Great query to think about. Thanks Transracialeyes! I have include my initial response to their question.
Here it is:
“the removal of children from rightful parents through coercive tactics, lying, stealing, manipulation and/or modifying and falsifying paperwork/documents/birth certificates for adoption purposes.” This whole section applies directly to many, if not most, international adoptions. I know, or highly suspect, that the adoption records I have of my own adoption were fabricated. The orphanage “had” to provide identifying information for me in order for me to be eligible to obtain an Indian passport and be adopted. You can’t adopt someone who doesn’t exist.
Given this definition of trafficking I would consider myself to have been trafficked (not a label a welcome). I think the definition does an ok job of telling people what trafficking is so that they know if they are committing it or not. The problem, and I suppose this isn’t the job of the definition, is that it is very difficult to know what circumstances the adoption took place in. Meaning it is hard, when information is scarce, to know if someone was trafficked or willingly given up (we can also argue what constitutes “willingly”). I merely bring this up because I believe the reason, or motive, of creating such a definition is to prevent such trafficking from occurring. I am not sure the definition addresses the difficulty of deciding who is at fault for committing trafficking. I certainly don’t think that my parents are guilty of trafficking and I do not blame them if I was taken unwillingly from my first family. So, if I don’t blame them who do I blame? The orphanage? The US and Indian governments for allowing such transactions to occur? The adoption agency for participating, and ultimately perpetuating, human trafficking?
This has certainly got me going and thinking, but I am still unsure how the definition could/should be altered to more effectively condemn those who perpetuate such trafficking. Thanks! Great question, I’ll definitely reblog this!
The Trafficking Protocol defines human trafficking as:
[…] the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs; the removal of children from rightful parents through coercive tactics, lying, stealing, manipulation and/or modifying and falsifying paperwork/documents/birth certificates for adoption purposes.
How do you see/define trafficking as regards adoption, both personally and in the big picture?