
Originally Posted by
noonwitch
Is it The Spectator's position that there is no such thing as human trafficking? That's how I read the article, that "real" slavery is what happened prior to the Civil War, not anything that could be happening now. That was institutional slavery, human trafficking is much more insidious in some ways.
Obama's definition of slavery was rather... shall we say, loose? From the article:
But around the world there's no denying the awful reality. When a man, desperate for work, toiling, for little or no pay, beaten if he tries to escape -- that is slavery. When a woman is locked in a sweatshop, or trapped in a home as a domestic servant, alone and abused and incapable of leaving -- that's slavery.
That could mean anything from human trafficking in domestics (the Saudis are by far the worst offenders there) to marriage, in the case of the woman. It's vague to the point of meaninglessness, not unlike "Hope and Change" and F

Originally Posted by
noonwitch
I really don't know how much the Clinton Global Iniative is really doing about the issue, but anyone who lives in a city with an "Asian Massage Parlor" should realize that there is human trafficking and it even happens in the US. This is also a big issue in a lot of church organizations-one of the things about child sponsorship programs is that they help protect children from the predators that would use them in such horrible ways.
Do you doubt for a moment that Clinton isn't intimately aware of the existence of Asian Massage Parlors?