Select Page




14 MARCH 2023


VIMEO:, with sub­ti­tles in Eng­lish, French, Ger­man, Span­ish, Ital­ian, Russ­ian, Chinese.


MICHEL VEUTHEY: Good evening!  On behalf of the Order of Mal­ta, I would like to wel­come you to our webi­nar  “From moti­va­tion to voca­tion Bri­an Iselin’s jour­ney against slav­ery.”  They will come to see Bri­an Iselin online now. First, allow me to say in intro­duc­tion that human traf­fick­ing, a form of con­tem­po­rary slav­ery, affects all coun­tries and it can­not leave us indif­fer­ent. Accord­ing to a British expert, Kevin Hyland, the first inde­pen­dent Com­mis­sion­er in charge of the fight against slav­ery in the Unit­ed King­dom, “Human traf­fick­ing is a crime that is ignored because it affects mar­gin­al­ized peo­ple and we all ben­e­fit from it.”  We’re here to reflect and act togeth­er. Con­tem­po­rary slav­ery affects mil­lions of peo­ple in dif­fer­ent ways. First, forced labor in agri­cul­ture, con­struc­tion, domes­tic work. Sec­ond, sex­u­al slav­ery. Third, the sale and abduc­tion of chil­dren. Fourth, child pornog­ra­phy. Fifth, organ theft. Sixth, crimes com­mit­ted under coer­cion, such as beg­ging or ter­ror­ism. These crim­i­nal activ­i­ties,  gen­er­ate ille­gal annu­al prof­its of $150 bil­lion. If slav­ery were a Euro­pean coun­try, it would have the pop­u­la­tion of Spain and the eco­nom­ic pro­duc­tion a lit­tle less than that of Por­tu­gal. Con­tem­po­rary slav­ery is a third pro­duc­er of CO2, after Chi­na and the US. 50 mil­lion peo­ple are today vic­tims of con­tem­po­rary slav­ery, 71% are girls and women, 12 mil­lion chil­dren. The caus­es are first, the search for unlim­it­ed prof­it by both pro­duc­ers and by con­sumers. Sec­ond, a cul­ture of waste where we throw away peo­ple as well as objects after hav­ing used them. Train­ing is essen­tial for gov­ern­ments and civ­il soci­ety to become aware of it and use effec­tive­ly tools to fight this plague of human traf­fick­ing, to iden­ti­fy vic­tims, to help sur­vivors. It is what we are doing here at the inter­na­tion­al lev­el in Gene­va, at the Col­lege Uni­ver­si­ty. Tonight, we are very for­tu­nate to wel­come Bri­an Iselin, who is a for­mer Aus­tralian sol­dier and fed­er­al agent and today a human rights activist against mod­ern slav­ery. He is a founder of “Slave­free­trade” and “Iselin Human Rights”.  He has more than 30 years of inter­na­tion­al expe­ri­ence on all the var­i­ous fronts of com­bat­ing human traf­fick­ing. I would like now Bri­an to ask you a few ques­tions. Dear Bri­an, you have a Swiss name. You were born in Australia?




MICHEL VEUTHEY: Can we start intro­duc­ing you by ask­ing you to sum­ma­rize the major mile­stones that have punc­tu­at­ed your 30 plus years of expe­ri­ence in the fight against human trafficking?


BRIAN ISELIN: Sure. Maybe I could just clar­i­fy that I’ve had more than 36 years in crim­i­nal jus­tice, but only 22 on mod­ern slav­ery. So less expe­ri­ence than three decades, but more than two. So maybe that’s use­ful. What have been the things that have punc­tu­at­ed? Well, I guess the first one was why did I switch from orga­nized crime? More gen­er­al­ly, I was work­ing prin­ci­pal­ly coun­ternar­cotics and coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence. Why did I switch to, at the time, counter human traf­fick­ing? Mod­ern slav­ery as a term wasn’t being used at the turn of the mil­len­ni­um. I turned to human traf­fick­ing because while I was doing coun­ternar­cotics work in Chi­na, I came across human traf­fick­ing cas­es when I was work­ing with the Chi­nese police. The very first of those was the traf­fick­ing of babies for adop­tions in Chi­na. The boys were adopt­ed in Chi­na, the girls were adopt­ed in Viet­nam into the inter­na­tion­al sys­tem. And so that was life chang­ing! Nar­cotics sud­den­ly seemed to be less inter­est­ing and actu­al­ly far less impor­tant. I decid­ed that this was real­ly some­thing that def­i­nite­ly tran­scend­ed bor­ders and juris­dic­tions and I decid­ed, well, we need­ed to do some­thing about this. How­ev­er, I was work­ing for the Aus­tralian gov­ern­ment at the time as a fed­er­al agent. When I report­ed the traf­fick­ing cas­es I was told to leave it alone. It was none of our busi­ness and well, that didn’t sit well with me. This was some­thing we all should have been con­cerned about and we shouldn’t have had nar­row orga­ni­za­tion­al inter­ests at heart. After a num­ber of rather exple­tive-laden con­ver­sa­tions with peo­ple in head­quar­ters I resigned! And went to start work­ing on human traf­fick­ing cas­es. So I first went to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Bangkok and launched their region­al pro­gram for South­east Asia and the Pacif­ic. And since then doing free­lance work. So com­bi­na­tion of sup­port to police and intel­li­gence ser­vices, sup­port to NGOs, train­ing and res­cues and that’s about it. Thank you. What are the events that moti­vat­ed you in this mis­sion to fight and to help the vic­tims? How did this choice become a voca­tion? Well, as I said, the first human traf­fick­ing case, the babies, was real­ly com­pelling. That was some­thing that I just couldn’t look away from. Then my first child labor case was also real­ly life chang­ing. So I’d worked on human traf­fick­ing, worked on babies, and then a child labor case came along. This is a twelve-year-old boy who’d been shot in the head, thrown over­board from a Prawn boat. The sub­se­quent inves­ti­ga­tion we found the prawns end­ed up in super­mar­kets across Europe. And it was just mind-bog­gling to me that nobody knew, nobody could tell. The shop­per in car four walk­ing into the freez­er sec­tion look­ing for prawns had absolute­ly no way of know­ing that this boy’s blood was behind those prawns. The com­pa­nies in the sup­ply chain both don’t know and two, don’t try to find out. There’s a kind of a will­ful igno­rance there in sup­ply chains. Bet­ter not to see it because we know there’s a lot of crap down there. Par­don my French. So that was a life-chang­ing thing. In my case, that was an extra com­mit­ment and every sin­gle case since then has been some extra com­mit­ment! Cer­tain­ly on an emo­tion­al lev­el. Every case builds an emo­tion­al com­mit­ment. Every case is not pos­i­tive. The vast major­i­ty of cas­es have end­ed ulti­mate­ly in fail­ure. So even a mis­sion that is suc­cess­ful ends in fail­ure. So an Alban­ian girl in Italy, we res­cued: the Ital­ian police sent her back to Alba­nia instead of look­ing after her as a vic­tim of traf­fick­ing. On return to Alba­nia, she was stig­ma­tized by her town and she com­mit­ted sui­cide. So you see, this is the insid­i­ous nature of human traf­fick­ing that even a suc­cess­ful res­cue, a so-called suc­cess­ful res­cue, actu­al­ly ends up being prob­lem­at­ic: it ends up being a dis­as­ter for some­body almost always the vic­tim, of course. So it’s been emo­tion­al­ly real­ly dif­fi­cult. A suc­cess­ful mis­sion that ends ulti­mate­ly, at some point in fail­ure is very hard to take. Even hard­er to take is a mis­sion that fails, right? A res­cue that fails, you don’t get there in time, for exam­ple, has hap­pened to me in West Africa, and that is emo­tion­al­ly very dif­fi­cult to accept that we are so slow, we are so poor at what we’re doing. Our respons­es like res­cues, what I’ve been doing, are com­plete­ly futile. On an indi­vid­ual lev­el, they make sense to a point, but on a sys­temic lev­el, they make absolute­ly no sense. They’re futile. Putting all the mon­ey into res­cues is beg­ging to be inef­fec­tu­al. I don’t know if I answered your question…


MICHEL VEUTHEY: Then how did your pre­vi­ous expe­ri­ences in the Aus­tralian intel­li­gence, mil­i­tary and police help you?


BRIAN ISELIN: Well, the first thing was that it brought some rig­or to an area that wasn’t real­ly being dealt with with any rig­or. So human traf­fick­ing wasn’t being dealt with as so much of an orga­nized crime prob­lem. So nobody was using man­age­ment of orga­nized crime, seri­ous orga­nized crime method­ol­o­gy. So that’s the first thing. The sec­ond thing was that almost nobody was approach­ing it with any kind of an intel­li­gence per­spec­tive. That is, gath­er­ing the intel­li­gence, look­ing at the indi­ca­tors, set­ting out indi­ca­tors even, try­ing to find data against those indi­ca­tors, mak­ing valid assess­ments, includ­ing ques­tion­ing impact. None of these things were being done at the time. We’re talk­ing about the year 2001 here. So noth­ing was being done at the time. The word itself was a kind of new­ly coined, as you prob­a­bly recall. It real­ly only came into the com­mon par­lance the year before and the year that I raised it, the year that we had the baby-traf­fick­ing cas­es. I was rais­ing it with Aus­tralia. The senior offi­cers in my agency had almost no knowl­edge of the word and what was behind it. So it was easy for them to dis­miss because they didn’t know what the hell I was talk­ing about. That was very use­ful. And of course, on mis­sions, the army train­ing came in very use­ful. As a free­lance, you don’t have the sup­port of a lot of oth­er peo­ple. So you have to put togeth­er a team for the spe­cif­ic exer­cise every time. So you need a good net­work, and then you need to be very adap­tive and very self con­tained, let’s say, because you’ve got to sup­port your­self right the way into the coun­try and out of the coun­try. With­out the army expe­ri­ence, there’s no way I could have done that. Absolute­ly no way. So that was real­ly use­ful. And of course, just being fed­er­al agent mind­ed, right? You’ve got an atti­tude that you can solve this prob­lem, even though I’ve learned since that you can’t with law enforce­ment. But I came in with the right atti­tude that we should try and change this, and we had to lift our game to do so. But the last 20 years have shown me that a lot of these expe­ri­ences have just been put to waste because we’re spend­ing mon­ey on solu­tions to slav­ery and traf­fick­ing with­out real­ly con­sid­er­ing the impact we’re hav­ing and not look­ing at caus­es… As you know, it’s a big issue for me. But we’re not look­ing at caus­es and address­ing causes.


MICHEL VEUTHEY: And what were the major dif­fi­cul­ties you encoun­tered dur­ing involve­ment and what dif­fi­cul­ties did you underestimate?


BRIAN ISELIN: The first dif­fi­cul­ty was the rea­son I quit the job, and that was bureau­crat­ic igno­rance to begin with, and then lat­er bureau­crat­ic intran­si­gence. So even the agen­cies that I was, my agency, for exam­ple, a year or two after I resigned, I start­ed a cam­paign in Aus­tralia to try to bring atten­tion to the issue. At that time, the attor­ney gen­er­al had said there was no traf­fick­ing in Aus­tralia. So I got togeth­er with a bunch of folks in Aus­tralia, and we did a num­ber of dif­fer­ent things, includ­ing a speak­ing tour, a post­card cam­paign, and some inves­ti­ga­tions. With­in a very short peri­od of time, the team doing the inves­ti­ga­tions, which was out of an NGO in Mel­bourne called Project Respect, they put togeth­er doc­u­men­tary evi­dence of more than 300 cas­es. And they did that in a very short peri­od of time. This is not a law enforce­ment group, this is NGO work­ers putting togeth­er, inves­ti­gat­ing this and find­ing cas­es. Why were they able to when the attor­ney gen­er­al said zero? So, any­way, with­in a very short peri­od of time, we went pub­lic with this. I went pub­lic with this dur­ing the speak­ing tour and com­plete­ly embar­rassed the attor­ney gen­er­al and com­plete­ly embar­rassed my for­mer agency. He changed. The attor­ney gen­er­al very quick­ly said, oh, well, he went from zero in one year to the next year say­ing: “Oh, well, even one is too many cas­es of traf­fick­ing.”  He announced the first tranche of fund­ing for some counter human traf­fick­ing activ­i­ties work in Aus­tralia, 97% of which went to my old agency. But I was black­balled because I’d whis­tle blown in a way. So even that agency wasn’t going to come back to me and get my assis­tance on how they’re going to spend that mon­ey. So they have con­tin­ued and con­tin­ued to resist real­ly new think­ing. They resist­ed inno­va­tion, unfor­tu­nate­ly, and this is even to today, I don’t know whether you saw, I post­ed just ear­li­er today about the new mea­sures that Aus­tralia wants to bring in on the Mod­ern Slav­ery Act. These three mea­sures are extreme­ly old mea­sures. They are 20-year-old think­ing, and they haven’t tak­en account of any of the evi­dence in the last 20 years that these three things are real­ly either dif­fi­cult or point­less. And I think it’s this bureau­crat­ic intran­si­gence, right? These bureau­crats seem to think that all they have to do is put togeth­er a lit­tle pack­age. And I don’t know whether they’ve just Googled respons­es and said, this will do, or they’ve looked at the US traf­fick­ing in Per­sons report and said, this is what Colom­bia did. Let’s do that. They’re all doing the same things and repeat­ing the same mis­takes and not learn­ing any­thing from them. A great exam­ple is aware­ness-rais­ing mea­sures, right? Gazil­lions of dol­lars have been spent on aware­ness rais­ing pro­grams, and every sin­gle eval­u­a­tion has dis­cov­ered that aware­ness rais­ing pro­grams only raise the aware­ness of those peo­ple who are already aware! So this is gazil­lions of dol­lars wast­ed on these mea­sures. Then let’s not talk about law enforce­ment impact, which is neg­li­gi­ble. So the depart­men­tal or gov­ern­men­tal intra­judgeance is anoth­er thing. Anoth­er thing which is a fea­ture of the com­mu­ni­ty on human traf­fick­ing and mod­ern slav­ery. A fea­ture of this com­mu­ni­ty is it doesn’t learn. And that’s real­ly frus­trat­ing. I have the same ques­tions when­ev­er I go to a new coun­try today, or whether I’m talk­ing to some­one about this sub­ject. I have the same ques­tions I was fac­ing 20 years ago. The agen­cies have got the same issues from 20 years ago. And every new coun­try I go to, they say, but things are dif­fer­ent here. We’ve got our own con­text, it’s our own cul­tur­al con­text. And actu­al­ly, to be frank, that’s rub­bish. It’s nev­er dif­fer­ent! … There are some sim­i­lar­i­ties and there are some dis­sim­i­lar­i­ties, but these are like facial fea­tures. The human is the same. And so when you go to a new coun­try, you go to Nige­ria and they talk about Juju, for exam­ple, which is this black mag­ic which is used to hold over traf­fick­ing vic­tims. Well, that’s okay. That hap­pens else­where too. It’s not spe­cif­ic to Nige­ria, and it’s also not dif­fer­ent sub­stan­tive­ly from what goes on in human traf­fick­ing. It’s just anoth­er, let’s say anoth­er tool that’s used by traf­fick­ers to get some­body involved. So love is used in some places. The hon­ey trap for a girl who’s a boy, meets them, falls in love, sends them to Swe­den, and sells them into pros­ti­tu­tion. So every one of these traf­fick­ing cas­es has exact­ly the same frame­work. What is dif­fer­ent is some facial fea­tures is all. There is this resis­tance to believe that the prob­lem is a uni­ver­sal one, and there’s this inten­tion or wish some­how that their expe­ri­ence, the expe­ri­ence in Arme­nia or the expe­ri­ence in Nige­ria is some­how dif­fer­ent to every­body else’s. It’s just rub­bish, actu­al­ly. As you prob­a­bly notice, I’m a bit of an icon­o­clast. I real­ly can’t stand these crazy attri­bu­tions of these crazy things that they’re just wrong and wrong-head­ed, but noth­ing changes. That’s real­ly frus­trat­ing for me. We’re not mak­ing progress!


MICHEL VEUTHEY : I under­stand. What advice would you give to a young per­son who would like to engage in the strug­gle against con­tem­po­rary slav­ery today?


BRIAN ISELIN: It’s a dif­fi­cult one because I have to say, if you real­ly want to work on this, you’re not going to make a liv­ing, so you prob­a­bly should have a day job. Then the mod­ern slav­ery, unfor­tu­nate­ly, should almost prob­a­bly not be. If you want to work on it in con­crete ways, in impact­ful ways, then you’re not going to get there by tak­ing any of the desk jobs that some of the mod­ern slav­ery peo­ple have. You’re not going to have as much impact as you might like. You could do it. You could take a degree in polit­i­cal admin­is­tra­tion or pub­lic admin­is­tra­tion and get a job in gov­ern­ment work­ing on the sub­ject. But to be frank, I would say get your­self well round­ed. I think inter­na­tion­al rela­tions help. Pub­lic admin­is­tra­tion helps. These sorts of edu­ca­tion­al qual­i­fi­ca­tions help. But have a day job, have some­thing to fall back on even if you need to, because it’s very dif­fi­cult to make a liv­ing in this sub­ject area. It’s still some­thing that nobody funds unfor­tu­nate­ly enough! There are, of course, job oppor­tu­ni­ties in this field, in the big inter­na­tion­al orga­ni­za­tions, ILO, IOM, UNODC and so on. Large­ly my expe­ri­ence of these has been large­ly that the peo­ple involved in those process­es inside those agen­cies, which is where the jobs are. They’re more admin­is­tra­tors than they are experts, and they con­tract or sub­con­tract the exper­tise. So if you want to be an expert on mod­ern slav­ery, work­ing in one of those agen­cies won’t nec­es­sar­i­ly equip you with that. It might actu­al­ly be quite dis­tract­ing and ulti­mate­ly bone crush­ing or soul crush­ing. But yeah, my advice would be you prob­a­bly can’t make a liv­ing on it. So get a day job and then do some mod­ern slav­ery work on the side. Vol­un­teer as much as you can, learn as much as you can through that process, and even­tu­al­ly you’ll find your way into a com­mu­ni­ty of like-mind­ed peo­ple, and then maybe you’ll make a liv­ing out of it. It’s not some­thing I think you can do straight out of school or uni­ver­si­ty. Get some vol­un­teer­ing under your belt first.


MICHEL VEUTHEY : Thank you very much indeed. As you know, in inter­na­tion­al orga­ni­za­tions, be it OSCE with Valiant Richey (Spe­cial Rep­re­sen­ta­tive and Coor­di­na­tor for Com­bat­ing Traf­fick­ing in Human Beings · OSCE) or with the Coun­cil of Europe with Gre­ta, we have very com­mit­ted peo­ple, and they also make a liv­ing with this. But still I must say…


BRIAN ISELIN: We’re talk­ing less than a hand­ful of people.




BRIAN ISELIN: Glob­al­ly, there’s a very small num­ber of peo­ple who make a liv­ing out of this. And not so many of them even come from an expert back­ground. Many of them come up through either as diplo­mats and in the UN sys­tem. They get put into posi­tions that relate to human traf­fick­ing or they’re lawyers, for example.


MICHEL VEUTHEY : Okay, and then what types of traf­fick­ing have you been in con­tact with? Can you list them?


BRIAN ISELIN: I would say 70% of my work has been human traf­fick­ing for sex­u­al exploita­tion of girls. That’s 70%, that’s the vast major­i­ty. Of course, that’s actu­al­ly a huge num­ber of cas­es. If you dis­count the forced labour and child labour, then you’ll find that traf­fick­ing for sex­u­al exploita­tion is, of course, huge. It’s also com­pelling the harms to be free. If you tried to list all the dif­fer­ent forms by harm pri­or­i­tize them, then the traf­fick­ing for sex­u­al exploita­tion, the harms of that are sig­nif­i­cant­ly greater than most oth­ers. From a harm per­spec­tive, you would put that at the high­est. And of course, this is also where spend­ing goes quite a lot because it’s quite atten­tion-seek­ing. UNODC, OSCE, Euro­pean Com­mis­sion, the Unit­ed States, they fund and they pri­or­i­tize things that have dealt, they have pri­or­i­tized things that have dealt with sex­u­al exploita­tion pri­mar­i­ly. I think only since the term of human traf­fick­ing has been expand­ed to mod­ern slav­ery have we seen inves­ti­ga­tions and case­loads and so on spread out away from sex­u­al exploita­tion with­in human traf­fick­ing, it’s prin­ci­pal­ly that. In the Mid­dle East, I worked on traf­fick­ing for domes­tic labour. Then I’ve worked on child labour in plan­ta­tions and fish­ing boats and the leather indus­try. What else? Well, forced labour, a num­ber of dif­fer­ent cas­es of forced labour in var­i­ous coun­tries, but most­ly sex­u­al exploitation.


MICHEL VEUTHEY : Okay. Can you give exam­ples of cas­es of traf­fick­ing that had had the great­est impact on you and why? You men­tioned chil­dren, of course, to be in here.


BRIAN ISELIN: The child labour case with the boy shot in the head, that had the biggest impact, a big impact, because it was real­ly ear­ly. The traf­fick­ing of the babies had real­ly impact because I was there on the ground look­ing at the babies in the sports bag in the bot­tom of the bus. It was a sur­re­al moment! Head spin­ning! What the hell can’t fig­ure this out? It didn’t make sense, right? It didn’t com­pute what I was see­ing in the bag. That was a major emo­tion­al shock. That was a sig­nif­i­cant one. I men­tioned the girl in Alba­nia, and that one has stuck with me as the Alban­ian girl in Italy, I should say that has stuck with me. Because when so back­ing up a step with that law enforce­ment back­ground, that fed­er­al agent mind­ed­ness. You think when you go into a sit­u­a­tion like a traf­fic vic­tim in a broth­el, she was in Abruz­zo in Italy, and you’re going into this broth­el expect­ing that you’re the res­cuer. I wouldn’t say it’s a white horse kind of sit­u­a­tion, but you go in with a res­cuer men­tal­i­ty, you’re there to do a job that involves the res­cue of that per­son. You’re pre­pared for what they will look like. You’re pre­pared for how they will act. But it’s still a shock every sin­gle time. This girl was ema­ci­at­ed and beat­en. Her teeth had been pulled out because she’d bit­ten someone’s penis, a client’s penis, and so there­after… She was not allowed to… Her teeth were pulled out, so she couldn’t bite any­body. She was beat­en, she was like she was a ter­ri­fied beat­en cat sit­ting in the cor­ner of a cage, basi­cal­ly… She was ter­ri­fied of being res­cued. She was ter­ri­fied of any male. That was imme­di­ate­ly a prob­lem for me. There were no women in the res­cue team. None. The police and immi­gra­tion peo­ple were not women either! It was a very unhap­py expe­ri­ence, and it was a mor­ti­fy­ing, tur­bu­lent, trau­mat­ic exer­cise, and then hav­ing to hand her over into cus­tody where the police were obvi­ous­ly going to treat her not so dif­fer­ent­ly to how she’d been treat­ed up until then. She was not treat­ed well. She was black­mailed by the admin­is­tra­tion, basi­cal­ly, as hap­pens every­where with vic­tims of traf­fick­ing, they’re black­mailed into giv­ing evi­dence. Give evi­dence or we’ll send you back home to where you came from, which, of course, is life-threat­en­ing for almost all of them. That was real­ly trau­ma­tiz­ing. I think they’re the worst. There was a failed one in West Africa that I don’t want to talk about.


MICHEL VEUTHEY : Okay. I under­stand. You tried to launch the fight against forced labour through the con­trol of sup­ply chains. It’s an orga­ni­za­tion, Slave­free­trade, that you found­ed. And you are com­mit­ted to the fight against pros­ti­tu­tion and for the pro­tec­tion of women. Can you explain your posi­tion and your com­mit­ment on behalf of women, please?


BRIAN ISELIN: Okay, well, I mean, two dif­fer­ent pieces there. The work­ing on the sup­ply chains and the work­ing on the pros­ti­tu­tion of women, and the traf­fick­ing of women. I take a demand-side approach. I use con­cepts of macro­eco­nom­ics and behav­ioral eco­nom­ics, arguably to put togeth­er an idea of where traf­fick­ing and pros­ti­tu­tion fit. Because one of the very first things I learned, or I heard when I joined the UNODC in Bangkok was from a com­mu­ni­ty of peo­ple who were ensconced in a kind of lib­er­al fem­i­nist school. They were telling me, and they were telling every­body, actu­al­ly quite con­stant­ly, don’t con­flate traf­fick­ing and pros­ti­tu­tion. That always trig­gered me because all of the traf­fick­ing cas­es that I was work­ing on, the vast major­i­ty of traf­fick­ing cas­es I was work­ing on, were sex­u­al exploita­tion. They were women in pros­ti­tu­tion. Con­flat­ing the two, they’re already con­flat­ed, they’re already the same phe­nom­e­non or dif­fer­ent parts of the same phe­nom­e­non. What is the phe­nom­e­non? Look under­neath the lay­ers and find the phe­nom­e­non. The phe­nom­e­non, actu­al­ly, when you work it out, is that traf­fick­ing is a kind of an over­flow pool for pros­ti­tu­tion. When demand increas­es for pros­ti­tu­tion, there are only, let’s say in the Nether­lands or Ger­many. Ger­many is a great exam­ple. When demand for pros­ti­tu­tion increas­es, demand for sex with women increas­es: paid sex with women! When that increas­es, there are only so many local women will­ing to do this. In an improv­ing econ­o­my, arguably a more gen­der-equal econ­o­my, there are far few­er local women ready to do that. But the demand by men is increas­ing… Because they’re being told by leg­is­la­tors, for exam­ple, that it’s okay to buy women! They take that mes­sage, they inter­nal­ize that mes­sage, and go out and try and find to by women… Demand is not met, which means there’s an over-demand under­sup­ply, and that’s where traf­fick­ers step in, and they’re able to bring women from almost any­where to fill that gap. This is why you see quite a pre­pon­der­ance of for­eign women in any par­tic­u­lar coun­try being used for that over­flow work from pros­ti­tu­tion. If you see it as an over­flow of pros­ti­tu­tion, then the two are con­flat­ed by nature. The idea that we’re arti­fi­cial­ly con­flat­ing them is false, and it’s a false nar­ra­tive that’s being per­pet­u­at­ed by this com­mu­ni­ty of lib­er­al fem­i­nists. One of the rea­sons we need to tack­le it from the demand side, one of the rea­sons we need to pro­tect women who are traf­ficked by erad­i­cat­ing the insti­tu­tion of pros­ti­tu­tion. It is quite sim­ply that if we treat one, if we treat traf­fick­ing, we are not fix­ing what’s under­neath it. We are not fix­ing… Let’s say you have a bath­room basin, and it’s over­flow­ing, and the water is flow­ing into a tank under­neath. Emp­ty­ing the tank under­neath is not going to solve the basin over­flow­ing. You need to solve the basin. You need to change the capac­i­ty of the basin, some­how, arguably reduce the lev­el of the water. That’s what we’re talk­ing about. That’s why we have to con­flate the two, or we have to rec­og­nize that they are con­flat­ed and deal with them togeth­er. The way to deal with them is to reduce the demand! Because until we reduce the demand for paid sex­u­al ser­vices, then we are going to see a rise in pros­ti­tu­tion, we’re going to see an under­sup­ply for this increas­ing demand, and we’re going to see more traf­fick­ing as a result. It’s super sim­ple stuff, but it doesn’t hap­pen if you don’t make that con­nec­tion that they are con­flat­ed from the begin­ning. That’s a real­ly impor­tant thing to do, to think about. The oth­er thing I want­ed to say was, as this over­flow becomes larg­er, it becomes more pro­fes­sion­al, it becomes more indus­tri­al­ized. It relates to some­thing that we did talk about in the 1970s, which was there was this rise in indi­vid­u­al­ism. And there was a very, very well-known at the time, a rad­i­cal fem­i­nist, Kath­leen Bar­ry. The way she was writ­ing about the sex­u­al exploita­tion of women, she was on the indi­vid­u­al­ist side, I would say. She was actu­al­ly argu­ing what lib­er­al fem­i­nists have been argu­ing the last 20 years: “That women have the right to choose! Women should be able to sell their bod­ies if they want to”.  That was the per­spec­tive that she took. With­in ten years, she’d com­plete­ly shift­ed. One of the rea­sons she shift­ed is because she com­plete­ly under­es­ti­mat­ed that if you allow for that, if you go com­plete­ly towards the indi­vid­u­al­ist side, you are pro­mot­ing the indus­tri­al­iza­tion of the sell­ing of women! It was this indus­tri­al­iza­tion that she hadn’t real­ized and that she decid­ed, well, actu­al­ly that’s more impor­tant. Because glob­al­ly, total­ly in a macro sense, we need to reduce the total num­ber. Indi­vid­ual choice is impor­tant, but if it’s at the expense of many more women, then clear­ly it’s not the right thing to do. While we need to be able to respect women who are in pros­ti­tu­tion and choose, for exam­ple, to ratio­nal­ize it by call­ing them­selves a sex work­er: that whole con­cept of pros­ti­tu­tion can be worked. If they ratio­nal­ize it that way, that’s fine. Let them ratio­nal­ize it, how­ev­er, they like, but under­stand that they’re a func­tion of this indus­tri­al­iza­tion…!  And that’s in fact what we need to be com­bat­ing this indus­tri­al­iza­tion of paid sex! That’s the only way to reduce the vol­ume of water in the basin and there­fore stop the fill­ing of the tank under­neath. I have to work on the metaphor.


MICHEL VEUTHEY : Thank you. Also in the fight against forced labour and your project “Slave­free­trade.”  Can you sum­ma­rize the main steps of this project and expe­ri­ence you acquired through the “Slave­free­trade” Project, please?


BRIAN ISELIN: It was also an exer­cise to… There are a cou­ple of dif­fer­ent rea­sons for hav­ing cre­at­ed “Slave­free­trade”.  I start­ed it orig­i­nal­ly six years ago and that was hot on the heels of the failed mis­sion that I men­tioned in West Africa. That was dev­as­tat­ing for me. I reached real­ly an emo­tion­al low point because of that it was a ter­ri­ble peri­od in my life and I didn’t want to be on this plan­et any­more. I was hat­ing peo­ple… I real­ly decid­ed it came to such a low point that I need­ed to dig my way out. One way of doing that was to come up with some­thing that was 100% a pos­i­tive response to traf­fick­ing and mod­ern slav­ery. It actu­al­ly came to me in my sleep: two o’clock in the morn­ing, Novem­ber 25, 2016, I woke up “Slave­free­trade” and we’re going to put a label on those prawns in the freez­er that tells peo­ple that these are slave-free prawns and let’s see if that makes an impact. And in so doing, the whole idea was the prawn sup­pli­er who could prove slave free would be reward­ed by the con­sumer and that reward would mean that they would bring more to the mar­ket and they would improve their sup­ply chain as a result. All the way down the chain, the good behav­iour, the pur­chase of the good-mind­ed per­son is reward­ing, all the way down the sup­ply chain, each of the com­pa­nies that have some­thing to do with it. It was impor­tant to come up with some­thing pos­i­tive and it was impor­tant to try to cre­ate a solu­tion around that. That was dif­fi­cult because there is no was no obvi­ous solu­tion. Nobody else was work­ing on this. When I came to it, I thought, there’s going to be a lot of col­lab­o­ra­tors… There’s not! There’s going to be a lot of orga­ni­za­tions that would like to help me with this and fund this. There’s not! There’s not none of the peo­ple who are fund­ing traf­fick­ing and mod­ern slav­ery ini­tia­tives want­ed any­thing to do with a demand-side project! Not one…!  They’re all so, and this is what I men­tioned before about the intran­si­gence of the com­mu­ni­ty. These fun­ders… They’re fundind to per­pet­u­ate the sta­tus quo. They’re not fundind to cre­ate new think­ing, they’re not fund­ing to try new things. They don’t work on the demand side, the demand side is nowhere. Order of Mal­ta and the OSCE are the only two oth­er orga­ni­za­tions that talk the demand side. Three orga­ni­za­tions in the world talk­ing the demand side…!  It’s dis­gust­ing…!  Any­way, I want­ed some­how to build some­thing that would cre­ate this loop between a con­sumer, right the way through a sup­ply chain down to the orig­i­nal source! The way it worked is, right up until last year, we fin­ished the first pilot project, which is in a cocoa sup­ply chain: the way it works is this. This is a live project with prod­ucts on the shelves in the UK. The choco­lates here in the UK, the retail­er, the com­pa­nies come to us for the solu­tion because they want a solu­tion, right? In this case, it was an activist CEO, but it could be any­thing, it could be share­hold­ers, stock­hold­ers, could be legal demands, could be any­thing, dif­fer­ent require­ments. Any­way, they come to us and they want to be clean, they want to have a good sup­ply chain and they want to be part of this cir­cle of good… That we want to cre­ate between a con­sumer and all the sup­pli­ers. They joined Slave­free­trade, the choco­lati­er in the UK. Then in this sys­tem, they invite their sup­pli­ers. Obvi­ous­ly, not all their sup­pli­ers are going to join. One of their sup­pli­ers, their milk pow­der provider in France, for exam­ple, said, no, get stuck. They weren’t inter­est­ed at all. Human rights, they even wrote human rights were not on their agen­da… Which is quite dis­gust­ing, but I got that email from so many com­pa­nies, you wouldn’t believe it! Any­way, so not all their sup­pli­ers joined, but the cocoa sup­pli­er did. The cocoa, they get their cocoa from Colom­bia. So the cocoa pro­duc­er joined. Then the cocoa pro­duc­er in turn invit­ed plan­ta­tions. We’ve start­ed to focus just on one. Com­pa­ny A, invite com­pa­ny B, invites com­pa­ny C. Sud­den­ly we have a sup­ply chain in the sys­tem. Then what we do is we run our process­es. We’ve devel­oped B to B process­es, we call them. This is where we check con­di­tions in work­places in real time on a con­tin­u­ing basis from the eyes of the peo­ple in the work­place. Because the very first thing I learned about that child labour case where the twelve-year-old boy was shot was that actu­al­ly one of the things we’d failed to do was under­stand what his work­place was like through his eyes. Nobody asked him and nobody asks the vast major­i­ty of staff in work­places what their con­di­tions are like..?  And espe­cial­ly not human rights-informed ques­tions? In a per­son­nel pulse, for exam­ple, these sur­veys that com­pa­nies send around from HR, they ask about whether there’s enough Nespres­so cap­sules or if the toi­lets are close enough or toi­lets are clean enough. They don’t ask fun­da­men­tal human right ques­tions, where­as in fact if they’d asked about salary secre­cy and gen­der pay gap and sex­u­al harass­ment and abuse and bul­ly­ing, they would get very dif­fer­ent answers. If they asked them in a way that encour­aged hon­esty, they would get very dif­fer­ent answers and so they would get a very dif­fer­ent per­spec­tive on the work­place. This sys­tem is designed to be an anony­mous sur­vey, but with data where you can check the integri­ty and see if there’s coer­cion or fal­si­ty or fraud or col­lu­sion. You gath­er this data and in this sys­tem we ask 120 ques­tions a year for every sin­gle per­son in the work­place: anony­mous­ly, remote­ly. It’s a remote diag­nos­tic tool and if issues come up then we can solve them. In this case, what hap­pened in the cocoa sup­ply chain, we iden­ti­fied there was a small clus­ter of bul­ly­ing in the pro­duc­tion facil­i­ty. We report­ed that to the mem­ber and then we worked with them to reme­di­ate that bul­ly­ing. That’s the whole idea of it, iden­ti­fy. We end­ed up with I think how many was it? About 1500 peo­ple in that three-tier sup­ply chain. That’s just three work­places. We didn’t try to do too much. Three work­places, 1500 peo­ple. We iden­ti­fied a cou­ple of issues that we worked on, but in gen­er­al what we got was good respons­es in all the work­places. They were all slave free, they met the stan­dard where the bar was set. Once those places were all slave free and we reme­di­at­ed the bul­ly­ing, the choco­late bar could come out on the shelves in the UK with our label on it and declar­ing them­selves guar­an­teed slave free! Con­sumers are buy­ing it like crazy. Super­mar­kets bought the first three pro­duc­tions runs before they even start­ed sell­ing. It’s very suc­cess­ful and very pop­u­lar and I think that that vin­di­cates the work that has gone into try­ing to cre­ate this sys­tem. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, because of a lack of fund­ing we’re not going to be able to con­tin­ue this project. We’ve got proof on the shelves and that’s a very good thing. It’s pos­si­ble to be done. It’s not impos­si­ble, like every­body said when I start­ed. It can be done, we just need… Some good peo­ple with some big mon­ey to get it going and get it work­ing. But it absolute­ly works, the demand-side works. Those are 1500 peo­ple who are def­i­nite­ly not in mod­ern slav­ery who have got good human rights con­di­tions and we con­tin­u­ous­ly mon­i­tor those con­di­tions. When human rights issues come up, we address them with the mem­ber. That’s the mod­el! … Con­sumers reward the choco­lati­er. The chocolatier’s vol­ume increas­es. Their vol­ume of cocoa increas­es. There­fore the cocoa pro­duc­tion facil­i­ty makes more mon­ey, the plan­ta­tion makes more mon­ey. This is an impor­tant behav­ioral loop that we’re cre­at­ing in depen­dence. The impor­tant thing is the prof­it mak­ing in that sup­ply chain depends on their human rights per­for­mance. So instead of the bot­tom line, instead of the human rights per­for­mance being a cost it actu­al­ly needs to be put in the col­umn where the bot­tom line is because you can’t achieve prof­it, you can’t main­tain your prof­it with­out the human rights per­for­mance. It’s col­lo­cat­ing the two instead of them being very, very sep­a­rate in the way com­pa­nies think about human rights activities.


MICHEL VEUTHEY : Thank you very much indeed. You already answered my next ques­tion. Which was, what are the deci­sive argu­ments for gov­ern­ments, busi­ness and con­sumers to win the erad­i­ca­tion of forced labour in sup­ply chains and the biggest obsta­cles to overcome?


BRIAN ISELIN: Well, the sin­gle biggest obsta­cle is com­pa­nies not car­ing. We can blame con­sumers all we like but con­sumers are a pow­er­ful tool to con­vince busi­ness­es if you can mobi­lize them… But they’re also an incred­i­bly dif­fi­cult com­mu­ni­ty to mobi­lize. When you talk about mobi­liz­ing any part of the con­sumer world for good caus­es. It’s always going to be a very small per­cent­age. And there’s this big dif­fer­ence as you’ll prob­a­bly rec­og­nize from peo­ple you know as well, there’s a very big dif­fer­ence between what peo­ple say they will buy and what they end up buy­ing! It’s a val­ues and action mis­match. 67% of con­sumers say they want to buy slave-free but can’t find it. But a much small­er per­cent­age, even if they can find it, actu­al­ly go and buy it. There’s this dif­fer­ence between… So mobi­liz­ing con­sumers is one thing but it can’t oper­ate on its own. Busi­ness­es need to want to as well and the vast major­i­ty of busi­ness­es quite sim­ply don’t want to! Big busi­ness­es def­i­nite­ly don’t want to…!  It’s very, very clear that they don’t choose to. There are a num­ber of rea­sons for that: one of them is that they think it’s a cost. The oth­er is that they don’t want cas­es dis­cov­ered if there are any. So they’d rather the will­ful blind­ness. And so the things go on in the back­ground that the bet­ter they don’t know. The deni­a­bil­i­ty is a very impor­tant dri­ving fac­tor for big busi­ness. These are actu­al­ly the two biggest prob­lems. The third one is the vast major­i­ty of gov­ern­ments can push busi­ness to the table by using leg­is­la­tion: all gov­ern­ments so far with the pos­si­ble excep­tion of Brazil have cho­sen to imple­ment such weak mea­sures that no busi­ness­es are brought to the table in any kind of a seri­ous way, right? Busi­ness­es are made to pro­duce a glossy brochure about their com­mit­ment, and that’s the extent of it. That’s where mod­ern slav­ery report­ing is at the moment. A com­pa­ny basi­cal­ly writes a CSR state­ment and it’s unver­i­fi­able, no data, doesn’t mat­ter, it’s pub­lished, right? This is where we are. We’re still at that stage since 2011 with the UN guid­ing prin­ci­ples on busi­ness and human rights. We’re still at the stage where com­pa­nies are required by gov­ern­ments to do noth­ing: they are asked vol­un­tar­i­ly to do things, but they’re not required to do any­thing, and where they are asked to do some­thing, or if there’s some kind of a demand to do some­thing… In Ger­many, for exam­ple, they’ve asked them to take active mea­sures, and so that’s always couched in such weak terms that the vast major­i­ty of com­pa­nies either don’t know what to do or they’ll be able to fudge their way through it. There’s this essen­tial tran­si­tion we need from vol­un­tary mea­sures, from the old UNG­Ps, which were arguably on mod­ern slav­ery, they were a fail­ure. The UNG­Ps is vol­un­tary mea­sures. Every piece of mod­ern slav­ery leg­is­la­tion since has basi­cal­ly been vol­un­tary mea­sures. You would actu­al­ly call them soft law because they are not just guid­ing prin­ci­ples, they’re law. But they’re very weak. No penal­ties, low report­ing thresh­olds, things like this. Then the tran­si­tion to hard law hasn’t hap­pened yet. Brazil is the only one that’s done any­thing like it, because they’ve actu­al­ly got some out­comes that are bad for com­pa­nies that have mod­ern slav­ery. Where­as none of the oth­ers, the Aus­tralian, the British, the Cal­i­forn­ian, the French, now the Dutch, the new Ger­man, human rights, due dili­gence, none of these laws have any­thing that is seri­ous­ly dam­ag­ing to a com­pa­ny if they don’t do it. They just don’t do it. And that’s it. There’s noth­ing. Even where pub­lic pro­cure­ment is linked to it. There is a real flaw in the argu­ment, flaw in the log­ic, in the appli­ca­tion of the law. So pub­lic pro­cure­ment claus­es are being added to mod­ern slav­ery acts in dif­fer­ent places. Now, what that means is that if a com­pa­ny is not com­pli­ant or found to be not com­pli­ant in their ten­der, then they can’t win the con­tract. That’s the first piece. The sec­ond piece is that they can be barred from future pub­lic pro­cure­ment if they’re found to have child labour or they’ve got a scan­dal or some­thing. That’s a nice tool, but unfor­tu­nate­ly it’s being imple­ment­ed so bad­ly: eval­u­a­tors or the cat­e­go­ry man­agers and pur­chasers and so on at the pub­lic pro­cure­ment agen­cies have no exper­tise in mod­ern slav­ery and human rights. None what­so­ev­er. They also have no time if you speak to any of them. None of them have time to even make a cut lunch for them­selves, right? They’re so busy with con­tract after con­tract and all the paper­work that’s required, they’re very, very busy already. If you add mod­ern slav­ery to the eval­u­a­tion grid for a ten­der, but you have no time and you have no exper­tise and you have no data, you’re just rely­ing on the ten­der­er who sub­mits a glossy report, what are you doing? What sub­stan­tive­ly are you doing with your pub­lic pro­cure­ment lever? You’ve got pow­er there, but you’ve got no way to wield that pow­er. And com­pa­nies will just be cyn­i­cal enough to sub­mit their CSR state­ment (Social­ly Respon­si­ble Com­pa­nies), their mod­ern slav­ery state­ment, and be done with it. And then the box gets ticked, and then pub­lic pro­cure­ment is no longer a valu­able tool. And yet this is a lever that we should all be pulling, because in the OECD alone, it’s $9 tril­lion. It’s a $9 tril­lion lever, right? Who doesn’t want to pull on that once in a while? Let’s get that $9 tril­lion work­ing with gen­uine pub­lic pro­cure­ment claus­es, in laws that are backed up by staff in the pub­lic pro­cure­ment agency, know what they’re doing, make it a seri­ous per­cent­age of the eval­u­a­tion, and require proof, require hard data, not just rhetoric. I’ve com­plete­ly for­got­ten what your ques­tion was?


MICHEL VEUTHEY : Okay. I would like to ask the same ques­tion on pros­ti­tu­tion. What are the deci­sive argu­ments to win the cause of reduc­ing and erad­i­cat­ing pros­ti­tu­tion and the great­est obsta­cles to overcome?


BRIAN ISELIN: The solu­tion is what Swe­den orig­i­nal­ly did with what’s now called the equal­i­ty mod­el, pre­vi­ous­ly the Nordic mod­el. And before that, it was just Swe­den. So leg­isla­tive­ly, that’s the solu­tion, and that is to crim­i­nal­ize the act of the buy­er, decrim­i­nal­ize the act of the sell­er. The woman in pros­ti­tu­tion is not crim­i­nal­ly liable. The man who buys her is crim­i­nal­ly liable. Now, even Swe­den, unfor­tu­nate­ly, didn’t imple­ment it very well. And so there are a num­ber of caveats. There are a num­ber of fac­tors that need to be tak­en into account. But leg­isla­tive, that’s the process. That’s what you have to do. You have to put the blame for the struc­ture on the peo­ple who cre­at­ed the struc­ture. Pros­ti­tu­tion is an insti­tu­tion cre­at­ed by men, for men. The solu­tion is to put the blame and the cul­pa­bil­i­ty back on the peo­ple who cre­at­ed it for them­selves. Men need to be cul­pa­ble, crim­i­nal­ly cul­pa­ble, and the women not. That’s the first thing. But the sec­ond thing is that this needs to be done with a raft of mea­sures, which include suf­fi­cient law enforce­ment crack­ing down on those male buy­ers to make it a seri­ous thing. This wasn’t done well in Swe­den. There were some, but not any­where near enough. It needs to be much more than token enforce­ment. Men need to be scared of being arrest­ed for that sex­u­al offense, right! Added to a sex offender’s list or increase the cost of detec­tion for the men. That’s real­ly impor­tant. The sec­ond thing that needs to hap­pen is edu­ca­tion. Swe­den did this okay. But it needs to be done bet­ter and intro­duced into schools at younger age. That the respect for women, low­er objec­ti­fi­ca­tion of women. These sorts of edu­ca­tion­al pro­grams are real­ly impor­tant. In Swe­den they did it quite well. I get a sense it’s drift­ing from where it was, but it was going quite well. The vast major­i­ty of men in Swe­den don’t even or would not even think of buy­ing a woman for sex. I don’t think I’ve ever been, and I’m Swedish now, so maybe I’m sound­ing a bit pan­der­ing, but I haven’t been to a soci­ety where there is less objec­ti­fi­ca­tion of women, pub­lic objec­ti­fi­ca­tion, the wolf whistling and the what’s the word? Ogling and things like this. It’s gen­uine­ly tan­gi­bly, less in the street. And vio­lence against women, like­wise, is at a very low lev­el in Swe­den. I think all of these come togeth­er. And when they do come togeth­er, they cre­ate an envi­ron­ment where women are more respect­ed. Gen­tri­fi­ca­tion is low­er. Men don’t even think about buy­ing a woman for sex. The impact that has had has been a dra­mat­ic reduc­tion in pros­ti­tu­tion in Swe­den and a dra­mat­ic reduc­tion in human traf­fick­ing. Police inves­ti­ga­tion into a human-traf­fick­ing group in Swe­den ear­ly after the leg­is­la­tion was brought in, they decid­ed to move on. They said, we’re going to Den­mark and the Nether­lands because our mar­ket has dried up here. That’s very telling. That’s what needs to be done. This raft of mea­sures around a leg­isla­tive response, educa­tive and law enforce­ment respons­es as well. This is real­ly impor­tant. And then the fourth piece of that pack­age is build­ing exit strate­gies for women in pros­ti­tu­tion. It is not that decrim­i­nal­iz­ing the act of the woman in pros­ti­tu­tion solves every­thing. The woman is still stuck in obvi­ous­ly a very eco­nom­i­cal­ly and per­son­al­ly con­strained cir­cum­stance. There needs to be a great deal more spent on assis­tance to find ways out of that. In many ways, in a very sim­i­lar way to what Fin­land has done with solv­ing home­less­ness. That is, they pro­vide hous­ing, they pro­vide some income, they pro­vide jobs, they pro­vide skills, they pro­vide edu­ca­tion. This is all build­ing a com­fort pack­age, let’s say, around women in pros­ti­tu­tion to help them get out. These four things need to be all done togeth­er. If they’re not all done togeth­er and not all done equal­ly, then it’s going to be par­tial fail­ure. That’s what needs to be done. Biggest obsta­cles: the lip­stick fem­i­nists, the fem­i­nists in uni­ver­si­ties who are still claim­ing that indi­vid­u­al­ism is every­thing, that the indi­vid­ual choice means every­thing and the soci­ety has no say. And I think that posi­tion which per­me­ates not just uni­ver­si­ties, but also into gov­ern­ments and let’s say larg­er soci­ety. It’s a school of fem­i­nism. Any­way, sor­ry, apolo­gies for that, but this school is real­ly quite dam­ag­ing to the idea that we can solve this through allow­ing indi­vid­ual choice to be every­thing. Indi­vid­u­al­ism has costs. It can’t be indi­vid­u­al­ism at any cost. There’s got to be some bar­gain, let’s say. And unfor­tu­nate­ly, it means that some women in pros­ti­tu­tion are going to lose in that their indi­vid­ual choice, if such a choice can be con­sid­ered to be a free thing, which is arguably nev­er. Right? I would say that’s one of the biggest obsta­cles. Sec­ond biggest obsta­cle? No, actu­al­ly, I mean the first biggest obsta­cle is men, right? The first biggest obsta­cle is white, mid­dle-aged men mak­ing pol­i­cy and law on this sub­ject. And they are very slow to move if they move at all. I have known per­son­al­ly of inves­ti­ga­tions of politi­cians, for exam­ple, who were being black­mailed by pro-pros­ti­tu­tion and pro-pornog­ra­phy groups so that they would block laws like the Swedish law, like the equal­i­ty mod­el, because com­pro­mise pho­tographs tak­en of them in a broth­el, things like this. That’s a real thing. It’s hap­pen­ing. Of course the men are the biggest prob­lem. Men not chang­ing is a big prob­lem. Men assum­ing women can be sold and bought is a prob­lem..!  Men believ­ing they have a right to women’s bod­ies, they have a right to con­sume women. That’s obvi­ous­ly the biggest obsta­cle. Then there are these lip­stick fem­i­nists and then there is also the mon­ey. The mon­ey is so phe­nom­e­nal that can be made from recruit­ing very cheap­ly a woman whom you buy an air­line tick­et for and put her in an apart­ment that you’re pay­ing noth­ing for. And then sell­ing her 20, 30 times a day. That’s an enor­mous prof­it mod­el. Right. So that mon­ey is real­ly com­pelling for a lot of peo­ple in con­strained eco­nom­ic times. It’s even more com­pelling for young men to get more involved in that. I don’t know how you tack­le the mon­ey. It’s not so easy to pro­vide alter­na­tives to peo­ple who want to get into the mar­ket as sellers.


MICHEL VEUTHEY : Bri­an, I under­stand and I have an inter­est­ing ques­tion also by a friend from Nige­ria, Sis­ter Francesca. Sis­ter Francesca, who is just com­ing now back from Nige­ria. She is in Gene­va and she’s ask­ing, “I’m curi­ous with your state­ment. At some time we spend time cre­at­ing aware­ness with those who are already aware. What would you say about poor moth­ers in a rur­al vil­lage in Nige­ria or else­where in the world who inno­cent­ly give their daugh­ters out to rich madams against women, under the pre­tence that they will get a job and be able to earn a liv­ing, sup­port the fam­i­ly in the long run, how­ev­er, end up being traf­ficked for sex­u­al exploitation?”


BRIAN ISELIN: Well. Yes, please. It’s a great ques­tion. The impor­tant thing to think about with aware­ness rais­ing is that the suc­cess or fail­ure of it real­ly depends on how close­ly you tar­get the audi­ence and whether you com­mu­ni­cate to them where they will under­stand the mes­sage and where they can best act on the infor­ma­tion. An exam­ple of good aware­ness rais­ing would be hav­ing a work­ing group with the women in each of those vil­lages, telling them what’s going on and what the risks are. Per­son­al­ly, human con­tact with them, work­ing groups and so on, that’s aware­ness rais­ing that can be effec­tive at a local lev­el. What’s not effec­tive is putting up a poster at an air­port in the depar­tures area with a pho­to of a young girl and say­ing “Beware you might be human traf­ficked”, that’s a waste of mon­ey! That’s a poster cam­paign that has just wast­ed scarce resources. That should have been put into work­ing groups, going out to com­mu­ni­ties to make them aware of what’s going on around them, right? These poster cam­paigns, even though some of these hot­line num­bers that you see, that actu­al­ly even­tu­al­ly end up in some places, they end up at sig­nif­i­cant expense. These are also a waste of time in gen­er­al, right? Hot­lines can work, but most­ly they’re imple­ment­ed in such a way that they can’t. And the per­fect exam­ple is a girl I knew of who was killed by her traf­fick­er because she had a phone num­ber writ­ten on a piece of paper in her pock­et that she’d seen and what was it? I’m try­ing to remem­ber now. She’d seen the num­ber some­where, but it wasn’t on a poster at an air­port. But there was some­how she got a hold of this num­ber  might have been for anoth­er girl actu­al­ly. Any­way, the traf­fick­er found her with this num­ber in the pock­et because the num­ber was so com­pli­cat­ed there was no way she could remem­ber it. It wasn’t like one one one, it was a com­pli­cat­ed num­ber. She’d writ­ten it on a piece of paper, traf­fick­er found it, real­ized that that was the hot­line num­ber and killed her. Hot­lines are very, very dif­fi­cult to imple­ment and I would say that they’re a piece of this whole aware­ness rais­ing thing because they usu­al­ly come with ads at air­ports and so on and so forth. I think pub­lic ser­vice announce­ments are also a huge waste of mon­ey. Videos, Aus­tralia announced one of its new mea­sures is a video about the risk of mod­ern slav­ery in the clean­ing indus­try for the clean­ing indus­try in Aus­tralia. Now, I don’t know about you, but I hap­pen to know the clean­ing indus­try in Aus­tralia is well aware of the risk of human traf­fick­ing with­in the clean­ing indus­try in Aus­tralia. They don’t need a video to tell them that it’s a high risk issue and if any­body in the indus­try doesn’t know that there is a risk of mod­ern slav­ery in the clean­ing busi­ness, they’re a knuck­le­head and they’re not going to care about that video any­way. This is what I’m say­ing with the aware­ness rais­ing is it’s got to be real­ly well thought out, it’s got to be real­ly well tar­get­ed, it’s got to be direct­ed at an audi­ence that is very well iden­ti­fied. We talk in aware­ness-rais­ing cam­paigns about the per­sona. We don’t need a per­sona. We need a group of peo­ple. An actu­al con­crete group of peo­ple, not mar­ket­ing per­sonas, tar­get­ed infor­ma­tion to peo­ple who can act on that infor­ma­tion at the time that they receive the infor­ma­tion. This time­li­ness is real­ly key, right? If you put some­body up a pub­lic ser­vice announce­ment, for exam­ple, about watch­ing out for mod­ern slav­ery, but there’s noth­ing they can do right there and then they see it on an air­plane, for exam­ple, a pub­lic ser­vice announce­ment it’s beau­ti­ful, very well-direct­ed, nice light­ing, but there’s noth­ing they can do about it. Right there, sit­ting on the plane, by the time they’ve land­ed, it’s gone. It’s dead. Aware­ness rais­ing, mas­sive amounts of mon­ey wast­ed on it. The case that you’re talk­ing about in Nige­ria is a per­fect exam­ple of where aware­ness-rais­ing mon­ey can and should be spent because there is a spe­cif­ic, absolute, direct audi­ence who can take that infor­ma­tion and act on it. Go do it!


MICHEL VEUTHEY : Thank you very much. Actu­al­ly tak­ing due note, because I think we should work on this togeth­er. I’m pret­ty sure that Sis­ter Francesca will have very con­crete ideas, con­crete answers to fol­low up on your pro­pos­als, because that’s pre­cise­ly what we were dis­cussing before she trav­eled to Nige­ria. Now, I have anoth­er question.


BRIAN ISELIN: Can I just say, Michel, one of the best ways to think about aware­ness rais­ing is think­ing about oral his­to­ries. The way we can pass down and pass around com­mu­ni­ties. An oral his­to­ry about what can hap­pen, what the risks are, what the chances are, what it looks like. We use the oral his­to­ry form and pass it on. It’s a word-of-mouth method. It doesn’t get huge num­bers, but it becomes real­ly quite ingrained.


MICHEL VEUTHEY: Thank you very much. Then there’s anoth­er ques­tion by Mary Patri­cia Mul­hall. Bri­an, how do you finance your work and your own livelihood?


BRIAN ISELIN: That’s a great ques­tion. In the begin­ning, I financed it from mis­sions that I was doing for coun­ternar­cotics work. That is still a thing. Peo­ple are still pay­ing for mis­sions for coun­ternar­cotics work. I was doing that up until my last traf­fick­ing mis­sion, the failed one. I paid for my liv­ing and the start of Slave­free­trade. The first cou­ple of years of Slave­free­trade out of my own sav­ings, they’ve all gone. Since then, to be frank, I’ve just been liv­ing on cred­it and my pen­sion, which I don’t have, I’m tak­ing it out in advance, right? So it doesn’t pay. There is no way to make a good liv­ing on this. Cer­tain­ly, I’m just get­ting myself more and more into debt, unfor­tu­nate­ly, if I can be hon­est. Then I would like not very positive.


MICHEL VEUTHEY: my last ques­tion? Which per­son­al­i­ties have had the great­est impact on you when you met in your strug­gle and explained the new chal­lenge you are under­tak­ing with the launch of your con­sult­ing com­pa­ny Iselin Human Rights?


BRIAN ISELIN: Sor­ry, what was the first part of the ques­tion again?


MICHEL VEUTHEY: The first part. Which per­son­al­i­ties had the great­est impact on you met in your com­bat against human trafficking?


BRIAN ISELIN: I would say it’s the teams that I’ve been able to put togeth­er for the res­cues have been the biggest impact, per­son­al­ly on me, in per­son­al­i­ty terms, because these are peo­ple who, like me, were doing it for noth­ing, right. NGOs or fam­i­lies, lots of dif­fer­ent pos­si­ble con­trac­tors were need­ing help, but they weren’t pay­ing any­thing. Some­times they would pay our air­line tick­et, but that’s about all. Then we had all our expens­es and weapons and every­thing else. They were amaz­ing peo­ple who put their lives on the line for a greater good. Even though we all knew, we’re all expe­ri­enced with this, we all knew that every time we res­cued some­one, it prob­a­bly wasn’t going to be nec­es­sar­i­ly good for that per­son. Once we got them out, there would be sig­nif­i­cant hard­ships ahead of them. We all knew that. It was always this bit­ter­sweet feel­ing at the end, okay, we got her out, but now she’s going. Now look where she’s going. She’s just going to be retraf­ficked or killed. You can’t think about that. You’ve got a job to do. The job is to res­cue them and give them a chance, at least, because they would have even less of a chance if we left them where they were. Those teams that have put togeth­er with indi­vid­u­als have been last­ing friend­ships. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, they’re not all here. They’ve done lots of sim­i­lar work and some not here. I remem­ber them deeply but these per­son­al­i­ties, these peo­ple would go into hope­less sit­u­a­tions and help these peo­ple, is so enrich­ing. That’s why I went back mis­sion after mis­sion. Right? It’s not just about the res­cue, it’s also about the peo­ple you get to bring in to do the work.


MICHEL VEUTHEY: Bri­an, could you tell us now you’re launch­ing this con­sult­ing com­pa­ny Iselin Human Rights?


BRIAN ISELIN: I need to make a liv­ing. I need to pay off my cred­it cards. I’ve just set up a con­sul­tan­cy, which is to pro­vide human rights, com­pli­ance and ser­vices, like human rights audits and so on. A bit like the B to B piece of slave-free trade, right? A bit like if a com­pa­ny wants to be human rights com­pli­ant, then we pro­vide those ser­vices to com­pa­nies that want it. There are some com­pa­nies that are start­ing to look at it because leg­is­la­tion is start­ing to push them in that direc­tion. This is some­thing that’s hap­pen­ing. A lot of big com­pa­nies, for exam­ple, are now start­ing to think about human rights strate­gies which they nev­er had before. This is great. Change is com­ing. It’s tan­gi­ble, it’s just incred­i­bly slow. It’s glacial move­ment. Iselin Human Rights, it’s a small com­pa­ny designed to pro­vide that ser­vice to a larg­er group of com­pa­nies that oth­er­wise can’t afford to be able to buy human rights com­pli­ance ser­vices and don’t know what to do. They don’t have the exper­tise. Big com­pa­nies, Siemens, Volk­swa­gen, Danone what­ev­er? They can buy ser­vices from PWC, KPMG, Deloitte, and those com­pa­nies, of course, have leapt on the band­wag­on to sell human rights ser­vices. They have no exper­tise. They’ve got MBA pro­gram grad­u­ates, but they’ve got a great sales machine and they can pro­duce great papers and slide decks. These com­pa­nies are mak­ing a mint already out of large com­pa­nies requir­ing human rights ser­vices. I guess what I’m say­ing is that I’m try­ing to help com­pa­nies that are less than the multi­na­tion­als, but want to do some­thing with mean­ing. If it’s a suc­cess, I don’t know. It’s only been open a month, so let’s see if it lasts a year.


MICHEL VEUTHEY: Bri­an, we wish you every suc­cess indeed in this new human exper­i­ment in human rights and def­i­nite­ly, you have a beau­ti­ful web­site. I think every­one could vis­it this web­site with great profit.


BRIAN ISELIN: Please do. There’s a blog on there with lots and lots of arti­cles for you to read if you’re inter­est­ed in these sub­jects. I write some­thing every day for that.


MCHEL VEUTHEY: Excel­lent. We should all look at this.


BRIAN ISELIN: Please do.,


MICHEL VEUTHEY: that’s easy enough to get. All together.


BRIAN ISELIN: all one word And then blog if you want to go to the arti­cles and you can sub­scribe, you can sign up to get a noti­fi­ca­tion when I pub­lish a new one, which actu­al­ly is every day.


MICHEL VEUTHEY: Cer­tain­ly, we shall…


BRIAN ISELIN: can I just say, if any­body wants a blog arti­cle writ­ten on a par­tic­u­lar sub­ject, if you want to ask me about some­thing and for me to write about it, drop me a note. Michel can cir­cu­late my email and I will very hap­pi­ly write an arti­cle address­ing your issue.


MICHEL VEUTHEY: No, def­i­nite­ly. If any­one now, today, live or watch­ing the video record­ing of this webi­nar, def­i­nite­ly I will pro­vide them with your email address Bri­an because actu­al­ly, as you say, it’s good to have gen­er­al state­ments, blan­ket state­ments, but it’s bet­ter to focus and have a prac­ti­cal approach and then to involve peo­ple who indeed have, like you, an expe­ri­ence and who, like you, have a com­mit­ment and indeed, that might be very inter­est­ing. Actu­al­ly, I see some­one say­ing, Bri­an, you are sim­ply amaz­ing. Thank you for your expe­ri­ence and I think it’s well deserved.


BRIAN ISELIN: That’s real­ly kind. Thank you.


MICHEL VEUTHEY: Bri­an let’s stay in touch. Our best wish­es. I’m pret­ty sure that every­one who did fol­low this great inter­view will be hap­py to express their wish­es for suc­cess of your con­tin­u­ing strug­gle, and actu­al­ly, I would just like to thank you for your exam­ple and indeed your frank expla­na­tions. We also like to thank all par­tic­i­pants and to say that our next webi­nar will be on April 25. It will present the needs and sto­ries of male sur­vivors of child sex­u­al abuse, exploita­tion and human traf­fick­ing. It will be with Ena Lucia Mari­a­ca Pacheco. Ena Pacheco just wrote a dis­ser­ta­tion on the dif­fi­cult jour­ney of male sur­vivors, uncov­er­ing and iden­ti­fy­ing the social inter­ac­tions that harm and aid male sur­vivor recov­ery and heal­ing, as well as fur­ther explor­ing the bar­ri­ers that hin­der dis­clo­sure. Now I would like to say that indeed you see the email address of Brian—is brian_iselin ()

MICHEL VEUTHEY: Exact­ly, brian_iselin () That works.


BRIAN ISELIN: Can you con­nect with me on LinkedIn? See, then you have everything.


MICHEL VEUTHEY: LinkedIn/in/in/Brianislin.


BRIAN ISELIN: Your busi­ness human rights guy.


MICHEL VEUTHEY: That’s very good. No, I see that you’re every­where post­ing very inter­est­ing blogs and mes­sages well worth fol­low­ing. Yes, that’s very good.


BRIAN ISELIN: Most­ly icon­o­clas­tic, as you’re prob­a­bly well aware.


MICHEL VEUTHEY: No. Bri­an, thanks a million.


BRIAN ISELIN: Thank you. Thanks for your time and thanks to every­body for tak­ing the time to listen.


MICHEL VEUTHEY: Yes, and also my grat­i­tude to Y. R., our web­mas­ter, and to my assis­tant in Gene­va Clara Breguet Isep­pi, and Emanuele, Gior­gio Pilu­so, and also Lind­say Boudreau, who joined us for one month. Bri­an, again, many thanks, best wishes—and—thank you. Let’s stay in touch because we shall also record this webi­nar and video record­ing shall be avail­able in a few days on our web­site with sub­ti­tles in Eng­lish, French, Ger­man, Ital­ian, Russ­ian, Span­ish and Chi­nese. Feel free to share the link and our Eng­lish online course on human traf­fick­ing for helpers is now trans­lat­ed and avail­able for free in French, Eng­lish, Ger­man and Ital­ian on the web­site. I wish you all the best, I invite you to the upcom­ing webi­nar on Tues­day, April 25 at 6 p.m. Cen­tral Euro­pean time. Thanks. —Best wish­es to all. —Thank you. Good­bye, Bri­an. Thanks a mil­lion. Thanks.







Adlaudatosi Webinars Videos VIMEO

Videos of the speakers’ interventions adlaudatosi VIMEO

Adlaudatosi Webinars Videos YOUTUBE

Religious Helping Trafficking Victims along the Road of Recovery (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Religious Working In International Advocacy Against Human Trafficking (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Impact Of Human Trafficking On Health: Trauma (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Impact Of Human Trafficking On Health: Healing (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — Where Are We Now? (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — What can be done? (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — Best Practices (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Demand As Root Cause For Human Trafficking – Sex Trafficking & Prostitution

Human Trafficking — Interview with Prof. Michel Veuthey, Order of Malta — 44th UN Human Right Council 2020

POPE’S PAYER INTENTION FOR FEBRUARY 2020: Hear the cries of migrants victims of human trafficking


Church on the frontlines in fight against human trafficking



Catholic social teaching

Doctrine sociale de l’Église catholique

Register to our series of webinars adlaudatosi on Human Trafficking

You have successfully registered !