Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Myth of the Migrant
Laura Maria Agustin wants frank talk about migration and the sex trade
(Page 2 of 3)
People talk about a contemporary "feminization" of migration, but the evidence for this is shaky. There have been other waves of women migrating in numbers, as in the late 19th century from Europe to Argentina, where they were often accused of being prostitutes. Europeans didn’t want to think these white women would set out on their own like this or end up selling sex, which is where the term "white slavery" derives from. The phenomenon was similar to what we see today, only the direction has shifted.
reason: What do you make of the State Department's claim that 800,000 people are trafficked each year?
Agustín: Numbers like this are fabricated by defining trafficking in an extremely broad way to take in enormous numbers of people. The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons is using the widest possible definition, which assumes that any woman who sells sex could not really want to, and, if she crossed a national border, she was forced.
The numbers are egregious partly because the research is cross-cultural. The US, calling itself the world's moral arbiter on these issues, uses its embassies in other countries to talk to the police and other local authorities, supposedly to find out how many people were trafficked. There is a language issue —all the words involved don’t translate perfectly, and there is a confusion about what trafficking means. People don't all use it the same way. Even leaving aside language issues, we know the data aren't being collected using a standard methodology across countries. 800,000 is a fantasy number.
reason: Is there a legitimate core of abuses that need to be addressed?
Agustín: Some conscientious people talk about trafficking as applicable to men, transsexuals, or anyone you like, no matter what kind of work they do, when things go very wrong during a migration. When migrants are charged egregious amounts of money they can't possibly pay back, for example. However, we've reached the point in this cultural madness where most people mean specifically women who sell sex when they use the word "trafficking." They usually mean women working inside brothels.
reason: So there is an attempt to conflate the terms prostitution and trafficking?
Agustín: There is a definite effort to conflate the terms in a stream of feminism I call "fundamentalist feminism." These feminists believe there is a single definition of Woman, and that sexual experience is key to a woman's life, soul, self-definition. This particular group has tried to say that prostitution is not only by definition exploitation but is trafficking. It's bizarre but they are maintaining that.
reason: What about the fundamentalist fundamentalists?
Agustín: The alliance between fundamentalist feminists and some fundamentalist Christians sees its work as global. So you get the Southern Baptist Convention and some feminists writing to the government of the Czech Republic to urge against legalizing prostitution. Many kinds of fundamentalist thought share values about home, family, sex, and violence.
reason: Are anti-trafficking activists preventing the liberalization of prostitution laws?
Agustín: Probably. But I don't think the obsession with trafficking is solely about women and sex. It's become a cultural phenomenon up in the stratosphere with fears of terrorism. Governments are making it an issue of policing the borders, and I believe they are less concerned about women “victims” than male “perpetrators”. The UN protocols on trafficking and smuggling were attached to a convention on organized crime. It's the same as the terrorism story, the idea that bad guys don't respect States and will set up their own societies, go where they want and disobey all laws. The borders will not hold, the martians are invading. Everything is Falling Apart.
reason: Is there a romanticization of home at work here? The idea that it's always best to stay in the place you come from?
Agustín: Immigration procedures still assume that everyone calls some country “home”, but many people’s situations don’t easily fit this idea. They’ve got more than one home or don’t want to call anyplace home. The collective fantasy says home is always a lovely place, but many people have a contrary experience. People who actually want to leave home may feel they have failed—whether they were leaving behind their parents, partner or children.
reason: You write: "Believing Passionately that women must tell their stories is a governmental urge."
the innominate one|12.26.07 @ 4:31PM|#
I encourage certain people (you know who you are) to resist the impulse to post unnecessary comments (you know what they are) on this thread.
TLB|12.26.07 @ 4:56PM|#
It's truly sad that we haven't yet reached the libertarian
utopia where there are no borders and people can move anywhere they
want and do anything they want.
P.S. Vote Ron Paul!
the innominate one|12.26.07 @ 4:58PM|#
That was a mediocre article. Kerry is capable of much better, and this is a topic that deserves exploring, but this article is superficial (perhaps that was the fault of the interviewee). A semantic point: I don't think of emigrants or immigrants as "migrant workers", I think of migrant workers more like nomads, constantly moving to find the next job available. I could be wrong, but I think that's the way most people use the phrase.
Madeline Albright|12.26.07 @ 4:58PM|#
Seems like a lot of PC bs to me. Less "insightful" than the
usual.
I bet those "expat" whores become "victims of trafficking" pretty
fast when they get caught and are facing deportation.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 5:21PM|#
Up yours, Voldemort! I liked that article. As usual, Kerry Howley can be counted on to find the angle in every geopolitical story that is both libertarian and feminist.
|12.26.07 @ 5:29PM|#
I'm a pretty liberated guy, but it's really hard for me to think
of women of illegal status working as sex workers in a foreign
country as not being taken advantage of. I'm not saying women
should stay home and make sandwiches and raise babies, and it isn't
about the borders either. It's hard for me to think of drunk chicks
at a frat party as not being taken advantage of. ...even if they
want to be taken advantage of.
An awful lot of people out there will take advantage of anyone
vulnerable whenever the opportunity presents itself. It's like the
Stanford Prison Experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
It's like supply creating its own demand.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 5:31PM|#
Ken Shultz:
I'm a pretty liberated guy, but it's really hard for me to
think of women of illegal status working as sex workers in a
foreign country as not being taken advantage of.
Apologies in advance for being blunt, Ken, but your chivalry is
sucking you into a moral panic. Sorry.
|12.26.07 @ 5:34PM|#
"Apologies in advance for being blunt, Ken, but your
chivalry is sucking you into a moral panic. Sorry."
Actually I'm not in a panic at all. ...but go ahead--ignore the
part about the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 5:36PM|#
Ken, I already know about that experiment, and I'm calling you
on de facto political panic anyway.
You're ascribing victim status to people who, in most cases, would
not call themselves victims. If that's not paternalism, what
is?
|12.26.07 @ 5:44PM|#
"Apologies in advance for being blunt, Ken, but your
chivalry is sucking you into a moral panic."
You're right by the way. I'm they type that wouldn't take advantage
of a drunk chick at a frat party.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 5:47PM|#
You're right by the way. I'm they type that wouldn't take
advantage of a drunk chick at a frat party.
But apparently, Ken, you don't mind if the government acts like
every migrating woman's father, striving to defend her
virginity.
Let's stick to the subject on this thread, Ken.
|12.26.07 @ 5:47PM|#
"You're ascribing victim status to people who, in most
cases, would not call themselves victims."
I don't know that most illegal sex workers wouldn't call themselves
victims. Agustin seems to think the statistics are dubious, how'd
you get to a majority?
"If that's not paternalism, what is?"
Ascribing sexual adventurousness to victims.
Ventifact|12.26.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Ken, you can't defect Brian's point by conflating "taking advantage" of an intoxicated woman with employing a willing immigrant-sex-worker. Also, if in your scenario you're referring to a "drunk chick" who "want[s] to be taken advantage of" then the only real obstacle is probably your repulsion at the sight of a person who wants to be used. (Ahh, libertarianism!)
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 5:51PM|#
Ascribing sexual adventurousness to victims.
You haven't demonstrated any victims, and yet you ask why I
assume they're venturesome. That's a circular
argument.
The "assumptions" started on your side of the debate, not mine.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 5:54PM|#
Thank you, Ventifact. Ahh, libertarianism, indeed, for that creed generally assumes adult human beings of both sexes to act of their own free will.
|12.26.07 @ 6:03PM|#
the innominate one | December 26, 2007, 4:58pm | #
That was a mediocre article. Kerry is capable of much better, and this is a topic that deserves exploring, but this article is superficial (perhaps that was the fault of the interviewee).
I think it was the nature of the interview and that it is,
essentially, an interview with an author about her book.
A semantic point: I don't think of emigrants or immigrants as "migrant workers", I think of migrant workers more like nomads, constantly moving to find the next job available. I could be wrong, but I think that's the way most people use the phrase.
I tend to think of "migrant workers" as those who emigrate to
another location, state or country, with the intent of earning
money with the hopes of returning "home" one day. Whether the
migrant in question is an American working legally in Dubai, a
Mexican working illegally in America or a Texan pretending to work
on the North Slope, they are all "migrant workers".
Alternatively I view "immigrants" as people who move to a location
to permanently remove themselves from their ancestral home for
whatever reason.
My $.02
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 6:04PM|#
Ken, since you seem to think you know better than the two women
who co-created the article, Howley and Agustin, about how a bunch
of other women you've never even met should live their lives, and
since Howley is on the anti-government-meddling side, I can only
guess that you're on the other side.
In other words, I'm guessing you're on the side that says, "When in
doubt, panic and overreact."
|12.26.07 @ 6:17PM|#
"The "assumptions" started on your side of the debate, not
mine."
So when you said that most of these women wouldn't call themselves
victims, what did you mean?
For the record, I'm on the side of the debate that's against women
being coerced into prostitution and who remains dubious about
"most" trafficked sex workers being in the business of their own
free will.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 6:20PM|#
For the record, I'm on the side of the debate that's against
women being coerced into prostitution and who remains dubious about
"most" trafficked sex workers being in the business of their own
free will.
OK, know-it-all. How do you propose to encourage the real victims
to come out of the woodwork and report their problems to the police
as long as prostitution is illegal?
Since government intervention (i.e. prohibition of consensual adult
prostitution) created the problem you describe, what other
intervention will you pull out of your hat to solve it?
|12.26.07 @ 6:25PM|#
OK, know-it-all.
You're right by the way. The pool of my knowledge is both deep and
wide.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 6:27PM|#
Ken, it was hard for me not to think of you as being against it, since you protested so loudly, wringing your hands for the "illegal" prostitutes-who are only so because of other unjust laws besides the laws against prostitution. In the end, I believe that libertarianism will turn out to be something of a package deal, at least as far as broad policy issues like immigration and prostitution (no pun intended, I swear!) are concerned.
|12.26.07 @ 6:39PM|#
Ken Shultz | December 26, 2007, 5:29pm | #
I'm a pretty liberated guy, but it's really hard for me to think of women of illegal status working as sex workers in a foreign country as not being taken advantage of.
I have been following your comments here and I am confused. In your
mind, is it the act of being a sex worker that allows them to be
"taken advantage of", their illegal status or the cross of the two?
I am not trying to bait an argument just looking for
clarification.
An awful lot of people out there will take advantage of anyone vulnerable whenever the opportunity presents itself. It's like the Stanford Prison Experiment.
It's like supply creating its own demand.
Indeed, there are people that will take advantage of others when
the opportunity presents itself. So the questions are, is that
disadvantage necessarily wrong and if it is, how do we decrease
it?
If, as a business owner, I see a market that another has failed to
capitalize on do I capitalize it even though I know in the long run
it will financially hurt, perhaps even devastate, my competitor? I
realize this is not the same as using a person's illegal status to
coerce them into a profession they would otherwise not participate
in, but the underlying concept is the same. I do what is best for
me at the expense of another.
As for coercion, the other question is, what qualifies? Ultimately,
barring threats of violence, what is the worst that a
"sex-trafficker" can do? Assuming you believe in such a thing, is
causing the deportation of the prostitute to a lower income country
the same as economic coercion? If a person is willing to be
"victimized" instead of being deported, can they really be
considered victims? They had the option to leave and not be a
"victim" and they chose to stay.
Sorry, but this is mostly stream of consciousness ramblings.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 6:42PM|#
Sorry, but this is mostly stream of consciousness
ramblings.
Kwix, if those are your usual kinds of brain farts, Ken should be
mortified. He's doomed.
|12.26.07 @ 7:07PM|#
Brian,
Ken and I converse on a somewhat regular basis, both here an
elsewhere. I am just trying to get a feel for what he means and
where he is coming from regarding this particular issue.
I agree with you that "libertarianism will turn out to be something
of a package deal". I fail to see how a person can claim "freedom
of choice" without including the choice of profession and choice of
movement in there as well.
Of course, with that freedom comes risk (particularly in the form
of decreased social "safety nets") coupled with increased social
choices, many of which people still view as "immoral" including
drug use, prostitution and homosexuality. I feel that these are
where the largest impediments to freedom will come from, those
afraid of change and those afraid of risk.
|12.26.07 @ 7:09PM|#
Obviously, even though I "previewed" my reply multiple times I
missed a letter. The first sentence should have read:
"both here and elsewhere."
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 7:09PM|#
Depressing but sound reasoning about fear of change and fear of risk, Kwix.
|12.26.07 @ 7:35PM|#
"But there's no evidence that large-scale organized crime has
gone into human trafficking in the way they did into heroin
trafficking decades ago."
That is simply not true, traffickers can and still do take over
state structures, even in western Europe.
It is not a small thing, it often reaches into the highest
political offices.
There is a dishonesty about the issue, the European Union is
presently plagued by pro-pedophile extremism.
The sex-traficking of adult females was a defeated cause a decade
ago, that struggle was not a positive result for
abolitionists.
At present, the target for 'pro-sex' advocacy is the mainstreaming
of pedophilia.
The Liberal Democrats in England, for example, have the same policy
on child pornography as the Dutch Pedophile Party.
The Lib Dems, are a mainstream party, the third largest, they run
schools, they have 4,000 elected councillors.
They want to repeal the SOA 2003 which criminalized U18
pornography.
The Lib Dem policy is identical to the Partij voor Naastenliefde,
Vrijheid & Diversiteit, the Dutch Pedophile Party.
Respectfully submitted
Gregory Carlin
Director
Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 7:42PM|#
There is a dishonesty about the issue, the European Union is
presently plagued by pro-pedophile extremism.
This is nothing personal at all, but I have trouble taking that
sentence seriously. It has that whiff of paranoia about it. I'm
sorry.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 7:47PM|#
Again, it's nothing personal, but advocacy groups for or against various things often distort information.
|12.26.07 @ 7:49PM|#
"Since government intervention (i.e. prohibition of consensual
adult prostitution) created the problem you describe, what other
intervention will you pull out of your hat to solve it?"
Not true, sex-trafficking thrives whether prostitution is open,
hidden, legal or illegal.
Hybrid versions exist,
legal in-door, & illegal outdoor, the street being the pension
for the former.
Most of our trafficked clients are caught up in the legal or
tolerated sectors.
Gangsters run prostitution, it is the oldest game in the rackets,
and always will be.
The girls on the street in Holland, they are cast-off, the pimps
will import more cheap girl-flesh to replace what they
reject.
Look at it this way, if you had written an article about the
Amserdam windows, and went back five years later, well, don't
expect to find the same girls.
They're dead, on the street, taken by drugs, or something.
Pro-prostitution fanatics only look at 'the moment' for their lies
and it is a lie.
Once discredited, as they are in Holland, they move somewhere else.
London was supposed to replace Amsterdam.
The Lib Dems in England, are pulling out all the stops to keep
their Dutch friends happy.
The Liberal Democrats are essentially a pro-pedophile party.
They want 16 year old prostituted girls whilst even my old enemies
in Amsterdam are moved towards 21.
If you want to see pure evil, read some the Lib Dem blogs.
Make one innocuous anti-pedophile post as a visitor, and watch them
eat you alive.
Gregory Carlin
Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition
the innominate one|12.26.07 @ 7:50PM|#
yes, those pro-pedophilia political platforms are useful for attracting the European equivalent of the NAMBLA voting block, and we all know what an important, large proportion of the constituency that is.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 7:52PM|#
Gregory,
Your definition of "trafficking" is so broad, and covers so many
different economic, legal, and ethical circumstances, that it means
nothing to me.
Madeline Albright|12.26.07 @ 7:53PM|#
I consider it a triumph of enduring progressivism
that we have been able to recast the moral panic of "White Slavery"
as "Human Trafficking".
|12.26.07 @ 8:02PM|#
There is a dishonesty about the issue, the European Union is presently plagued by pro-pedophile extremism.
...
The Liberal Democrats in England, for example, have the same policy on child pornography as the Dutch Pedophile Party.
...
They want to repeal the SOA 2003 which criminalized U18 pornography.
Uh, how about a link to a newspaper article or some other hard
proof of this?
Oddly, a quick Google search for
SOA 2003 Liberal repeal yields only blog comments by one
Cadiz (AKA Gregory Carlin, Belfast). Mind you, I am not calling
you a liar, but just as I like bacon with eggs, I like proof with
my accusations.
|12.26.07 @ 8:11PM|#
"Again, it's nothing personal, but advocacy groups for or
against various things often distort information."
I am too busy to distort anything. What does Laura Maria Agustin do
when she is not promoting prostitution?
The Lib Dems in England want legal hard core participation at 16
and legal child prostitution, at the age of 16.
The Dutch Pedophiles copied (the PNVD were in a hurry), their
policy (virtually word for word) from the Lib Dems.
Proposal To Allow 16-Year-Olds
To Appear In Explicit Porn
By Andy McSmith
Political Editor
The Independent - UK
3-21-4
You wouldn't want your kids to go to a school in a Liberal Democrat
LEA area.
The Lib Dems are presently applying pro-pedophile ideology to what
was always a fairly risky proposition to begin with.
British teachers have historically been the higher-ups in the
pro-pedophile movement. That may be associated with the origination
of List 99 in the 1920s.
Previously the Brits tossed their pedophile teachers to the
imperial dominions.
Eventually, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, said enough is
enough. List 99 is a secret vetting list. The Brits don't say who
is on it, not to anybody.
Gregory Carlin
Irish Anti-Trafficking coalition
|12.26.07 @ 8:17PM|#
"Oddly, a quick Google search for SOA 2003 Liberal repeal yields
only blog comments by one Cadiz (AKA Gregory Carlin, Belfast). Mind
you, I am not calling you a liar, but just as I like bacon with
eggs, I like proof with my accusations."
Actually you don't to appear to, the entire point of the slugger
o'toole post by me,
was to point out that a major newspaper was telling it exactly as
it was.
Proposal To Allow 16-Year-Olds
To Appear In Explicit Porn
By Andy McSmith
Political Editor
The Independent - UK
3-21-4
I eventually also found a Lib Dem lawyer boasting of the same
policy in an article for another major newspaper.
Shall I post that here as well?
Kind regards
Gregory Carlin
Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition
|12.26.07 @ 8:22PM|#
Proposal To Allow 16-Year-Olds
To Appear In Explicit Porn
By Andy McSmith
Political Editor
The Independent - UK
3-21-4
The editorial in question can be found here.
Though I find it very intriguing that Mr. McSmith's editorial
focuses upon the act of viewing pornography at age 16 moreso than
the actual participation in it. Additionally, the vote in question
was to modify the Lib Dem's platform, not an actual law.
Have the Lib Dem's made any progress in getting the age
lowered?
|12.26.07 @ 8:24PM|#
"Your definition of "trafficking" is so broad, and covers so
many different economic, legal, and ethical circumstances, that it
means nothing to me."
I didn't define it, I know who did, at least at the United Nations,
they're my friends.
My own working definition is the usual trickery, rape, gangsterism,
passport stealing, threats to life & limb
Last bit often also includes me, I get death threats on a routine
basis, pimps being the way they often are.
Laura Maria Agustin is a pro-prostitution type of person, she is
that way.
Kind regards
Gregory Carlin
Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition
|12.26.07 @ 8:27PM|#
"Have the Lib Dem's made any progress in getting the age
lowered?"
You wouldn't want your kids to go to their schools.
Gregory Carlin
Irish Anti-tRafficking Coalition
|12.26.07 @ 8:33PM|#
Actually you don't to appear to, the entire point of the slugger o'toole post by me,
was to point out that a major newspaper was telling it exactly as it was.
Regrettably, I had not bothered to read both pages of the Slugger
O'Toole comment page as I thought your only post was on page 1. I
see now that you have indeed referenced a few circulars/newspapers
including a link to the Independent Editorial mentioned above.
|12.26.07 @ 8:34PM|#
"The editorial in question can be found here. Though I find it
very intriguing that Mr. McSmith's editorial focuses upon the act
of viewing pornography at age 16 moreso than the actual
participation in it."
So a major newspaper made up the headline?
I did offer to go get a lib Dem lawyer's article to another major
newspaper crowing about the policy of kids (U18) making hard core
etc.
The Lib Dems are ferociously for real, they will censor any visitor
who posts to their blogs on the topic.
They will also cast-out any Lib Dem member who rocks the
boat.
It is not possible to be anything in the lib-dems iif one does not
have a laissez-faire perspective to U18 porn &
prostitution.
To be honest, they have a bit of an image problem, the pedophile
issue. Some of them get caught doing quite often.
Hardly surprising really.
All the best
Gregory
the innominate one|12.26.07 @ 8:35PM|#
there is no objective reason that the age of majority is 18. If
there were an objective age of adulthood, the various states of the
U.S. wouldn't have different ages of consent, and 18-year-olds, who
can drive, vote, and die fighting in a war for their country, would
be allowed to purchase alcohol.
16-year-olds having sex with legal adults may or may not be
exploiting the 16-year-old, but it's not "pedophilia".
In any case, even though pedophilia and coercion doubtless do
occur, that's not a justification for prohibition of voluntary
prostitution.
|12.26.07 @ 8:45PM|#
Mr. Carlin,
Unfortunately, at this moment in time, unable to research your
organization's mission and your complete works but from one of your
Slugger O'Toole posts you wrote, "I am the head of an
anti-prostitution charity". Since this came with no other
qualifiers am I to assume you mean all prostitution, not just that
by "exploited" women? I have also noted that you have written
elsewhere on the web against "exotic dancers" and pornography. Is
this in general or just those being "exploited" or trafficked
against their will?
Thank you for the clarification.
|12.26.07 @ 8:54PM|#
"In your mind, is it the act of being a sex worker that
allows them to be "taken advantage of", their illegal status or the
cross of the two? I am not trying to bait an argument just looking
for clarification."
It's the combination. Put that many women into the sex work
industry, isolated from their families, in a culture they don't
know, leave them at the mercy of the usual suspects associated with
the black market and, yeah, you can color me skeptical. ...that
most of them are there 'cause that's where they wanted to be.
"As for coercion, the other question is, what
qualifies?"
Physical abuse would obviously qualify. I'd throw in fraud. Telling
a girl she's going somewhere to be a maid and then telling her she
has to pay off her way by working in a brothel is coercion as far
as I'm concerned. Did I say girl? ...enticing children into sex
work would qualify as coercion--even if they wanted to do it.
I'd like to think decriminalization would work against all those
things. ...physical abuse, fraud and trafficking in children.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 9:01PM|#
Did I say girl? ...enticing children into sex work would
qualify as coercion--even if they wanted to do it.
As Voldemort says here today, wisely, there is no objective,
logical age of majority for every social purpose, for every young
person coming of age. That may never stop being at least a subtle
problem for the finer issues of public policy, but there it
is.
How do you define a child, Ken?
|12.26.07 @ 9:07PM|#
They will also cast-out any Lib Dem member who rocks the
boat.
It sounds like someone is talking from personal experience to
me.
I think 16 should be the age of consent myself, when I grew up in
BC it was 14, I don't know what it is now though and too lazy to
look. We never had any problems with it at 14 that I can
remember.
In my experience, the only people that campaign as strongly as
Gregory on this (non)issue have issues with it themselves, ergo, he
seems creepy to me.
Who was it that said that men have a special hatred for their own
personal vice ?
|12.26.07 @ 9:07PM|#
"Also, if in your scenario you're referring to a "drunk
chick" who "want[s] to be taken advantage of" then the only real
obstacle is probably your repulsion at the sight of a person who
wants to be used. (Ahh, libertarianism!)"
People who think of us in terms of what we want to legalize are
sometimes surprised by the preoccupation with ethics, but they
shouldn't be.
In a world where laws governed as little of life as possible,
ethics would reign supreme.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 9:13PM|#
People who think of us in terms of what we want to legalize
are sometimes surprised by the preoccupation with ethics, but they
shouldn't be.
In my case, you've jumped to a false conclusion. I don't think of
you as preoccupied with ethics. My only problem with you here is
that you're allowing your moral sense to degenerate into crude
moralism, which is not the same as true morality.
I don't blame you for putting a high value on ethics. In fact, I'm
asking you to clarify your own ethical thinking in terms of direct,
tangible cause-and-effect relationships between events and between
policies.
I like to think I'm asking you to be even more obsessed
with ethics than you already are, Ken.
|12.26.07 @ 9:30PM|#
"My only problem with you here is that you're allowing your
moral sense to degenerate into crude moralism, which is not the
same as true morality."
If you said that because I wouldn't take advantage of a drunk chick
at a frat party, then you're a nut. If you said that because I'm
against coercing women into prostitution, then you're a nut. If you
said that because I'm skeptical that most of the trafficked women
in the sex industry are where they are because that's where they
wanted to be, then you're a nut.
I think that's pretty much all I've said.
|12.26.07 @ 9:32PM|#
"I think 16 should be the age of consent myself, when I grew up
in BC it was 14, I don't know what it is now though and too lazy to
look. We never had any problems with it at 14 that I can
remember."
In Canada, I think they certainly do.
Fifty year old guys and 14 year old boys in hotels etc. I think
those kind of probs also attracted a lot of 'tourists'.
BC is defintely having probs with teachers. Alberta is the same.
The unions do not like background checks.
The education minister in Alberta is clueless.
If you have 30,000 teachers and if one is not convicting 1 per
1,000 per annum for sex crime, then home-schooling is the safe
option.
it is a bit like a football stadium full of people and somebody
saying I bet some of them are twisted deviants, it is a very safe
bet.
The kind of people in my experience who think 16 is acceptable for
hard core pornography and prostitution are pedophiles.
Lke I say, even my old enemies in Amsterdam want 21 because it just
can't be lower.
Canada was sex-trafficking girls to work for strip clubs under the
last Liberal govt. Females had to sign 'club' contracts for
prostitution and hard core pornography etc.
It was a pimping machine and nobody at an official level checked
their ages. Fraud was common.
Gregory Carlin
Irish anti-Trafficking Coalition
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 9:32PM|#
Ken, now all you're doing is calling me names. I guess you figure you have no hope of winning the debate anymore. I hope you enjoy making a fool of yourself.
|12.26.07 @ 9:43PM|#
"Did I say girl? ...enticing children into sex work would
qualify as coercion--even if they wanted to do it."
That is you disqualified for running for a Liberal Democrat seat in
Britain.
The age for every social purpose will be the one age, it will be
16, they might lower it a bit later.
Oblique refrences to lower are the 'age of criminal
responsibility'.
Pedophiles at Lib Dem events talk in a transparent code. If you can
go to prison, you can also do x.
If you can vote (at 16), you can sell your body to some nice
Liberal Democrat politician three or four times your age.
In one sense, the Lib Dems are asking for change for 'themselves'.
For their members, they look forward to that day.
They do have a reputation for being the most deviant political
party (of any size) in Northern or Western Europe.
I will find a link.
Here it is, it is a spoof send-up of course, however the spoof is
grounded in a wider public perception that Lib Dem politicians will
be caught doing X or Y more often than the other parties.
Gregory
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/lib-dems-are-the-party-of-god%11hating-perverts,-declares-clegg-20071219611/
LIB DEMS ARE THE PARTY OF GOD-HATING PERVERTS, DECLARES CLEGG
THE Liberal Democrats are the party of God-hating sexual deviants
or they are nothing, new leader Nick Clegg declared last night.
|12.26.07 @ 9:43PM|#
"Ken, now all you're doing is calling me names. I guess you
figure you have no hope of winning the debate anymore. I hope you
enjoy making a fool of yourself."
What debate?
What's your argument? ...and who's arguing against you?
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 9:46PM|#
That is you disqualified for running for a Liberal Democrat
seat in Britain.
The age for every social purpose will be the one age, it will
be 16, they might lower it a bit later.
Gregory, don't you realize what you're still failing to do? You
haven't actually proven the evilness of 16 as an age of consent.
I'm still waiting for an explanation that doesn't involve labeling
me (for example) a pedophile (which I resent).
|12.26.07 @ 9:56PM|#
"Brian Sorgatz | December 26, 2007, 9:34pm | #
Gregory is full of gratuitous name-calling, too. Whatever."
You reckon?
The Education Minister in Alberta is quite definitely
clueless.
He is right out there.
Best wishes
Gregory Carlin
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 9:58PM|#
Why should I consider the opinion of the Alberta education minister on anything at all? I never voted for anyone that that official has to answer to. That's just some irrelevant bureaucrat, for all I need know or care.
|12.26.07 @ 9:59PM|#
'I'm skeptical that most of the trafficked women in the sex
industry are where they are because that's where they wanted to be,
then you're a nut."
They basically don't want to do it. The ones I meet would like a
job in a shop etc.
Before long most of them are wrecked on drugs and discarded by the
brothel owners.
Girls who leave the brothels in Amsterdam lose their unemployment
entitlements.
Gangsters run the trade in Holland.
Kind regards
Gregory
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 10:02PM|#
Gangsters run the trade in Holland.
Even if that turned out to be fact (which it may not be), it would
only demonstrate yet again that libertarianism is something of a
grand-scale package deal. Gangsters exist in the first place
because of prohibition of adult consensual activity in
general. (Remember, the definition of "adult" will never be as
clear as we might wish it to be.)
|12.26.07 @ 10:06PM|#
"haven't actually proven the evilness of 16 as an age of
consent."
Adults who are involved in child prostitution or child pornography
(U18) at this moment in the USA and UK are ubiquitously referred to
as pedophiles in the media.
Libel laws as they exist in Canada, USA, and the EU, allow people
endorsing U18 prostitution & pornography, to be described as
pro-pedophiles.
Respectfully submitted
Gregory Carlin
Director
Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition
the innominate one|12.26.07 @ 10:10PM|#
apparently, Gregory Carlin, Director, Irish Anti-Trafficking
Coalition, is an idiot-bot, what with his red herring arguments and
non sequiturs.
disrepectfully submitted
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 10:10PM|#
Adults who are involved in child prostitution or child
pornography (U18) at this moment in the USA and UK are ubiquitously
referred to as pedophiles in the media.
Libel laws as they exist in Canada, USA, and the EU, allow
people endorsing U18 prostitution & pornography, to be
described as pro-pedophiles.
That's not proof of the truth of the statement. Rather, it's a
tribute to the glorious First Amendment of the United States
Constitution. To hell with the restrictive European libel laws! I'd
rather have free speech!
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 10:12PM|#
The more I listen to Voldemort, the more confident I am in my choice to ignore the writings of J. K. Rowling. She chose the wrong side in the war. Sorry.
|12.26.07 @ 10:12PM|#
"Gangsters exist in the first place because of prohibition of
adult consensual activity in general."
They run the legal trade in Amsterdam.
Hence recent newspaper reports of the brothel windows having had
their day and being closed etc. In Amsterdam, they are just sorry
it didn't work out.
Gangsters are very happy to sell drugs to the street girls. They
will therefore also get a slice out of the 'retired' off-street
workers.
The girls are exploited to the grave.
I will make it easy for you, in my many years of experience, pimps
tend to be, not terribly good babysitters.
Kind Regards
Gregory
|12.26.07 @ 10:22PM|#
'That's not proof of the truth of the statement."
I know folks who gave a lot of money to get people elected. They
are my patrons. They have that God thing going for them.
I find somebody exploiting U18 kids in the USA, the bad person goes
to jail for a very long time, forever really.
Gregory carlin
Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 10:25PM|#
Gregory, I refuse to sink to your level of cynicism about the First Amendment.
|12.26.07 @ 10:34PM|#
"Who was it that said that men have a special hatred for their
own personal vice ?"
Reaction formation,
a freudian thing, he is so yesterday. Freud was also an
atheist.
"Neither in my private life nor in my writings have I ever made a
secret of being an out-and-out unbeliever."
When Carl Jung was asked about publishing his correspondence with
Freud, he said that he felt the letters were not of great
interest.
Gregory
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 10:43PM|#
"Who was it that said that men have a special hatred for
their own personal vice?"
Windtell, was it Larry Craig? Or perhaps, Ted
Haggard?
Homosexuality has to be evil. Otherwise, those fucking faggots
wouldn't keep turning me on.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 10:45PM|#
Er, I mean, imprison all the pedophiles! Then imprison all the jailbait Lolita sluts who tempt me!
|12.26.07 @ 10:50PM|#
"I have also noted that you have written elsewhere on the web
against "exotic dancers" and pornography. Is this in general or
just those being "exploited" or trafficked against their
will?"
I eliminate what demand factors I can close.
In Ireland it was a clean sweep, no legitimate strip clubs. They
were all involved in something, drugs, guns, child procurement
etc.
The GTA in Canada was more or less the same.
High status clubs would snitch out the bottom feeders. That would
work on expensive islands or platinum resorts.
The mafia types may then send people with guns etc. Usually, the
gangs or bikers will eventually run everything.
Some 'sex trade' is akin to the models on boats at the Cannes Film
Festival. That is getting harder to find.
People, Lebanese, Jewish mob, are building sex resorts in Africa
using blonde girls. Importing them from Russia.
Middle of Africa or Asia stuff.
Kind regards
Gregory
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 10:50PM|#
Short people have got no reason to live! Ban midget porn (for their own good)!
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 10:51PM|#
Still, Gregory is clueless about cause and effect as opposed to guilt by association.
Brian Sorgatz|12.26.07 @ 10:56PM|#
I eliminate what demand factors I can close.
You sound arrogant about eliminating all demand, Gregory. Man to
man: aren't erections caused by strange women loads of fun?
|12.27.07 @ 12:08AM|#
I can't find the original quote, try as I might, checked Ted
Haggard and even Freud quotes, but it wasn't there.
Gregory: I'm sure that some of the things you say on drug running
and fronts have happened, if not in the all emcompassing way that
you present them. But, that stuff is already illegal, no one is
arguing that it should be.
Also, while I don't agree with Freud on much at all, someone being
an Atheist isn't a good reason to mock him. I'm an Atheist leaning
agnostic myself.
As for the rest of your arguments, tearing most of them down is
easy, the rest would take some time at Wiki. Please do try and stay
on topic though and back up accusations.
VM|12.27.07 @ 10:17AM|#
"the innominate one | December 26, 2007, 10:10pm"
that is why.
you should install
1/2 a bee's filter
it makes this thread shorter.
respectfully submitted,
some random moron of teh internets
whose socks are too loose.
O'Tool.
|12.27.07 @ 10:36AM|#
Moose
I actually went out of my way to read all of Gregory Carlin's
batshit comments. They just seemed to whacky to be true.
Left me shaking my head going Wow...oh...wow. And I'm an old man
who thought he'd seen and heard 'bout everything.
Gregory Carlin, you sound like one of those old church deacons who
thinks that just because he gets a hardon everytime he sees one of
the choirboys everbody does. I think you need to spend more time
worrying about your own tortured mind and leave the rest of us
alone.
VM|12.27.07 @ 11:26AM|#
Issac:
You, Sir, have much more patience than this ruminant. :)
And Greg's cousin George is much more entertaining!!
Paul|12.27.07 @ 2:23PM|#
How do you define a child, Ken?
Brian, there's an entire socio-political philosophy that just
cranked the age of "child" up quite a bit, due to a brain study
concluding lack of development and critical thinking skills.
I'm reading this thread with great interest and I see lots of
potential for "gotcha's" on both sides of the issue, so be
careful.
For instance, there are some who want to try a 16-year-old as an
adult because there's no logical age of majority and surely the
child understood consequences of action. Others will say that the
16-year-old is a child, cannot possibly understand the consequences
of the crime, or have the maturity to face adult charges.
Yet there seem to be some that suggest that a 16-year-old might
voluntarily enter into prostitution-- sorry, "sex work", (no
coercion here, nothing to see, move along). Others will contend
that a 16-year-old is in no way capable of reasoning out the
consequences of prostitution-- legal or illegal.
Brian Sorgatz|12.27.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Brian, there's an entire socio-political philosophy that
just cranked the age of "child" up quite a bit, due to a brain
study concluding lack of development and critical thinking
skills.
Sorry to disappoint you, Paul, but it's a fallacy to assume that
any particular policy question will find a definitive answer in
brain science (or any other kind of science per se). For example,
what if, hypothetically speaking, subtle differences between the
intellectual capacities of the races were irrefutably found? Should
it change anybody's notion of the equal liberty and equal dignity
of all human races? I should hope not!
Brian Sorgatz|12.27.07 @ 5:38PM|#
Another example of the same problem, Paul, is the speed limit. Science can't tell us by itself what the limit should exactly be-even though it can tell us that faster driving is generally less safe driving, all else being equal.
Paul|12.27.07 @ 7:19PM|#
Sorry to disappoint you, Paul, but it's a fallacy to assume
that any particular policy question will find a definitive answer
in brain science (or any other kind of science per se).
Uhm, I'm afraid that you've conflated my beliefs with my
descriptions of the beliefs of others. I don't presume to suggest
that definitive answers can be found, but others
have.
I remember having to listen to the painful remonstrations of a
defense attorney shouting that science had "settled" the matter,
and we should retool our entire justice system and adjust sentences
for these "children" with undeveloped brains into their
twenties.
My point was this:
It seems that in listening to arguments about the age of majority,
many people can bounce between a hard, legal age of majority, and a
fuzzy one, depending on the issue of the day.
I merely ask: if we can argue in the scope of prostitution and
sexual consent, that there is no hard age of majority, then we can
also argue that putting younger people on trial as adults may also
have merit. They are both, after all, issues of maturity,
understanding of consequences and influence of environment.
Believe me, I'm all in favor of leaving the age of majority
fuzzy.
|12.29.07 @ 11:22PM|#
I just wanted to comment on the actual article.
I thought it was elegant. Agustin who did the research questioned a
number of her own previously held concepts. She also stopped and
thought about how other people thought about various ideas. The
point being that these concepts were not absolute, universal, or
staganant.
Too much of human thought is engaged in the hubris of imposing one
person's thoughts and solutions on everyone else. To see someone
step aside from their own views and consider the many possible ways
a given subject could be seen by other people... well, all I can
say is, "Thank you."
It's not about finding the perfect solution. Sometimes it's just
about understanding someonelse's story.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Kerry Howley
- Are Property Rights Enough?, Kerry Howley, Todd Seavey & Daniel McCarthy, October 20, 2009
- Talk of the Town, Kerry Howley, November 1, 2008
- Pakistani Pork, Kerry Howley, October 1, 2008
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245