Simply purporting to represent sex-workers does not establish expert credentials on trafficking. The mainstream sex industry has taken little interest in trafficking since 1992. Jeffreys comments exemplify such factual ignorance, for example:

“..the coroner found no evidence that Simaplee was trafficked”

The coroner was never going to “find” either way that she was trafficked, that was not his job. Even so, he was unsure if she had been trafficked and was concerned about it. Three years later I established that she had been trafficked. The coroner made a recommendation concerning trafficking victims in migration custody. He did not dismiss the trafficking issue as implied in article.

“…first phases of the pneumonia that eventually killed her”

Pneumonia was the second of two antecedent causes of death. The coroner actually found that narcotic withdrawal was the direct cause of death with malnutrition and early acute pneumonia as tertiary causes. There was also strong evidence that Simaplee had received inadequate treatment. The coroner made recommendations aimed at improving medical treatment at Villawood. There has been no hysteria surrounding her death, just facts, facts showing she died under appalling conditions. That’s what the fuss was about.

“…decriminalising the sex industry in all states”

The highest concentration of trafficking victims in this country is in Sydney where the sex industry has been decriminalised for years.

Jeffreys focuses on the Simaplee case, a case in which a 26 year old victim told immigration she had been trafficked here when she was 12, when in fact she was trafficked here when she was 21. Jeffreys makes no mention of another significant case, the case of Ning who was trafficked here when she was 14 after being sold by her father. Nings case is backed by irrefutable evidence including the filmed admissions of her father and had had wide media coverage including the Herald. Also ignored are the reported prosecutions by the Commonwealth DPP for people trafficking and the many associated victims.

Seems to me the Herald published Jeffreys piece as a wind-up.

Chris,

1) The comments regarding the coroner's role does not mean that Jeffreys made an error of fact, as you have claimed. Indeed her statement is factually true. It may fall in the category of "true but irrelevant", but nonetheless it is true.

2) Your selective quotation “…(d)ecriminalising the sex industry in all states” seems to exclude the very important boolean operative AND.

The full quotation is "Decriminalising the sex industry in all states, and protecting workers from discrimination, would improve conditions in the long term."

In other words, if the sex industry is decriminalised AND working visas were availble, what would happen to forcible trafficking?

I should not be required to inform people of the logical construction of a proposition.

3) Your comment "The highest concentration of trafficking victims in this country is in Sydney where the sex industry has been decriminalised for years" also falls under the category of "true but irrelevant". Sydney also has the highest concentration of people in Australia for years as well.

Lev, Chris. I must be missing something. What is the relevance of the this discussion?

I gather the woman was an illegal sex worker in Australia. How she was induced to come here is a matter debate. It appears it is generally agreed she wasn't physically forced, but the amount of deceit involved is the subject of considerable speculation. In any case she entered the country illegally, worked in the sex industry, became (or possibly was induced to become) addicted to heroin. Eventually she was discovered by the authorities and jailed. While in jail she died, evidently because of near criminal negligence on the part of the people charged with her care.

Chris and Pringle seem to haggling about how "virtuous" this woman was. Is this relevant to anything? Whether she came here with the intention to be a sex worker or not, I am sure she did not come here expecting to get addicted to heroin, catch pneumonia, and then die while in the care of the Australian government. If she did in fact come here with the intention of being a prostitute, does that make what happened or more to the point the failure of our society to stop it any more excusable?

Lev, I agree Jeffreys presented a much better argument. It had logical progression ending in a recommended course of action that may well address the problem. Only problem is, Australia opening up its borders to sex workers seems about as likely as the seas turning to ginger beer.

Thanks Helen for this article. Clearly the sex industry, which profits from women's bodies, and also its advocates, are not interested in the truth about sex slavery. I suppose it might make the industry look bad.