An unwelcome ingredient in your Easter chocolate

Slavery.

Child slavery.

Sometimes the children are slaves to circumstance - the children of poverty-stricken farmers who have no choice but to send the whole family into the fields. The lack of education for the children ensures that the vicious cycle will continue.

But sometimes they are literally slaves.

Children who are involved in the worst labor abuses come from countries such as Mali, Burkina Faso, and Togo -- nations that are even more destitute than the impoverished Ivory Coast. Parents in these countries sell their children to traffickers believing that they will find honest work once they arrive in Ivory Coast and then send their earnings home. But as soon as they are separated from their families, the young boys are made to work for little or nothing. The children work long and hard -- they head into the fields at 6:00 in the morning and often do not finish until 6:30 at night.

" Though he had worked countless days harvesting cocoa pods -- 400 of which are needed to make a pound of chocolate -- Diabate has never tasted the finished product. "I don't know what chocolate is," he told the press.

The largest chocolate producers are aware of the problems but wash their hands of responsibility.

For years, US chocolate manufacturers have said they are not responsible for the conditions on cocoa plantations since they don't own them. But the $13 billion chocolate industry is heavily consolidated, with just two firms -- Hershey's and M&M/Mars -- controlling two-thirds of the US chocolate candy market. Surely, these global corporations have the power and the ability to reform problems in the supply chain. What they lack is the will.

After a string of media exposes and the threat of government action jeopardized their image, the chocolate industry finally agreed to take action in 2001. On November 30, 2001 the US chocolate industry released a Protocol and Joint Statement outlining their plans to work toward eliminating the worst forms of child labor (see ILO Convention 182) and forced labor (see ILO Convention 29) in cocoa production.

Unfortunately, the plan does not guarantee stable and sufficient prices for cocoa, or any guarantee that cocoa farmers will receive a fair income in the end. Without such a guarantee, there is now way to ensure that abusive child labor on cocoa farms will cease for good.

Fortunately there is something you can do about it. Insist on Fairtrade chocolate. Yes, you will pay more for your chocolate, but is getting a lower price on an unnecessary indulgence so important that we are willing to force children into slavery? Are you willing?

I'm not.

The Australian media reports on the abuse: click here.
The cocoa industry fails to deliver on its commitments: click here.

The Biblical take:

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. ... Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.

James 5:1,4

Kommentare auf Deutsch sind immer willkommen.


Technorati tags: Cocoa, Slavery

It's not just the throwaway children they're pimping

As a follow-up to my previous post on teenage prostitution, this report from Britain illustrates too well that it's not only throwaway children they're preying on. A suspicious teacher investigates a fifteen-year-old's bag and finds the accoutrements of prostitution. She definitely wasn't homeless, but that's about all we know.

This girl probably was reeled in with the promise of easy money, rather than out of desperation.

The pimping suspects were released "facing no further action". *Sigh* I hope that was only because of lack of evidence. Because it's actually pretty depressing.

Is a society where the stigmatism of prostitution is eroding, where middle-class young women (and much younger) dress like hookers putting our daughters in greater danger?


Technorati tags: Prostitution

Because, ya know, pimping children isn't BAD enough

The FBI did a nation-wide sweep to rescue teenage prostitutes. Forty-eight children were rescued. But why bring in the Feds?

Historically, federal authorities rarely play a role in anti-prostitution crackdowns, but the FBI is becoming more involved as it tries to rescue children caught up in the business.

"The goal is to recover kids. We consider them the child victims of prostitution," said FBI deputy assistant director Daniel Roberts.

"Unfortunately, the vast majority of these kids are what they term 'throwaway kids,' with no family support, no friends. They're kids that nobody wants, they're loners. Many are runaways," Roberts said.
...

The federal effort is also designed to hit pimps with much tougher prison sentences than they would likely get in state criminal courts.

Government prosecutors look to bring racketeering charges or conspiracy charges that can result in decades of jail time.

"Some of these networks of pimps and their organizations are very sophisticated, they're interstate," said Roberts.

Come again?

The federal effort is also designed to hit pimps with much tougher prison sentences than they would likely get in state criminal courts.

Government prosecutors look to bring racketeering charges or conspiracy charges that can result in decades of jail time.

Because pimping children isn't bad enough.

I remember the outrage one of my sons felt a few years ago reading the paper one day. Somebody guilty of sexually abusing a child got a sentence of ten years. Just like the guy who stole a beer truck.

What is wrong with us?

(I am in no way slamming the FBI's operation. I know their hearts bleed for these kids. It's the courts and the legislators that are messed up here.)

Organizations who are helping:
GEMS
The Dream Center
I'll add more if you tell me where to find them.


Technorati tags: Child prostitution

Evaluating Harper: child care

Part four in my evaluation of the Harper government, Conservative priority number four: helping parents with the cost of raising their children.

This is another issue for which I am going to give the Conservatives some points. I really don't think they deserve the flack they've been getting on this one.

We are talking, of course, about the Universal Child Care Benefit, the $100 monthly given for each child under 6 to be spent on popcorn and beer - er, child care. Those who oppose the Conservatives say that first of all, $100 is nowhere near enough to pay for child care. Of course, it isn't. So? It will relieve the burden by $100, and that's not a bad thing. Why should the government fund daycare 100% anyway? Putting the same amount of money into subsidized day care spots would make a big difference for a very small number of people. For most people it would be no help at all. And the people doing the screaming never do address the issue that the $100 also goes to parents who take care of their own children, who really do appreciate getting a little positive recognition for a change.

The reason the opponents don't address this issue is because it would make them look really bad. They'd have to admit they don't care about those parents because they are - gasp! - taking their lives in their own hands instead of asking government to do it for them and that makes them highly suspect.

There is a fundamental difference of philosophy at play here. One mentality says it is the responsibility of government to solve all my problems and to make sure that I bear the weight of my own decisions as little as possible. The other mentality just asks for basic justice (read - protection from criminal abuse) and security from government and the freedom to make their own way in life. I come down pretty squarely on the second side. I dealt with some severely abused people some years ago and it became very clear to me that an attitude of victimhood effectively blocked any possibility of healing and moving on.

So I have completely lost patience with victimology. And screaming that the government isn't doing enough to make my life easier is just another form of it. Get over it. I raised five children without subsidized daycare. Yes, it meant I sacrificed a possible career or two, and yes, it meant that we lived at a much lower income than we would have with a smaller family. I didn't whine or complain about that. I figured the children were more important than a fancy house and a status symbol vehicle. And not one of those five kids believes that anybody owes them a handout. Of course, they'll take help if it's offered - I did too - but they won't complain if it isn't. They actually believe they should be prepared to make sacrifices to succeed. Somehow, I think that's a more meaningful contribution to society than most careers would have been.

You can see all this as a digression if you will, but I don't think it is. I'm not getting a cent out of the Conservatives' policies for helping families, and I agree that the help is more symbolic than substantial, but that's OK. I kind of appreciate the gesture anyway. It's refreshing to have the government help out more than one kind of family and give a little recognition to those families that have been overlooked in the past.

And I am one of those who think that popcorn and beer comment was very revealing, although it wasn't news. The message was loud and clear: We know how to run your life better than you do and we are going to make sure you do it our way.

If the Conservatives help start to turn that kind of mentality around, it may yet have been worth voting for them. I'll confess to being a little cynical about the possibility, but one can always hope. I can't see that anybody else is even going to try.

Technorati tags: Stephen Harper, Child Care

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Sept. 20

Steve Janke at Angry in the Great White North is advancing the argument that tolerance is not a good thing. He says it is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself, and then ties the whole thing in to the current kerfuffle over the Pope's comments. A thought-provoking read.


Jared at Total Depravity gives us a wonderful description of a movie theatre full of enraptured children. He reminds me of Greg Sullivan at Sippican Cottage for his ability to find the wonder and poetry of everyday life. Both are like balm to a hectic soul.


And Alan Stewart Carl at Maverick Views has concluded that there is no vital centre, nothing to pull the middle together between the right and the left. He's not saying that there can't be, just that there isn't. His distinction between centrists and moderates is interesting and even useful.

Technorati tags: Pope Benedict