Abolitionist c.2015

“I believe tyranny, slavery, and evil can be fought and defeated by civil men with just means. Do not assume that civility precludes the savage. This is the war for the lives and futures of our children. There is no room for cowardice or delicacy on the front line.”

This is quickly becoming one of my favorite quotes.  It doesn’t hurt that it’s mine, but more than that, it says what so many of us are trying to.  We have spent so much time dismissing semantics that our words no longer have the meaning they ought.  I can no longer be “pro-life” because it is perceived as “anti-woman.”

We are currently at war with factions that label themselves “Islamic” and yet, in the US our leadership is chastised by other leaders and the populace for using the same name.  If you take a peek at news coverage of Westboro Baptist Church, they’re readily identified as far leaning Christians.  As a Catholic, I am sickened by their behavior and consider them nothing more than a tax sheltered hate group, but I don’t bristle at the media reporting that they claim “Christian” beliefs to justify their behavior.  I do take exception to being lumped in with them, as I expect any American Muslim would at being lumped in with Daesh or Hezbollah.

I’m having major language issues inside the Abolitionist movement. So you know, I’m talking about the end of modern day sex and labor slavery. I could give you numbers for days, but for now, trust me, it’s pretty bad.

First of all, we’re battling our own definitions.  The government puts out numbers and estimates, but doesn’t alliterate on what numbers they are or are not counting.  By merit of excluding certain types of crimes against children from their sex trafficking head count, they trim a seven digit number down to “approximately 100,000.” Dirty Joe can pay to sodomize a child, but it won’t make it into the count because sodomy isn’t “sex.” Thanks to well meaning but misguided activists, many states no longer have a sodomy law and haven’t re-written rape laws.  I won’t get into the bad stuff, but suffice to say, there are some loopholes that are being exploited by the government to make the numbers look lower than they really are. *cough* John Kerry sucks *cough*

Another language issue we’re having is within the movement, relates to how folks label themselves. So many factions are zealously guarding their corner of the fight that they refuse help or the advancement of the cause from perceived outsiders.  The other day, it was from reps from a “sextortion” FBI task force that were so adamant that their fight was 1000% unrelated to human or child trafficking that it colored the whole presentation. They railed on and on about it being unrelated. I would argue that the exchange of “sextorted” images for other images or for bitcoins (digital currency) would qualify the crime as commerce and the perpetrator as a trafficker of sexually exploitedf855909d23c086734401ef57ad932bed persons. To further prove that they were not abolitionists, one of these feds insisted that “most” prostitutes (adult and child) were willing. She also defended the notion that lured or coerced children are still “runaways”if they were not removed from home by force. I can’t even…

In another vein, I’ve befriended activists that are fighting to get mandatory minimum sentences enacted for crimes against children.  THAT’S MUSIC TO THIS ABOLITIONIST’S EARS!!!  Why? Because people who pay to rape/molest/sodomize children or who exchange sextorted images, or any other variety pedophile would face major time!!  WHOO HOOO! BRING. IT. ON! Oh, but wait.  They don’t want to be involved in the abolition movement because “child prostitutes are different.”

I’ll let you digest that for a second.  Look at the cat.

Yeah, so these people who should be an abolitionist’s spirit animals and super heroes, don’t want to be lumped in.  I tried to explain the grooming process for recruiters and the “seasoning” process pimps use to turn these kids out and was met with exception and accusation.  One woman actually said what abolitionists are fighting is worse, therefore we need our own set of unrelated laws.  By her own admission, she didn’t think sentencing of “regular pedophiles” would stand up to scrutiny if they were sentenced by the same standard as the ones who pay.  So?  End result was I was told to stay in my lane.

I’m saddened by this, because so many jurisdictions are still arresting and charging the CHILDREN who are being trafficked for prostitution and the pedophile johns for simple solicitation.  I’ll accept “regular pedophile” sentencing for these folks if it means they’ll be held accountable for their deviance.

The final language barrier in abolitionism is the triggering one.  I’ve been turned way and cancelled from lectures and appearances time and again because various leaders recoil at the potential for complaint.  One entity was brave enough to ask me to remove a handful of terms and topics from my “Intro to trafficking” presentation.  What words?  I’m glad you asked.

“PENETRATION” “RAPE” “SURVIVAL SEX” “PIMP” 

That’s not all of them, but those are the whammies.  I’ve also been turned away because my call to action for persons to get involved has been construed as criticism of police.  I’m baffled by this, but the bottom line is this: the powers that be are so scare of a complain in the comment box that they’d rather fight positive change than take down the box.

I’ve been removed from, and muzzled by, organizations because they fear the language and the potential for conflict more than they desire to affect change.  Look at the abolitionists of the past and tell me they weren’t willing to risk death or imprisonment to save lives. That’s to say nothing of being unpopular or “triggering”.

I cannot think of an instance where I spoke to a group and didn’t see disgust, rage, tears, or sickness.  If I didn’t see that when discussing the enslavement and sexual torture of children, I’d probably start making serious plans for the apocalypse.

 

 

Buy insurance while you can!

Lets consider this: if I were inclined, I’d insist on limiting golfers in the number of clubs they can have so as to make it more difficult for the clubs to be abused. It won’t be as much fun but golfers can play a whole round with just a 3 wood. Oh but golf clubs aren’t dangerous? I seem to recall Tiger Woods crashing his truck while trying to escape a 90 pound underwear model with one. Imagine if Fuzzy Zeller had the inclination to break a few skulls. He’d clog up the I-5 with the chaos and havoc his skills afford him.

Point is, we have these guns because we can, practice because it’s fun, and protect them zealously from oversight or controls because we understand that technology and invention have eliminated geography as a deterrent to attack. As children, we were told stories of McCarthyism, the red scare, Hitler, and doomsday from the fresh memories of our elders. We were told that no nation ever outruns the tendrils of tyranny. No government ever examines itself and admits wrong doing, or seeks to correct a mistake at the expense of power. We were told that maybe in ours or our children’s lifetimes, we would be challenged to protect what we hold dear. We were told that it would be subtle and it would be slow, but no matter how it happened it would start by fracturing our resolve. Then eroding our liberty, then disarming our willful. Finally, new laws to save us would seal our fates.

Just as we seek to learn from our past, tyrants can too.  The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.  It was an insurance policy to protect the people from a government that is too big or too powerful or too slack to protect them.  Law makers act as though history could never repeat itself or that the laws written in the eighteenth century hold no value hundreds of years later.  They write laws that brazenly state their desire to limit the 2nd Amendment. They come up with tacky names for guns, calling them assault rifles, weapons of war, devices of slaughter.  They act as though there is no precedent for citizens to be armed for war.

It was only one hundred and fifty years ago that the nation we live in took up arms and fought a war on our own continent.  More than once we’ve had the enemy living among us planning our destruction.Within the last fifty years, time and again citizens were charged with protecting themselves from rioters, looters, and even the police.   Not even ten years ago, bedlam broke out in the aftermath of a natural disaster.  Armed criminals were targeting the few police officers that had maintained their posts. The solution was not to think critically about what the criminals intended to do once they controlled the city, it was order the disarmament of citizens in their own homes.  However short lived the order may have been, it proves that our leaders are no more equipped today than one hundred and fifty or three hundred and fifty years ago to assume complete control of their citizens and complete responsibility for their safety.

When was the last time a victim of stalking was given a personal body guard?  They’re given a piece of paper, told to learn how to defend themselves, and encouraged to change their entire lives.  When was the last time a battered wife and mother was told that her husband would never ever be able to harm her or her children again?  They’re given a piece of paper and told to come to court repeatedly, forced to share custody with an abuser, and cautioned to not run or face jail time.  When was the last time a land lord cut the crime scene tape away from a house in a dangerous neighborhood and reassured new tenants  that the police would keep it from happening again?

We’re being told to lock our doors and rely on the police and a piece of paper to protect us from the uncontrollable urges of deviants, a growing government, and the undeniable reality that history can and will repeat itself if we allow it to.