From a policy perspective, however, legal assumptions that people cannot
consent to a broad range of activities may benefit more people. Arguing that
such movement primarily involves fully willing adults, many autonomy
advocates call for a definition of trafficking that narrows the activity to a
process involving coercion, deception, or similar force. 132 The Trafficking
Protocol provides no provision for the prosecution of trafficked persons, 133
but the opening it creates to recognize consent as a means of denying victim
(and hence protective) status134 provides an incentive to see all trafficked
people-non-consenting "victims" and consenting adults-as people who
have consented to enter illegally and therefore are not in need of protection.
A law that recognizes the capability to consent may be used as a justification
by a state to withhold protection from real victims of trafficking who have
in fact not consented. Moreover, a definition that excludes a woman who has
consented to illicit movement and labor lends legitimacy to the trafficker,
who is nonetheless conducting an illegal act worthy of suppression, not to
mention potentially transporting other persons who have not consented.
There are real problems with seeing consent as preventing a definition of
trafficking.