'slave' empire uncovered in major police raid

[MKSheppard]

It's not insurmountably difficult to dispose of a body with a bit of forethought and planning, or at least create reasonable doubt if and when the remains do turn up. I'd rather have the slavers plea-bargain their way out of a long sentence while their victims go on to make a full recovery.

I hate to bring SF up, but in David Weber's Honorverse, they had exactly this issue -- slavers would dump their slaves the moment they thought they might run into trouble.

So what happened was that the Manties and Havenites actually cooperated and passed a law that said that if your ship was found with the equipment to carry slaves, but no slaves were found; then you were ipso facto considered guilty of mass murder -- spacing your slaves -- because where are they?

This like so much of Weber's work was stolen from actual history -- there was an Equipment Clause used by the anti-slavery patrols off of Africa from 1808 onwards -- a ship could be seized if it had signs it would carry slaves:

• Large Cooking Pots
• Shackles/Manacles
• Large amounts of wood planking (to form a slave deck)

[K. A. Pital]

Modern slavery may not have "signs of slavery" like that. A locked-up concrete basement is not exactly enough evidence to say a person is a slaver. It can be enough to hold lots of slaves in horrific conditions and make them do stuff.

I said it before and I'll reiterate, modern slavery is like clean torture. It spends a lot of effort to be unobservable at first glance. It spends effort to hide the slaves, and it would surely spend effort to hide the bodies.

[Broomstick]

And not just by shooting them in the head and dissolving the bodies in acid ; We're also talking dumping shipping containers full of people into the sea, leaving locked trucks out in the desert etc - where the authorities would be hard pressed to even know there's human trafficking going on if there's no actual humans. Hell, the goddamn coyotes sometimes leave their passengers to die despite the fact they face pretty lenient punishment for aiding illegal immigration, compared to murder.

^ This. I was about to say human traffickers already sometimes kill their victims. Yes, including leaving people in the desert to die, or locked shipping containers dumped somewhere, or railcars full of people dying of heat or cold or thirst somewhere.

[Lord Baal]

The best punishment would be life sentence with forced labor! I would be sweet to see them work their way to death

=oD

[Metahive]

That would just open the gates for state-approved prisoner-slavery and the "work them to death" part both morally abhorrent as well as wasteful. I would rather not give the government the power to just this, thank you.

[Lord Baal]

I forgot not to be too figurative here.... *sigh..

Life sentence (or any length sentence), just siting and being a parasite of the state would not be punishment enough. Forced labor would be fine (as long it does not kill the person, granted) but will be a fine punishment, even in the event of not being life sentence, but say 14 years with forced labor. By forced labor I don't mean chained guys with picks and shovels working until fainting on the sun. More like textiles workshop and the sort.

Then what you propose?

[Metahive]

I repeat that I won't support state-sponsored slavery of any sort especially not anything that's commercially exploitable, that just gives certain people ideas. How are you going to argue against slavery if you're really only against certain forms of it? Slightly incongruent, don'tcha think?

[Lord Baal]

Fine, you can pay them for the work, save the money and give it to them once they get out (actually not a bad idea, they won't need to commit crime as soon they get out), in case of life sentence they can leave the money to whoever they want (a family, a charity organization) and that way it would be paid work. However they would receive shelter, food, clothes and medical attention and be keep alive despise being lower than garbage, that seems like a pay already (and more than what they did for their victims).

[The Romulan Republic]

So, what do you suggest?

I was wondering this myself. Which government building or corporate headquaters should we set fire to? Since peaceful and legal methods will apearantly never work.

Even if I thought for one moment that this would end slavery, which I don't, I hardly think trading the horrors of slavery for the horrors of bloody revolution and terrorism is a good solution.

[K. A. Pital]

Even if I thought for one moment that this would end slavery, which I don't, I hardly think trading the horrors of slavery for the horrors of bloody revolution and terrorism is a good solution.

Oi, wait, I said about the government throwing slavers into jail, and suddenly I'm a terrorist. Good grief. I may be a revolutionary, but you seem to be absolutely incapable of comprehending just what I wrote in the thread.

Throwing the asses of people who have been implicated in assisting slavery into jail as the very least one can do.

So you're bringing up a boogeyman? And yes, I think that war and blood are perfectly adequate if they actually end slavery, like in your imaginary example; after all, people during the US civil war thought the same and I don't see many people defending the South here. In fact, most people here post lengthy explanations on just how the war was totally justified, because it was fought over slavery, a practice so archaic and vile that not even the mass deaths of the American Civil War prevent people from supporting abolition as a cause.

What did you add here with your kneejerk? Oh right, nothing, except "Gee, I think anyone who wants to end slavery by any methods other than voting with your dollar is a terrorist". Go fuck yourself.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oi, wait, I said about the government throwing slavers into jail, and suddenly I'm a terrorist. Good grief. I may be a revolutionary, but you seem to be absolutely incapable of comprehending just what I wrote in the thread.

Well seeing as how I wasn't talking to you, I'm not sure why you're upset.

So you're bringing up a boogeyman? And yes, I think that war and blood are perfectly adequate if they actually end slavery, like in your imaginary example; after all, people during the US civil war thought the same and I don't see many people defending the South here. In fact, most people here post lengthy explanations on just how the war was totally justified, because it was fought over slavery, a practice so archaic and vile that not even the mass deaths of the American Civil War prevent people from supporting abolition as a cause.

You can argue was is justified if it would actually end slavery, and if there is no other way in which to do so. But I would note that the Civil War was a case of government-authorized slavery. Here, the acts in question are already generally opposed by the state, are they not (albeit not as effectively as they might be)?

What did you add here with your kneejerk? Oh right, nothing, except "Gee, I think anyone who wants to end slavery by any methods other than voting with your dollar is a terrorist". Go fuck yourself.

Straw man. There are a host of legal, peaceful methods besides boycotts to go after these things, and I neither endorsed or rejected any of them specifically.

I expect an immediate retraction and apology for your misrepresentation and straw man. Until then, go fuck yourself, asshole.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

So, what do you suggest?

I was wondering this myself. Which government building or corporate headquaters should we set fire to? Since peaceful and legal methods will apearantly never work.

Even if I thought for one moment that this would end slavery, which I don't, I hardly think trading the horrors of slavery for the horrors of bloody revolution and terrorism is a good solution.

Neither do I, that was a sarcastic crack at Stas' appearent disdain of boycotts and protests, ect. Since Stas has further elaborated on his position, I kinda feel like a jackass for making it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Misunderstanding, then. I thought you were actually suggesting those things as solutions. More proof of how badly sarcasm can translate over the internet, I guess.

I still find Stas' attack on me rather preposterous, though.

[K. A. Pital]

I still find Stas' attack on me rather preposterous, though.

Sure, whatever. I thought the "revolution" and "terrorism" bit referred to me. I do not take it lightly, because people have been shutting up other people by using the "terrorist!" cry since god knows how long. Especially as people know full well that I can side with "terrorists" (e.g. the people who were blowing up colonial officials or killing occupation army soldiers, etc.) and I can and would, more often than not, support a revolution, as I do not abhor violence in principle, it was not a big deal to read it as a conscious jab at me. Duh.

Neither do I, that was a sarcastic crack at Stas' appearent disdain of boycotts and protests, ect.

I laid out good grounds for my disdain, and the chief reasons lie in inadequacy. I am not saying one shouldn't boycott, merely showing that "conscious consumerism" is absolutely inadequate to deal with the problem; it has not, by and large, impacted it. You can engage in it for moral grounds, to keep your own conscience clean, but you should realize that other methods should also be used, else the result won't be there.

Here, the acts in question are already generally opposed by the state, are they not (albeit not as effectively as they might be)?

They are, which is why I said it can be solved by the state (and I mean First World state) penalizing those that engage in practices of contracting out slavers. If the authorities are inept and cannot do anything, or if human trafficking runs rampant with authorities turning a complete blind eye, being malevolent, and a revolution could bring an end to that, I would support that revolution more likely than not.

[Eulogy]

So what ideas do you have, Stas? What would actually work?

[Broomstick]

The slavery mentioned in the OP is criminal, but you're never going to entirely eliminate it anymore than you will entirely eliminate theft - it's just too damn appealing to make someone else do the work and skim the profit for yourself if you can get away with it.

So, it becomes a matter of how to reduce crime to a minimum.

[K. A. Pital]

So what ideas do you have, Stas? What would actually work?

Installing laws to harshly punish those who contract slavers? Might be a priority. Unless you also think democracy doesn't work. In which case, well... Not much left to do, then. I'm not going to give advice on how to behave when all legal venues of action seem inadequate, everyone decides that for himself. If someone burns down Nike's office because they contracted slavers, I would not weep a single tear, although unless the actions are systemic, well-thought-through and designed to attract publicity, there is little chance that would change anything. And since I'm sort of - well, politically involved - my position is that at some point you have to act. Like with that forest thing in Russia, where lots of people were mauled or killed, at some point the activists just burned down the construction machinery and destroyed the city administration building. And it seemed at a point they actually had a chance to change something (except it failed, because... well, let's leave it at "they didn't think it through well enough").

Infiltrating the system (and by that I mean the judicial system, for those studying as lawyers etc.) and then using your position to push for a legal reform like above, to start cases on companies suspected of dealing with slavers, etc. - is also a good idea. It requires a lot of persistence, it is overall a good tactic and it takes truly an inhuman resilience to rise up through levels of rotten flesh that is the power structure and still keep your goals at hand; and actually pursue them once you get the ability to do so.

Bear in mind that anything you do can fail; we are only human. Estimate your strength well, consider your capabilities. If you think that perhaps you could do more with some other tactic than the ones I described above, please, do so.

Sometimes I feel we're disempowered, but another day I see people's collective action - usually political, not consumerist! - pressing at the shady borders where injustice collides with oppression, and I think to myself that perhaps I'm overtly pessimistic.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I

laid out good grounds for my disdain, and the chief reasons lie in inadequacy. I am not saying one shouldn't boycott, merely showing that "conscious consumerism" is absolutely inadequate to deal with the problem; it has not, by and large, impacted it. You can engage in it for moral grounds, to keep your own conscience clean, but you should realize that other methods should also be used, else the result won't be there.

Yeah, you did, hence me feeling like a jackass.