This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: Bernstein, Elizabeth (2010). "Militarized Humanitarianism Meets Carceral Feminism: The Politics of Sex, Rights, and Freedom in Contemporary Antitrafficking Campaigns". Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 36 (1): 45–71. doi:10.1086/652918. ISSN 0097-9740.

this article seems undeservingly negative. what's the problem with such monies going to ijm. if they are willing to get out there and do the work, they are being effective. no one company or organization is going to put an end to the aids epidemic. we should commend them for their work and not let the fact that they are a fath based organization cause us to discredit their work in the world. --Focus on time (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2006

Sometimes undeserved negativity is how you know you're winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.216.200 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I have a conflict of interest with IJM and have some suggestions to improve the accuracy and balance of the article's lead section.

The introduction is quite outdated - IJM's efforts against sex trafficking are not the "bulk" of its work, historically or now, but to start I would suggest altering the final sentence of the introduction as follows (with changes in bold and strikethrough):

"In the 2000s, IJM's close coordination with third-world police agencies with the intention of bring trafficking victims to safety, and the resulting some subsequent arrests and deportations of sex workers by police, have generated criticism from some human rights and sex worker organizations over its mission and tactics."^[1]

Changes and explanation:

• I've added a timeframe and a description of the work IJM was coordinating with local authorities to better indicate what this sentence refers to.

• Actions taken by the national police of relevant countries are presented as if they were taken by IJM, so I’ve clarified this.

• On another point, while there were certainly some organisations which made the criticisms referenced, this was by no means the universal position. A qualifier like "some" should help demonstrate the level of criticism more accurately at a glance.

• I also suggest removing two of the citations used to support this sentence. The SHAN Women's Action Network reference leads to an empty page while the Elizabeth Pisani reference is not relevant.

Thanks for helping and please let me know if you have any questions or feedback! GlossyCassandra (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with the above and think the suggested edits improve the lead's accuracy, objectivity, and measuredness. I have made this change, and also removed the superfluous and inaccurate line mentioned above about the bulk of IJM's work being in sex trafficking. The remaining list of activities and their citations are sufficient to describe the work of IJM. Many thanks @GlossyCassandra! Alex IslaCara (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to strongly disagree with the phrasing "with the intention to bring trafficking victims to safety". My understanding is that critics view IJM as unfairly targeting sex workers, including sex workers that are not "trafficked," because they view all sex work as inherently exploitative. The sentence also just reads weird. I might suggest:

In the 2000s, IJM's close coordination with third-world police agencies with the intention of bring trafficking victims to safety, and some subsequent arrests and deportations of sex workers by police, generated criticism from some human rights and sex worker organizations over its mission and tactics. → Some have criticized IJM for its targeting of sex workers, including through brothel raids, as well as its collaboration with law enforcement, with some alleging that its quota-driven prosecution requirements have led to misidentified targets in their rescue operations.

This more closely aligns with the text in the body, which, it should be said, includes examples of criticism continuing into 2023. Spookyaki (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer Spooky's framing, based only on what is in the text. The lead needs to summarize the rest of the article (see WP:LEAD. @GlossyCassandra @Alex IslaCara if you disagree, please first suggest source-based changes to the text in the article, and then changes to the lead to reflect the new article content. Note that I have removed the source as the content should be sourced in the body. Rusalkii (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spookyaki and @Rusalkii, I take the point regarding addressing the body of the article first. I started with the lead because it's the first thing people see, but I have plans to address other parts of the article as well, including some of the sources Spookyaki has pointed out as not meeting Wikipedia standards (a lot of which I agree with). More requests will definitely be coming along to address inaccuracies, sourcing, possibly restructure confusing bits etc.

Before I get into all of that, I believe we all have more common ground on this issue than initially assumed, so I wanted to share the following response, especially the following paragraphs:

'Specialised anti-trafficking units and excellent training—particularly in collaboration with external human rights advocates—equip law enforcement to do its duty to protect and rescue children and trafficked adults and prosecute perpetrators, without causing collateral harm. One of the few IJM cases in which law enforcement treatment of non-coerced adults did not meet IJM standards is itself a clear example of the value and necessity for close collaboration between human rights advocates and local law enforcement. In 2003, the Thai police conducted an anti-trafficking operation based on unassailable information provided by IJM about the sexual exploitation of children in a brothel. However, IJM investigators, lawyers and social workers were not permitted to accompany the police on the rescue operation. In fact, IJM was not even informed that the operation took place. Police identified and removed seven minor trafficking victims, whom IJM assisted, but they also identified a number of Burmese illegal immigrants whom they subsequently deported, in accordance with Thai law.

Had IJM been permitted to directly support law enforcement prior, during and after the operation, our staff could have reinforced the critical need to separate immigration enforcement from child protection actions. Authorities have the right to enforce national immigration law, but it should never be done in the context of child rescue operations. Law enforcement officials' first duty must be to rescue the victims of sex trafficking in situations in which children are co-mingled with illegal migrants; effective partnership between the police and NGOs can help ensure that all individuals impacted by a police operation are treated fairly and with dignity.

I'm not suggesting the text be added to the article unless someone without a COI thinks it’s useful, and I am conscious that this is not WP:RS unless citing what IJM says about itself, but I hope in terms of having a constructive discussion it illustrates that IJM has a more nuanced consideration of how such cases should be handled, and while they collaborate with local authorities, it's law enforcement, rather than IJM itself, that conduct operations.

With the above in mind, I'd like to suggest a change to the final sentence of the introduction. This should clarify the relationship between IJM and local authorities in addressing trafficking, which is the crux of the criticism from this:

"Some have criticized IJM for its targeting of voluntary sex workers, including through brothel raids, as well as its collaboration with law enforcement, with some alleging that its quota-driven prosecution requirements have led to misidentified targets in their rescue operations"

To this:

"Some have criticized IJM’s law-enforcement based approach to combating sex trafficking, alleging that police and legal actions such as brothel raids and prosecutions can sometimes include voluntary sex workers."

GlossyCassandra (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily opposed to including more claims from this source in the body, assuming they're properly attributed in-text (since they come directly from IJM admin). However, I don't see why this would justify modifying the lead in the way that you're suggesting, particularly since the "quota-driven prosecution requirements" and "misidentified targets" claims are drawn not just from the brothel raids in Thailand, but also from the BBC article concerning IJM's actions in Ghana in 2023 (the Burkhalter article was published in 2017). I would maybe, as an alternative, propose something like:

Some have criticized IJM’s law-enforcement based approach to combating sex trafficking, alleging that police and legal actions such as brothel raids and prosecutions have included voluntary sex workers. Others have alleged that its quota-driven prosecution requirements have led to misidentified targets in their rescue operations.

Spookyaki (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Spookyaki for taking the time to address my thoughts! I agree with the structure of the sentences outlined however would like to alter the content. This is to accurately reflect IJM's role in reference to brothel raids and prosecutions.

IJM does not have the power to prosecute anyone and therefore cannot have a "prosecution requirement".

This supported by the BBC article: 'In a statement, IJM said that it "does not decide whether a possible child trafficking case is pursued or whether any individual is arrested or prosecuted with offences".'

In addition, operations are led by the police, not IJM.

To your sentence then, may I suggest alterations so that it reads:

"Some have criticized IJM’s law-enforcement based approach to combating sex trafficking, alleging that police and legal actions such as brothel raids and prosecutions have sometimes included voluntary sex workers. Others have alleged that having targets for traffickers prosecuted has led to misidentified targets in police rescue operations."

Let me know what you think when you have a moment! Thanks and have a great day. GlossyCassandra (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I am open to changing the lead to more precisely reflect the nature of prosecutions pursued by IJM. Obviously, IJM, as a non-state actor, cannot usually prosecute cases directly, though the article does say that "an IJM lawyer stood in for the state prosecutor in one of the court hearings" at one point. It's clear from the BBC article, however, that they work with local authorities to pursue prosecutions and that "prosecutions are an essential part of IJM's anti-slavery model". I don't think a direct statement from IJM itself is sufficient to nullify this point, and I think that isolating that particular quote is arguable misrepresenting the source.

I don't know that I support "sometimes", either, because it's not really clear from the sources whether this is an extremely common practice or an extremely rare one. I think simply saying that they have included voluntary sex workers is most precise, because it does not imply anything about how common the practice is. As for the latter modification, I think putting it in passive voice is problematic. Per the BBC article, the quotas/targets do come from IJM, so it makes sense to properly attribute them. I am neutral on whether we should use the word "target" or "quota," though I think quota reads better. Hope you have a great day as well! Spookyaki (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spookyaki. Thank you once again for your thorough feedback, it has been very helpful.

I think you have raised a fair point regarding inclusion of the reference to prosecutions.

To your alternative sentence which you suggested on 11 June, I have a number of suggestions.

1. Could we clarify that the quota driven prosecutions is that of traffickers.

2. Could we remove the article "their" before "rescue operations". Including the article reads as if IJM leads or is the only party involved in these operations, when they are police led.

3. You stated that you are indifferent to the use of "target" or "quota". May we use "target-driven" rather than "quota-driven" as it reflects the language within the BBC article.

The alterations will make the sentence read:

Some have criticized IJM’s law-enforcement based approach to combating sex trafficking, alleging that police and legal actions such as brothel raids and prosecutions have included voluntary sex workers. Others have alleged that its quota-driven target-driven prosecutions requirements of traffickers have led to misidentified targets in their rescue operations.

Thanks again! GlossyCassandra (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly okay with this, I think. Since it's possible (and based on the BBC article, it seems like this has been the case in at least some instances), that not all misidentified targets are traffickers, the one modification I would make is ...others have alleged that its quota-driven target-driven prosecutions requirements intended for traffickers have led to misidentified targets in their rescue operations... Spookyaki (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion @Spookyaki. I agree with your suggested wording however could we remove the tautology and have "target-driven" rather than "quota-driven" as this is the language contained within the BBC article.

If you are happy, should I implement the change, or will you? Thanks again for all of your help! GlossyCassandra (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. I copy-pasted your response from before but forgot to exclude the struck-through text. I can go ahead and add it. Spookyaki (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the editors who took the time to engage with my last request.

My next suggested change involves the paragraph within the "Expansion" subsection of the "History" section, which covers the murder of Willie Kimani. My proposed changes are in bold.

Changes and explanation:

• Could some context please be added in the lead-up to the murder, alongside updates about the aftermath, subsequent trial and convictions.

• Can the date be changed from July 2016 as the incident occurred in late June 2016.

• Could a Wikilink be added leading to the article for Willie Kimani.

Changes in context:

In July June 2016, Willie Kimani, a Kenyan IJM lawyer, who represented victims of police violence and extrajudicial killings, and two persons, including an IJM client, were found murdered and dumped in a river outside Nairobi in Kenya. They were last seen alive at a police station.^[1][2][3] Kimani had been representing his client in a case against a police officer who had shot him in the hand.^[4]

Four members of the Kenyan Administrative Police were charged with murder on July 18, 2016; they pleaded not guilty.^[5] Haugen denounced the killings as "an intolerable outrage and should serve as an abrupt wake-up call to the blatant injustices committed daily and incessantly against the poor and vulnerable around the world".^[1] Kimani was posthumously named 'Jurist of the Year' by the International Commission of Jurists, Kenya Section, in December 2016.^[6]

The killings sparked nationwide protests and outrage, and led to lawyers across Kenya announcing their intention to boycott attending courts in protest.^[7][8] In 2022, three senior police officers and one civilian were convicted of the murders.^[3]

Thanks again for helping and let me know if you have any questions! GlossyCassandra (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GlossyCassandra!

I am only completing part of this request as it adds additional context to the paragraph adding more weight to an incident that is tangential to the main subject of the article. You can read more about this policy at Wikipedia:Weight and Wikipedia:Coatrack articles I did go ahead and add the link to Mr. Kimani's main article and created a separate section for his story. I also went ahead and included the bit about him receiving the award after his passing.

Please don't hesitation to reach out on my talk page if you have any questions.

Done S1mply.dogmom (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also fixed the date and added the citation that supported it.

Cheers! S1mply.dogmom (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]