- + Mangopop0033 joined Debatewise
- + Nirmal Kumar joined Debatewise
- + Maciej Pielachowski joined Debatewise
- + Seniallealm joined Debatewise
- + Poldimpailm joined Debatewise
- + Keerthana.Bora joined Debatewise
- + Barry Nism joined Global Youth Panel
- + Sararozmus joined Debatewise
- + Steven Allyn Taylor joined Debatewise
- + Locksgydff joined Debatewise
- + Benjamin Barnard joined Debatewise
- + Chaci joined Debatewise
- + Urbaday joined Debatewise
- + Debate76ster joined Debatewise
- + Deonvoff joined Debatewise
- + Seng9153 joined Debatewise
- + Seiliacek Kese897 joined Global Youth Panel
- + Yoskha D. Adrianto joined Debatewise
- + Eurorcevete joined Debatewise
- + Moogmaclan I joined Debatewise
- + Arresudgert joined Debatewise
- + Penf Dumn joined Debatewise
- + Scoolfeds joined Debatewise
- + Mantcece Sed603 joined Debatewise
- + Penf Defs joined Debatewise
- + Timothy Orzeszek joined Debatewise
- + Hülya joined Debatewise
- + Barry Skaw joined Debatewise
- + Ankpsin joined Debatewise
- + Werbehoguehob joined Debatewise
THE UK SHOULD SIGN UP TO THE EU ANTI-SEX TRAFFICKING DIRECTIVE.
The Coalition government has decided not to sign up to a EU directive that is being set up to coordinate action to prevent sex trafficking. While the conservatives may be sceptical about the EU this would seem to be an area where international action is a good thing almost no matter what you think of the neighbours on the continent. Human trafficking is almost by definition international and is crossing boarders in order to reach Britain. Would it therefore not be better to pool our efforts and catch traffickers before they reach Britain?
The UK should sign up to the EU anti-sex trafficking directive.
Yes, because... The UK is already far removed politically from the rest of the EU
For some reason the UK has always been far removed from EU thinking. Maybe this is because of the territorial and colonial nature of ancient Britain, that it now refuses to make itself inferior by submersing fully into a larger political organisation. The UK did not join the EU in it’s infancy. It applied to join the European Economic Community but had its accession vetoed by Charles de Gaulle as Britain had a distinct lack of a sense of European integration.[1] The UK still have this, and just like then , it renders the UK politically weak seen as veto votes do count and pretty soon not all countries will be represented in some terms of the Council[2]. With no European allies, who will argue for the benefit of the UK?
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3583801.stm
- ^ Treaty of Lisbon
The UK should sign up to the EU anti-sex trafficking directive.
Yes, because... We need a continent consistent definition of the crime
In law, defining crimes is no easy task. How can you distinguish murder for manslaughter so as to ensure people get the right sentence for the right crime? The same is with human trafficking. We need a comprehensive definition of the crime to ensure that across the Member States human trafficking is considered as the same crime and people will receive the same sentences and punishments. We need a Community wide definition to ensure that all cross border human trafficking is treated with the same severity. Member states implementing only their own legislation means that there will be differing laws depending on where the human trafficking takes place and from where they have travelled to and from. This could potentially lead to some countries having more problems with human trafficking if their laws are not as efficient at covering the offence. The UK should set an example to the rest of the EU by implementing this directive.
The UK should sign up to the EU anti-sex trafficking directive.
Yes, because... We need extraterritorial jurisdiction
The directive proposed would allow for human traffickers to be convicted in any member state. This would mean that the chances of these heinous criminals being able to evade the law by travelling across different countries would be significantly decreased. These criminals know how to transport themselves, that is how they make their living; through transportation. If we do not implement the Directive and get the extraterritorial jurisdiction these dangerous criminals are less likely to be prosecuted for their crimes.
The UK should sign up to the EU anti-sex trafficking directive.
Yes, because... The accession of new Member States renders the current laws ineffective
The EU is a growing community. More and more countries are seeking the benefits of being part of such a grouping. Whilst economically this has benefits for both the community and the new Member State, we have to look at the social problems in a new light upon each new member being admitted. Bulgaria and Romania have recently been admitted and many people are trafficked through these countries[1]. We need new measures in order to ensure that people trafficking humans in such a way can be punished across the Community and not just in their native country.
The UK should sign up to the EU anti-sex trafficking directive.
Yes, because... The approach of the UK is focussed on immigration
The way in which the UK deals with human trafficking is focused on the immigration status of the people being trafficked rather than the crime they are the victim of. The UK imposed a ‘National Referral Mechanism’ to deal with such persons 14 months ago and charities have criticised how bias this is. The staff are poorly trained for how much discretion they actually have. Very few cases of human trafficking are cited as crimes of human trafficking but are instead classified as illegal immigrants. This is not effective or conducive and instead the UK should opt into the EU directive for some much needed clarification and guidance.
Vote on this debate: The UK should sign up to the EU anti-sex trafficking directive.
Modified:
06 Sep 2010
Point 1. The UK is already far removed politically from the rest of the EU
For some reason the UK has always been far removed from EU thinking. Maybe this is because of the territorial and colonial nature of ancient Britain, that it now refuses to make itself inferior by submersing fully into a larger political organisation. The UK did not join the EU in it’s infancy. It applied to join the European Economic Community but had its accession vetoed by Charles de Gaulle as Britain had a distinct lack of a sense of European integration.[1] The UK still have this, and just like then , it renders the UK politically weak seen as veto votes do count and pretty soon not all countries will be represented in some terms of the Council[2]. With no European allies, who will argue for the benefit of the UK?
Point 2. We need a continent consistent definition of the crime
In law, defining crimes is no easy task. How can you distinguish murder for manslaughter so as to ensure people get the right sentence for the right crime? The same is with human trafficking. We need a comprehensive definition of the crime to ensure that across the Member States human trafficking is considered as the same crime and people will receive the same sentences and punishments. We need a Community wide definition to ensure that all cross border human trafficking is treated with the same severity. Member states implementing only their own legislation means that there will be differing laws depending on where the human trafficking takes place and from where they have travelled to and from. This could potentially lead to some countries having more problems with human trafficking if their laws are not as efficient at covering the offence. The UK should set an example to the rest of the EU by implementing this directive.
Point 3. We need extraterritorial jurisdiction
The directive proposed would allow for human traffickers to be convicted in any member state. This would mean that the chances of these heinous criminals being able to evade the law by travelling across different countries would be significantly decreased. These criminals know how to transport themselves, that is how they make their living; through transportation. If we do not implement the Directive and get the extraterritorial jurisdiction these dangerous criminals are less likely to be prosecuted for their crimes.
Point 4. The accession of new Member States renders the current laws ineffective
The EU is a growing community. More and more countries are seeking the benefits of being part of such a grouping. Whilst economically this has benefits for both the community and the new Member State, we have to look at the social problems in a new light upon each new member being admitted. Bulgaria and Romania have recently been admitted and many people are trafficked through these countries[1]. We need new measures in order to ensure that people trafficking humans in such a way can be punished across the Community and not just in their native country.
Point 5. The approach of the UK is focussed on immigration
The way in which the UK deals with human trafficking is focused on the immigration status of the people being trafficked rather than the crime they are the victim of. The UK imposed a ‘National Referral Mechanism’ to deal with such persons 14 months ago and charities have criticised how bias this is. The staff are poorly trained for how much discretion they actually have. Very few cases of human trafficking are cited as crimes of human trafficking but are instead classified as illegal immigrants. This is not effective or conducive and instead the UK should opt into the EU directive for some much needed clarification and guidance.