One of the many problems affecting Romanian society, including the legal system, is human trafficking for sexual purposes, especially involving young girls. This problem has been addressed through various channels and solutions, but it has never been solved either in Romania or anywhere in the world. In some countries, the situation is still under control, but in many countries, including Romania, this problem persists due to the strong influence of the patriarchal mentality.

This attitude often hides in the shadows, more or less voluntarily adopted by people, but more dangerously, it also manifests itself in institutions. The legal system will not change anything in this case, despite pressure from civil society and relative progress in general thinking. Corruption, poverty and instability are linked to misogynistic political structures, creating serious obstacles that prevent Romanians, especially marginalized girls and women, from leading dignified lives and feeling protected by the state and the law. What if the law itself expresses a measure of social indifference and indifference to the already marginalized and abused? What if law and language were intertwined in a way that reflected this state of affairs? What if the language of the law does not show genuine concern for people? Or, better put, should the law care about how real solutions can be provided? Can institutional accountability become a practice in the way laws are perceived and developed?

Usually, the law should guarantee and protect the rights and autonomy of individuals, but more often than not, the legal approach treats individuals, including those in need of protection, as separate beings, free “electrons” isolated from the rest. However, it is quite difficult to assume that each individual revolves only around itself, as if it were a “rebellious” planet without a solar system. Language connects people to each other, giving meaning to the self through relationships with others, functioning as an asset that assures us that we are not alone, that the state – through its institutions and systems – protects us. What if the language of the law could not protect all citizens, but instead perpetuated an artificial order that fostered marginalization?

In the era #I also, it is important to mention the feminist scholars who paid careful attention to the gendered mechanisms of language transmission, whether written or spoken. The legal system, as well as in other important spheres of social life, is dominated by men. This may imply that men are the ones who define what is right and what is wrong. If there was a legal system genderAccording to feminist researchers, there are some things that need to be clarified about why sex trafficking continues and destroys hundreds of lives.

We can begin with a little analysis of the situation: if the language of the law systematically regulates the realities of life, and if the law is written by the people, then the people have the responsibility and the right to shape it, define and interpret it based on what they define as exceptions. A law that is supposed to have a universal voice and be all-encompassing can actually be disguised as a “male voice.” Assuming that the law equates the experience of one party with a universal one, where are the specific initiatives, for example, to combat sex trafficking, especially the trafficking of young girls? Until now, a predominantly male legislature has made decisions about women’s bodies, as in the case of the right to abortion, which is unconstitutional in various democracies. Does it matter that the same legislation allows the sale of girls/women’s bodies as a simple sex commodity?

Two years ago, through amendment 211 of the Criminal Code slightly changed the punishment from three years to five years of imprisonment in the case of child trafficking. This is the minimum punishment, since the maximum punishment remains unchanged and is from ten to fifteen years of imprisonment. In terms of punishment, child trafficking is almost equal to theft, and sometimes even a lesser crime compared to tax evasion or forgery, even though these penalties may be added to the crime. However, there are sometimes many bureaucratic hurdles for trafficked girls and their parents to overcome in order to obtain justice through free legal aid, given the lack of institutional diligence and police mistrust of victims.

One of the main problems is the stigmatization of sex for money in all its forms. Trafficking in human beings for sexual purposes is still considered prostitution (it should be emphasized that in legal parlance the term prostitution instead sex workthe difference between them will be explained below), and the simple word evokes prejudice and shame. Although a feminist branch the sex-positive movement has had significant impact in terms of voicing voiceless sex workers and campaigning for their rights, legal language has yet to adapt its vocabulary to mainstream discourse.

Actually even “Palermo Protocol”, which was signed by 105 countries in 2002, does not treat human trafficking as distinct from prostitution, but actually treats sex trafficking as a result of legalized “prostitution.” Regardless of how we approach this issue, it remains debatable how prostitution is understood and treated by society and state institutions. Trafficked girls and women are usually treated as a homogenous category, despite a context that includes poverty, migration, abuse, instability, shame, and the legal system does very little to prevent this state of affairs.

Carol Pateman in her book “Sex Contract” (1988), shows that what she calls prostitution (I think the mainstream discourse has not yet been changed by feminists sex positive) is embedded in a patriarchal mindset and that there is a reason why the “whore” is a female figure. She admits, of course, that once we learn about the history of sex work, we will understand that it is really a men’s problem and why they demand and must treat women’s bodies as sex tools for their own gain. Pateman argues that trafficking in women’s bodies is done to give men rights and access to their bodies. Unfortunately, the sex trade is the most horrific form of patriarchal power through which men claim rights over women’s bodies. Unfortunately, this approach has become the norm. Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro