Blog

Old Chestnuts revisited : the link between quality Victim Support and effective Prosecutions

As the old year turned into the new, a significant report emerged at Westminster which is worth the consideration of all those working in the fight against Human Trafficking in all its manifestations.  One of the concerns which the former Anti Slavery Commissioner Kevin Hyland expressed around the UKs response to the growing number of trafficked victims being announced through the National Referral Mechanism, was the low number of prosecutions being undertaken through the Crown Prosecution Service within the UK’s criminal justice system.

The report claims to be the first to look directly at the engagement of Victims of Trafficking  in the prosecution process and its interconnection with other provisions by the State, in this case the fear of deportation, removal from the host country, and consequent fear of reprisals by traffickers. It set out to analyse the impact of the overall experience of victim services on a victim’s ability to provide evidence.

The research shows the positive impact of receiving appropriate support services, enabling VOTs to engage effectively in the CJS. The results highlight that fear of deportation or removal and reprisals from traffickers are the crucial factors for VOTs’ reluctance to report this crime to the authorities. 
Executive Summary 2018  N Uddin

These concerns were** found across the four  countries researched for this report – the US, the Netherlands and Belgium and the UK.  This concern is seen a particularly cogent when considering that when internationally trafficked, the movement of VOTs in the Northern Economies are from countries less economoically developed, where there is little protection perceived as in place for victims against their traffickers if they were to return to their countries of origin. This concern will doubtless fuel the work being undertaken by the Department for International Development, alongside the International Organisation for Migration, the United Nations Organisation for Drugs and Organised Crime (UNODC) and a range of bilateral arrangements between Embassies, to enhance the capacity of countries of origin to provide effective protection and support for VOTs when and if they are returned to their ‘home lands’.

Meantime the report makes clear that the US has the strongest services available to VOTs, with a specific long term trafficking visa which gives legal status to these prior victims.   This is something which has long been lobbied for within the UK safe housing fraternity.

Denise Marshall – pioneering champion of victim protection, Gender Based Violence ubiquity and CEO of Eaves Housing and the Poppy Project. Read more about her work here 

Denise Marshall, the pioneering feminist who championed all things Violence Against Women, Pimping of Prostitution, and raising the flag against Trafficking across the ‘sex industry’,  was a particularly strong advocate of putting the ‘survivors’ experience of being trafficked and ‘her’ safety in the first decade – of the ‘first phase’ of counter trafficking efforts in the UK.  In 2011 she returned her OBE which had been awarded for establishing the Poppy Project, part of the wider gender based violence advocacy and protection work of Eaves Housing undertaken across the noughties in London, because these priorities were not being followed in her opinion in the years of ‘austerity’ which cut into these critically underfunded ‘service provision’ areas of protection and recovery.

One of the three campaigns run out by the Churches Alert to Sex Trafficking across Europe, raising the political level of awareness in Westminster and Whitehall of the shortage of safe bed spaces

Safe housing for Victims of Trafficking was in chronically short supply in the early years of the noughties.  When the Faith network Churches Against Sex Trafficking in Europe set up its round table to address the challenge in 2004, there were a mere 27 safe bed spaces across England, and ninety five per cent of those were in London.  Victims being surfaced by police raids, or accidentally emerging through eyes and ears in Social Service, prison and detention centre chaplaincy, Accident and Emergency, and sexual health clinics, or through pitching up at a local police station front desk, (as I can recall as a front-line responder at that time happening on more than one occasion)  would be offered hostel accommodation or bed and breakfast locations, out of the local police budget. Needless to say in the morning many of them had left. They hadn’t felt safe or their trafficking network had been back in touch. The management of Victims of Trafficking, and the appropriate systems of support and recovery which are required, have been the stuff of the last decade of work in this area for policing, health care service, the voluntary sector, and government intervention.

Today we are a decade into implementing the Council of Europe’s article 10 and 12 around the duties of signatory states, in the provision of protective services and ‘assistance’ following the ‘surfacing’ of a victim of trafficking, managed through the National Referral Mechanism.  This mechanism is in place so that numbers surfacing through the police, NGOs, the Health Sector, the national Help Line run by UnSeen   and a number of different reporting routes can start to be calculated, and tracked.  Numbers of victims, what happens to them, and whether prosecutions are pursued as a result of this human rights driven intervention can be logged.  This part of logging, registration, and monitoring of provision of recovery services is vital to understand the interconnectedness of properly attending to the requirements of humanitarian intervention, justice, victim driven interventions against the scourge of human trafficking.

Part of the work of CCARHT is dedicated to lifting the level of compliance with conventions, protocols and legislation enacted through state parliaments, multi lateral organisations, IGOs and international compacts.  The work which is expended in bringing legislation, protocols ratified, and conventions signed into is immense. Most have been the result of years of painstaking experimentation through pilot programmes, research and evaluation, and the lobbying of NGOs, committed parliamentarians and civil society advocacy, with survivor groups providing an essential ingredient in the mix, to keep on task and appropriate to the requirement of a victim/survivor centred approach.

So this report which looks at three countries which are part of the Council of Europe fraternity,  and one which is not – the USA, which has had its own system of responding to Trafficking in Persons developed at the turn of the century, is significant, timely, and welcome.  How victims of Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery are able to access ‘long term support services’ and specific legal representation through the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is a critical factor according to the report writer Nusran Uddin, of how successful the Criminal Justice System is in being able to take forward and deliver on criminal prosecutions of traffickers. The UK is the weakest in this respect with no specific provision of  long-term trafficking visas, only the possibility of a short-term grants of leave which then subsequently needs to be extended – generating uncertainty and a lack of safety for any survivor caught in the system.  The failure to provide the conditions of long term security for those recovering from the multiple traumas, and ongoing psychological trauma, and in the majority of cases real time intimidation, is frankly catastrophic in its impact on generating the environment required to deliver properly supported investigations . The UK only provides short term support services and no access to legal representation through the CJS.  European  offer longer term support and specific legal representation through their CJS, but offer similar immigration options to the UK.  The US, the Netherlands and Belgium see substantially larger numbers of successful prosecutions against Human Traffickers going through their courts, than the UK.

Its a report which is a wake up call to governments to up the quality of their support, if they want to ‘up’ the hostile environment against traffickers and NOT their former victims.  The incoming UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner may well choose to ponder this reports’ findings, and take note of voices raised over a decade ago about the critical element played  by appropriate provision of reliable, quality controlled,  and sustained support for victims of this fundamental breach of human rights, played out through multiple actors including organised crime.  The answer is not an economic impact hostility to the victims, but an holistically informed,  resource driven response to those elements which can encourage personal recovery, foster trust with the police and prosecuting authorities, ensure the recovery of human dignity and autonomy, and ensure that justice starts to be realised through the mechanism of our courts, rather than the ‘rough injustice’ which so typically results in peremptory returns to countries of source, or the frustration and human waste of dropped cases.

Read the report here

Royal attention to Human Trafficking agenda convened by Association of Commonwealth Universities

On the 5 December 2018, CCARHT Director Dr Pemberton Ford attended a hastily convened group of international scholars and students in London to explore
how higher education can contribute more effectively in the fight for resistance to Human Trafficking.

HRH Duchess of Sussex reflects with Commonwealth Scholars and University Lecturers
HRH The Duchess of Sussex listening to issues pertaining to Human Trafficking and the Sustainable Development Goals

 

 

 

 

 

 

As one of eight around the table for a thematic discussion on what more universities can do to address  the critical issue of Human Trafficking through research and policy formulation, how this work contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and what part the ACU (Association of Commonwealth Universities) can play, it was a joy to explore with fellow academics from the University of Sussex, University College London, the University of Durham, and Kings College London, what is already underway in the field of research, and the learning and exchange already well established through the annual CCARHT summer symposium.

The ACU welcomed  HRH The Duchess of Sussex’s attendance, and interest in the various areas that were discussed at the event (including Peace and Reconciliation and the challenge of Climate change).  It was great to have the Duchess’ attention around the topics discussed, and the ACU is hoping that HRH The Duchess of Sussex’s involvement in and championing of higher education causes, will be instrumental in raising the profile and resourcing in Higher Education  elaboration in understanding of these issues globally.   It was an encouragement  for all those around the table to discuss, however briefly, with HRH The Duchess of Sussex, the areas of most concern in their distinct disciplines and specialisms convened around Human Trafficking and global migration challenges.

The CCARHT Symposium 2018 with the topic around the table – the contribution of Transparency in the Supply Chains to squeezing down on Human Trafficking and super exploitation.

A summary of the discussion on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery as generated by the Chair of the counter human trafficking table, is as follows

Human trafficking and modern slavery
The role of universities
International human trafficking is now a more prominent area of academic focus – and a truly interdisciplinary issue – but it is a global challenge and responsibility for tackling it lies with civil society. Several research centres have been established at universities to build knowledge and inform policy in this area, which includes the pioneering work of CCARHT.  Universities also need to work more closely with front-line agencies addressing human trafficking and modern slavery to share their learning. Universities can inform policy with accurate intelligence, and inter disciplinarily framed responses, to help shape civil society opinion.

CCARHT welcomes the  role of the ACU announced at the convened forum that they will through the network of the Commonwealth Universities for which they are the convening organisation:

  • Promote international collaboration to maximise the impact of research and communicate evidence in this area – for example, through the ACU Peace and Reconciliation policy network. This network is led by the University of Melbourne and has over 60 institutions across the Commonwealth involved.


• Explore ways to foster research collaboration – for example, through seed grants to encourage partnerships or a matching portal to link researchers in different countries.

This is an area which CCARHT will be seeking to co-operate closely with the ACU, to build on the extensive international network already built in Europe, the North Americas,  Africa and Asia of those working in the Academy on various aspects of countering and understanding the dynamics of Human Trafficking.

• Ensure that this subject is given due prominence at all Commonwealth education-related opportunities.

Oba Dokum Thomson (His Royal Majesty the Oloni of Eti-Oni, State of Osun, Nigeria – during the CCARHT 2018 Summer Symposium where he presented the case for transforming the Cocoa industry in Nigeria.

A wonderfully positive note to sign off 2018, which saw CCARHT partnering for the first time with the University of Palermo to co-deliver and sponsor some bursaries for participants at the twelfth symposium on Migration and Human Rights.

The wonderfully successful CCARHT Summer Symposium in Cambridge ‘The five Ts of Trafficking’ received panellists with a huge range of experiences and expertise addressing within a stellar range of over 35 presentations, the Yazidi genocide, the  Rohingya enforced exile, the battle for the rights to life in the Mediterranean, and the impact of Blockchain and Tech as potential game changers for law enforcement in the struggle to keep pace with the Organised Crime profiting from Human Trafficking in Europe and Globally.

CCARHT  looks forward to 2019 and onward discussion with the ACU to develop some sponsored bursaries for  the CCARHT Summer Symposium 2019 ( July 1st – 5th 2019 senior symposium  July 8th – 12th Research summer school with masterclasses). The 2019 CCARHT Symposium  will be responding to the several Rs of Trafficking and places will be open for seizing in January – so warm up your sponsorship for this coming season’s work in Cambridge.

To ensure that you keep up with all the updates do follow our blog, and www.ccarht.org/site/summer-symposium and drop a note to summerschool@ccarht.org to indicate your interest so that we can place you on our mailing lists.

What’s in a counter Trafficking Toolkit?

The Office of the UK Anti Slavery Commissioner’s office has just announced the provision of a ‘counter trafficking toolkit’ to facilitate easier co-operation across multiple agencies, public sector and business actors – but what makes an effective ‘tool kit’ nowadays?

This particular ‘kit’, has  been developed ‘to help guide practitioners in their work to tackle modern slavery through the sharing of resources and good practice examples, to inspire action and prevent duplication’.   It has been resourced through the IASC office and drawn across expertise from the Rights Lab at the University of Nottingham alongside the UK Modern Slavery Training Delivery Group.  There was something a lot like this drawn together by the UK Human Trafficking Centre  when it was based up in Sheffield before the emergence of the Modern Slavery Act, so it is good to see a post 2015 version evolved and put into the public domain.toolkit

Available on line it includes a bunch of procedural and legal ‘how to effect Multi Agency partnerships on paper’ with some helpful ideas around planning awareness campaigns or reviewing survivor/victim care plans:

 

  • A partnership checklist – to help organisations to review their needs and highlight relevant resources available on the website
  • A governance library – a library of sample documentation that can be used by different agencies to help formalise partnership working
  • Downloadable resources – information to help with partnership working, such as how to plan an awareness campaign, engaging with different partners, or reviewing survivor care plans
  • Reports and legislation round up – a collection of up-to-date legislation and guidance
  • A UK Training Library – access to free training resources

A helpful gathering together of useful information for those involved in UK based counter trafficking work to keep work neat, tidy, safe and legally compliant. As with all tool-kits it hopes to build efficiency and professional delivery on the part of those who make use of its various instruments.

Its available through https://iasctoolkit.nottingham.ac.uk/#

 

 

Faith based communities – agents for improved civil society response?

 

It is often argued that religion should steer well clear of politics and the economy – yet when it comes to Human Trafficking communities of faith have been deeply immersed in developing practical steps to respond to the cataclysm this represents to Human lives.  These immediate steps of response – the steps which Christian communities and those influenced consciously or more subliminally by the  narratives of Jesus, exemplified by the parable of the Good Samaritan, are the steps informed by human empathy motivating those so touched, into practical action.

Margaret Thatcher famously said that

“No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.”

 

The account explores how we hierarchalise our ‘moral’ responsibility to one another , and how religion itself can undermine, through failures in prioritisation, activities which are hostile to human connectedness and flourishing.

aidan mcquadeThere is the role of moral courage, (which the CCARHT Symposium 2018 on the 5 Ts of Trafficking featured in the contribution of Aidan McQuade on its day three exploring Terror),  the power of  persuasion alongside the deployment of practical social protection systems or networks which can afford hospitality, support and space for people suffering distress (howsoever caused), and the prospect of healing and full recovery.

delacroix_samaritaan1849All this is present in the parable of the Good Samaritan  – which engages the cataclysmic “empathy and ‘true religion’ fail” of the religious leaders who walked by, one even physically moving himself to the ‘other side of the road’ in order not to be rendered ritually ‘unclean’ due to contact with what he presumed (as he did not further investigate) was a rotting body.

So far, so religious. Yet this consideration of how communities, which gather around religious precepts most of which are effectively multi-national organisations operating sometimes in alignment with (particularly when elite denominations) or in contravention to their ‘host’ states, penetrate the nano realities of State, deep into household behaviours and ‘voter consciousness’ with their  long legacy played out in our global and local political stage is vitally significant.  The global political stage and the world of academic International Relations discourse was forced into acknowledging the reality of ‘the power of religion’ in the aftermath of the advent of Al Quaeda, Daesh, and Boko Haram as community mobilisers in the Middle East, North and West Africa, with all their dispersed ramifications in the consequent securitisation of Northern Economies to the ‘political radicalisation’ of  a ‘fake’ Islamic memory.

Meantime  the ‘golden thread of empathy’ which courses through the DNA of the best moments of organised and anarchic religious traditions, and surfaces in late modernity through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – raises our  human primate consciousness to the reality of our common humanity, generating a cultural mandate of  shared rights to inform respect filled response to one another regardless of race, religion, political affiliation, gender, abilities, sexuality.

This human capacity to empathise breaks through again and again to inform our political stance and inter-subjective responses. It is what calls out in the drowned body of Alan Kurdi, the suffering of those stranded on the islands of Lesbos, Chios and Samos, the pregnant Nigerians who lost their lives in the Mediterranean and are emblematic of the thousands who continue to risk their lives in the perilous crossings from North Africa to Spain, Italy and the Greek Islands.  Yet this human capacity to empathise, reach beyond tribe, family, blood-line or articulated identity group, can be enhanced or sublimated for political or fake religious ends, and needs to be nurtured and validated as authentically human to develop.

church times articleA recent article in the Anglican Church’s principal UK organ, the  Church Times, cited the significant contribution over the last decade of various faith community initiatives, in developing the capacity of the UK government to respond to the safeguarding and recovery requirements of those who have been trafficked within and into the UK.  The role of faith communities is cited as one which continues to raise the moral bar for politicians, law and the dispersal of state tax revenue, in recognition of the intrinsic humanity of the ‘other’ rather than exacerbating ‘difference’ and otherness.

The work of various Christian denominations and ‘pioneers’ who have displayed ‘moral courage’ in their time is noted. The  work of synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras and temples will doubtless be carried in other ‘in house’ faith press, manifesting the positive potential of religious heightening of empathy which at its best reaches beyond religious, gender, ethnic, political, or national grouping.  Humanity calls out to humanity. Yet at the same moment  Human Trafficking displays a stubborn refusal in accessing the full import of societal empathy.  It can only manifest with the collusion of  societies, families, public servants, mafia style criminal networks, businesses, religious leaders, consumers and vendors,  individuals one and all, to the exploitation of another.  The individual is reduced to a commodity: stripped of the gifted ‘rights bearing’ human being, who looks back in the mirror towards our society.

We are caught in a global and highly complex web of inequality and desperation. With numbers ranging from various lobby groups from 23 million to 41 million trapped in some form of forced labour, trafficking and modern slavery conditions – the challenge embroils directly in the worst readings 0.6% of the global population, (estimated at just over 7.6 billion people), or the equivalent of a quarter of the population of Russia, or half the population of Turkey, were they to be consolidated into one geo-political  segment.

It is a significant number by any reading and will take multiple steps of moral courage, political will, economic re-balancing, and clarity of purpose to realise liberative change and socio-economic transformation. The recognition that heightening empathy between state and civic actors, in order to commit fully to the work of dismantling human trafficking and modern slavery,  is something which is worth attending to.

In the midst of fresh protocols, action plans, national threat assessments, enforcement transformation agendas, and counting the cost to business and Gross National Products,  it is still essential for us to recognise that exploitation of one person, no matter what their origin, age, sexuality, gender, religion or race, is an attack on us all. No-one is an island complete unto him/herself. We are all empathy imageconnected, and this is one of the special virtues which faith communities in their best manifestations can bring to the table.  This confession of the oneness of humanity, not simply through the biological interconnectedness of our DNA, but through the teachings of the major world religions from Jainism, through to Judaism and Confucianism – is articulated through the golden rule in either positive or negative configuration which has been noted since the sixteenth century as a point of potential unity in intention across global religions:

Confucius stating in the negative form: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you. Analects 15:23
Jesus Christ commending in a more positive voice: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Matthew 7:12
Sikhism’s Guru Arjan Devji instructing:  Don’t create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone. Guru Granth Sahib 259
Hinduism in the Mahabharata : This is the sum of duty: do nothing to others which would cause you pain, if done to you.  Mahabharata 5:1517
Islam declaring that: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. Sunnah  Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 13
And finally for the purposes of this illustration
Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow. That is the law: all the rest is commentary.  Shabbat 31a the Talmud. *

George Bernard Shaw brought a sardonic note to the table in his Maxims for Revolutionaries in Man and Superman (1903) by stating  ‘Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same ‘ to sound a healthy cultural contextual note of caution, in the mix of homogeneous policies and provisions which frequently privileges those in power.  But the drive of the major religious Golden Rule nevertheless holds up well as an ethical source of energy, focus and drive.

migration and trafficking SDGsFast forward to our contemporary international focus for action to ensure a sustainable planet, in which the cause of social justice and deeper equality across nations, gender, ethnicities, caste, class and race is  taken forward into the 17 Sustainable Development Goals articulated by the UN for delivery in 2030.

We need to expand our policy lens, to incorporate the widest angles to inform our thinking around the  vulnerability of whole segments of populations, not the isolated, accidental, haphazard hyper zoomed in individual accounts of much of on line narratives.  The SDGs begin to outline a wider narrative of political uncertainty of, of gender inequality, of the lack of decent work and economic prosperity, of the dislocation of war, and the failure of peace processes to provide the level of reintegration and stabilised communities, of ecological ‘shocks’ and the failure to protect people’s essential rights, of dysfunctional migratory processes which fail to protect migrants rights, or citizenship when on the move. Furthermore trafficking continues to thrive in an environment of relative impunity for those who vend and those who purchase.

The persistence of global trafficking represents a comprehensive failure of political will, at multiple levels.  Up to 0.6% of humanity, are currently estimated to be living in significantly de-graded situations which are variously tagged as Forced labour, Human Trafficking or Modern Slavery. Their entitlement gifted either by the ‘golden rules’ of the major world religions noted above, or the semi derivative UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, actively rendered null and void by the actions of  facilitators, traders and purchasers.   Autonomous, vital, creative, flourishing global neighbours reduced into ‘commodities’ to be bought, sold, exploited and jettisoned into so many ditches of our contemporary world, left for dead.  It is of course a global malaise which involves us all.

According to the International Labour Organisation there were (at any given time in 2016 – and the figures are showing no signs in being reduced)

  • an estimated 40.3 million people  in modern slavery, including 24.9 million in forced labour and 15.4 million in forced marriage.
  • There are an estimated  5.4 victims of modern slavery for every 1,000 people in the world.
  • Of those 1 in 4 victims of modern slavery are children.
  • Out of the 24.9 million people trapped in forced labour, 16 million people are exploited in the private sector such as domestic work, construction or agriculture; 4.8 million persons in forced sexual exploitation, and 4 million persons in forced labour imposed by state authorities.

The quotodian economic and political choices which  governments take in democracies or a dictators’ name, businesses choices responding to the god of consumer ‘demand’,  the invisible hand of the market, or the idolatry of responding dynamically to the advantage of less regulated labour markets, flaccid enforcement procedures offering immense trafficking opportunities to vendors and ‘trolleys’ due to public sector corruption, failure to prioritise ‘crime types’ so that trafficking is not specifically targeted or recognised for what it is, inadequate resources deployed into national and international systems to respond, all these systemic realities, and billions of interactions are affecting the world we are being served today.  The challenge is what is our underlying score? What is the heart beat, and what is the message?

The role of faith communities which are prepared to step up to the breach in the wall of humanity, which those who work in counter trafficking, and the millions caught in its exploitative practices experience viscerally in Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery today, is to apply the golden thread which links all of their worlds, and assist our common political quest to build a more just world together here and now. A world where all forms of Human Trafficking have been made redundant, because we choose to do unto others, as we would be done to.  A world where the Good Samaritan could continue on his journey to Jerusalem, as there was no-one lying unheeded in the ditch.  And what comes first, the Shekel or the intention to be curious, pay attention, and extend empathy?  How we answer that clearly affects our priorities for Nudge, tipping points, strategic interventions and future joint action.

The scene is thus set for one of our strands for next year’s CCARHT symposium which will be focusing for two of its precious 5 days the different contributions, negative and positive, at global and local levels in counter trafficking work. For the last three years we have been working with the overarching tag of #2020 vision as we incorporate attention to the SDGs and to building a holistic, and informed response to contemporary Human Trafficking challenges.   Do be in contact if this is an area which you would like to be involved.  Follow our Symposium pages to be up to date with our latest outcomes papers and our dates for 2019.

 

 

 

W.A. Spooner, "The Golden Rule," in James Hastings, ed. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 6 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1914) pp. 310–12, quoted in Rushworth M. Kidder, How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living, Harper, New York, 2003. ISBN 0-688-17590-2. p. 159. Simon Blackburn  noting the connection between Confucious and the Golden Rule. Simon, Blackburn (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.

The costs of Human Trafficking – health, enforcement and lost years of employment

Costs of Human Trafficking and the impacts on national exchequers alongside Individual's lives
Costs of Human Trafficking and the impacts on national exchequers alongside Individual’s lives

Freshly pressed from the Home Office utilising the  methodology used in ‘The Economic and Social Costs of Crime’ (Heeks et al., 2018) adapting  where necessary to reflect some of the particular characteristics of this offence type. The report6 utilises the QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year) methodology which estimates the costs of the physical and emotional harms, and also is used in the estimates of lost time and output, as well as costs experienced across the deployment of health services, responding to all aspects of health challenges which are experienced by those who are trafficked, across the spectrum of mental, physical, gynaecological and reproductive health.

Getting a working handle on the economics of Trafficking, the costs incurred both by affected individuals, the loss of revenue in their country or region of source, the costs borne by intervention in countries of exploitation where there is a social protection framework which picks up the tab in physical and psychological health recovery, is vitally important as policies for intervention and attempted eradication are brought to the policy table.  Unfortunately it was not possible in this report to analyse the costs directly borne across the criminal justice system in the UK, a matter which some improved data collection and co-ordinated reporting may address in time for the next report.

This is a significant step forward in helping to understand the ‘economics’ of trafficking from the perspective of  countries of ‘deployment’ with the impacts on the UK’s ability to respond according to the provisions of the Council of Europe’s action against trafficking in Human Beings  and the updated EU Framework on trafficking,  being spelt out in the wider economic impacts of appropriate responses on the State budget.   The economic health of Nation States being used as the market for trafficked lives,  as well as the immediate and very direct impacts on the individuals trafficked is important to see measured, in order to focus efforts for transformation.

There are further economic losses to be adjusted for (the loss of taxes due to this crime type normally streaming its revenue through money laundering processes, and the loss of cohorts of labour from developing a more mature, regulated and vital business / trade dimension in centres of source as well as deployment).  But this report  is an excellent start for those who need to cut into their Local Government, Business and National Governments to convince around the economic costs of leaving Human Trafficking to fester and grow in the fields, pop up brothels, processing industries, construction sites, nail bars, domestic service and car washes all around them.

Home office reportRead the report here

The Central Mediterranean Route and the ‘LARS’ proposal

Since 2011, Italy has been the locus of a massive rise in onward migration from North Africa, sourced from across the sub-Sahel, as well as from South and Central Asia, and the horn of Africa. In 2016 there were 181,436  arrivals in Italy by sea. Of these there was an estimated 30,000 minors present in the mixed migration of those seeking refuge, work, futures, hope in Europe.

Requests for Asylum took some time to respond to the increase in numbers with 2017 presenting the paradox of more asylum applications than arrivals, owing to the backlog in Asylum processing which has blighted the Italian effort to appropriately respond to the sustained surge in forced migration numbers it has been absorbing into its  social and administrative economy  since 2014.

italian stats

 

In 2016 a study undertaken for the Protection System for Asylum Seekers and Refugees (SPRAR) annual report, noted that it was taking an average of 403 days from first registration of asylum, to reach the first decision. After that, if the decision was appealed the Tribunale Civile took a further 349 to hear the case, and from the second appeals court, the Corte d’Appello, a further 373 days. Where final appeals came into play the Supreme Court of Appeal – the Corted di Cassazione – took a further 688 days to receive the case and conclude its judgement.  From registration to final appeal a staggering 1,813 days – just a few days short of 5 years.

Italy has been scrambling to catch up. In 2017 it eliminated the Corte d’Appello to remove the second tier of the process of appeal.  At the same time it inaugurated special asylum chambers into 26 appeal courts the first tier Tribunale Civile.  However warnings were soon sounding from across Italy that the backlogs were so significant that in the case of the Florence chamber, carrying a backlog of 5,440 cases in 2017, 2018 would see none of the appeals lodged in 2017 or 2018 AND just under a thousand cases originally lodged in 2016 would not be addressed either.  And when all is said and done hardly any of those submitting their Asylum claims receive refugee status and subsidiary protection.

Why those who arrive in Italy stay

In 2017 only just over 13,000 of the 81,527 decisions which were made by the Italian asylum commissions, were for full refugee status or for subsidiary protection to those not qualifying as refugees but were recognised as being at risk of serious harm if they returned to their home country.

A further 25% of cases, 20,166 of the 81,527 cases before the asylum commissions, recommendations resulted in the generation of residence permits on humanitarian grounds – (health problems or preserving family unity). Humanitarian beneficiaries receive a 2 year renewable residence permit without family reunification being a deliverable.  This means that the   ‘humanitarian’  protection decisions which are generated for those seeking asylum in Italy, represents over half of the positive decisions passed through the commissions in Italy, a significantly different percentage than that of other European countries as the table below shows.

humanitarian Italy

 

The difference in the percentage of Humanitarian decisions in Italy over against full asylum or subsidiary protection, being deployed in other countries in this table, is massive, and worthy of further explication by the Italian authorities and the UNHCR.

At the same time the inability of all countries to exact removals of those who have failed their asylum claim after all processes of tribunal ratification have failed, is exemplified in the following data drawn from Italy in 2017.

italy removals

 

The countries which see most of the returns exacted are North African – Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria.  For third country Nationals coming from sub-Sahel there is currently a huge challenge facing Italy in achieving any voluntary or forced returns to West Africa and Sub-Sahel countries as the following data shows.

countries of source

 

countries of return

 

 

 

 

 

What is to be done? Europeanisation of approach

Italy’s asylum system is creaking.  Not only do decisions take an unconscionable time to realise, but once realised (just under 5 years if every route for asylum is exhausted) very few of those who are present either surfaced through their asylum appeals, or simply bedding down into Italy’s grey/black economy return home.  The same is true with differences in the asylum and subordinate protection recognition rate, across Europe.

Emmanuel Macron took the opportunity at a speech in the Sorbonne at the end of 2017 to highlight a fresh European wide approach.  He said:

“So long as we leave some of our partners submerged under massive arrivals, without helping them manage their borders; so long as our asylum procedures remain slow and disparate; so long as we are incapable of collectively organising the return of migrants not eligible for asylum, we will lack both effectiveness and humanity … we need to do that without leaving the burden to the few, be they countries of first entry or final host countries, by building the terms for genuine, chosen, organised and concerted solidarity.”

 

Carrot and Stick – Safer routes to European Work and Study

The European Stability Initiative in a working paper just published last month, suggests the following strategy to break the grid lock:

An Italian-EU pilot project supported across the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) to provide resources to bring the asylum process including appeals into a more efficient time frame without loss of quality. The Dutch asylum system is cited as a good example of how this can be done, in the ESI’s recent paper ‘Amsterdam in the Mediterranean’, the process from start to finish of asylum petitions takes just two months, with state funded lawyers expediting the cases through two comprehensive interviews.

Certainly a more efficient system, with full state sponsored support for the Asylum seeker would be welcomed by everybody. There are currently hundreds of thousands of migrants ‘capsized’  across Italy, caught in limbo, unable to work and prey to those who offer solutions to homelessness, hunger, loss of purpose, and lack of prospects,  open season for a range of exploitative and criminal processes to be unleashed on their lives. The hope of ‘integration’ is sadly underfunded and is currently not to the general public’s political taste.

The carrot offered, to encourage co-operation from source countries in accepting back their migrating population into their polities is to increase legal access to some EU countries to give the incentive to politicians at countries of source for future and sustained co-operation.  Member states of the EU can offer places for work, or for study, but either way the current stringency around legal means to access European opportunity for third countries will be ameliorated.

Will this be enough to staunch the flow of aspiration and desperation which fills the boats daily bound to Italy from the shores of the Libyan coast-line?  Until some clear economic and hard consequence signals are given to those who secure the smuggling routes North through to the nightmare vortex of Libya, where there are such inhumane, instrumental and cyclical forms of financial and venal extraction played out on young African’s lives, the flow is not going to be staunched any time soon.

Meanwhile the numbers are backing up in Italy, and some of Europe’s  barricades are toughening with resistance to hospitality, integration and honesty around how the global economy actually works, through the movement of goods and people, weakening.

In these circumstances, of desperation, lack of political and civic will, public disinterest in the outcomes foisted on those who have been swept up on their shores, the opportunities for incorporation into criminal and trafficked enterprises increases.

What are your thoughts on LARS – the Legal Access and Return Statement now being postulated to the UNHCR and the European Commission for consideration?  Our joint sponsored symposium in Palermo in a month’s time will be exploring some of the implications of taking this forward in Italy, and how the proposals are currently being received.  Readers reflections would be welcomed to inform our panel discussion on this during the week.

 

 

 

The ‘rights’ and trafficked exploitations of sexual labour – new call for papers.

A fresh perspective is being called for by the Anti Trafficking Review, convened by Dr Annalee Lepp – the chair of the Women’s Studies department at the University of Victoria and  co-founder and current director of the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women Canada. Dr Lepp deploys a human rights centric, “do no harm” approach to research and advocacy.  This is an opportunity for members of the CCARHT academic community to add their voice to this current debate which should include in our view engagement with Julie Bindel’s comprehensive tour of many of the hot spots of Global commercialised sex in ‘the Pimping of Prostitution’, alongside cognisance of the recent articles and moves cited in the call of the Lancet publication in 2014 positing the relationship between ‘decriminalisation of prostitution’ and a fall in the prevalence in communities working with this policy of HIV, and the 2015 – 2016 call by Amnesty International to ‘decriminalise sex work’.
Be good to hear from some of our community as to who is bringing some fresh perspectives in this most contested of arenas which represents part of the long shadow of Human Trafficking abuse and financial ‘opportunities’ for organised and various degrees of dis ‘organised’ crime today.
 Blog-style pieces of 1000-1200 words, which are relevant to the issue theme are being encouraged.
Anti-Trafficking Review
 
CALL FOR PAPERS
 
Sex Work
 
Guest Editor: Annalee Lepp
————————————————————————————————-
 
Deadline for Submissions: 8 July 2018
The Anti-Trafficking Review calls for papers for a themed issue entitled ‘Sex Work’.
The relationship between sex work and human trafficking remains one of the most contentious issues in both the sex worker rights and anti-trafficking worlds, and there is much community-based and academic literature written on this topic. While the arguments often appear at an impasse, there have been several important developments in recent years. In 2014, an issue of The Lancet showed that decriminalisation of sex work could drastically reduce the prevalence of HIV; in 2015/2016, Amnesty International urged states to decriminalise sex work as the only way to ensure the rights and wellbeing of sex workers; and, in 2018, the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women published a study that called for the recognition of sex worker organisations’ longstanding work in addressing working conditions, including violence and exploitation, in the sex industry. Yet, in the same period, several countries in the global North adopted the ‘Swedish model’ of criminalising clients of sex workers as an anti-trafficking measure, while the European Parliament adopted a resolution in support of the same. This disconnect between evidence and policy prompts us to revisit the issue of sex work through a new angle.
This thematic issue will seek to push the conversation about sex work and sex workers organising beyond the old debates of sex work being/not being trafficking or the best policy to ensure the rights and wellbeing of those involved in sex work. Starting from the standpoint of diverse sex worker communities (with full attention to Indigenous, racialised, transgender, male, and migrant sex workers working in a multiplicity of sectors) and sex worker organisations, the main focus will be to assess the current landscape with respect to the movement towards sex workers’ rights globally.
Contributors are invited to engage with, but need not limit themselves to, the following questions:
  • What is the role of sex worker organising in the advancement of sex workers’ rights? What factors facilitate organising among sex workers and what factors impede it?
  • Within current national and international contexts, have there been successes or successful alliances in the sex worker rights arena? What facilitates such alliances and what hinders them?
  • What is the role of sex worker organising in preventing and addressing exploitation in the sex industry, including human trafficking?
  • How is ‘exploitation’ being conceptualised by sex workers and sex worker organisations and is this conceptualisation consistent or incompatible with discussions of sexual exploitation in the anti-trafficking world? How is ‘exploitation’ being taken up by the labour rights movement and the decent work agenda?
  • What, if any, are the similarities between sex work and other informal labour sectors, such domestic work, in terms of individuals’ decisions to work in one or more of these sectors, working conditions, and other factors? What can one movement learn from the other in terms of strategies to claim rights and address violence and exploitation?
  • To what extent has the success of the ‘Swedish model’ relied on adopting or appropriating the language of rights as articulated by the global sex worker rights movement?
  • What effect, if any, is the rise of conservative and nationalistic politics and discourses having on sex workers rights and/or on anti-trafficking campaigns?
  • Where is the funding for sex workers rights? Who gives, how much and for what? How does it compare to funding for addressing trafficking in the sex sector?
  • What is the political appeal of the ‘Swedish model’? Why is it that more and more academics, human rights and health organisations are advocating for decriminalisation and more and more governments are adopting the ‘Swedish model’?
Deadline for submissions: 8 July 2018.
 
Word count for full article submissions: 4,000 – 6,000 words, including footnotes, author bio and abstract.
 
In addition to full-length conceptual, research-based, or case study focused thematic papers, we invite the submission of shorter, blog-style pieces of 1000-1200 words, which are relevant to the issue theme. We particularly welcome contributions from sex workers or organisations working with them, as well as from authors from or based in the global South. We also invite book reviews or book review essays (comparing 2-3 books).
 
Special Issue to be published in April 2019.
 
The Review promotes a human rights based approach to anti-trafficking, exploring anti-trafficking in a broader context, including gender analyses and intersections with labour and migrant rights. Academics, practitioners, trafficked persons and advocates are invited to submit articles. Contributions from those living and working in developing countries are particularly welcome. The journal is a freely available, open access publication with a readership in over 100 countries. The Anti-Trafficking Review is abstracted/indexed/tracked in: ProQuest, Ebsco Host, Ulrich’s, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, Directory of Open Access Journals, WorldCat, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CNKI and ScienceOpen. 
We advise those interested in submitting to follow the Review‘s style guide and submission procedures, available at www.antitraffickingreview.org. Manuscripts should be submitted in line with the issue’s theme. Email the editorial team at atr@gaatw.orgwith any queries.
Thematic Issue Guest Editor: Annalee Lepp
 
Editor: Borislav Gerasimov

Resources for Supply Chain evening #2020vision

This Tuesday 20th March 2018 around 120 business, charity sector, monitoring bodies and faith leaders will be attending our symposium on Supply Chains and the work which is well underway to address the multiple challenges of inequalities, trafficking, exploitation, forced and child labour embedded within them.

We are pulling together a number of key resources for the evening – and will be placing them here for our physical and on-line audience to be reading as the event goes live. Please follow the #2020SCvision and let us know your thoughts @ccarht.

here are some of the resources which we shall be referring to ENDING EXPLOITATION IN WOMEN 

Child Base Lines  ETI 

Children in Mining – Gendered  2007_gender_girl_mining_ilo_ipec_en

Children in Mining

Children in Agriculture 

Root causes of poverty within the Agricultural sector – breaking the cycle

From the Factory with Love – Migrant workers who leave their children behind 

Migrant Parent workers in China  CSR

Children in Migration

Protecting Children on the Move through ICT and Social Media

Professor Simon Stockley - speaking to Supply Chain management and Values underpinning contemporary business.
Professor Simon Stockley – speaking to Supply Chain management and Values underpinning contemporary business.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Baroness Young of Hornsey - why transparency in the Supply Chains REALLY matters
Baroness Young of Hornsey – why transparency in the Supply Chains REALLY matters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revd Dr Carrie Pemberton Ford - issues which arise from the perspective of Human Trafficking - and addressing first principles. CCARHT
Revd Dr Carrie Pemberton Ford – issues which arise from the perspective of Human Trafficking – and addressing first principles. CCARHT

 

 

 

Supply Chains in focus – Just Share collaboration with CCARHT March 20th 2018

Supply Chains in focus –  Just Share collaboration with CCARHT March 20th 2018

Collaboration is what effective work in addressing Human Trafficking at every level is all about.  So here at CCARHT we are really delighted to be sharing with JUST SHARE, and the St Paul’s Institute to put on an evening of engagement with what is going on with Supply Chain transparency down in London later on in March.  Be wonderful to see some of our Blog readers who can access this evening event with us on this occasion.

Baroness Young of Hornsey, will bring her passion around fashion and responsibilities across the textile industry, along with her sustained political commitment to driving procurement accountability down through Public and Local authorities.

NGO heavy weights Aidan McQuade, (former CEO of Anti Slavery International) and Mike Dottridge (currently championing the Best Interests of the Child in the Global Compact for Child Refugees), will be speaking to the contribution of the Third Sector in driving through responsible and accountable Business practice in addressing Human Trafficking and modern slavery across their Supply Chains.

Professor Simon Stockley of the Judge Business School, will be looking at the power of ‘virtue signalling’ for  contemporary social media savvy organisations,  individual ‘public’ narratives and continuing the ‘North South divide’ of the Brandt report in new guise.  Natalie Evans head human trafficking and supply chainof ‘Transparency in Supply chains’ Procurement for the City of London will be addressing the challenges for developing effective compliance for Local Governance.

Chaired by CCARHT director Revd Dr Carrie Pemberton Ford the evening offers the opportunity to dig into what has already been achieved by advisory Supply Chain reporting, the wicked challenges which lie in its wake for sustainable development programmes, the responsibility and opportunity for ethically minded consumers and shareholders to sharpen up UK and international business boardrooms’ responses, and the upcoming landscape of global accountability around the inequalities which drive Human Trafficking opportunities.

 

st mary le Bow supply chains

What changes people’s minds in the discourse on Refugees?

 

This important week-end (13th – 14th January 2018) draws our attention to the plight of Refugees and those in Migration across the globe)

Oxfam Humanitarian Policy Adviser Ed Cairns reflects on using evidence to influence the treatment of refugees *

 

Ed Cairns  Oxfam consultant reflects on what changes minds on Refugees in the UK
Ed Cairns Oxfam consultant reflects on what changes minds on Refugees in the UK

Who thinks that governments decide what to do on refugees after carefully considering the evidence? Not many, I suspect. So it was an interesting to be asked to talk about that at the ‘Evidence for Influencing’ conference Duncan wrote about last week.

When I think what influences refugee policy, I’m reminded of a meeting I had in Whitehall on Friday 4 September, two days after the three-year-old Syrian boy, , had drowned. Oxfam and other NGOs had been invited in to talk about refugees. The UK officials found out what their policy was by watching Prime Minister David Cameron on their phones, as he overturned the UK’s refusal to resettle thousands of Syrians in a press conference in Lisbon. Even then, he and his officials refused to promise how many Syrians would be allowed. By Monday, that line had crumbled as well, and a promise of 20,000 by 2020 was announced.

The evidence of course had shown that children and other refugees had been tragically drowning in the Mediterranean for months. But it was the sheer human emotion, the public interest, and no doubt Cameron’s own compassion that made the change. Evidence and the evidence-informed discussion between officials and NGOs had nothing to do with it. More important was that a single image of a drowned boy spread to 20 million screens within 12 hours as #refugeeswelcome began trending worldwide. As research by the Visual Social Media Lab at the University of Sheffield set out, “a single image transformed the debate”.

Two years later, a new Observatory of Public Attitudes to Migration has just been launched by the Florence-based Migration Policy Centre and its partners, including IPSOS Mori in the UK. It aims to be the ‘go-to centre for researchers and practitioners’, and has sobering news for anyone who thinks that evidence has a huge influence on this issue. Anti-migrant views, it shows, are far more driven by the values of tradition, conformity and security, and within the UK in particular, according to an IPSOS Mori study, by a distrust of experts, alongside suspicion of diversity, human rights and “political correctness”.

Like a lot of Oxfam old-timers I have seen for decades how the poorest countries in the world host more refugees than most European countries could even dream of. But when I talk to colleagues working on Oxfam’s European migration response, I hear something very like what the Observatory is saying. “Facts confirm bias, or get challenged or ignored,” was the pithy comment of Claire Seaward, who runs Oxfam’s European migration campaign. And when NGOs from across Europe gathered this year at a conference on Communicating on Refugee and Migrant Issues, they heard of the power of emotion more than evidence, including from the research group Counterpoint, which pointed out that the vast majority of human thought is emotional, automatic and associative, and that we all accept falsehoods if they fit our existing views.

This isn’t just about attitudes to refugees and migrants, though perhaps they are a particularly emotive issue. Nor is it just about the woman or man ‘in the street’, while politicians consider evidence carefully. As an article in the British Journal of Political Science this August, ‘The Role of Evidence in Politics’, suggested, “politicians are biased by prior attitudes when interpreting information,” and new evidence may reinforce, not influence, those attitudes. Actually this was based on a study in Denmark, not the UK, but British readers can probably imagine what it meant.

So where does this leave NGOs trying to influence policy or public attitudes on refugees? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, “it’s the emotion, stupid”, that matters; or at least that’s the tone of quite a lot of NGO thinking as we try to communicate more effectively in difficult times. But Oxfam’s experience shows that it’s wrong to think that emotion and evidence are opposing choices.

Last year, as we began our “Stand As One” campaign on refugees, we published two pretty straightforward examples of “killer facts” – compelling figures to grab public attention. The first showed that the world’s 6 wealthiest nations, which made up more half of the global economy, hosted less than 9 per cent of the world’s refugees and asylum seekers. In contrast, half the world’s refugees and asylum seekers were hosted by countries such as Jordan and Pakistan, that collectively accounted for less than 2 per cent of the global economy.

The second showed that, for all the attention on Alan Kurdi’s death, the number of global refugee and migrant deaths went up by more than a fifth in the following year. Both these slim briefings had the same objective, to put Oxfam’s message in the minds of people we would be talking to soon, because the life of a “killer fact” is not long. (Alright, 8 men own the same wealth as half of humanity is an exception.) In July 2016, that was the hundreds of thousands of people going to the UK’s summer festivals, one of the main ways we were trying to promote a petition. In September, it was the diplomats meeting at summits on refugees and migrants in New York.

Both examples were new calculations using existing data, from UNHCR, the World Bank, and the International Organization for Migration, choosing data that would stir emotions, particularly in the case of deaths that rekindled memories of Alan Kurdi.

Both were inexpensive in staff time and had no other costs – not an irrelevant point as we try to work out what research has the most influence. Apart from Oxfam’s media output using celebrities, they had more media coverage in the UK than any of our other output in 2016 about refugees. Anecdotally at least, they did indeed help create a fertile climate to speak with festival-goers and high-flying diplomats alike.

That type of research is useful, of course, but also limited. Does it transform attitudes in the long-term? Does it influence people who don’t already agree with our views? I don’t think so. It feels like an approach that is talking to the 24% of people in the UK who are “open to immigration”, but perhaps not much to the 48% that are in “mid-groups” according to IPSOS Mori, and who are potentially open to the kind of genuine argument, rather than rallying the converted, that NGOs are not so good at.

The second approach is to use evidence in the “Stand As One” campaign was also useful but limited. That’s when we combined personal case stories with policy options or recommendations. A perfect example is a paper we published with the British Red Cross, Refugee Council and Amnesty International this February. Together Again presented seven cases to illustrate why particular policy suggestions would make sense.

Tesfa, a teenage refugee in the UK, for instance, was separated from his mother and younger siblings because the UK does not allow refugees under 18 to apply for their families to join them from abroad. ‘I Ask the World to Empathise’ took a similar approach, and was widely welcomed by already-interested diplomats in New York where it was mainly used. But does that kind of research speak to anyone who does not empathise with refugees already? I somehow doubt it.

The third approach is a more innovative and ambitious attempt, which my colleague, Franziska Mager, presented to the ‘Evidence for Influencing’ conference. She has used , a narrative-base method for collecting quantitative and qualitative data, initially in the Central African Republic. It involves asking displaced people to tell a story about a specific experience related to their decision making whilst in limbo, and then, through an intricate follow up questionnaire, to interpret through the respondents’ eyes what they find most significant. We’ll be publishing the results in the next few months, when we hope we will see how, when cleverly combined, the power of stories and of stats can work together to make a convincing argument.

But perhaps all these approaches have a common limit, when it comes to using them for influencing. Do they all speak to readers who, like their writers and researchers, believe in the value of universal human rights? The IPSOS Mori and other studies have shown that they – we – are no more than 20% or 25% of the population. Without influencing others, NGOs may hope for the odd success, such as seizing the moment to influence a Prime Minister to change one policy. But if NGOs are really going to help transform attitudes and eventually policy on refugees and migrants, it’s going to take not only a generation, but evidence that speaks to at least some of the “mid-groups” that are not convinced by NGOs’ traditional messages.

This takes us to one final research approach that we’re exploring now. We will find out if it works when we publish in 2018. With the Refugee Council, we’re exploring the experiences of a number of refugees in the UK, and in particular whether their experiences of the UK’s system of family reunification has had an effect on their ability to fit into British society. That in itself is a vital issue, but it’s also an issue which speaks not only to readers driven by universal human rights, but also to readers driven more by concerns for social cohesion in the UK.

That research is not quite finished, but what’s exciting about it, I hope, is that it’s providing evidence, and powerful human stories, not only for a traditional NGO narrative to uphold human rights – though it absolutely is. But it also fits a narrative that a far wider number of people already believe in – building social cohesion in a disunited Britain. And it brings those two things together in an inclusive narrative – that the UK should allow refugee families to live together in the UK, because that would be right and humane, and because it would help make the UK a more cohesive place as well.

Will that influence anyone? We’ll see. If it helps persuade a handful of MPs to change the UK’s family reunion policies, that will be worthwhile. But perhaps, just perhaps, it could be an example to follow in the future – generating evidence for inclusive narratives that could appeal beyond NGOs’ traditional supporters.

Link: this blog was first published on the from Poverty to Power pages on Oxfam International’s pages – thanks to Ed Cairns for the sharing of his thoughts originally published –
What kind of evidence might persuade people to change their minds on refugees?

The Cambridge Centre for Applied Research in Human Trafficking as an Action Research Centre is currently taking forward inclusive narrative research amongst a section of the Refugee, and failed Asylum seeking population in Sicily in conjunction with colleagues in the University of Palermo and the Centro Astalli – we look forward to some vlogs and publishing the resultant research when the project is completed later in the year.