Vision charting - an 'end' versus 'empowerment'

I've begun revising our 'vision' for Stop.Traffick due to being prompted by classes at School for Social Entrepreneurs where ST is my main project. Whilst the majority in the SSE class thought it should be "An end to human trafficking" I think such a simplistic 'pie in the sky' vision misses the more practical yet holistic purpose of the organisation.

I prefer 'a society where individuals, organisations and survivors are empowered to combat the cause and effects of human trafficking". Why? Because if you could envision stamping the act of human and particularly sex trafficking of minors out in one swoop, there are still other factors left out. Indeed, you may have taken out some key people from the industry - brokers, agents, and traffickers through legal enforcement - but if we have learnt anything from the next biggest illegal crime (drugs) in Mexico, a vacuum will be filled by others seeking monetary gain without a care for the value of human life.

I don't write this as if i don't want the end of human trafficking to happen, it's just that in a monovisioned viewpoint key stakeholders who are truly affected are left out. The families living in poverty who are unaware of where their children will work and vulnerable to brokers (cause) and those who have had the opportunity to exit needing care at the shelters (effect) are not addressed in with such a singular focus. if we are to truly help people, shouldn't they be included, particularly survivors?

I see Stop.Traffick's role as being one of connecting. And this is what influences the direction of our vision. Everyday people can combat the cause and effects of trafficking - through fairtrade purchases, by taking a Childwise or Childesafe tuk-tuk in Cambodia, or even choosing a responsible tour company. Our job is to help people realise that they can make a direct difference, and not just contribute to another campaign where they feel they can't.

Thoughts, anyone?