Raving Conservative

Google

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Female Sex Slaves

How come we rarely hear anything about the slave trade as it exists today? It’s as if our caring liberal media is more concerned with the latest high profile murder than with the freedom and well-being of women worldwide. For those of you who did not know about the market in female flesh worldwide let me fill you in.

The female slave trade is now one of the three most profitable criminal industries in the world, right up there with drugs and arms dealing. Every year tens of thousands of girls and young women are duped, kidnapped, and forced to become sex slaves. No nation is immune. Every year it is estimated that at least 15,000 women are smuggled into the US alone and forced into sexual slavery as prostitutes, primarily from Mexico and South America. Iran, supposedly a severely religious nation has at least 84,000 women and girls being prostituted in sexual slavery in Tehran alone. In Thailand no girl is immune from the threat of sexual slavery as it is very common for parents to sell their daughters to pimps for a few hundred US dollars. Russian women are constantly being duped into sexual slavery by responding to ads and agencies that claim to be getting them legitimate jobs, only to have them kidnapped and forced into prostitution, mostly in Europe.

Once these women are kidnapped/trapped they are forced into prostitution against their will, and are submitted to any degrading and abusive act the customer pays for. They are routinely raped by both pimps and customers. They are routinely beaten by both pimps and customers. When they get diseases they are frequently denied medical care. When they get pregnant they have forced abortions performed on them. When they get non-sexual illnesses they are refused medical care. When they are injured, and they all get injured, they are refused medical care. These women and girls are subjected to the most abusive, degrading, inhumane existence possible, and the media and our own government remains silent.

Am I the only one outraged by this?

When Natalie Holloway vanished from Aruba I predicted that they would never find her body because there was no body to found. I figured that she was kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery since an attractive American woman is a great prize to the filth who engage in this atrocity. She will be billed as an American whore, and she will be subjected to the “affections” of men who hate America and will take out their hatred on what innocent victims they can. It would be better for her if she were dead. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but then they still haven’t been able to determine if she’s actually dead.

There are some organizations dedicated to fighting this scourge on humanity. I was unable to locate them on the internet because any search that has the words “sex slaves” in it turns up news articles, a band, and lots of porno, so much so that I gave up my search. However, I do have some very informative links for you.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11791
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/163052.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/03/08/women.trafficking/
http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/21/97/384/12384_slavery.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2094414/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3019838.stm
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/23/bush-sex-slaves/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/01/nslave01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/01/ixhome.html

Disgusting.

22 Comments:

  • Great post. Very interesting.I often wonder why the libs, the supposed champions of human rights, are more concerned about the treatment of enemy combatants than the treatment of women in some these totalitarianist regimes. These f'ers should be impaled on spikes.

    I also agree with you on the Natalie Holloway disappearance. I find it odd that people looked at me like I was crazy when I brought this idea up to them. Like it doesn't exist.

    By Blogger fmragtops, at 7:00 AM  

  • That wacky liberal media. I guess it's because they spend all their time talking about sweat shop labor. Oh wait, they don't talk about that either.

    By Blogger Wasp Jerky, at 7:38 AM  

  • I saw a show about this, surprisingly, on The New York Times/Discovery Channel...a long time ago (years ago), & since then, nobody's mentioned it (just YOU...thanks!) It's bad enough that it happens in other countries, but why isn't it even mentioned, even when it happens here? fmragtops, you're right! Just compare how many times you've heard news stories about how 'horribly' our service people treated prisoners at Abu Ghraib (it wasn't right, I'm not saying that at all!) to how many times you've heard stories about female sex slaves, who are trafficked in every day!
    LibbY!

    By Blogger Libby, at 8:26 AM  

  • Oh come on, please! This is not a liberal/conservative issue. We're all opposed to slavery!

    (Except, of course, economic slavery, then it appears we're willing to look the other way as long as we're not feeling too enslaved ourselves.)

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 9:23 AM  

  • This is not a liberal/conservative issue. We're all opposed to slavery!

    Amen, brother!

    By Blogger Samurai Sam, at 10:18 AM  

  • There are quite a few articles in the British press about sex slavery. But they're liberal over there, so it must not be true.

    By Blogger Wasp Jerky, at 10:35 AM  

  • I often wonder why the libs, the supposed champions of human rights, are more concerned about the treatment of enemy combatants than the treatment of women in some these totalitarianist regimes. These f'ers should be impaled on spikes

    Agreed. Here in New York, almost every area of the city, Chinatown (Vietnamese, Chinese) Brighton Beach, Brooklyn (Russian and Eastern European), Harlem (black and latino)
    has working bordellos of underage and pressed into slavery girls.

    It's been this way since New York was New Dorp, and if you examine any large city in the country, you will find the same.

    As for libs ignoring this issue, we all know the prime issue for womans'libs is the murder of unborn infants. Besides, what a woman choses (sluttery) to do with her own body is her business, right? Gimme a large break.

    All of law enforcement or any taxi driver in these cities can take you to such a bordello. And yet they continue to exist.

    As long as most of the country doesn't give a good clam, it will continue.

    The finger points right at most of the voters in the cities of the country, the mayors of these cities, and the Chiefs of Police.

    "It's Hammer Time"

    By Blogger The Hammer, at 11:34 AM  

  • The hot topics for liberals in the US are supporting abortion, gay rights, and removing religion from the public square. I know of no liberal politician, or any conservative one for that matter, who is addresing the issue of women being forced into sexual slavery. The liberal press here in the US is also silent. Since liberals bill themselves as the champions of women's rights the lack of any liberal voice speaking out against this strocity is as loud as cannon fire.

    BTW, this issue has been grating on me for years. Expect to see more about this atrocious trade in unwilling female flesh.

    I also want to take this opportunity to solicit any information anyone has on this topic for future use.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 12:09 PM  

  • the lack of any liberal voice speaking out against this strocity is as loud as cannon fire.
    I agree the silence is deafening on this issue. I'm still waiting for mainstream Islam to condemn the Islamofacists. One thing in common.--
    much of it comes down to lack of respect for human life.

    It's Hammer Time!

    By Blogger The Hammer, at 12:57 PM  

  • I'm a card carryin member of Amnesty International, Dan, and I can tell you that the female sex slave "industry" is a very hot topic. Just because the MSM only covers certain topics (your proposed liberal hot button issues) doesn't mean that there are no liberals that care about this issue. Did you hear of the 700 women movement? It was a campaign by AIUSA to fight for womens' rights, and sex slavery was a big part of that campaign.

    And there was a Lifetime movie that dealt with the issue, again promoted heavily by Amnesty.

    And might I remind that liberals do not want to remove religion from the public sector. As a liberal and a practicing Christian I find such accusations insulting, demeaning, and maddening. We want the misuse of religion and intolerance removed Dan, not religion itself.

    Forgive me for going off, but your self-righteous indignations are not called for.

    By Blogger Son of Lilith, at 3:33 PM  

  • Indignant, yes; self-ritcheous, no. My chief complaint isn't that there are no organizations fighting sex slavery, Because there are as I said in the article, it is that it is not out in the forefront of public debate where it belongs.

    What is out in the forefront? Abortion, gay rights, suppression of religion, and a myriad of other supposed civil rights issues (yes I know not all liberals agree with the party line on any of these topics), yet crimes against humanity that fall square into the civil rights debate are hidden. Sex slavery is an evil that must be confronted. The genocide in Sudan has fallen off the news but has not abated one bit. Countries like Cuba and China continually degrade their populations and deny them basic rights that we have taken for granted for centuries and liberals actualy SUPPORT them! (Again, not all, I know) It blows my mind that there can be such a hypocritical duality to the liberal line. I'm a conservative, and supposedly, as such, am unconcerned with human rights, but I want these evils confronted and destroyed! If I have to make it a personal crusade against evil then I am prepared to do so. Who's with me?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 4:03 PM  

  • "This is not a liberal/conservative issue. We're all opposed to slavery!"

    Yes, of course. I don't think daniel meant to imply that, simply that there hasn't been much focus on it in the liberal press and with liberal advocacy groups; in fact there seems to be more focus on the terrorists at Gitmo's latest hunger strike.
    I don't think ANY liberal would be "for" this. The issue is the blind eye turned. Passivism is to support by default.

    Yes, I'm sure that Amnesty International is working on this. They do a lot of good, that's a fact. It's a shame that they chose to undermine the huge good they do by taking politically extremist positions.

    By Blogger Rebekah, at 6:29 PM  

  • I love how the liberals all chime in that it is not a liberal vs conservative issue. Technically I agree with that, but in practice it doesn't wash. Mainstream news is run by the libs, and that comment about the silence being deafening hits a chord. There has been sporadic news about this, but no investigative journalism 'a la' Ahbu Greb (excuse my spelling), Karl Rove, Judge Alito. I hope you are wrong about Aruba, but it is a very real possibility.

    By Blogger Rick's Corner, at 6:48 PM  

  • "Mainstream news is run by the libs"

    You see this repeated all the time but it's not especially true. Yes, a small majority of the reporters may be democrats but a majority of the media owners are conservatives. Yes, you can point to instances of reporting that to you smack of liberality but I can point back to you an equal if not greater number of instances of conservative reporting (and I'm talking on MSM, not FOX).

    In truth, the media is a mixed bag and is mostly pro-status quo and pro-sensationalism, but not regularly Left or Right in its politics. The bottom line is the bottom line.

    Rebekah, can you give us an example(s) of Amnesty International choosing "to undermine the huge good they do by taking politically extremist positions."

    I know of none and would be glad to be taught better. Otherwise, that's a rather extreme allegation to lay out there unsubstantiated.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 5:11 AM  

  • Actuallt Dan, at the last survey (2004) 90% of the people im the MSM were admitted Democrats. Also, the people who run the MSM are, that is, the ones who are Americans, are admitted Democrats. Even the guy who owns Fox News Channel isn't a Republican, he's an Australian.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 6:13 AM  

  • The U.S. media isn't very good at its job, but it's certainly not liberal. If so, why did the media drag Clinton through the mud for eight years, yet give Bush a free pass for most of his first term? It's only been recently that the press has been piling on Bush, probably to make up for lost time. The U.S. media follows the money.

    By Blogger Wasp Jerky, at 7:53 AM  

  • That's not what I've read. The stats I've heard:

    At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. (self-identified)

    At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative.

    This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.

    Skewed? A little, but not one-sided. The above was from a Pew Research Study.

    As to the ownership, the media is increasingly in the hands of fewer entities. GE, News Corporation, Viacom, Time Warner and, of course, Uncle Walt (Disney). Those five entities own all the major TV (and much of the other types of) media.

    Are you suggesting the management of these corporations are Dems? I don't have that info on hand, but I would suspect that these corporations are heavily tied to the status quo and are not especially radical one way or t'other but lean towards the conservative side.

    Just a suspicion (although I think I've read that somewhere).

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 8:01 AM  

  • Atthis point al I can say is we have some differing stats from differing sources, but the one thing the agree on is that more people in media identify themselves as liberal than identify themselves as conservative. Considering this is owuld be wise to acknowledge the probability of a liberal bent in the media.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:45 AM  

  • Daniel,

    I'd suggest it'd make more sense to look at the results, ie, what you actually see on the TV news. Perhaps it could be that them Dems in the media are overcompensating to be fair and thereby giving us more conservative news?

    I've seen reports that suggest that what actually is shown tends toward the conservative and that would be my thought. One example, from FAIR, a media watchdog group:

    A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.

    Even before the September 11 attacks, Republicans made up a full 68 percent of partisan sources (which surged to 87 percent after the attacks). These figures should dispel the myth of a liberal or pro-Democrat news bias, but don't necessarily prove a conservative or Republican slant. Rather, they reflect a strong tendency of the networks to turn to the party in power for information.

    I'm sure, of course, that you have sources that suggest what's shown leans liberal. So perhaps we're at a standstill. Just know that those of us who are way on the left very rarely see much of our agenda anywhere in the media, despite claims by those on the right.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 11:39 AM  

  • I find that most people view the media as biased in opposition to their views. Most liberals find it too conservative; most conservatives find it too liberal.

    I tend to agree with Dan T. and wasp jerkey. The media is in it for the money and follow the stories that make generate ratings. And those just happen to be issues that drive a divide in our country's citizens: Abu Ghraib, abortion, homosexuality, religion, etc.. These are the stories that give pundits their jobs and that make people debate, intelligently or otherwise.

    I think we can all agree on one thing: sex slavery is immoral. So why would the MSM do a story on it? Bill O'Reily and Al Franken couldn't argue over it. It's better (from a profit-driven sense) to cover issues that allow for a pure for-or-against stance.

    So again Mr. Levesque, please don't confuse liberal doctrine with MSM coverage. One often misrepresents the other.

    By Blogger Son of Lilith, at 11:51 AM  

  • "Rebekah, can you give us an example(s) of Amnesty International choosing "to undermine the huge good they do by taking politically extremist positions."'
    Of course I can. What about naming Gitmo the "gulag of our time"? Or hypervintilating about every obscure allegation about American Soldiers?

    By Blogger Rebekah, at 4:30 PM  

  • But isn't that what AI does: get fired up about bad behavior? Maybe calling Gitmo a gulag was a bit over the top, but they were right in calling us on our abuses. It hardly seems extremist to me to call any country on bad behavior, including ours.

    What if they pointed out all the other nations' crimes and abuses but looked the other way when we did something? Would they cease to be an organization to be taken seriously? I'd suggest, Yes.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 4:33 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares