Anti-Slavery Flotilla - who should go, and where?

Slavery in the Western sphere of influence has been well documented, ranging from ancient Biblical, Greek and Roman empires, to plantation slavery in the Americas and the horrific Atlantic slave trade.
Islamic slavery is less understood: en.wikipedia.org...

Nowadays it has been mooted that Western countries should pay slave reparations to slave descendants, especially in the US.
However, it appears that slavery is still on-going, which is a less politically correct view, but entails the suffering of millions that must be highlighted.

Considering that a flotilla has highlighted the plight of besieged Palestinians, perhaps it is time to use a flotilla against all the countries where slavery is practised.

However, firstly how do we define slavery?
What form should this flotilla take and who should be on it?
And then, what welcome can it expect, even when it launches in-land expeditions?
How would Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Lebanon, Niger or the UAE respond to such a flotilla?
How would the US respond, when Mexican/Latin American workers' rights are highlighted?

reply to post by halfoldman

I'd firstly like to see top African diaspora figures for (symbolic) historical and current reasons: SA President Jacob Zuma and Thabo Mbeki, as well as US President Obama.
I'd also like to see the top US/UK Imans and Islamic clerics, including symbolic Muslim musician Yussuf Islam (former Cat Stevens). I'd like to see Nation of Islam members.

reply to post by halfoldman

I believe there's a verse in the Gospels that says "take the log out of your own eye" before you point fingers at other people.

So Islamic scholars must prove that - let them confront all the local beliefs that suppress human rights in Muslim countries.

Otherwise they are also just complicit with evil.

reply to post by halfoldman


Let the Christians, Jews and atheists, traditional leaders do the same when it comes to slavery

reply to post by halfoldman


First of all, why would you need a flotilla, what purpose would it serve other than a symbolic one? You do know that the in/famous Gaza flotilla actually had a practical purpose and arguably, it didn't have any symbolic intentions at all. The only reason why it was so big with so many people, some even well known, is because Israel was known to fire upon boats and being the aggressive nation that she is, any threats to peace or human life needed to be documented.

As far as slavery in Islamic countries, I agree that it is horrible. However, they run more like sweat shops, instead of actually capturing people against their will. Even though many African slaves of the 18th and 19th centuries actually volunteered (signed contract), the vast majority of them were captured prisoners (via warring tribes, adultery or criminal activity), sold into slavery. So, there is a big difference between the slavery then, and what's happening now in Islamia.

Furthermore, the countries who partake in this slavery the most (such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia), are ardent allies and business partners of a very powerful faction of the US government. It is because of this reason, that I believe their plight isn't well known and condemned by the media and public.

As far as defining slavery, the line becomes blurred between actual slavery and workers being taken advantage of. Would you define someone a slave if they are not free to go? Sure, but what about the common situation where governments or employers create conditions that make it almost impossible for them to leave, such as paying them so little that they couldn't even imagine to afford to travel back home or forcing them to pay off their start up or intitial travel costs (which is the most common type in Islamic countries). Just defining slavery becomes a difficult task unless it is at the extreme, which is often the case with the Chinese. Sadly, most modern slaves fall in that blurry area, where any laws or mandates could interfere with sovereignty, free-markets and/or liberty. What would we do, mandate a minimum wage and employee conditions for the entire world? I think that is unreasonable.

I think the best thing we could do, is boycott any company or nation who creates conditions for their "employees" that we don't agree with. I know that it is hardly effective, but it is a start. We could also start an education initiative that targets people prone to fall victim of slavery, so that they can avoid the often avoidable "slavery trap".

Anyway, that's my 4 cents.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon

Thanks for the great post and raising many issues.
Especially the plight of Sudanese slaves has come to the fore lately:
www.iabolish.org...

A slave means being the property of somebody else.
Workers can become slaves when they receive no salary for whatever contrived reason.
Slavery for women is also usually sexual abuse, as is evident in human trafficking.

Workers in a sweat-shop are not automatically slaves, no matter how poor their working conditions. A paid worker is not a slave, no matter how slim their profit margin.

Nowadays slaves are lured by syndicates, and they often view themselves as legitimate migrant labor that pays a "middleman" to get them a legal, foreign job. Only upon arrival do they realize that they are slaves.
They either get no pay, pay which is eventually withheld for apparent debts, or just enough for themselves to eat.
They face physical restrictions (confiscated identity documents), mental abuse, possible sexual abuse and corporal punishments.

However, in some cases slaves are inherited or gained the medieval way - they are simply kidnapped from villages, as in the Sudan.

reply to post by airspoon

For me an Anti-slavery flotilla should create such debates wheresoever it touches.
There can also be some direct aid to slaves in some very poor countries.
Perhaps some can even be freed.
The line between worker's rights and modern slavery is sometimes too thin, and the world is moving in the wrong direction.

I wouldn't automaticaly boycott a whole country.
That would also hurt legitimate business and cause more poverty.
The message should rather be: we are watching, and we care.