Wow, I can't think of the last time I saw a death toll like that for a deliberate act that wasn't part of an armed conflict or act of terrorism.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/justice-home-affairs/mass-murder-reported-malta-500-migrants-reported-drowned-308448
QuoteMass murder' reported off Malta, 500 drowned
BREAKING: If the reports of two survivors prove to be true, 500 migrants from North Africa have been deliberately killed by human traffickers, who sank their boat following a dispute. If confirmed, this is the worst incident of its kind, amounting to mass murder, an official of the International Organization for Migration told EurActiv.
Leonard Doyle, IOM spokesperson in Italy, confirmed news broken by Maltese media that 500 migrants who were attempting to travel by boat from North Africa to Europe are feared to have drowned in the Mediterranean after their boat was sunk on purpose by traffickers.
The migrants, including many families and unaccompanied children, had left the Egyptian port city of Damiette on 6 September. According to Doyle, two of the migrants aboard the ship, who survived at sea for nearly two days, told the story that at some point the traffickers got into a dispute with the migrants, and sank the boat.
The dispute erupted after the traffickers asked the immigrants to board a smaller ship, which they saw as too dangerous. Smaller ships are abandoned by traffickers, while bigger ships are reused and lure prospective migrants on the Northern African shore, who imagine that they would be safe on board until they reach Europe.
"Some of [the migrants] were picked up by a Maltese and some by a Greek vessel. We've interviewed these two survivors, people who said they are survivors, and this is what they said", Doyle said.
Asked about the magnitude of the incident as reported, Doyle said "of course this is mass murder", provided that it is confirmed. "We don't know what it is, [for the time being] we have allegations," he said.
Asked if he could compare this incident with other violence reported in the past, Doyle explained that there have been cases when immigrants have been thrown overboard, or stabbed.
"This is obviously of a different order, but it's in line with what we have heard before," he said.
Asked if the two survivors could be considered as independent sources, Doyle responded that they seem to be independent.
"They seem to have been rescued separately [...] We have one survivor validated by the other, for the moment," he said.
Reportedly, one of the survivors was clinging on a life raft with seven people, of which five had disappeared in the sea, and was rescued by the Greek merchant ship Pegasus.
Asked how he could compare this incident with previous experience, Doyle said, "It looks like this is the worse incident that we've seen. It looks like certainly the worst this year, if it's validated. Obviously, if it's true, it's very, very serious," he said.
Asked if the EU response to the immigration challenge across the Mediterranean has been adequate, Doyle said that he could only confirm that the number of deaths was growing.
"It's already more this year than last year, while it is declining in other parts of the world."
The stuff going on off the European Mediterranean coast is pretty brutal, indeed. The Pope has been trying to bring it to people's attention but so far this has been pretty much ignored. The thing is all of Europe should adopt a common policy and help Italy, Greece, Malta etc. but with the current anti-immigration attitudes in most of Europe, this is unlikely.
Bringing law to North Africa is beyond the means and desires of Europe.
Khaddafi used to do a decent job at stopping the ones who tried to get through Libya.
Quote from: derspiess on September 16, 2014, 10:21:35 AM
Khaddafi used to do a decent job at stopping the ones who tried to get through Libya.
:yes: Not many got through Stalin's USSR, either. And I hear Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Human trafficking wasn't quite the issue in those days that it is now.
Quote from: derspiess on September 16, 2014, 11:16:38 AM
Human trafficking wasn't quite the issue in those days that it is now.
Qaddafi was more alive in those days than he is now.
Okay.
We might soon be in a position where we have to sink the ships anyway. Ebola and all that.
News! Human traffickers are scum. Film at 11.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 16, 2014, 11:56:43 AM
News! Human traffickers are scum. Film at 11.
True, but I don't see any evidence these were human traffickers. They seemed to be illegal-immigrant smugglers who were scum.
Quote from: grumbler on September 16, 2014, 12:09:55 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 16, 2014, 11:56:43 AM
News! Human traffickers are scum. Film at 11.
True, but I don't see any evidence these were human traffickers. They seemed to be illegal-immigrant smugglers who were scum.
If there is a difference between those two terms it escapes me what it is.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 16, 2014, 12:09:55 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 16, 2014, 11:56:43 AM
News! Human traffickers are scum. Film at 11.
True, but I don't see any evidence these were human traffickers. They seemed to be illegal-immigrant smugglers who were scum.
If there is a difference between those two terms it escapes me what it is.
I don't know what g is thinking of but for me human trafficking conjurers up people who are being forcibly moved. The latter are like coyotes.
Peter Coyote isn't scum. :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 16, 2014, 12:09:55 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 16, 2014, 11:56:43 AM
News! Human traffickers are scum. Film at 11.
True, but I don't see any evidence these were human traffickers. They seemed to be illegal-immigrant smugglers who were scum.
If there is a difference between those two terms it escapes me what it is.
Human traffickers are essentially slave traders. Illegal immigrant smugglers smuggle illegal immigrants. :huh:
Illegal immigrants aren't human?
Quote from: derspiess on September 16, 2014, 01:18:59 PM
Illegal immigrants aren't human?
The difference is that between Bobba Fett and Han Solo. Happy now?
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2014, 12:30:53 PM
I don't know what g is thinking of but for me human trafficking conjurers up people who are being forcibly moved. The latter are like coyotes.
Exactly. Every definition of human trafficker I have seen includes the idea that those being trafficked are being trafficked involuntarily or duplicitously, in order to be exploited at the far end. If just moving people illegally makes you a human trafficker, then every unlicensed cab driver is a human trafficker.
Quote from: Martinus on September 16, 2014, 01:22:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 16, 2014, 01:18:59 PM
Illegal immigrants aren't human?
The difference is that between Bobba Fett and Han Solo. Happy now?
Han Solo didn't murder hundreds of passengers. Maybe off camera, granted.
Quote from: grumbler on September 16, 2014, 03:54:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2014, 12:30:53 PM
I don't know what g is thinking of but for me human trafficking conjurers up people who are being forcibly moved. The latter are like coyotes.
Exactly. Every definition of human trafficker I have seen includes the idea that those being trafficked are being trafficked involuntarily or duplicitously, in order to be exploited at the far end. If just moving people illegally makes you a human trafficker, then every unlicensed cab driver is a human trafficker.
Except that every time I've ever heard instances of criminals "moving people illegally" they do wind up getting exploited on the other end, typically in order to pay off their debt to the traffickers.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 04:00:56 PMExcept that every time I've ever heard instances of criminals "moving people illegally" they do wind up getting exploited on the other end, typically in order to pay off their debt to the traffickers.
I have heard instances where it is not the case, even where the smugglers have been terrible and/ or dishonest people.
Through some Irish friends (there are lots of Irish in Vancouver right now) we met an Chinese-Irish girl who's working here; born in Ireland, to Chinese (initially illegal) immigrants.
Basically, her parents paid to get on a boat organized by illegal-immigrant-smugglers trying to reach New York. Instead the boat sailed to Dublin where they were told "this is New York, good luck." It took them a while to realize they were in fact not in America at all, not speaking any English and having no idea what New York was supposed to be like. Eventually they settled in Dublin, since they were there.
I've known a few other people who've illegally immigrated, and though some of them have unpleasant stories, none of them involved debt slavery.
Though I'm sure the debt slavery scenario happens more than enough, I don't think it's accurate to assume that it is always the case.
Quote from: Jacob on September 16, 2014, 04:39:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 04:00:56 PMExcept that every time I've ever heard instances of criminals "moving people illegally" they do wind up getting exploited on the other end, typically in order to pay off their debt to the traffickers.
I have heard instances where it is not the case, even where the smugglers have been terrible and/ or dishonest people.
Through some Irish friends (there are lots of Irish in Vancouver right now) we met an Chinese-Irish girl who's working here; born in Ireland, to Chinese (initially illegal) immigrants.
Basically, her parents paid to get on a boat organized by illegal-immigrant-smugglers trying to reach New York. Instead the boat sailed to Dublin where they were told "this is New York, good luck." It took them a while to realize they were in fact not in America at all, not speaking any English and having no idea what New York was supposed to be like. Eventually they settled in Dublin, since they were there.
I've known a few other people who've illegally immigrated, and though some of them have unpleasant stories, none of them involved debt slavery.
Though I'm sure the debt slavery scenario happens more than enough, I don't think it's accurate to assume that it is always the case.
Being dumped on a different continent than where you expected isn't exploitation? :lol:
The US told that guy a while back "this is Canada, good luck!" when he was in fact in Syria. I don't think he was exploited.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 04:42:50 PM
Being dumped on a different continent than where you expected isn't exploitation? :lol:
You were talking about debt slavery. If you lump any kind of scamming or unethical behaviour in as "exploitation" then yeah sure, many if not most illegal immigrant smugglers exploit the people they move.
However the distinction was made between human traffickers who move people against their will and continually exploit them through debt and sex slavery on one hand, and people who make money from getting illegal immigrants into countries where they want to go.
Conflating the two is lazy at best, and doing so through the device of equating shaking someone down for some more money or dropping them off in the wrong place with continually exploiting someone's labour at a destination of your choosing even more so.
No one made the claim that illegal immigrant smugglers don't exploit the people they move. Instead a distinction was made between people who enslave people and continually move them around for financial gain, and people who facilitate voluntary illegal immigration.
Of course every situation is different. And you threw in the word "continual" which I never used.
But I objected to trying to distinguish "human traffickers" from "illegal immigrant smugglers". These people invariably exploit their "clients" in one form or another. Their business is in moving human beings - you can say they traffic in them. The relevant definition of traffic is:
Quotea : import and export trade
b : the business of bartering or buying and selling
c : illegal or disreputable usually commercial activity <the drug traffic>
Calling them "illegal immigrant smugglers" gives them a sort of decency that they do not deserve. They're not innocent businessmen - they're criminals.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 04:00:56 PM
Except that every time I've ever heard instances of criminals "moving people illegally" they do wind up getting exploited on the other end, typically in order to pay off their debt to the traffickers.
Ah. So your ignorance of the distinction is due to an ignorance of the cases. Fair enough. In hundreds of thousands of cases you have never heard about, people have been smuggled into countries without being exploited. If the only outcome was exploitation, there wouldn't be anyone willing to be smuggled.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 05:11:29 PM
Calling them "illegal immigrant smugglers" gives them a sort of decency that they do not deserve. They're not innocent businessmen - they're criminals.
Yeah, they're smugglers. :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 05:11:29 PM
Calling them "illegal immigrant smugglers" gives them a sort of decency that they do not deserve. They're not innocent businessmen - they're criminals.
Illegal and smuggler do not strike me as titles that lend decency. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 05:11:29 PM
But I objected to trying to distinguish "human traffickers" from "illegal immigrant smugglers".
But that is distinction with a very real difference in meaning.
They aren't the same thing at all.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 04:42:50 PM
Being dumped on a different continent than where you expected isn't exploitation? :lol:
Victimized, sure, but exploited? Not really.
I love how this turned into a semantics debate.
Human traffickers = pure filth
Illegal immigrant smugglers = drop their shipments at the first sign of an Imperial cruiser
I know. It is so refreshing when an issue takes such an unexpected and unusual turn like that on languish...
I expect nothing less than from this collection of Rainman Assburgers.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 05:11:29 PM
Of course every situation is different. And you threw in the word "continual" which I never used.
But I objected to trying to distinguish "human traffickers" from "illegal immigrant smugglers". These people invariably exploit their "clients" in one form or another. Their business is in moving human beings - you can say they traffic in them. The relevant definition of traffic is:
Quotea : import and export trade
b : the business of bartering or buying and selling
c : illegal or disreputable usually commercial activity <the drug traffic>
Calling them "illegal immigrant smugglers" gives them a sort of decency that they do not deserve. They're not innocent businessmen - they're criminals.
So in your opinion there is no significant difference between, say,
1) the captain of a ship taking some money via intermediaries and as a result not sending anyone to check a particular part of his ship, in the full knowledge that some people will sneak aboard in one harbour, and sneak off when the ship puts in somewhere in the West, on one hand; and
2) someone who promises young women jobs as, say, cleaners in a foreign country but instead has associates confiscate their papers, force them into prostitution with violence and rape, and move the women from brothel to brothel every few weeks across the continent, on the other hand?
Both are criminal scum. Both have facilitated the transportation of people across borders without the appropriate paperwork. In your opinion they are at the same level of moral wrong?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2014, 09:28:44 PM
Human traffickers = pure filth
Illegal immigrant smugglers = drop their shipments at the first sign of an Imperial cruiser
I saw that.
Quote from: Jacob on September 16, 2014, 09:35:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 05:11:29 PM
Of course every situation is different. And you threw in the word "continual" which I never used.
But I objected to trying to distinguish "human traffickers" from "illegal immigrant smugglers". These people invariably exploit their "clients" in one form or another. Their business is in moving human beings - you can say they traffic in them. The relevant definition of traffic is:
Quotea : import and export trade
b : the business of bartering or buying and selling
c : illegal or disreputable usually commercial activity <the drug traffic>
Calling them "illegal immigrant smugglers" gives them a sort of decency that they do not deserve. They're not innocent businessmen - they're criminals.
So in your opinion there is no significant difference between, say,
1) the captain of a ship taking some money via intermediaries and as a result not sending anyone to check a particular part of his ship, in the full knowledge that some people will sneak aboard in one harbour, and sneak off when the ship puts in somewhere in the West, on one hand; and
2) someone who promises young women jobs as, say, cleaners in a foreign country but instead has associates confiscate their papers, force them into prostitution with violence and rape, and move the women from brothel to brothel every few weeks across the continent, on the other hand?
Both are criminal scum. Both have facilitated the transportation of people across borders without the appropriate paperwork. In your opinion they are at the same level of moral wrong?
Not at all.
Both are human traffickers, but that doesn't mean the same level of moral blameworthiness.
Let's say one person doesn't like the way you look and gives you a slap across the face. A second person also doesn't like you and gives you a savage beating, repeatedly punching, kicking, and stomping you.
Both are guilty of assault, ut the moral blameworthiness is quite different between the two.
QuoteArticle 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons defines Trafficking in Persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs
Smuggling illegal aliens is not human trafficking, unless you are doing so in order to sell them into servitude or something like servitude.
Just being dicks to them doesn't qualify.
Quote from: The Brain on September 16, 2014, 03:58:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 16, 2014, 01:22:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 16, 2014, 01:18:59 PM
Illegal immigrants aren't human?
The difference is that between Bobba Fett and Han Solo. Happy now?
Han Solo didn't murder hundreds of passengers. Maybe off camera, granted.
But he shot first.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 10:40:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 16, 2014, 09:35:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 05:11:29 PM
Of course every situation is different. And you threw in the word "continual" which I never used.
But I objected to trying to distinguish "human traffickers" from "illegal immigrant smugglers". These people invariably exploit their "clients" in one form or another. Their business is in moving human beings - you can say they traffic in them. The relevant definition of traffic is:
Quotea : import and export trade
b : the business of bartering or buying and selling
c : illegal or disreputable usually commercial activity <the drug traffic>
Calling them "illegal immigrant smugglers" gives them a sort of decency that they do not deserve. They're not innocent businessmen - they're criminals.
So in your opinion there is no significant difference between, say,
1) the captain of a ship taking some money via intermediaries and as a result not sending anyone to check a particular part of his ship, in the full knowledge that some people will sneak aboard in one harbour, and sneak off when the ship puts in somewhere in the West, on one hand; and
2) someone who promises young women jobs as, say, cleaners in a foreign country but instead has associates confiscate their papers, force them into prostitution with violence and rape, and move the women from brothel to brothel every few weeks across the continent, on the other hand?
Both are criminal scum. Both have facilitated the transportation of people across borders without the appropriate paperwork. In your opinion they are at the same level of moral wrong?
Not at all.
Both are human traffickers, but that doesn't mean the same level of moral blameworthiness.
Let's say one person doesn't like the way you look and gives you a slap across the face. A second person also doesn't like you and gives you a savage beating, repeatedly punching, kicking, and stomping you.
Both are guilty of assault, ut the moral blameworthiness is quite different between the two.
I don't get your point then... there are two different things going on, and people apply two different names to them to distinguish the two - yet you insist we should use the same name for these two different situations, yet you distinguish between them.
Seems sort of silly on your part, to be honest.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 05:11:29 PM
Calling them "illegal immigrant smugglers" gives them a sort of decency that they do not deserve. They're not innocent businessmen - they're criminals.
:unsure:
are they: fun loving criminals