Wednesday 21 October 2009

Sex Trafficking: the Anglobitch Myth



The great myth of Anglo Saxon feminism is that all women who engage in prostitution are coerced into the job by inhuman slave-traders. Prostitution always inheres to 'trafficking' in any feminist-liberal discussion of the subject. Presently, we shall discover why feminists seeks to blandish prostitution. However, the evidence that most women engage in prostitution of their own free will is overwhelming, and supported by a recently released British study. Essentially, an extensive police investigation produced NO convictions for trafficking. The details below are taken from the Guardian:

The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country.

The failure has been disclosed by a Guardian investigation which also suggests that the scale of and nature of sex trafficking into the UK has been exaggerated by politicians and media.

Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all.

While some prosecutions have been made, the Guardian investigation suggests the number of people who have been brought into the UK and forced against their will into prostitution is much smaller than claimed; and that the problem of trafficking is one of a cluster of factors which expose sex workers to coercion and exploitation.

Acting on the distorted information, the government has produced a bill, now moving through its final parliamentary phase, which itself has provoked an outcry from sex workers who complain that, instead of protecting them, it will expose them to extra danger.

When police in July last year announced the results of Operation Pentameter Two, Jacqui Smith, then home secretary, hailed it as "a great success". Its operational head, Tim Brain, said it had seriously disrupted organised crime networks responsible for human trafficking. "The figures show how successful we have been in achieving our goals," he said. Those figures credited Pentameter with "arresting 528 criminals associated with one of the worst crimes threatening our society". But an internal police analysis of Pentameter, obtained by the Guardian after a lengthy legal struggle, paints a very different picture.

The analysis, produced by the police Human Trafficking Centre in Sheffield and marked "restricted", suggests there was a striking shortage of sex traffickers to be found in spite of six months of effort by all 55 police forces in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland together with the UK Border Agency, the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, the Foreign Office, the Northern Ireland Office, the Scottish government, the Crown Prosecution Service and various NGOs in what was trumpeted as "the largest ever police crackdown on human trafficking".

The analysis reveals that 10 of the 55 police forces never found anyone to arrest. And 122 of the 528 arrests announced by police never happened: they were wrongly recorded either through honest bureaucratic error or apparent deceit by forces trying to chalk up arrests which they had not made. Among the 406 real arrests, more than half of those arrested (230) were women, and most were never implicated in trafficking at all.

Of the 406 real arrests, 153 had been released weeks before the police announced the success of the operation: 106 of them without any charge at all and 47 after being cautioned for minor offences. Most of the remaining 253 were not accused of trafficking: 73 were charged with immigration breaches; 76 were eventually convicted of non-trafficking offences involving drugs, driving or management of a brothel; others died, absconded or disappeared off police records.

Although police described the operation as "the culmination of months of planning and intelligence-gathering from all those stakeholders involved", the reality was that, during six months of national effort, they found only 96 people to arrest for trafficking, of whom 67 were charged.

Forty-seven of those never made it to court.

Only 22 people were finally prosecuted for trafficking, including two women who had originally been "rescued" as supposed victims. Seven of them were acquitted. The end result was that, after raiding 822 brothels, flats and massage parlours all over the UK, Pentameter finally convicted of trafficking a grand total of only 15 men and women.

Police claimed that Pentameter used the international definition of sex trafficking contained in the UN's Palermo protocol, which involves the use of coercion or deceit to transport an unwilling man or woman into prostitution. But, in reality, Pentameter used a very different definition, from the UK's 2003 Sexual Offences Act, which makes it an offence to transport a man or woman into prostitution even if this involves assisting a willing sex worker.

Internal police documents reveal that 10 of Pentameter's 15 convictions were of men and women who were jailed on the basis that there was no evidence of their coercing the prostitutes they had worked with. There were just five men who were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes. These genuinely were traffickers, but none of them was detected by Pentameter, although its investigations are still continuing.

Two of them — Zhen Xu and Fei Zhang — had been in custody since March 2007, a clear seven months before Pentameter started work in October 2007.

The other three, Ali Arslan, Edward Facuna and Roman Pacan, were arrested and charged as a result of an operation which began when a female victim went to police in April 2006, well over a year before Pentameter Two began, although the arrests were made while Pentameter was running.

The head of the UK Human Trafficking Centre, Grahame Maxwell, who is chief constable of North Yorkshire, acknowledged the importance of the figures: "The facts speak for themselves. I'm not trying to argue with them in any shape or form," he said.

He said he had commissioned fresh research from regional intelligence units to try to get a clearer picture of the scale of sex trafficking. "What we're trying to do is to get it gently back to some reality here," he said. "It's not where you go down on every street corner in every street in Britain, and there's a trafficked individual. There are more people trafficked for labour exploitation than there are for sexual exploitation. We need to redress the balance here. People just seem to grab figures from the air."


Ah yes, those figures from the air... how feminists love them! One is reminded of Andrea Dwokin's 'millions' of anorexia victims in the US (the real annual fatality figure is a mere 100), or Sher Hite's nonsensical 'research' on human sexuality.

Despite our amusement at feminist thought processes, there is a serious message here. Feminists will project any delusion to attain their demented ends. But what are their ends? And why do they have to lie to pursue them? Why are feminists so obsessed by painting prostitution in a negative light, when all evidence refutes that perspective?

Simply put, Anglo-American feminists fear prostitution because it cheapens sex. As Schopenhauer argues, women need to secure a male while they are still young and relatively attractive, for very few males would willingly marry a woman over thirty. Simply put, women are strongly committed to marriage because it binds a male to them for a lifetime, even when their primary attraction (namely, sexual allure) is only present for a few fleeting years. Given the choice, most men would trade in their partner when she hit thirty and get themselves a fresh young model. Of course, while few males have the resources to enjoy such serial polygamy, many do have the resources to enjoy young, nubile prostitutes whenever the need takes them. Women have little to offer any male after the age of thirty - indeed, even most young females are fairly repulsive - so marriage suits women perfectly.

And now we see why women go to such lengths to ration sex, not only in their personal lives but as a matter of official policy: having nothing else to offer a man, rationing sex enhances its scarcity value. Prostitution, however, blows that agenda apart. In cultures where prostitution is legal and approved, women have very limited status since their sexual 'value' is correspondingly low. This is why feminist politicians like Harriet Harman or Hilary Clinton go to such enormous lengths to criminalize and stigmatize prostitution: essentially, prostitution weakens their manipulative hold over men. Hence the hysterical cult of 'trafficking' that surrounds all feminist discourse around prostitution in the modern Anglosphere.

Finally, for those who quibble with my claim that the contemporary Anglosphere is a misandrist matriarchy with a puritanical agenda, consider how the British media unthinkingly accepts unfounded feminist assumptions about the nature of prostitution. The liberal media are particularly compliant to feminist claims, as might be expected. And the same effect can no doubt be observed around the Anglosphere, with varying modifications.

7 comments:

  1. "Finally, for those who quibble with my claim that the contemporary Anglosphere is a misandrist matriarchy with a puritanical agenda, consider how the British media unthinkingly accepts unfounded feminist assumptions about the nature of prostitution. The liberal media are particularly compliant to feminist claims, as might be expected. And the same effect can no doubt be observed around the Anglosphere, with varying modifications."
    Feminists are organized, dedicated and industrious. They smell victory and are going in for the kill. You know the old saying, "Whatever it takes!"
    We have to organize, recruit, collect donations/dues and then network like hell, and we must do it immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am with you Captain Courageous!

    The funniest thing of all is:

    If you add up all the money you would spend on a typical anglobitch, and compare it to what you would spend on a prostitute, it really does balance out to be about the same. Yes, I actually did the math once.

    The big difference: When you get a prostitute, you do not have to put up with: head-games, drama, temper-tantrums, sexual inhibition, abject humility, random arguments about unimportant things, satisfying her (tsk tsk), possibly putting up with her retarded children she created with a psychopath, the list goes on...

    Ultimately, I'd say that prostitutes are infinitely better than the typical anglobitch.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The great myth of Anglo Saxon feminism is that all women who engage in prostitution are coerced into the job by inhuman slave-traders. Prostitution always inheres to 'trafficking' in any feminist-liberal discussion of the subject."

    This is an important post, Rookh.

    Discourse around the issue of prostitution is framed in completely the wrong way, thanks to feminism. It is designed to always allow women to be blameless for entering prostitution, and to bash men arbitrarily.

    The truth is though feminism grows the prostitution industry, because of feminism's policy of sexual liberalism. Indeed, increasing numbers of Western women make a fully conscious, free decision to enter Woman's First Profession (prostitution).

    "I'd say that prostitutes are infinitely better than the typical anglobitch."

    Don't you get it, the prostitute you are praising is an Anglobitch, and vice versa. Something like 20% of female college students work as prostitute in Australia, I expect it is the same or higher in other Western countries.

    I can't stand this idiotic attitude that some MRAs hold. Western women working as prostitutes are feminist and hate men just as must as Western women who do not work as prostitutes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. *Feminists are organized, dedicated and industrious. They smell victory and are going in for the kill. You know the old saying, "Whatever it takes!"*

    Sir

    One of the major MRA problems is underestimating the strength and resolve of our enemies. To be blunt, they are winning and we are losing. We are like the Confederacy after Gettysburg - still strong and internally coherent but definitely on the defensive. They hold the initiative; they control academia, politicians and the media, while we remain a band of ragged rebels with a few blogs and websites. At best, we publish 'soft' mra works like The Myth of Male Power that have zero effect on anything. Women seem to cooperate much better than men, plus males in authority side with them. These facts explain their relative success.

    I believe that to win we must FIGHT the enemy. At present, too many mras are fighting one another. The enemy is high-profile feminism which must be publicly defeated if we are to survive and triumph as a movement.

    Here is something to give you some impression of our foe's mettle, the Princeton University feminists' blog:

    http://equalwrites.blogspot.com/2009/08/bravo-bob-herbert.html

    See how I take the fight to them? Get into the habit of FIGHTING, guys. You cannot win a war unless you are prepared to storm the enemy's strongholds. That Blog is as good a place to start as any. Consider it a training camp where we might hone our combat skills.

    ReplyDelete
  5. RE: Anonymous...

    "Don't you get it, the prostitute you are praising is an Anglobitch".

    You are right. I did not make myself clear.

    When I said "better", I meant "more economically viable", or "less of a headache"

    It was not an attempt to praise either the prostitute or the anglobitch.

    I was simply pointing out that prostitutes ultimately are less of a headache (and sometimes expect less money).

    A better way to word it would have been:

    "I'd say that prostitutes are less of a headache than the typical non-prostitute anglobitch"

    Sorry for the confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. *possibly putting up with her retarded children she created with a psychopath*

    Great point, but where does the 'possibly' come into it? Virtually EVERY Anglobitch over 25 has such a gaggle of retarded children in tow. Female sexual preference unregulated by patriarchy (i.e. civilization) always tends towards sociopaths and other dysfunctional retards. That is why all advanced civilizations have carefully regulated female sexuality: without such regulation, civilization falls apart.

    Simple.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love your blog! Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete