Hungary Hidden title

January 1, 2005

Comment: The article is yet another one in the series discussing child sexual exploitation in Hungary. (See our earlier coverage: “Educators afraid of pimps”, “Increasing number of underage prostitutes” and ""Rights groups would prosecute clients of prostitutes in Hungary like in other countries")":http://www.tdh-childprotection.org/component/option,com_pressreview/task,showart/art,144

The journalist gives voice to former victims as well as to service providers and campaigners who want to ban prostitution altogether. She makes a case that most – if not all – underage sex worker come from chaotic families and state care. She describes how adolescent girls are lured into sex work and then forced to stay in it by trafficker/pimps. She also points out how little authorities focus on the problem: there aren’t any statistics of how many children may be involved and police seems to be doing almost nothing to stop it. While a law passed in 2007 makes it possible to prosecute clients of child sex workers, in practice there are hardly any cases followed through. The article suggests that it is too work-intensive for the police to catch clients so they much rather focus on other types of crime that have larger potential for success.

Similarly to the earlier articles, this one also mentions the total impunity, with which traffickers openly recruit and exploit girls from state-orphanages. In the absence of safe-homes for the victims, once caught, the children are simply taken back by the police to the orphanage without any protection mechanisms, just to be back in the hands of the traffickers. This is the first time however, that an article mentions “safe houses” as a means of protection but it seems there are no plans for the moment in Hungary to provide proper protection to the child victims of exploitation.

Unfortunately, the choice of the title and of the photos is rather questionable. How can’t the editors realise that these elements could clearly influence the demand side? The whole iconography need explanation or do not correspond to the content: the first photo showing young bodies for sale is obviously taken on a roof while the context of the article implies street, the second photo could have been taken anywhere in Europe and the third one might have been taken is a totally different context than the article. Is this the poor representation of children forced into the sex inudustry from the editorial board?

The original article can be read here.