child brides

Another way in which we can look in our own backyard for our contribution to the problem and to its possible solution is to understand how globalization and our tolerance for human trafficking (in order to ‘help’ Third-World countries pay back the huge debts we have foisted on them) directly create the conditions that bring imnpoverished families to have to sell their daughters, whether it is to local aging men - easier to hate when visibly Islamic - or to mail-ordering Western husbands or even to brothel-suppliers called upon to feed the demand created for women deemed ‘exotic’ by pimps in the back pages of your local ‘cultural’ weekly or daily tabloid and by politicians eager for the tourist dollar.

This is no rhetoric: the Standing Committee on the Status of Women amply documented the direct link bwetween prostitution and this human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation to supply demand in a report published earler this year.* Some people ought to read this report; although endorsed by most political parties, it seems conveniently ignored when discussions take a neo-liberal hue.

In the current public discussion as to whether brothels and pimps should be given legitimacy in our country, [b]Lee Lakeman[/b] of the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centers, posted on the PAR-L listserv two days ago a cogent summary of these interrelated issues and the effect of decisions we take here in Canada on the welfare of girls worldwide.

I am reposting it here with her permission :

quote:

---

I appreciate many contributions to this list serve over the last couple of months. In particular I found Linda Green very helpful reminding me of the thirty years of feminist construction and use of 'point of view' and of how to take into account 'the point of the earth on which we stand' and the moment of patriarchy in which we are living and deciding and making our way. I have found your contributions astoundingly generous and steadfast to your feminist belief that women can learn and must speak with each other respectfully to do so. I take instruction from that.

You have reminded us that of course our experiences as women and our positions in the patriarchal power structures affect our self interest, our reception of social reinforcement and our sources of information and therefore our starting opinions and inclinations.

Feminist principles (and in fact any attempt to be intelligent) require us to take self-knowledge and knowledge of the lives of others into account while speaking listening and writing. It is even more important to take those interests into account while building alliances within our groups and between our groups. Of course "take into account" does not mean freezing our brain or abandoning our responsibility to think and consider for ourselves. I take your point about dumbing down feminism.

We each have a responsibility to build theories of our own which can be described, admitted, and offered for the critical judgment of other feminists as well. It is neither good nor smart to following like sheep nor to allow ourselves to be blackmailed with two bit moralism instead of convinced by evidence and theories. Collectivizing and organizing in democratic formations gives us more accountability in return for increased intelligence and solidarity.

It is good to be reminded that mistaking every opinion from any one person standing for the interests of a whole group that has not chosen them as a speaker is at best tokenism, and at worst opportunist and tyrannical. Most women on this list represent no-one other than themselves. They are not elected or appointed to speak for anyone else. Some are not even members of a decision making democratic group with an expressed basis of unity on this subject.

None the less all the conversations have been revealing and instructive and I wanted others to know that although I have little time for writing here, I do appreciate your diligence and care and your execution of your privilege as a source of protection for abused women but also for eager minds, particularly with the issue of trafficking / prostitution and the violence against women that it is.

I am a white woman from a working class and welfare background, a single mother of a black son. I have done thirty years activist work against violence against women and am an elected official of several name-able women's groups with policy on the subject. I work for the abolition of prostitution. With my collective I house and advise and feed and encourage women who call us for relief from the sexist violence imposed on them and their daughters and sisters. Every month of my adult life I have been in communication and support of nameable prostituted women and girls. I helped to write the rape law which particularly described the issue of prostituted women and rape and which was defended in parliamentary hearings by women in prostitution

It is true that I have not had to nor chosen to sell access to myself for sex. But I am entitled to and required to have an opinion as to whether or not it is a good idea to allow men to buy access to women and girls. And I am entitled to an opinion as to whether or not the statistics tell us legalizing / total decriminalizing will create more misery for the women I know and with whom I speak. I am entitled to carry the opinions of those who have elected or appointed me to speak for the collective at Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter, the Vancouver Anti-Trafficking Coalition, the Vancouver Abolition Table, The Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centers and others who share the same opinion.

Our collective opinions built on our lives and tested in our work has developed into a theory that to legalize/decriminalize or otherwise tolerate prostitution in Canada in 2007-8 would be and is being a serious mistake for the advancement of women, for the safety of prostituted women for the well being of women of the third world and aboriginal communities and for girls worldwide. It is our suspicion that both the co-op brothel plans proposed in BC are cynical tactics in the fight for legalization / decriminalization. It is our theory that men can stop buying sex and buying access to women's bodies and that we collectively demand that change. And we insist that the government ban on such behaviour be enforced.

It is also a shared observation and now theory that the Canadian state is withdrawing from its obligations to provide goods and services and to redistribute income among people. Those obligations in law were won by working people since the 1930's and those naming women in particular were won in the sixties and seventies. The Canadian government is at the same moment criminalizing more and more women for poverty crimes. It is our theory that the Canadian state can be forced to respond to violence against women and to the needs of its residents. We therefore demand access to goods and services including exit services and to secure incomes and to the decriminalizing of the women and children who have been forced to survive by prostitution.

Yes the situation is urgent and horrible. It's like watching women's bodies rushing down river in front of us. We must fish them out and resuscitate them fast enough to catch the next and we must split up so that some of us run up the river and catch the men who are throwing them in. Obviously the thing we need most is for men to stop attacking women.

We need emergency housing, mental health services and detox and addiction services especially where women can go with kids. We need health care and education and training opportunities. But as sexually exploited young Cherry Kingsley argued, "all women need these things and women shouldn't have to service men to qualify for them".

We invented rape crisis centers (1973), transition houses (1973) and women centers to be of use to women escaping all forms of violence, women in need of contact and advocacy. Our centers must welcome women as users, staffers and board or collective members regardless of which men attacked them. And regardless of how patriarchal society blames every group of abused women for the violence done to us.

Specialized women's exit services like PACE and PAAFE add special understanding and special opportunities. My collective helped in the formation of ASP and POWER in the 80's out of which we created the bad trick sheet and mutual aid training packs. We demand the decriminalizing of women and kids prostituted. We demand better care for children "in care" especially girls and children apprehended from their aboriginal, poor or immigrant communities.

CASAC Rape Crisis centers agreed that to prevent women being pitched into and sacrificed to the streets, we urgently need a guaranteed livable income as we described in the [url=http://www.casac.ca/english/pictou.statement.htm]Pictou Statement[/url]. We need effective equality based policing of violence against women, better prosecution of abusers and access to the courts with no pre-court diversion of men's violence against women cases. We need to recognize and end the racist and colonialist nature of most of the violence against women including prostitution. We need to press for international peace processes and settle land claims and change immigration policy and our exploitation of the third world to deal with the fact that most trafficked women and kids are driven into it by poverty and environmental degradation in their homelands including reserves.

Lee Lakeman

---

[url=http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?COM=10477&SourceId... Outrage Into Action...[/url]

[ 23 December 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]civic duty is shocked that western feminists haven't done anything about child brides in Afghanistan. He wonders what we can we do about it besides eradicating poverty and educating women?

What indeed? Surely, supporting progressive women within those countries can't possibly be a solution. Surely the solution MUST be intervention from international relief agencies led by the same western countries who have been meddling in Afghan affairs and backing these oppressive, sexist warlords for the last several decades!

Hey, I know! Maybe we can invade Afghanistan and free those poor oppressed women and children! I'll bet that would work!

Okay, that was kind of sarcastic, but I feel really annoyed that the one feminist woman in this thread who suggested supporting Afghan women on the ground working for change was completely ignored in favour of interventionist, male-led solutions.

[ 22 December 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ][/b]

---

Thanks Michelle. I'm not a good voice here but was hoping someone would chime in. My male-led solution is listen to the women more.

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 23 December 2007: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by civicduty:
[b]I understand that education and getting directly to the mothers and the daughters is the answer.[/b]

---

Ignoring my first impulse to metaphorically tear you a new one, I will simply ask you whether it is your understanding that it is the mothers and daughters of Afghanistan who need the education, or whether it is the Canadian-backed warlord government and the men of Afghanistan?

M. Spector once again makes an excellent point.

There's no use trying to funnel money to Afghanistan through large NGOs that work with the government of Afghanistan. It's just going to prop up the warlords in power.

But a group like RAWA is actually fighting the good fight on the ground. It's a grassroots organization committed to improving the lot of Afghan women and children, not only by providing education to women and children, but also by directly OPPOSING the men who are oppressing them. And they're not afraid to stand up to the regimes that are filled with men who hold such sexist and retrograde beliefs about women.

If you want to support Afghan women's rights, then support the women there who have organized to fight for their own rights and those of their sisters.

Have you checked out RAWA's web site yet, civic duty?

quote:

---

But a group like RAWA is actually fighting the good fight on the ground. It's a grassroots organization committed to improving the lot of Afghan women and children, not only by providing education to women and children, but also by directly OPPOSING the men who are oppressing them. And they're not afraid to stand up to the regimes that are filled with men who hold such sexist and retrograde beliefs about women.

If you want to support Afghan women's rights, then support the women there who have organized to fight for their own rights and those of their sisters.

---

That's really great to know. I will definitely check out the website as well.

Now if they had the billions Canada is pouring into Mr. Karzai's corrupt regime...

[url=http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/feminism-friday-this-... Feminism 101 - this is my new favorite blog, I swear.[/url]

quote:

---

Feminism Friday: that “why are Western feminists such cowards about atrocities in other countries?” lie

Shorter Pamela Bone: feminists are such cowardly hypocrites for being against FGM and rape in war whenever any culture does it instead of just specially castigating Islamic societies where such brutalities occur.

I posted over at Hoyden About Town a few days ago with more background to Bone’s article about how she bravely spoiled a literary evening by insisting on asking the keynote speaker, Professor Germaine Greer, a question about Darfur that had nothing to do with literature. I also noted how real live feminists are actually supporting and financing the efforts of grassroots organisations in cultures with traditionally oppressive traditions, to reform those traditions without having to reject the entirety of their culture, exactly along the lines of how abolitionists gradually persuaded Western societies that the Biblical verses traditionally used to support slavery could be set aside as incompatible with the larger tradition and without having to reject Christianity entirely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nanuq:
[b]You do realize that child marriages aren't just happening in Afghanistan, right? The practice is spread across most of the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia. I was writing about this in my blog so I thought I'd share more about it

[url=http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2008/01/marrying-too-yo.html]he...

The medical and social issues are pretty horrendous. There have also been cases in Western countries (albeit illegal).[/b]

---

Why do the cases of child brides primarily occur in these countries?

The criminal [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_La... sect in the United-States and Canada also engages in such practices as well, but their numbers are insignificant compared to the rest of the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234567:
[b]

because it is cultural but that doesn't make it okay and while we may point the finger at them, I think we are just as bad with our age of consent laws being 14 years old.[/b]

---

Our age of consent laws are just fine thank you. Criminalizing youth sexuality is not going to help. Arresting pedophiles is what needs to occur the laws are there if they are used.

[url=http://www.ageofconsent.ca/]Age of Consent Coalition[/url]

quote:

---

Background Information:

Previous legislation was passed in Parliament in 2005, which already prevents anyone from engaging in an 'exploitative' sexual relationship with a person under 18 (1). The definition of 'exploitation' is quite broad and open to interpretation. In this context, we fail to see how an increase to the age of consent is needed to protect youth. Only 'non-exploitative' sexual activity will be criminalized.

While the government claims that the increase will protect youth, the opposite is much more likely. Studies show that youth are significantly less likely to seek sexual health information or advice if they fall below the age of consent (2). With young people making up a large percentage of new HIV and STI/STD infections, this proposal has dangerous consequences for youth education and public health.

The Department of Justice Canada issued the following statement in October 2005: "Educating youth to make informed choices that are right for them is better addressed through parental guidance and sexual health education than by using the Criminal Code to criminalize youth for engaging in such activity." (3)

The Age of Consent Committee stands firmly opposed to this dangerous proposal of the Harper government, and will take action to stop the criminalization of youth sexuality.

---

quote:

---

Previous legislation was passed in Parliament in 2005, which already prevents anyone from engaging in an 'exploitative' sexual relationship with a person under 18 (1). The definition of 'exploitation' is quite broad and open to interpretation. In this context, we fail to see how an increase to the age of consent is needed to protect youth. Only 'non-exploitative' sexual activity will be criminalized.

---

It is the above that I hope will take care of the pedophiles you are worried about. My concern is criminalizing behaviour between a 15 year old and a 14 year old. The way the new legislation is written a 15 year old girl could get arrested for being sexually curious with a 14 year old and be labelled a sex offender for the rest of her life. Like many of the law and order issues I wish we would use the laws we have in place before we throw up our hands and impose more draconian measures.

But this is thread drift. To me the issue around child brides is exactly the issue that the 2005 amendment was meant to prevent in Canada, that is the sexual exploitation of minors.

quote:

---

Fourteen-year olds are too young to appreciate the consequences of engaging in any sexual activity, even with another person who is close in age. Why won’t the government raise the age to 16 years for non-exploitative activity?

Although there are many views on what is an appropriate age to begin to engage in sexual activity, the fact is that young persons do engage in sexual activity. The Canadian Youth, Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Study 2003 report by the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education reported that, for youth who reported being sexually active , the average age of first sexual intercourse was 14.1 years for boys and 14.5 years for girls. Educating youth to make informed choices that are right for them is better addressed through parental guidance and sexual health education than by using the Criminal Code to criminalize youth for engaging in such activity.

Has the age of consent always been 14 years?

Although some mistakenly believe that the age of consent was lowered in the 1980s, the age of consent to sexual activity has been 14 years since 1890 when it was raised from 12 years.

Isn’t Canada’s age of consent law lower than that of other countries?

Comparisons between Canada’s age of consent laws to those in other countries often do not differentiate between those that apply to “exploitative” sexual activity and those that apply to other activity. A complete comparison, including the significantly broadened protection against exploitative sexual activity provided by Bill C-2, shows that Canada’s criminal law framework of protection against the sexual exploitation and abuse of children and youth is amongst the most comprehensive anywhere.

---