June 15, 2007, Turin, Italy: When Angel, 21, decided to leave her home in Nigeria for Italy, she expected to work in a factory. Instead, on arrival, she found herself forced into degrading sexual acts with multiple customers.
Angel (not her real name) is just one of thousands of young Nigerian women who have been trafficked into sexual slavery, and she recounted her story to counselors at the offices of the Transnational AIDS Prevention Among Migrant Prostitutes in Europe Project (TAMPEP), in Turin last week.
Among those in attendance was Leslie Ibeanusi, one of two AP Peace Fellows who are volunteering with TAMPEP this summer. Ms Ibeanusi describes how Angel realized she had been enslaved in a recent two-part blog ("Angel's Story"):
"She (Angel) was alone in a new country and confused and scared. She shakingly followed the orders of her madam (also a Nigerian woman) and was placed on a street where she was to sell her body. Her first job was 'sex by mouth' for 20 euros.
"The room grew quiet, as if we all needed to process this information," writes Ms Ibeanusi. "In halting speech, she described how she finally escaped from her madam's house and refused to continue the work she was doing. "I want to stop it. It is bad work. I want to go back to my parents in Nigeria.' As I listened to her experience, I wept inside."
Ms Ibeanusi's blog was published on the same day as the latest annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report from the US State Department, which rated the anti-trafficking efforts of 164 governments.
The report placed Italy on the "Tier 1" category and commended the government for tough measures, including an operation ("Spartacus") earlier this year, which led to the arrest of 784 suspected traffickers. The approval is noteworthy because Italian law allows prostitution, a policy which the Bush Administration strongly opposes.
The TIP Report typically provokes strong reaction outside the United States. Many governments resent the fact that the US itself is excluded from review, even though up to 20,000 people are thought to be trafficked into the US each year.
Although civil society advocates use the report to put pressure on their own governments, they often find the rating arbitrary and confusing. Contacted by The Advocacy Project (AP), Rosanna Paradiso, the Director of TAMPEP in Turin, suggested that the authorities in Turin could do much more to deter and arrest the "madams" and pimps who prey on girls like Angel.
"The police don't have enough manpower to continuously arrest madams and traffickers," said Ms Paradiso. "These people end up in the streets again, still doing the same thing."
TAMPEP is considered a pioneer in the international fight against trafficking. As well as using "cultural mediators" to help survivors like Angel in Turin, TAMPEP recently opened an office in Benin City, Nigeria, to spread the word about the dangers of trafficking and provide support for victims who are forcibly returned from Europe.
The Advocacy Project has made a major commitment to supporting anti-trafficking civil society initiatives this summer. Two Peace Fellows - Ms Ibeanusi from George Washington University and Michelle Lanspa (Georgetown University) - are volunteering with TAMPEP in Italy, while Jennifer Hollinger (Georgetown University) is working in Albania with a local partner of the network Churches Alert to Sex Trafficking Across Europe (CHASTE).
All three fellows are blogging about their experiences, and their early blogs have shown how good writing can help to spread the message of their hosts. Commenting on Ms Ibeanusi's story of Angel, one commentator writes: "Thank God for TAMPEP and keep doing the good work, girl. Take care of yourself."
"Leslie, I've read this blog many times. Tears fall each time. You write beautifully," writes another.
> "The police don't have enough manpower to continuously arrest madams and > traffickers," said Ms Paradiso.
Very well, then how do....
"These people end up in the streets again,
> still doing the same thing."
Sounds like a revolving door scenario all over again. They arrest someone for a made up violation, the perp hands over some coinage, they let them go. Then they do it again.
I'm wondering how she was *forced* to have mouth sex yet later refused to do it anymore.
>>"The police don't have enough manpower to continuously arrest madams and >>traffickers," said Ms Paradiso.
>Very well, then how do....
>"These people end up in the streets again,
>>still doing the same thing."
>Sounds like a revolving door scenario all over again. >They arrest someone for a made up violation, the perp hands over some >coinage, they let them go. >Then they do it again.
>I'm wondering how she was *forced* to have mouth sex yet later refused to do >it anymore.
The trafficking is real. Was actually meaning to stick this in another newsgroup.
>>>"The police don't have enough manpower to continuously arrest madams and >>>traffickers," said Ms Paradiso.
>>Very well, then how do....
>>"These people end up in the streets again,
>>>still doing the same thing."
>>Sounds like a revolving door scenario all over again. >>They arrest someone for a made up violation, the perp hands over some >>coinage, they let them go. >>Then they do it again.
>>I'm wondering how she was *forced* to have mouth sex yet later refused to >>do it anymore.
> The trafficking is real. Was actually meaning to stick this in another > newsgroup.
I'm not questioning how real it is. I'm speaking more about the motive of the writer of the article.
>>The trafficking is real. Was actually meaning to stick this in another >>newsgroup.
>I'm not questioning how real it is. >I'm speaking more about the motive of the writer of the article.
Like I said, it was meant for another newsgroup (was composing while reading this newsgroup, I accidentally hit send) where I often remind people not to be patronizing and complacent about how easy it is to be Holy and Orthodox in transitional societies that once pretended to be both but now often can't afford to be. I'm glad you have not been placed in the position of having to provide mouth to mouth sustenance or be injured.
>>>The trafficking is real. Was actually meaning to stick this in another >>>newsgroup.
>>I'm not questioning how real it is. >>I'm speaking more about the motive of the writer of the article.
> Like I said, it was meant for another newsgroup (was composing while > reading this newsgroup, I accidentally hit send) where I often remind > people not to be patronizing and complacent about how easy it is to be > Holy and Orthodox in transitional societies that once pretended to be both > but now often can't afford to be. I'm glad you have not been placed in > the position of having to provide mouth to mouth sustenance or be injured.
The area I recently moved from is waist deep in trafficking. In fact, you may have heard about an incident that happened there about 6 months ago. It was on all the stations and featured on America's Most Wanted. Then last year there was a big row over a 13 yo guatamala girl that was being used as a sex slave. I think just this past week they encountered another boatload of smuggled people off the coast of Sanibel. The penalties for *using* other people against their will should be very steep, centering first and foremost on restitution.
Hi, I'm Leslie Ibeanusi, the original writer of the blogs where Angel's story was told. I dont think we can truly understand the psychological fear that comes over these girls when they arrive new in Italy, and are made to do these things. These madams are the ONLY people these girls know and they are terrified to do anything else outside of what she says. Angel was able to escape later after a church leader in Turin told her that they have shelters for girls in her condition. By then about 3 months had passed since she first entered Turin...she knew a little about the place and could make her way around somewhat. Shes a strong girl...lets not downplay that....she made a big big decision...one that many girls in her situation are not able to do. You can read more of my blogs (and more on Angel) at: http://advocacynet.org/blogs/index.php?blog=98 or www.myspace.com/livethenoise
On Jun 16, 2:40 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> The penalties for *using* other people against their will should be very > steep, centering first and foremost on restitution.
If by restitution you mean putting the traffickers under a grader and rolling back and forth a few times, before confiscating all of their worldly goods and assets and giving them to the victims, I'm with you.
Second choice would be to harvest organs for transplants for the needy. They wouldn't kill the person, just take one of everything - one eye, one arm, one leg, one kidney, one lung, half of their liver (the liver is an amazing organ, isn't it?) - then let them beg on the streets until they die. This might be considered a little severe, and the squeamish might have issues with the plan, but it would pay for itself.
Third choice, the victims get a go at the trafficker with an aluminum bat for 15 minutes, then the assets are given to the victims.
The last is as close to compassion as I'd get. And people accuse me of being a bleeding heart liberal - go figure.
> Hi, I'm Leslie Ibeanusi, the original writer of the blogs where > Angel's story was told. I dont think we can truly understand the > psychological fear that comes over these girls when they arrive new in > Italy, and are made to do these things. These madams are the ONLY > people these girls know and they are terrified to do anything else > outside of what she says. > Angel was able to escape later after a church leader in Turin told > her that they have shelters for girls in her condition. By then about > 3 months had passed since she first entered Turin...she knew a little > about the place and could make her way around somewhat. Shes a strong > girl...lets not downplay that....she made a big big decision...one > that many girls in her situation are not able to do. > You can read more of my blogs (and more on Angel) at: > http://advocacynet.org/blogs/index.php?blog=98 or > www.myspace.com/livethenoise
> Thanks, > Leslie
<sigh> One last time. I never disputed the claim and as a long term resident of SW Florida I am well aware of the situation. Just this past week, again, some smugglers were captured off the coast of Sanibel. That seems to be their docking station of late, no doubt all the gazillionaire residents like that. My issue was with the way the article was written. If you wrote the article than you should be ashamed of yourself.
> On Jun 27, 12:24 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>> My issue was with the way the article was written. >> If you wrote the article than you should be ashamed of yourself.
> WTF are you going on about, Don? The shit happens, the woman has > first hand knowledge, and you're pissing and moaning about her writing > style?
Did you read it? By adding fluff she delineates from the severity of the topic. Maybe she should write romance novels or sumfink, and YOU should read em. LOL
BTW: You are aware, aren't you, that the 2 most common *college degrees* for the past 10+ years has been in journalism and communications. Do you suppose thats because the market rewards people with those degrees very well? Or maybe they're popular because they're so easy to get?
On Jun 27, 4:40 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote in message > > On Jun 27, 12:24 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> >> My issue was with the way the article was written. > >> If you wrote the article than you should be ashamed of yourself.
> > WTF are you going on about, Don? The shit happens, the woman has > > first hand knowledge, and you're pissing and moaning about her writing > > style?
> Did you read it?
Duh. Yes.
> By adding fluff she delineates from the severity of the topic.
Maybe I should criticize you for not knowing the meaning of the word delineate. Kind of a curious flaw in a person that draws lines all day.
> Maybe she should write romance novels or sumfink, and YOU should read em. > LOL
No, Don. You're trivializing it. It's the same thing as designing a 16K SF house for someone, and they ask where they can save money - marble or tile floors in the laundry room. It's besides the point and focusing on a triviality.
> BTW: You are aware, aren't you, that the 2 most common *college degrees* for > the past 10+ years has been in journalism and communications. > Do you suppose thats because the market rewards people with those degrees > very well? > Or maybe they're popular because they're so easy to get?
What the nifong does that have to do with anything? Does the writer have a degree? You're all of a sudden a literary critic? Is it material to the subject? Or are you just losing the ability to focus in your old age?
>>On Jun 27, 12:24 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>>>My issue was with the way the article was written. >>>If you wrote the article than you should be ashamed of yourself.
>>WTF are you going on about, Don? The shit happens, the woman has >>first hand knowledge, and you're pissing and moaning about her writing >>style?
>Did you read it? >By adding fluff she delineates from the severity of the topic. >Maybe she should write romance novels or sumfink, and YOU should read em. >LOL
>BTW: You are aware, aren't you, that the 2 most common *college degrees* for >the past 10+ years has been in journalism and communications. >Do you suppose thats because the market rewards people with those degrees >very well? >Or maybe they're popular because they're so easy to get?
The credentials of the majority of these peace advocates do not include fluff degrees, even if you did discount a degree in communications or journalism as fluff.
By the way, didn't you mean "deviates from" instead of "delineates from"? If she delineates, she sharpens the focus, the opposite of what you were erroneaously suggesting. Or are you just in a big hurry to trivialize or marginalize an important topic?
>>>On Jun 27, 12:24 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>>>>My issue was with the way the article was written. >>>>If you wrote the article than you should be ashamed of yourself.
>>>WTF are you going on about, Don? The shit happens, the woman has >>>first hand knowledge, and you're pissing and moaning about her writing >>>style?
>>Did you read it? >>By adding fluff she delineates from the severity of the topic. >>Maybe she should write romance novels or sumfink, and YOU should read em. >>LOL
>>BTW: You are aware, aren't you, that the 2 most common *college degrees* >>for the past 10+ years has been in journalism and communications. >>Do you suppose thats because the market rewards people with those degrees >>very well? >>Or maybe they're popular because they're so easy to get?
> The credentials of the majority of these peace advocates do not include > fluff degrees, even if you did discount a degree in communications or > journalism as fluff.
> By the way, didn't you mean "deviates from" instead of "delineates from"? > If she delineates, she sharpens the focus, the opposite of what you were > erroneaously suggesting. Or are you just in a big hurry to trivialize or > marginalize an important topic?
Its a little more than humorous that you and Rico pick out my um mistakes but gloss over the OP's. LOL
On Jun 28, 7:45 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
> > You're all of a sudden a literary critic?
> All readers are, except you, I guess.
Could you delineate that for me?
> The writer is full of shit, and you agree with her?
Do I agree with her? I know it happens, I've never met any victims. How would my agreeing with her change the validity of the stuff she's seen? Oh, right. It wouldn't.
Read your own posts. You wrote that you don't dispute the claim, you're objecting to the writing style. Now you're saying she's full of it. Make up your mind.
>>>On Jun 27, 12:24 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote: >>Did you read it? >>By adding fluff she delineates from the severity of the topic. >>Maybe she should write romance novels or sumfink, and YOU should read em. >>LOL
>>BTW: You are aware, aren't you, that the 2 most common *college degrees* >>for the past 10+ years has been in journalism and communications. >>Do you suppose thats because the market rewards people with those degrees >>very well? >>Or maybe they're popular because they're so easy to get?
> The credentials of the majority of these peace advocates do not include > fluff degrees, even if you did discount a degree in communications or > journalism as fluff.
> By the way, didn't you mean "deviates from" instead of "delineates from"? > If she delineates, she sharpens the focus, the opposite of what you were > erroneaously suggesting. Or are you just in a big hurry to trivialize or > marginalize an important topic?
Malaprops are usually caused by "puttin' on airs".
I was hoping for a much better list somewhere on the web, but haven't search long enough. "... Archie Bunker's limited grasp of the English language resulted in a large number of now classic unintentional malapropisms during All In the Family's run (e.g. "vagrant disregard for the law", "the Pope is inflammable"). (i.e., flagrant, infallible) ..."
My homeless friend, who's actually pretty smart for a homeless guy, pulls these verbal stunts periodically. They crack me up. "... so we drove about a mile or so to a place where these two roads intercede..."
When she was 8 or 9, my kid used to try out new words out an occasionally hit one too. When you start trying to come up with them deliberately you see how tough it is.
I've got another friend how has a habit of mixing up two different clichés to hysterical effect: "That opens a can of red worms..." ("Red herring"+"another can of worms"). I don't know if this has an accepted name. It comes from not paying close attention to this stuff.
> I was hoping for a much better list somewhere on the web, but haven't search > long enough. > "... > Archie Bunker's limited grasp of the English language resulted in a large > number of now classic unintentional malapropisms during All In the Family's > run (e.g. "vagrant disregard for the law", "the Pope is inflammable"). > (i.e., flagrant, infallible) > ..."
> My homeless friend, who's actually pretty smart for a homeless guy, pulls > these verbal stunts periodically. They crack me up. "... so we drove about a > mile or so to a place where these two roads intercede..."
> When she was 8 or 9, my kid used to try out new words out an occasionally > hit one too. When you start trying to come up with them deliberately you > see how tough it is.
> I've got another friend how has a habit of mixing up two different clichés > to hysterical effect: "That opens a can of red worms..." ("Red > herring"+"another can of worms"). I don't know if this has an accepted name. > It comes from not paying close attention to this stuff.
> On Jun 28, 7:45 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote: >> "RicodJour"> wrote
>> > You're all of a sudden a literary critic?
>> All readers are, except you, I guess.
> Could you delineate that for me?
>> The writer is full of shit, and you agree with her?
> Do I agree with her? I know it happens, I've never met any victims. > How would my agreeing with her change the validity of the stuff she's > seen? Oh, right. It wouldn't.
> Read your own posts. You wrote that you don't dispute the claim, > you're objecting to the writing style. > Now you're saying she's full of it. Make up your mind.
>> Great.........
> Thanks.
Silly asses might enjoy her articles but serious people take serious topics a little more seriously. duh She might wanna consider a career writing for Cosmopolitan or as a ghost writer for Barbara Taylor Bradford.
On Jun 28, 11:01 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> Silly asses might enjoy her articles but serious people take serious topics > a little more seriously. duh > She might wanna consider a career writing for Cosmopolitan or as a ghost > writer for Barbara Taylor Bradford.
It's difficult to tell whether you're being obtuse on purpose or if you have reached some sort of mental limit. You're making an asymptote out of yourself, so it's a tough call.
It's not about the writing. You're not supposed to "enjoy" the article. You might have serious moments, but you're not a serious people.
Yes it is Rico, and its taken you far too long to realize it. Its a serious topic written in a silly manner filled with innuendo and hyperbole and I won't waste one more second going over this with you.
Ya know, thats what happens when you innundate yourself with silliness day in and day out, at some point you can't tell the diff anymore.
Michael Bulatovich wrote: >>The credentials of the majority of these peace advocates do not include >>fluff degrees, even if you did discount a degree in communications or >>journalism as fluff.
>>By the way, didn't you mean "deviates from" instead of "delineates from"? >>If she delineates, she sharpens the focus, the opposite of what you were >>erroneaously suggesting. Or are you just in a big hurry to trivialize or >>marginalize an important topic?
>Malaprops are usually caused by "puttin' on airs".
>I was hoping for a much better list somewhere on the web, but haven't search >long enough. >"... >Archie Bunker's limited grasp of the English language resulted in a large >number of now classic unintentional malapropisms during All In the Family's >run (e.g. "vagrant disregard for the law", "the Pope is inflammable"). >(i.e., flagrant, infallible) >..."
>My homeless friend, who's actually pretty smart for a homeless guy, pulls >these verbal stunts periodically. They crack me up. "... so we drove about a >mile or so to a place where these two roads intercede..."
>When she was 8 or 9, my kid used to try out new words out an occasionally >hit one too. When you start trying to come up with them deliberately you >see how tough it is.
>I've got another friend how has a habit of mixing up two different clichés >to hysterical effect: "That opens a can of red worms..." ("Red >herring"+"another can of worms"). I don't know if this has an accepted name. >It comes from not paying close attention to this stuff.
There seem to be a lot of related categories between neologisms, which kids often invent, puns, malapropism and the occasional freudian slop, er, I meant slip.
Don wrote: >>By the way, didn't you mean "deviates from" instead of "delineates from"? >>If she delineates, she sharpens the focus, the opposite of what you were >>erroneaously suggesting. Or are you just in a big hurry to trivialize or >>marginalize an important topic?
>Its a little more than humorous that you and Rico pick out my um mistakes >but gloss over the OP's.
That's presuming we saw something to comment on in the original blog.
>Silly asses might enjoy her articles but serious people take serious topics >a little more seriously. duh >She might wanna consider a career writing for Cosmopolitan or as a ghost >writer for Barbara Taylor Bradford.
I don't know who this Bradford is??? but there was nothing to suggest she was anything but serious about her new field work with trafficked people?
