling such a narrative adds to the lack of awareness about the ramifications of human trafficking. In the struggle to eradicate the exploitation of girls and women, this would be an excellent first step.

This article originally appeared on the website Women Make News.

The first panel “On the Brink: Women in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” assembled Ching Eikenberry, a strategic communication coordinator for USAID in Kabul; Andeisha Farid, one of the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women recipients; Suraya Pakzad, Executive Director of Voice of Women; Journalist Gayle Lemmon; Fatima Bhutto, Pakistan Correspondent for The Daily Beast.  The evening got off to a shaky start as repeated Tweets questioned the choice of moderator, Frances Townsend, former Assistant to President Bush for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.  A reporter from Pakistan sitting in front of me commented on the “lack of contextualization” of the panel.  When questions from the audience were taken, author Erica Jong asked those on stage, “How can we help?”  Fatima Bhutto, niece of Benazir Bhutto, suggested that the “U.S. government stop propping up corrupt governments like Karzai.”

After a short film outlining the work that Goldman Sachs has been doing through the 10,000 Women program, there was a break for dinner.  Soon after, a phalanx of security officers started to line the lobby of the Millenium Hotel in anticipation of the arrival of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, scheduled to introduce a presentation of Seven.

The reading, directed by Julie Taymor, featured performing actresses including Archie Panjabi, Meryl Streep, and Marcia Gay Harden. Brown introduced Clinton with the line, “With her around, no glass ceiling is safe.”  Clinton referenced the Fourth World Conference on Women that was held in Bejing in 1995, noting both “how far we’ve come and how far we’ve yet to go” and that “progress was undeniable but insufficient.”  A theme that would be repeated over the following days was that “women’s rights may exist on the books and in the law, but not on the street.”

Nowhere was that more apparent than during the “Rape as a Weapon of War” panel, crisply and efficiently led by Christiane Amanpour.  Present at the Hague in 2001 when rape was declared a war crime, Amanpour asked Dr. Denis Mukwege, Founder of the Panzi Hospital of Bukavu, Annie Rashidi-Mulumba, Consultant on Human Rights for the U.N. in Cameroon, and Leymah Gbowee, Executive Director of Women Peace and Security Network Africa, for their insights. Mukwege explained via an interpreter, “It is no longer rape.  It is sexual massacre.”

Rape is conducted in public, as women are violated by groups of men.  Their vaginas are often penetrated by foreign objects.  When women first started coming into Mukwege’s hospital, they didn’t want to speak about what had happened.  He was seeing more and more patients with severe sexual trauma.  In response to Amanpour’s question of what has changed since the problem became exposed, he gave a one-word answer. “Rien.” (“Nothing.”)

Gbowee discussed Liberia and why the community of women “stepped out to speak.”  Women realized the “price we were paying for being silent was too high.” She related, “Guns and knives were being inserted into women’s vaginas.  We were tired of being raped and our sons being used as part of the war machine.”  Rashid-Mulumba asked, “Do I have to see a five-year-old girl without a vagina or an anus?”  Without education, women don’t understand how to deal with their rapes or advocate for action.  Mukwege spoke about the psychological damage, which is as debilitating as the physical realities.  He related that as women are marginalized and stigmatized, they must be able to understand that they can go on and have a reason to live.  That, he believes, is the road to solving the problem.

The relationship between the natural riches of the continent’s mines and rape actions was addressed.  Motivation behind the rape attacks include the goal of intimidating people into abandoning their homes and villages, so that it can be mined without restriction.  Gbowee put forth the need to educate the boys.  She said, “In Liberia, we are starting to work with the next generation of males and it is gradually taking root.”

“Today,” Mukwege said, “the silence is broken.”  However, he emphasized, “We have to treat sexual violence as terrorism.”  Gbowee suggested that Michelle Obama use her influence and call the first ladies of Africa to the White House for a summit.”

Next up, Barbara Walters interviewed former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.  As the audience was trying to process the devastating information from the rape panel, Walters asked, “What can the United States do?”  Albright pointed out that women need to be on the law tribunals.  She felt that NGOs, businesses, and government needed to act in tandem.  She advocated for the United Nations to play a supporting role, and concurred that there was a proactive role that the first ladies of Africa and Michelle Obama could play.  When Walters asked, “Should women’s rights be put before strategic alliances?” (i.e. the case of Saudi Arabia), Albright replied, “We need to understand what the women in Saudi Arabia want.”  She made a distinction between “engagement” and being the policeman of the world.  Her most arresting comment was the analogy, “Women in a country are like the canary in the coal mine.”

The “Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery” dialogue, led by Tina Brown, was tackled by Luis CdeBaca, Ambassador-At-Large in the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking Persons; Dao Tuyet Lien, former trafficking victim; Sunitha Krishnan, Co-founder of Prajwala; Shoma Chaudhury, Managing Editor of Tehelka.  Trafficking in people represents the third-largest source of profits for organized crime after drugs and guns, and is a worldwide epidemic that is traced to globalization. A person can be kidnapped, sold, or falsely recruited –and be on a plane the next day to a new location.

Krishnan discussed the protocol of rescuing those entrapped in brothels. Often children are hidden behind the structures of false closets and bathrooms.  She set the record straight, clarifying that “very few people are in India’s brothels because of free choice.”  As a victim of a rape attack committed by eight men, she learned from her own experience that when raped, “the victim is then revictimized for being a victim.” Chaudhury elucidated that trafficking in India “covers the spectrum from sexual to bonded labor.”

Tools of intimidation include films being taken of the girls being raped, which leaves those enslaved believing they have no other options.  Unrescued young girls, seeing no way out, grow into the role of brothel matriarch – who then recruits a fresh wave of girls.  On trying to get media attention without sensationalization, Chaudhury stated flatly, “What is not acceptable for urban, western women is not acceptable for those in rural settings.”  Survivors must be supported, hired in jobs to give them economic independence, and reintegrated into society.

It was ironic that the next interview, conducted by Marie Brenner, was with the dynamic Kiran Bedi – India’s first and highest ranking female police officer.  When given an appointment to oversee a jail as a “punishment,” she quickly turned a potentially volatile situation around through her empathy and insights.  She recognized women who were imprisoned for prostitution as “victims being victimized.”  She visited brothels and learned what women had experienced. When it was time for them to be released, she made sure they had a secure setting to go to.  She told the prisoners, “I’m here for you.”  Bedi prayed and sang with them, directing them to a path of meditation, mindfulness, and education.

To implement change, she has called for more women in governance, police work, and combat/peace keeping. “If there is good policing,” Bedi said, “these brothels can not continue to grow.”

The three day conference was convened by Tina Brown; Diane von Furstenberg; Kathy Bushkin Calvin, CEO of the United Nations Foundation; Susan Davis, the Chair of the Board of Vital Voices, with financial partnership from ExxonMobil, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, and HP, who was the “technology and innovation” partner.

In Part 2 – Technology Impacting Women’s Lives; Novelist Anchee Min; Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan; Dambisa Moyo; Valerie Jarrett; Nora Ephron…and more

All photos by Marc-Bryan Brown and Kevin Tachman for The Daily Beast/Women in the World.

This article originally appeared on the website Women Make News.

A new film documentary, Fatal Promises directed by Kat Rohrer, will be screening from September 16^th – September 24^th at the Cinema Village in Manhattan. Rohrer partnered with her mother, Anneliese Rohrer, a 30-year veteran of Austrian journalism, to examine the various facets of human trafficking. The film, four years in the making, follows the stories of five people – three women and two men. They relate how they were lured by promises of employment, and lacking opportunities sought job solutions abroad. Their harrowing nightmares ended in relief brought about by rescue or through escape. Their personal narratives fulfill the need to put a face to an issue that is perceived as overwhelming. As Gloria Steinem points out in her on-camera comments, “What we need are stories.”

In tandem with these visceral accounts are interviews with activists, government officials, and legislators. Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of UNODC, discusses the “moral imperative” of getting human trafficking on the political agenda positing that the world is “dismissing [a] tragedy of enormous dimension.”

The culmination of a seven-year effort to push through legislation that became the New York State Anti-Trafficking Law is shown as Eliot Spitzer signs the bill into law. The follow up scene is his resignation as Governor, after being exposed as a patron of a prostitution service. The juxtaposition exemplifies the dichotomies in a culture that is rife with contradictions and subtexts about sex.

Prominently featured in Fatal Promises is actress and activist Emma Thompson. In addition to making powerful public service announcements, Thompson is the co-curator (with Elena, a trafficking survivor), of the interactive art installation Journey. The work puts the viewer directly into the experience of a sexually trafficked woman. Journey traveled to Vienna, where it was showcased outside the 2008 U.N. Global Initiative to Fight Trafficking conference. There is a mordant episode in the documentary conveying the limitations of the U.N. gathering where 2,000 “official” participants are meeting. The price tag of the four days comes to a cool $2,9000,000. It is noted that the conference was “proudly” sponsored by the United Arab Emirates – a country that is listed with the United States Department of State as being on the “Tier 2 Watch List” of nations (The tier structure is examined through one of the film’s interviews.).

A frustrated Thompson speaking on-camera asks, “What is the point of us all traveling to Vienna if we haven’t got a plan?” While recruitment is accomplished on a person-to-person basis and individuals are translated into goods and services, corruption is rampant – from law enforcement officials to the visa process. Thompson emphasizes, “There needs to be a real chain of decision, command, and action.”

While Thompson was in New York City to attend previews of Fatal Promises, I was able to interview her via proxy. Below are excerpts from the conversation:

What are the plans for the installation of Journey in New York City and America?

“The plan is that we bring Journey over to New York on November the 9^th until November 16^th. I’m not entirely sure where it will be yet, because we haven’t yet chosen our site. But it means that it will be sitting there open to the public all of that time and I will be there, and Helen (Helen Bamber Foundation) will be there, and Michael Korzinski, the other director of the foundation, will be there. It [Journey] is immensely expensive to travel, so we’re hoping that we can get help from Homeland Security to take it to Washington next. That’s what we’re hoping for.”

Do you see the film and art installation as having potential to make the problem of human trafficking more visceral and of higher visibility?

“Of course, yes. I mean this is one of those problems that is going to have to be spoken about and talked about and shouted about for a long time to come. We’re not going to be bashing this out of existence just by producing a film and an installation. But what we can do is start to make it very clear that there is a big problem. The film is fantastically well researched and very interesting, and put together in such a way that you don’t feel as though you are being sort of hammered. You can really take in the information and walk away with it. It’s very cleverly done. The installation is an art installation, so it is a completely different kind of experience. But the two things together are pretty effective. After that, you know a lot…and you can go and get on and do something.”

You have become an activist in this cause, but your frustration with the Vienna Forum was quite apparent. As you asked, “What is the point of us all traveling to Vienna if we haven’t got a plan?” Can you speak to the difference between the on-the-ground realities and the world of diplomats and legislation?

“The world of diplomats and legislation is a highly bureaucratized, very slow moving thing – a bit like a glacier. Diplomats, and certainly home office civil servants and that type of personnel, are famously unbudgeable. So they’re the people I want to come to the installation, because it’s very important for people who work within the civil sector of society to see what’s going on and connect with it in a visceral way, rather than just receiving facts. There is a huge disconnect between what is understood by persons in authority, about trafficking, and what actually occurs to people. It is getting better, but it is very, very slow. As for what politicians really understand about it? Unless they’ve made it a particular interest, it is not something I’ve found people to be very informed about at all…at all. So at the moment it is an issue that I think is very much sidelined and not put at the top of any agendas, which I think reflects very ill upon us. I think that to start the 21^st century with a huge new slave trade flourishing does not reflect well on any of our governments. I mean, it is absolutely appalling that we have allowed this to happen – because we have allowed this to happen. We knew this was happening a long time ago and we didn’t take steps. We didn’t inform, we didn’t think to ourselves, ‘Oh, women are being bought and sold. What does that mean? I wonder if that means they are commodified. And what do we do about that?’ There’s been no rhetoric about that. There’s been no discussion even. It’s as though because prostitution is the oldest profession – blah, blah, blah – everyone thinks, ‘Oh, well. This is just another manifestation of that.’ And it’s not. It’s something quite else. It’s a new slave trade.”

How do you respond to the irony that the conference was sponsored by the UAE, when they are on the list of offenders?

“Well, you know, people will take money from anyone! (hearty laugh) The U.N. has become its own worse enemy. I think it’s bedeviled by bureaucracy. I think it’s been declawed in every conceivable way. And I think in its corridors misogyny holds tremendous sway – at least that’s what I’ve witnessed…I know what the problems are. Again, that’s a question of self-examination for the U.N. to say, ‘What can we do to become more effective?’”

Is part of the problem that anti-trafficking activists are on a continuum, and they don’t agree with each other on core beliefs and strategies?

“Sure. All NGO’s are on collision courses because they all need money, and they all need money from the same sources…In relation to prostitution or not prostitution, that’s a whole debate of its own. And it is of course connected, because what this is also about is our relationship to sex. Which is something we’re going to have to start talking about much, much more honestly and in much greater detail… We’ve got to find out why we have a huge customer base for this service. Why? What’s going on? What is it about us at the moment that makes us so keen to buy people? Those questions must be asked. As for prostitution or not prostitution – and everyone takes a view – it doesn’t really make any difference to the customer whether a woman has chosen to be a prostitute or not. So it’s not necessarily going to change the customer. And it’s certainly not going to change the experience of a trafficked person whether prostitution is legal or not in their country. So it’s not a question of saying legalize it all and that will make them safer because that does not work, actually. Prostitution is legal in Austria. Prostitution is legal in Holland. And in Amsterdam, they have one of the worst problems with trafficking imaginable. It’s just awful. So legalizing doesn’t necessarily stop trafficking…But in relation to this particular slave trade that is going on, the buying of people and selling of people, it doesn’t really matter whether you believe prostitution should be legalized or not. You’ve got to get behind a movement that stops people being sold for whatever reason they’re going to be sold. I think that’s probably where I stand on it.”

When I contacted Kat Rohrer by e-mail for a statement about the goals of her documentary she responded, “My film is about the survivors’ stories. I want the public to hear their anger. Their voices are too seldom heard on an international, or even local, platform. It is precisely because I understand that the world community is faced with a myriad of seemingly never-ending issues – from economic and environmental disasters to hunger and war – that I spent four years making this film. Human trafficking is modern-day slavery. To ignore it is to ignore our humanity. How can we, as a conscientious society, tolerate slavery in 21st century? Simply put, we cannot, we must not.”

Rohrer will be partnering with anti-trafficking organizations including Equality Now, Nomi Network, History Starts Now, CATW and NOW to get wider visibility for the topic. Panel discussions are going on throughout the film’s run, and plans are in the works to take the documentary to universities nationwide. There will be a DVD available in future.

Those who have been “bought, sold, and discarded” will finally have listeners.

Photo courtesy of GreenKat Productions

She went on to share the following:

“Tonight we received a crisis phone call. A young woman, Stacey, was desperately trying to escape her pimp and had no one to turn to and nowhere to go. Stacey was recruited when she was 15 years old, and is now 21. Throughout her six years as a domestic trafficking victim, Stacey has experienced daily violence and abuse and tonight was simply tired. Tired of being scared, tired of being abused, tired of being sold. Several weeks ago, Stacey saw our film on Showtime, Very Young Girls, which helped her realize that there was a way out. Tonight, she came to GEMS with only the clothes on her back and asked us to help her.”

Very Young Girls is a documentary about Lloyd’s organization, which works to get teenage girls off the street and out of the life of prostitution. Currently being featured through March 1st on Showtime On Demand, it was a matter of luck that Stacey saw the film.

The average age of girls getting pulled into prostitution is thirteen. Lloyd knows the score, having been there herself.

I first met Lloyd at an event in downtown Manhattan. She spoke to those gathered about her experiences and her mission. The presentation showcased her dynamism, energy, and commitment to saving the lives of those that others have deemed marginal. Throughout the documentary, you follow her as she offers hope, help, and love to struggling teens, along with a strong dose of realism. Sometimes she is successful, other times…she isn’t.

Several story threads make up the narrative. In a chilling sequence, we see a videotape made by two young men who filmed their exploits as rising pimps, with hopes of snaring a reality show. The streets of New York City have never looked bleaker.

In another segment, the camera accompanies Lloyd as she travels to Florida, to help a girl break away from the pimp she has followed south. Through a cinema vérité format, you experience the ambivalent forces consuming the girl about which direction she should take. In the closing credits, you learn what choice she has made.

GEMS stands for Girls Educational and Mentoring Services, but also references through its acronym, the intrinsic worth of each individual girl that has been impacted by sexual servitude. Existing as the sole New York state non-profit that is working with domestically trafficked and sexually exploited girls and young women, it was founded by Lloyd in 1999. They target the 12-21 year age demographic. The organization states its task as helping victims of sexual exploitation “to exit the commercial sex industry and develop to their full potential. They provide counseling, job training, crisis housing, and health to 250 clients. Their outreach has touched over 1500 people. Not bad, considering that a study in 2007 concluded that New York City had more than 2000 sexually exploited children under the age of 18.

Lloyd is an untiring warrior. Now armed with a Master’s degree in Applied Urban Anthropology, she has been on the cutting edge of the fight for legislation recognizing the inequities of a justice system that treats girls as “adult criminals.” On September 26, 2008, Gov. David A. Paterson signed the Safe Harbor for Exploited Youth Act. It will take effect in April 2010. Child prostitutes will then be recognized as victims, not perpetrators. A conviction as a “juvenile delinquent” will be traded for services, including counseling and shelter.

Very Young Girls has been a catalyst to bringing visibility to what Lloyd succinctly describes as “kids bought and sold by adults.” I spoke to the film’s director, David Schisgall, by telephone about the current exposure for the movie on Showtime. “Our goal,” he told me, “was to change the master narrative about prostitution in our country.” Not an easy task when Pretty Woman and the Academy Award winning song, “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp,” are prominent in the popular cultural consciousness.

Schisgall, reflecting on the power of Very Young Girls, talked about being the “butterfly that creates the tornado.” He noted, “I feel like the film is really making a difference, at the micro level and the macro level.”

This article originally appeared on  the cultureID website

In March of 2008, I interviewed a senior State Department Official who discussed efforts to highlight awareness of the link between sex trafficking and HIV/AIDS.  He related statistics showing that as customers seek out increasingly younger girls, the rate of infection for HIV/AIDS for 15-year-olds and under has jumped to over 60%.  The official supported a victim-centered approach, with the training of “forensic nurses” to be alert to the HIV/AIDS and sex trafficking connection.  He believed there was “a false dichotomy” between the goals of the anti-trafficking activists and the health community.

Yet, several NGOs have been accused of “turning a blind eye to trafficking in brothels.”  Anti-trafficking supporters believe the public health perspective reflects the given, “This is going to be happening anyway, so there should be protection.”  They pose the rhetorical questions,  “In an effort to distribute condoms, is the result a form of “collusion” between public health officials and brothel owners that sends mixed messages? If a child is in a brothel, can the only concern be if this child gets AIDS?  Can you fight the spread of HIV/AIDS without on some level contributing to the problem of forced sexual servitude?”

For health workers, the core matter is saving lives through the prevention of spreading AIDS.  Anti-trafficking activists are goal-driven to free women and children from conditions where they may be forced to have sex 10 to 30 times per day.  Katherine Chon, President and Co-Founder of Polaris Project, sees the “harm reduction” methodology as a narrow policy. She stresses the need for “finding a way to protect the health of women and girls that also address the systemic issues.”  She observed, “If you are not asking the right questions, you are not going to get the full picture.”

Taina Ben-Aimé, Executive Director of Equality Now, believes that many in the HIV/AIDS sector don’t “have a gender perspective” and are seeing circumstances strictly as “a medical situation.”  She pointed out that distribution of condoms is not foolproof.  “Clients are willing to pay a higher price in order to avoid use, and women can be beaten if they insist on use.”

Professor of Women’s Studies at the University of Rhode Island, Donna M. Hughes, PhD., told me, “The sex trade is a form of contemporary slavery.  Legal reforms need to create solutions that assist victims and prosecute perpetrators, and are based on the premise that prostitution is a form of violence against women — an extreme form of gender discrimination.”   Hughes feels the burden is “on the policy makers of the NGOs and their funders.”  She is concerned with HIV/AIDS programs solely targeting disease prevention without pointing to sexual slavery and trafficking as a primary factor in the spread of HIV/AIDS, and sees short-term solutions for the AIDS epidemic as outstripping the examination of how to confront the human rights violations that characterize the slavery of women and children.  Hughes suggested NGOs “take their budget, and split it between condom based programming and providing assistance to get out.”

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), was pinpointed in a February 27, 2003 column by Hughes in the Wall Street Journal. “Aiding and Abetting The Slave Trade” questioned why the MSF goal was “not to get the women or girls out of slavery, (but) only to provide HIV/AIDS prevention education.”  Hughes asserted, “It’s a sad reality that many seemingly well intentioned NGOs aren’t really about helping victims of abuse.”

Michael R. Goldfarb, Press Officer in the New York City office of MSF, forwarded me a letter from the Asian Wall Street Journal (February 2003) in reply to Hughes’s allegations. Written by the Head of Mission MSF, in Cambodia, Richard Veerman disputed the claim that MSF had turned “its back on the horrible plight of women and young girls forced into commercial sex work.” “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. Veerman wrote that MSF was cognizant of groups handling advocacy and rescue for those enslaved in brothels, but was also aware that the women and girls had no access to medical care.  Based on that rationale, MSF opened a free clinic in an attempt to “alleviate some of the suffering of the sex workers.”  Veerman maintained, “MSF firmly condemns the trafficking of women and children.”

Jerome Oberreit, Director of Operations based in Belgium, explained the two primary concerns of MSF are to provide emergency medical care and to use their medical activities to “witness” the plight of the people it assists. Their foremost responsibility, without judgment, is to the individual.  The mandate of “witnessing” is constructed to pass on information to local networks, creating outreach through data.  I received, via e-mail, the names of the groups that MSF had passed their information on to.

Director of the Center For Battered Women’s Legal Services at Sanctuary For Families, Dorchen Leiderholdt, believes “when health care workers encounter trafficking victims they have an obligation to take measures to protect those people from abuse.”  Holly J. Burkhalter, Vice-President of Governmental Relations for International Justice Mission, sees it differently. “It’s asking health workers to also play the role of law enforcement,” she said. Burkhalter believes those in the health movement do understand the importance of the anti-traffickers concerns, and that the two advocacy interests must work together.

Wenchi Yu Perkins, former Vice President of the Human Rights Program at Vital Voices Global Partnership, does not want to see “harm elimination” and “harm reduction” as mutually exclusive. “Everything comes down to reality…what works and what doesn’t.  People are finding the common ground is much bigger than we thought.”  Yu Perkins said unequivocally, “There is no such issue as consent for girls under eighteen in brothels. The priority is to get them out.” Young girls, with immature immune systems who experience vaginal bleeding and forced abortions, are more vulnerable to higher rates of HIV.

Currently, the United States Government has taken a stand that they will not give funding or support to any NGO that says prostitution is a form of work. When the Obama team presents their approach to eradicating the crime of modern-day slavery while fighting HIV/AIDS, it will set the tone for the rest of the world.  Hopefully, they will be at the forefront of building a global coalition to mobilize a comprehensive approach to the problem.

This article originally appeared on the website RH Reality Check.

Ramos isn’t the only one who feels that way.  Her organization will be joined by ECPAT-USA, Prostitution Research and Education (PRE), Equality Now, the New York Chapter of the National Organization of Women, and Queens Council Member John C. Liu.  Also present will be Victor Malarek, the award-winning Canadian journalist who authored The Natashas: Inside the New Global Sex Trades (2003), which was based on his interviews with traffickers and their victims compiled over a two-year period.  More recently, Malarek weighed in with a March 12th Op-Ed in the New York Times penned with Melissa Farley (writer of Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections) in response to the Eliot Spitzer story entitled, “The Myth of the Victimless Crime.”

The Cathouse series has been spawned off from a “documentary” which aired on HBO in 2002, and was followed up with Cathouse 2: Back in the Saddle (2003).  This, I presume, is the curious reason that the HBO website features a profile about the show on its Documentary Films link.  The closing tag line of, “So come on in, take a seat at the bar and prepare yourself for a singular experience,” does not have the tenor of film festival fare.  The opening sentences are even gamier.  “Welcome to the Moonlite Bunny Ranch. Outside the gate, it looks like a normal bar, but inside you are greeted by a line-up of beautiful, scantily clad women.”  Another page promoting the “Best of Cathouse” states, “HBO delves into its Cathouse vault to mine the most memorable scenes starring the hottest girls, and wildest moments, from six glorious years…a solid-gold tribute to the best little whorehouse on TV!”  Considering that HBO has presented such films as Spike Lee’s examination of Hurricane Katrina in When the Levees Broke, Alive Day Memories: Home from Iraq, and Rory Kennedy’s Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, you have to wonder what the suits at HBO were thinking.

Dorchen Leiderholdt, founder of CATW, has a clear-cut point of view about the motives of the subscription cable giant.  She said, “HBO cynically labels Cathouse as a documentary, when in fact it packages prostitution as entertainment.”  Clicking around the Internet for feedback on the show, I connected with the comments of numerous devotees who gave it a top rating of 10.  Posts ran consistent with the following sample (spelling corrected), “This show is absolutely phenomenal…It’s like every man’s fantasy wrapped up in a TV series.”  Leiderholdt’s assessment was unmistakably on-target.

Taina Bien-Aimé, Executive Director of Equality Now, said of HBO, “It’s a question of corporate responsibility.  The media has glamorized and normalized prostitution and exploitation.  All you see is the happy hooker who is giving a guy a good time.”  With the show featuring pimps in the role of managers, and prostitution in a legalized brothel as a form of work, it sidesteps the minefield of issues that abound in the multibillion-dollar sex trafficking industry.  As Bien-Aimé pointed out, “Viewers watching this show are only seeing a narrow part of the story.”  That other narrative includes violence, degradation, and a PTSD rate for prostituted women that is equivalent to what is experienced by war veterans.  For the audience members who dismiss these concerns with the disclaimer that the “Bunny Ranch” is a legal business in Nevada, they may want to ponder the equation that Bien-Aimé puts forth, “Legalizing prostitution makes the government a pimp.”

Council Member John Liu, who has been involved in the anti-trafficking movement for the past two years told me, “When HBO puts these kinds of shows on, it serves to trivialize the problem of modern day slavery – which is on the rise.”  Liu has sponsored and advocated for legislation in the City Council to crack down on human trafficking.  “There are too many places of prostitution all across the metropolitan area,” he said, adding, “New York City is an international capital of the world.  It is a major destination for sex trafficking.”

“The pattern of programming at HBO is on the wrong track,” Ramos asserted.  She continued, “Hopefully the new president of HBO entertainment, Susan Naegle, will be open to rethinking whether HBO should be in the business of promoting prostitution.”  When I spoke to Ramos, she was drafting an open letter to HBO Chairman/CEO Bill Nelson and the HBO Board of Directors, expressing her concerns.

There will be a press conference held in conjunction with the demonstration. Hopefully, media in attendance will gain insight into the import of matters that must not be ignored.  If you don’t see any coverage, read Bob Herbert’s January 15, 2008 piece, “Politics and Misogyny.”  You can always count on him to get it right.