Crunchy Con

[Erin] Modern day slavery

Thursday June 26, 2008

Categories: Culture

The FBI has made a series of arrests involving prostitution and has helped free a number of minors from the sex-selling business:

Mueller said this week's sweeps bring to 433 the number of child victims recovered in the five years since the FBI began its Innocence Lost initiative. The program was designed to combat a growing problem of underage prostitution.

"These kids are victims. They lack the ability to walk away. This is the 21st-century slavery," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

A University of Pennsylvania study found that an estimated 300,000 children in the United States are at risk of being sexually exploited for commercial uses, according to The Associated Press. Most of those children are "runaways or thrown-aways," Allen said.

Allen said that about 1.6 million children run away from home each year, although most quickly return unharmed. Boys as young as 11 and girls as young as 12 are often targeted by prostitution rings

He praised the FBI and Justice Department for increased attention to fighting the problem, which he said is vastly underreported.

In another case involving modern day slavery, a Long Island, NY couple faces sentencing today and tomorrow for their convictions on twelve counts, including forced labor:

Working from home and selling fortified-strength fragrances to customers in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, the Sabhnanis made millions. "It started in our basement and just kind of grew from there," said Pooja Sabhnani, 23, the oldest of their four children. "My parents worked incredibly hard."

Eventually, they brought servants from Indonesia, where Varsha Sabhnani had been raised. On May 13, 2007, the police were called to a Dunkin' Donuts in Syosset, N.Y., where one of the domestic workers had turned up. Her face was bruised and she wore only pants and a towel.

When the Dunkin' Donuts employees tried to talk to the 51-year-old woman, identified as Samirah -- like many Indonesians, she uses only one name -- she made gestures of hitting herself and uttered what sounded to them like the word "master."

Immigration officials who searched the Sabhnanis' house found Samirah's co-worker, Enung, then 46, hiding in a closet.

Speaking through an interpreter, the two women described for authorities an existence on Long Island that sounded very much like slave labor. They spoke of starvation, beatings and torture. Their compensation of $100 a month for working 17-hour days with no days off amounted to a wage of roughly 20 cents an hour.

It's almost shocking to contemplate the continued existence of slavery in the twenty-first century. We tend to think of it as something that can only occur in backward nations far from our own, whether we're thinking of sex-slaves in Asia or children forced to work without pay or even fight as soldiers in third world countries. But slavery exists right under our noses; though it is illegal people are still keeping their fellow human beings in states of bondage, indentured servitude, and other subhuman conditions which are a terrible violation of the intrinsic worth of a person.

I've never yet heard someone make the argument, "Look, people are going to keep practicing slavery no matter what we do, so we should figure out a way to make slavery safe, legal and rare." We don't argue this because we understand that depriving an innocent human being of liberty and dignity is an affront to every value and measure of goodness which we seek to live by, as a standard. The fact that some will practice slavery no matter what we do has not stopped us from seeing slavery as an evil and seeking to eradicate it wherever and whenever it occurs.

Comments
Goodguyex
June 27, 2008 2:33 PM

I wonder why a discussion on modern day slavery morfs into arguments about abortion.

Is modern slavery not an interesting or polite topic? Or is it possibly because much more people are more interested in having an abortion than in having a slave?

sigaliris
June 27, 2008 2:51 PM

Well, freddy, I thank you for the catechism reference, but as you say, it is not really specific. Which leaves me with my original assumption that to whatever extent the fetus is considered as a person, it is considered as a person subject to damnation--not completely innocent in spite of the nullity of its actions so far.

Your second paragraph seems to me to assert the following propositions:

Having sex = consenting to have sex

and

Consenting to have sex = consenting to be pregnant.

I don't agree that either of these equivalences is valid.

It seems, too, that many people feel that, when it comes to women, "experienced" might as well be "guilty." And I think it is attitudes like these that help to explain why it is so easy to turn away from concern over the enslavement of women and children to focus on the unborn. Those women and children are suspected of having somehow, somewhere along the way, consented to having sex. This nullifies their innocence in the minds of many and makes them unsuitable objects for a rescue crusade.

I find it disturbing and surprising that people can simultaneously dwell on the "innocence" of the fetus and the "guilt" of the mother. They consider the fetus as perfect and pure, the woman as dirty and damaged. But the perfect and pure is not found physically embedded in the flesh and blood of the dirty and damaged. If you place such a high value on the fetus, you must value the mother equally. It is only through her that the fetus has any existence at all.

freddy
June 27, 2008 4:36 PM

Sigaliris:
Perhaps you didn't read, in my post, that I specifically exempted rape victims from the guilt/innocence dichotomy.

For the record: any woman, at any time, under any circumstances, who is coerced in any way to have sex is, in my opinion, completely innocent. However, innocence does not exempt her from the reality of the consequences, and, if she becomes pregnant, you are left with two innocent victims neither of whose innocence trumps the other's. So what to do? Do you perpetrate another act of violence on an innocent women and kill a child that is partly hers, or do you provide the comfort and healing she needs -- including the message that it is not dirty or shameful to bring into the world a baby who is the product of an assault upon her. This attitude; that a woman who is a victim should have to hide and deny what happened to her with an abortion seems to me to be part-and-parcel of the nineteenth-century attitudes of the male domination of the "weaker" sex. And truly, when we have so many adult "boyfriends" dropping underage girls off at Planned Parenthood it makes me wonder about our attitudes, as a society, about enslavement.

sigaliris
June 27, 2008 5:20 PM

I think you've put your finger on a number of things where you and I would find much to agree about, freddy. Thanks for clarifying your understanding of rape. I really appreciate that. Too often I've heard people use the term so narrowly that it basically only covers underage nuns who are dragged into dark alleys by known pirates. I also agree strongly that the ideal way to deal with that situation is to offer protection and help to the pregnant woman--and I think that far fewer abortions would take place if this were the case. I think the prevalence of older boys/men preying on younger teen girls is an outrage, and like you, it makes me wonder about our attitudes!

Probably the only place I might differ with you is in believing that when all is said and done, the decision to continue the pregnancy or not has to rest with the woman herself.

freddy
June 27, 2008 6:09 PM

"Too often I've heard people use the term so narrowly that it basically only covers underage nuns who are dragged into dark alleys by known pirates."

Well said! Thank you.

You are also correct in where we would differ. I believe that someone must speak for those whose voices cannot yet be heard.

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement