Continue to plague the whole world. Several folk in the US, such as Hillary Clinton are speaking out against working (specifically in terms of trade agreements) with countries that are ignoring the growing instances of sex/human traffic.
via Voice of America...
UNICEF reports that, each year, about 1 million children are sold or otherwise recruited into this criminal business. Sex trafficking is believed to be growing the fastest in Central and Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union. In Asia, girls from villages in Nepal and Bangladesh -- the majority of whom are under 18 -- are sold to brothels in India for $1,000. The European Policy Agency estimates that the industry is now worth several billion dollars a year.
Democratic Party Senator Hillary Clinton says the United States will not tolerate those nations that turn a blind-eye to what she calls "a scourge".
"Any country that does not respect and treat their women and children with dignity is a country that United States is likely to have a problem with."
I hear that, but what about trafficking in the States. It is a big problem as well.
Federal officials say 14,500 to 17,500 of them are trafficked to the United States, where the myriad forms of modern-day slavery present an elusive target for those trying to eradicate it.
Victims have come from at least 50 countries in almost every part of the world and are trafficked to virtually every state - to clandestine factories, restaurants, farms, massage parlors, even private homes where women and girls are kept in servitude.
Any country is more like every country. The worst is many of the women that are caught in the States are treated like undocumented illegals and we all know how that goes down.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Human and Sex Trafficking.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/2857
Just a friendly reminder: The majority of those women and children are used in pornography and prostitution. A very large number are also put to work in US strip clubs. And no, not just the seedy, underneath-the-overpass gangland strip clubs, but also "high class" places, particularly those with mafia and drug ties.
You mean sex slaves are being put to work in the sex industry? No way.
There's human trafficking in the agriculture industry, but I'm not about to quit eating cherries. I can eat organic cherries, pick my own, or get them at the farmer's market, and enjoy them guilt-free. Even if I were to give them up, most other people aren't, so I think it's more productive to support a kind alternative to the sometimes (too often) abusive status quo in food production.
Hey yellow-
Yeah the second article talks a little about recently more attention has been paid to sex trafficking, but issue of illegal/slave labor keeps getting swept under the rug. So sweatshops, farms, etc. continue to run on these abusive working conditions.
I agree about supporting alternatives.
somehow I am sceptical of the US figures.
People who do not like the sex industry are always throwing around claims about 100X out of touch with reality.
The fact that trafficking in humans persists in this day and age is sad testament to man’s inhumanity to man, sorry people’s inhumanity to people. What I do not understand is the connection that Hilary Clinton makes to trade and preventing/stopping to trade/work with country’s that do not enforce a certain standard of human rights. For one thing, every aid agency in the world has studied the issue of capacity building and helping the developing world, including links to human rights, and has recognized that only full and free access to our rich markets would provide developing countries with the opportunity and economic growth to truly advance. We of course will not do this as it would negatively impact certain aspects of our societies. Indeed, if wealthy countries like the US penalize poorer countries, they will compound the situation by making a bad situation worse (on the “up” side I guess this action would of provide US sex tourists and sweat shops with more fodder, if you think this is positive).
As for the post above about organic food etc., I am not clear on the linkage of organic and local market food and slave labour. If you want to buy organic or locally produced food that is swell, but neither of these factors ensure that the slave (or virtual slave) labour that picked the field crops that went to non-organic production was not the same slave labour that picked the organic. Unless you know the farmer there is also no way to be sure what labour picked the food sold at the local market. Indeed, most organic production is more labour intensive, which increases costs and hence the incentive for farmers to find opportunities to cut costs, such as on labour.
In both the case of sex trade and slave labour in general I do not know enough to provide a good solution or even understand the full scope of the problem, but I think more study is needed by the more academically inclined among us before we point to simple solutions such as “stop dealing with them”, or “buy organic/local produce”.
Ephemeral, I'm speaking from the perspective of the consumer (who can be reasonably more assured that the product they are buying is fair trade if it's labeled that way, and organic products tend to be fair trade more often than non-organic), rather than the policy-maker. Your point is well-taken, however. The fact that not everyone has the option (or inclination) to buy organic and/or local is proof enough that policy is going to be what makes the difference here, no matter how often I patronize my co-op.