Hi Toshi-san,
It is good to hear from you, as always. I am glad that we can use the list
as an opportunity to share viewpoints, however divergent they may be. I
think our mail list has been a good example of a robust Information
Society; that we understand and accept that there are different points of
view in the world, that we respect the rights of a person to be able to
communicate what they think, though we we don't necessarily have to agree.
I'd like to respectfully respond to some of your comments. The way you
write and express certain things makes me take offense to certain
implications made in your message. I hope that you can accept this as an
attempt to offer constructive feedback and search for better understanding
of what you mean to say.
I don't make any "moral" judgements on "pornography" and will not attempt
to argue whether it is a crime or not, but creating pictures of sexual
content with real children as subject matter and in sexual acts causes
serious harm to those children. I don't think this should be dismissed as
a "so-called serious crime". Unlike adults who by definition, have the
intellectual and emotional capacity to consent to sexual activities,
children lack the development to understand sex and the nature of sexual
relationships, or the consequences of their actions, such as how their
pictures will be used. Many of the children engaged in these activities
are very young 12 years and less, others may be older 15-16--but we are
not really talking about older, adventurous young adults. Children place
a great implicit trust in adults to protect and nurture them. Adults who
engage children in such activity exploit this vulnerability in children.
These adults may seek commercial or personal gain; many share/trade these
pictures with other paedophiles. The most prevalent way to do this is
through the internet.
The issue is not "pornography" or "child pornography"; the issue is
specifically that children are mislead, coerced, manipulated by these
adults to perform sexual acts. These are not "so-called" acts, they are
real cases of one human taking advantage of another more vulnerable human
who doesn't have a clue. The photos and videos are evidence of these acts.
And is it not ironic that these photos are shared and traded with other
paedophiles without the consent of the children?
In Thailand we are quite familiar with the problem. Local and
international press have investigated and reported on many occasions the
exploitation of these children. Many of the reports concern western men, a
majority from the US and UK who come to Thailand to seek sex with young
boys and girls. They are usually caught and tried not only because of the
testimony of witnesses and children but also because of the photos and
videos they take while having sex with children or having children have
sex with each other. Upon further investigation these paedophiles admit
that they came to Thailand because of the information and photos they
receive from others through the internet. The problem is also prevalent
in Cambodia, perhaps more so because of weaker rule of law.
Another inaccurate and misleading comment that you make concerns the UN
Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. You imply that the
convention is created so that US and other western countries may
strengthen monitoring and surveillance of migrant people under the pretext
of restricting human trafficking.
Again in Southeast Asia there is a problem of human trafficking. The
people that are trafficked are an overwhelming majority of women and
children. A number of them are trafficked for commercial sexual
exploitation. These women and children are recruited with prospects of a
better income crossing borders as migrant laborers, factory workers,
cooks, waitresses etc, whether legally or illegally. Along the way their
handlers sell them off to other handlers who force/coerce the women and
children into the commercial sex trade. Some try to run away and succeed,
others don't try or don't succeed. While some others are physically
confined against their will.
In the Southeast Asia region Thailand is both a trafficking destination
and a transit country. There are trafficking routes among these countries:
Myanmar, China, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore.
Traffickers have quickly caught on to loopholes in these countries' laws.
The know what they can legally get away with in each country and adapt to
it because there are no consistent legal mechanisms recognized and
practiced in these countries. Traffickers have learned to network. As far
as I know there is no large syndicate that covers origin point to
destination; they pass on the trafficked people to each other along the
route. Unlike paedophiles who use the internet I'm not sure to what extent
these traffickers take advantage of the communication technology.
Physical confinement also applies not only to those who are commercially
sexually exploited but also laborers in sweatshops. In Thailand there have
also been reported cases of children confined and rescued from sweatshops.
Others who willingly allow themselves to be trafficked across borders and
willingly enter the sex trade are not immune to exploitation. Anyone in a
country illegally, trafficked or not, faces possible exploitation because
they think they have forfeited any legal protection that the country's
labor and other laws might offer "real" workers. Many fear arrest and
deportation and therefore loss of any income they may be deriving. So they
put up with unfair and exploitative employers.
The UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime is among other
things, a concerted attempt to close those legal loopholes that
traffickers exploit.
As with any international agreement there has been long and ongoing
discussion and research by many and various NGOs, inter-governemntal
bodies such as UNICEF, government offices, legal organizations in
different countries and regions of the world to address these problems.
Any conventions such as the Cyber Crime Convention or the Convention
Against Transnational Organized Crime are the result of serious researh,
deliberation and input/consultation and agreement from multiple (level and
sector) stakeholders. I think it's inaccurate and misleading to imply that
these conventions are arbitrarily created in an adhoc manner to be
conveniently used any specific groups with hidden agendas.
I could see that it's possible for groups or individuals within the EU, US
or Japanese governments to creatively cite the conventions as a pretext
for surveillance of other people not suspected of being engaged in the
commercial sexual exploitation of children or of commercial trafficking of
women and children. But I think it's inaccurate and misleading to imply
that their has been a conspiracy to dupe the rest of the world into giving
the EU, US and Japanese governments a free hand in surveillance.
Because these conventions are by nature results of a broad consensus they
may not be perfect, but to dismiss the efforts of all the people who
worked hard in creating the conventions is a great disservice, and it
belittles all the people who work to stop the sexual exploitation of
children and the commercial trafficking of women and children.
Thank you for taking the time to read my message. I hope that you will
revaluate your opinion of these conventions and see them within their
proper context. I think these conventions were created in the same spirit
as other conventions, which we as civil society uphold and ask governments
to abide by.
Sacha
Toshimaru Ogura wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am sorry I have been silencing for long time.
>
> From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>
> Subject: [communication 408] Our Tokyo declaration
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 02:17:14 +0900
> Message-ID: <p05100301ba59c7056e11@[192.168.11.2]>
>
> > Missing from the numbered list - children and exploitation of
> > children. A millennium goal issue, and one particularly important to
> > our region.
>
> I understand children issues is very serious. But I think we should
> consider it more deliberately in terms of the internet issues. Because
> EU, US and Japan tries to ratify the Cyber Crime Convention by Council
> of Europe by pretext of spreading child pornography in the
> Internet. This convention permits more free hands to law enforcement
> for wiretapping, surveillance and other investigation beyond national
> border in order to investigate so called "serious crimes".
>
> Also, US and other western countries try to strengthen monitoring and
> surveillance of migrants people by pretext of restriction of human
> trafficking. In this pint, the United Nations Convention against
> Transnational Organized Crime has a serious damage to our civil
> liberty and human rights for political activities though this has a
> protocol regarding human trafficking.
>
> We should be careful not being carried off our own feet. Especially
> if we should refer "children" issues, we should also express our own
> view point regarding the Cyber Crime Convention and the UN Convention
> against Transnational Organized Crime. As for my own opinion, I have
> been opposing these two conventions for several years with many
> Japanese civil action groups.
>
> Regarding Cyber Crime Convention issues, please check following web
> sites.
> http://www.statewatch.org/
> http://www.gilc.org/
>
> best regards,
>
> toshi
> ((((((((((^0^)))))))))
> toshimaru ogura
> ogr@nsknet.or.jp
> toshi@jca.apc.org
> ((((((((((^0^)))))))))