The Ends Justify the Means

Most people are familiar with the concept of consequentialism, where the consequences of one's conduct are more important than the rightness or wrongness of the conduct. We often phrase it as "the ends justify the means," or, "As long as it turns out well, it doesn't matter what measures I had to take to get there." These justifications are generally employed in an attempt to excuse poor or immoral behavior. I would venture to say that the majority of people would agree living according to this concept is unpredictable, unreliable and generally harmful.

However, there are those who make reckless decisions and engage in irresponsible activity as an attempt to reach their desired outcome faster and more easily. Sometimes these decisions are the best ones even with the risks involved; I'm not here to say it's a black-and-white issue or even to suggest that we always have the option of “safe” measures attached to tried-and-true results. We don't. But I do want to talk about the instances where we should know better, and do better.

Remember back in May when Newsweek ran that article about Somaly Mam fabricating parts of her story? Shortly thereafter she resigned from her leadership role with the Somaly Mam Foundation (SMF), but the board members were adamant that their work would continue on, serving the girls they had rescued from trafficking, and those they would rescue in the future. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. SMF ceased their current projects and shut their doors on September 30, as announced in an official statement two weeks ago.

My biggest question brought up by this news is, what will happen to the girls and women SMF served? These are vulnerable individuals who need specific care, attention and services, and now a major provider for these needs has permanently closed.

When Somaly encouraged narratives that lacked truth, I do not think she was trying to be cruel. I think she wanted the spotlight and the accolades that come with a story of overcoming life's brutality. I also believe she knew donors respond more hastily and with bigger checks when they're met with such inspiration. And I don't doubt she truly wanted to make a positive difference in the world. However, her false tale only carried her so far. She was granted the spotlight and the accolades. She was handed large checks to fund her work. She was featured in a high-profile documentary. She did get to make a difference. But her end in no way justifies her means.

With the revelation of Somaly's falsehoods and her subsequent resignation, the reputation of the entire counter-trafficking sector has been called into question. Donors are more wary of supporting programs. SMF has had to cease operations. One person's irresponsible means could very well cause widespread "ends" prematurely. How do organizations convince supporters they are legitimate? The girls SMF was tending to – where do they go now? Initially, Somaly was able to make beneficial waves. She brought some awareness to an important cause. She attracted funding to help provide necessary services. But where is all of that now? It's been diminished to a moment's worth of positive change, shrouded in the shadow of a lie. Was her time of glory worth the cost?

We can't only focus on the short term effects of our actions. We have to realize that there are long term outcomes to be considered, too, and weigh those as part of our decision-making process. We have to be aware of the implications of our choices, not just for ourselves but also for others who they may touch. I can make up a compelling story to sell an idea and cultivate compassion for my cause, but I'm going to be found out. Maybe not immediately, but eventually, and the fallout may well outweigh any good I'd initially accomplished. (Especially with the accessibility of information via the internet. The truth can't hide, and there is always somebody looking to uncover it.)

We can do better. Let's be more conscientious in our pursuits. Let's be careful with our methods. Let's be mindful of both the probable and possible effects of our actions. Let's be honest.

How the Media Causes Harm

Today, there are numerous sources to acquire your news, from newspapers, magazines, and television to online media and social platforms. With the fierce competition between media outlets, there is a frenzy to provide up-to-date and exciting coverage to maintain and increase viewership. Media coverage is often the only way we receive information about different cultures, city problems, and global issues and have a large impact on how we are perceiving the world around us. Depending on what the media chooses to show us, it can often encourage extreme emotions that can influence us to love and immortalize a person and/or condemn others and create animosity.

Media events such as the kidnappings by Boko Haram, the rise and fall of Somaly Mam, and the CNN Freedom Project, we see every sliver of information related to these situations splashed everywhere in our media outlets. Of course, this only happens for a few days/weeks, until something else grabs national attention.  

When a single event is in the spotlight, as was with the fall of Somaly Mam, it can cause a backlash.  No one can argue Somaly Mam brought worldwide exposure to human trafficking. However, her swift rise to the spotlight and the vicious portrayal of her downfall may have caused long-lasting damage to many anti-human trafficking organizations that do right by the individuals who are trapped in this vicious industry. Many organizations around the world may now have to go through additional levels of investigation before they are given funds, which will delay their programs. 

There will always be an abundance of news, but it is important not to get caught up in this whirlwind of media coverage because the media influences how we see see each other and the world, sometimes negatively. Having our views shaped by the media can change them in ways we may not have wanted. We may view organizations and individuals through new lenses that have vilified or glamorized another organization or individual. So what can we do?  Avoid the media? Of course not.  But tread lightly and never just accept what lies before you. Consider it your duty to look deeper and analyze how your thoughts and words are affected by the way the media presents the world around us. Ask yourself why you are being called to action.  Why a certain photograph is being used. How will vilifying one person who is the face of anti- sex trafficking affect others. Ask yourself questions and look deeper to what is the real message that is being conveyed.  

You may be surprised to find the answer.

Whose Problem Is It Anyways?

The United States has recently seen an influx of unaccompanied minors from Central America. As the number of children crossing has been increasing this year, the American media has caught wind of how serious the situation actually is. According to the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies and Kids in Need of Defense, approximately 60,000 to 90,000 children are to be expected to cross by the end of this year. Most of the children are arriving from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Human traffickers are charging thousands to “assist” in the transportation of these children. But often these traffickers dump them at the border and force the children to figure out the rest. Some reports have stated that children are willingly walking up to Border Patrol because that is what they have been instructed to do by the traffickers. By using children as a commodity and manipulating families, traffickers are the only ones benefiting from the increase of violence in those countries. 

Since the increase in coverage I have been hearing questions like "How could a mother leave her child?" and "Where are their parents in all of this?" The answer is neither simple nor pretty. Families desperate for safety see this as their little sliver of hope. Despite the risk, families hope that their children will be reunited with relatives already living in the United States (though those family members themselves are often living illegally). So when the opportunity arises for their child to get a chance at a better life, away from the violence and drugs, parents wholeheartedly believe the traffickers. Once traffickers convince parents with empty promises, parents make that huge sacrifice. With the hope of their children having a better future, families are putting their trust in these "coyotes." With these broken promises made, of either being reassured of safety or how "legal" it is, families part with their children. The most shocking thing I have read from all of this is that a large percentage of these children are toddlers. 

This a complex issue. It's a transnational dilemma that many are not ready to face. I believe that this is not an issue solely restricted to one government, but it's an issue for all. It is a human issue. We all want the best for our loved ones. The fact that there are individuals manipulating that relationship is sickening. Dreams of "the other side" are interrupted with bewildered Border Patrol not knowing how to handle this influx. The children are instead welcomed to overflowing living corridors and an uncertain future. These children and families are vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. The easy way out of this is to merely say that this is a specific state’s issue. But in the end what is the bigger picture?

Has Somaly Mam's Story Exposed Some Deeper Issues of Fame & Fortune in the Anti-Trafficking Movement?

Somaly Mam has resigned from her self-named foundation following the recent Newsweek expose article concerning her fabrications and dishonesty - I certainly agree that she has made the right decision to step down, which demonstrates that there are consequences to her actions.

However, I see this as only half of a much bigger story.

Since the early 2000's, when the issues of human trafficking hit the media spotlight, journalists, governments, celebrities and donors have been looking for ‘heroes’ to endorse the cause and increase their credibility, status and in general, to justify their own actions and agendas.

What ensued for the next decade was the manifestation of these new 'rules' to the anti-trafficking movement. Competition for funding and fame was characterised by anti-trafficking organisations and individuals compromising the dignity of clients and consistently pursuing a sensationalised approach to the issue. By and large, it was those organisations who were able to secure the most funding for their programs and gain the most accolade both personally and organisationally. In contrast, those who did not exploit the faces and identities of clients to elevate their own image as ‘saviours’ are ironically the ones, to this day, who struggle to keep their professional programs operational.


How easy is it to 'celebritise' someone when there are various agendas in the mix - not just Somaly's. And how easy to bring her down and see this as an isolated incident of lies and deception rather than a sign of a more systemic issue within the anti-human trafficking movement.


What a skewed playing field it has become.
As a coalition of 58 organisations working on this issue in Cambodia for more than 9 years, we have had numerous conversations about the tension this has caused.  Many NGO workers on the ground did not want to compromise the dignity and fuel the sensationalised approach to the issue.

However, all of them felt pressured to do so and many, compelled by their overseas offices, did so in order to raise funds. At that time, I predicted that if we were to take a more dignified and educated approach that sought to engage donors and others, we would find it much harder to secure funds and fame.

Unfortunately, I was correct, and that has been exactly what has happened.

So who else should be responsible?

In a similar parallel, I have witnessed incidents of small local development NGO entrepreneurs here in Cambodia who quickly rocket to fame when it suits their 'promoters' - whether they be donors, government or others. Within a short timeframe, huge amounts of funds and attention are poured out on them, often with no thought to the impact of doing so. These local development entrepreneurs are flattered by the attention and jump through the hoops of those promoting them. However, it is quite a different story when that same heroic entrepreneur begins to syphon off funds, treat their staff badly, stop listening to voices of reason around them and eventually become dictatorial and unaccountable. Of course, responsibility sits at the feet of such people, but it is easy to forget who helped to elevate them to that position and predicament.

So before we simplify the case of Somaly, let us acknowledge that no-one exists in isolation - just as her actions impacted those closest to her, the influencers in her life, whose own agenda was endorsed by her rise and fall, should now take responsibility for their part.

Let's see who does.

Addressing the Needs of Domestic Workers in Malaysia

Photo courtesy of Tenaganita, an NGO addressing exploitation in Malaysia.

As you may remember (from a few months ago), Chab Dai’s office building was formerly a recruitment agency for sending domestic workers to Malaysia.  Now Chab Dai is working to bring them back home.  The past few months have brought about exciting partnerships.  I recently sat down with Ms. Tho Narann (Chab Dai's Malaysia Cross-Border Case Officer), to discuss Chab Dai's brand new pilot project and partnership with the Coalition to Abolish Modern-Day Slavery in Asia {CAMSA Malaysia}.

The conversation between Chab Dai and several human rights and anti-trafficking partner organizations in Malaysia began last year, where the need was strongly expressed for an English-Khmer interpreter to assist Cambodian migrant workers who were experiencing abuse and filing cases in Malaysia.  (You can read about that here). Coordination and further discussions lead to the development of this collaborative-based, case coordination project between Cambodian & Malaysian partner.

“The main goal of the project is to improve the case coordination and tangibly provide a cross-border referral mechanism between Malaysia & Cambodia,” says Narann.   Due in part to language barriers and a complex legal system Cambodian domestic workers who experience exploitation in Malaysia are often labeled and treated as illegal workers, rather than identified as victims of human trafficking.  Though potentially exploited and experiencing physical and psychological abuse, migrant workers may be picked up by police and placed in government shelters or worse, deported.  Without a clear ability to understand the full story from the client, cases sometimes become stagnant.  Narann's role is to support cases of Cambodian migrant workers through Khmer/ English interpretation and assist in referring cases between Cambodian & Malaysian organizations, including repatriation and reintegration support when they return home. As a case officer she is actively building relationships with migrant workers, the Cambodian embassy, Malaysian labour officers, and NGO partners.  Cases can be handled efficiently and properly when the full story is communicated and understood.

Best case scenario, says Narann is to “get the women home and get their compensation from their employer.”  The hope remains for Chab Dai that this project will continue to advocate for Cambodian migrants workers in Malaysia and that further cross-border collaboration will result in sustainable justice and restoration. 

*To see more about Chab Dai and CAMSA, follow our updates on Facebook here and here.

The Bill Hillar Debacle: Who's to Blame?

If you don't know who Bill Hillar is, or you haven't heard the latest news on how he frauded law enforcement, military personnel and the anti-trafficking movement into thinking he had significant special-ops military experience "rescuing" victims of sex trafficking around the world, read here.

Hillar not only lied about his military past, but plagiarized news coverage and stories from the media, even claiming that the film Taken was based on his own life. He provided training for law enforcement, military personnel, and even counseled trafficking survivors. All based on a lie.

How could he do this? How did he do this? While there is no doubt that Hillar himself is the first person to blame, we should also consider some other factors.

There's no doubt - the international anti-trafficking movement is growing very quickly. While it is a positive thing that international media have picked up on spreading the news that "slavery still exists" in our own backyards, this type of mass media explosion also comes with negative consequences. Mass media avenues sensationalize their stories. Journalists want to lure people in, capture their audience's attention, excite the masses, appeal to the emotions, etc - even to the extent that the facts are compromised.

So yes, people are learning that human trafficking is out there, but they are also picking up on information that omits the facts, distorts the truth, and focuses on a purely emotional response.

Yes, human trafficking is a terrible tragedy, and we should be upset about it. But human trafficking is also incredibly complex, with numerous push/pull factors, and evidence-based research tell us there are appropriate (and inappropriate) responses. Human trafficking is not just about sex, it is not just about children, and it is not about vigilante rescue. Unfortunately, many people are unknowingly drawn into the spectacle of mass media, and unfortunately many of these people then turn around and spread information the same way.

So what does this have to do with Bill Hillar? We need to ask ourselves why Hillar did this in the first place. Hillar says people "assumed" he was in the military due to his passionate teaching. He never denied people's assumptions, and then he eventually "adopted" them. While this kind of behavior is certainly unacceptable, we have to honestly consider whether what Hillar was telling people was what they wanted to hear. Hillar was able to manipulate people because he had the kind of information everyone was looking for - heart-wrenching, dramatic, emotional stories of rescue. His sensationalized stories were what was compelling about him; it's why people wanted to hear him speak, and it's why he was so successful at manipulation.

Unfortunately, people aren't always interested in hearing the facts. Facts do not make human trafficking less true or less horrifying (human trafficking is terrifying), but facts are also not as racy, not as emotional; and let's face it - Hollywood movies, TV thrillers and undercover cop shows, etc. have made us all a bit obsessed with sensationalized reality. The issues and organizations that often get the most attention are those that choose to go this route - unfortunately, "racy" doesn't always mean quality work, nor does it mean quality information.

Hillar's story only started to unravel when a former Green Beret began to question the sensationalism and facts of Hillar's stories.

We must learn a valuable lesson here. We must think about the information we receive and evaluate whether it lines up with the facts. We must move away from the sensationalized, purely emotional response to human trafficking, and move into a strategic plan. True abolitionists are knowledgeable about the facts, not only the stories. Frankly, it took far too long for Hillar's lies to be recognized and dragged into the limelight.

Add'l news coverage:
Los Angeles Times
Washington Post
Associated Press