#trafficking law

[dontforgetukraine]

The Yale School of Public Health Humanitarian Research Lab released a new report detailing evidence of russia's system of coerced deportation and naturalization, reeducation, fostering, and adoption of Ukrainian children.

The key findings:

Yale HRL has identified 314 individual children from Ukraine who have been placed in Russia’s systematic program of coerced adoption and fostering.

Russia’s officials listed children from Ukraine in Russia’s child placement databases.

Russia’s Aerospace Forces and aircraft under the direct control of President Putin’s office transported multiple groups of children.

At least 67 of the 314 children from Ukraine have been naturalized as Russian citizens since being taken to Russia.

At least 208 of the 314 children identified have been placed for adoption or guardianship with citizens of Russia.

Approximately half (46.6%) of the children identified have siblings.

Children have been taken to at least 21 regions throughout Russia.

Russia’s system of coerced adoption and fostering has been ordered and facilitated by President Vladimir Putin and Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Russian Federation Maria Lvova-Belova.

Children assessed to be from Ukraine have been listed across three primary child placement databases in Russia as if they are children born in Russia.

Russia utilizes psychologists (психоло��и) as part of an apparent effort to legitimize the program.

All children identified in this report have been taken from Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts.

At least 80.4% of children from Ukraine listed in Russia’s databases have been taken from Donetsk oblast.

Children taken from Ukraine were transferred to various midpoint locations within Russia.

Children from Ukraine have been subjected to pro-Russia re-education.

Agencies operating Russia’s databases would later limit what personally identifiable information was publicly available about children in the databases.

You can read the full report here.

[breathedreamscream]

[prolifeproliberty]

Can y’all help me out here?

So I see the headline in multiple news outlets that the California Assembly killed a bill that would “make the trafficking of minors a serious felony.” Specifically, that it would make the Three Strikes rule and other sentencing policies apply to trafficking of minors.

Sounds like a great bill, how dare those California democrats shut it down, right? Must be that they’re all secretly trafficking children, right? Well whether they are or aren’t, there’s something in the bill that doesn’t quite sit right.

Here’s the bill:

So typically most pieces of legislation will have some kind of statement about why the bill is being passed (a lot of “Whereas” statements) and then there will be a section where existing law/statute is revised. Usually it’s about adding or removing language in a statute. We typically see this represented as words being struck out and other words or entire sections being added in a different color text to show it’s new.

Based on the title and the summary and the press, my assumption would be that they would be adding “human trafficking of a minor” to the existing list of serious felonies.

However, if you go all the way down to 1192.7(c), you see that the list of serious felonies already included human trafficking, but this bill is amending that to read “human trafficking of a minor”

That is, it seems the language in this bill would actually remove the trafficking of adults from the serious crimes list.

If I’m reading this right, California law already had human trafficking as a serious felony. That would mean trafficking a minor was already a serious felony - it wouldn’t need to be specified because it would be covered under “human trafficking.”

This bill wouldn’t change anything for someone caught trafficking a minor. It would change things for the person caught trafficking an adult - that is, it might make their sentence lighter or give them more room for plea deals.

Am I missing something here, or is this another classic case of “bill titled ‘Save the Puppies Act’ actually kills kittens”?

[mylittlesecrethaven]

They Really Made Child Trafficking An Easy Pill To Swallow…..

[gwydionmisha]

People with wombs are no longer considered human enough to have a citizens right to free travel under US law, apparently.

[alwaysbewoke]

[herinfluencerdeer]

REPUBLICANS TO HUDDLE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO ELECT MCCONNELL'S SUCCESSOR WEDNESDAY

Read more...

[dontforgetukraine]

We demand information about every Ukrainian child illegally placed for adoption or foster care in russia.

[erebusvincent]

…

The Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) industry—with its picture catalogues of men and women whose gametes are for sale, its lab-creation of batches of embryos for eugenic sorting, its “gestate-and-release” surrogacy contracts—exists to decouple child-creation from conjugal relation, to segregate gestation from enduring maternal relationship, and to make blood ties irrelevant to legal child custody and identity. The disintegration and fragmentation of persons, parts, and relations—and to subject them all to commercial negotiation—is the entrepreneurial essence and audacity of this technological regime performing a redefinition of human nature. In terms of its biotechnocratic and consumerist framework, the child comes into the world not naturally related to anyone, but only transactionally connected to the persons responsible for summoning him through purchase or technique, or other effort the law may ratify.

When the law permits and coordinates this commerce in persons, it teaches and ensures that the existence of a child is a legal problem for state resolution rather than a preexisting relational truth that obliges state acknowledgment and deference.

Moreover, for the law to discard the truth of the humanly defining relationality of the child to his forebears, in turn deprives law and society of the public premises that make it possible (for instance) to recognize and mourn the pitiable plight of orphans; to know that adoption mitigates a grievous loss; to justly condemn deadbeat dads; and otherwise to recognize a beauty and responsibility of care and support by a father and mother in view of their generative relation to their child. Each of the foregoing concerns is sensible only if the child is, ab initio, in a fixed relation that carries meaning and duties.

But the new legal model on offer proceeds by describing the child instead as a raw datum, ontologically isolated and absolutely individual—without a history and without a certain home—until the happenstance of a managerial adult choice intervenes.

This sort of mechanical-contractual and “gender-neutral” redesign of humanity invites a totalitarian political dynamic. For if the law now refuses to defer and conform uniquely to the authority of the natural family and its filial bonds, and instead redefines marriage and parent (and perhaps even male and female) to assign rigid equivalence in status to persons and relations that are, in fact, profoundly different, then a pristine legal positivism is enacted in which any sphere beyond state construction and command effectively disappears. When the individual is loosed from the natural family and its constraining certainty of relatedness, he (along with his now-contingent relationships) is instead comprehended exclusively within the uncertainties of political solicitude.

Thus, though this family redefinition is carried out under the banner of reproductive and sexual “rights,” instead of accomplishing a limitation on government power it becomes an instrument securing, in principle, the totalism of state jurisdiction. For on this account, parents are deemed provisionally accredited custodians, not naturally vested authorities.

As, on this telling, bodies are mechanisms, with the locus of personal identity present in subjective interiority, the embodied connections of husband and wife, mother and child, father and child are only empirical or mechanical—not meaningful and defining…

[sibblank]

why do ppl keep making such a big deal of otta being a human trafficker, like she already got arrested, what more do you want?

[mortalscience]

Law and Order Criminal Intent - s01e14 - Homo Homini Lupus Eames: Every bone in my body tells me she was raped. I could see it in her face, I could see it in her mother's face. Carver: Be that as it may, as long as her parents won't cooperate, I don't know of any judge who'll sign an order compelling a minor to submit to a medical examination. Eames: Forget the rape kit then. We just need to get a statement from her. Carver: Same problem. No judge will compel her to testify. Deakins: What if the girl wants to talk? Eames: The mother says she doesn't. Carver: Even if she did want to talk, in light of her mental state, the judge would defer to her parent's wishes. Eames: What about the embezzlement charge? The idea of Colter going to jail might convince the family to talk. Carver: The company's backing away from filing a complaint. Bad publicity. I'm sorry, we'll have to find another way. Eames shakes her head in frustration.

[111-111h]

The picture above is a hidden camera that I found in my bathroom. The police are involved. The government is involved. Soul tribe. GOD I know you are watching. Please show me what to do next. Please help me 🙏 I know in my heart I wasn't sent here to be a victim.

[vivaciousoceans]

“The snow bunny, this is what it’s all about” not gonna lie she chewed

[scotianostra]

13th of January 1687 the court os session in Edinburgh ruled on the case of the "Tumbling Lass"

Taken from Cassells Old and New Edinburgh by James Grant (published in the 1880s) it is an early judgement on a girl who was basically trafficed for entertainment purposes, the trafficker claiming he own her.

On the 13th of January, [1687], as reported by Lord Fountainhall, Reid, a mountebank prosecuted Scott of Harden and his lady, “for stealing away from him a little girl called The Tumbling Lassie, that danced upon a stage, and produced a contract by which he had bought her from her mother for thirty pounds Scots. “But we have no slaves in Scotland,” adds his lordship, “and mothers cannot sell their bairns; and physicians attested that the employment of tumbling would kill her, her joints were even now growing stiff, and she declined to return, though she was an apprentice, and could not run away from her master.” Then some of the Privy Council in the canting spirit of the age, “quoted Moses’ Law, that if a servant shelter himself with thee, against his master’s cruelty, thou shalt not deliver him up.” The Lords therefore assoilzied (i.e., acquitted) Harden, who had doubtless been moved only by humanity and compassion.

The story is that “The Tumbling Lassie” was a child gymnast who was displayed in a travelling show around Edinburgh and the Lowlands during the 17th century.  She was seen by a Mrs Scot, who rescued her from her exploitative circumstances and took her off home to live in the Borders.

The showman, a Mr Reid, complained that the child was his property and that she had been stolen from him. He took the matter to the Court of Session, where the judges turned down his claim – effectively giving the first ruling in a Scottish court that slavery could not exist in Scotland. The child was released, but  history does not record what happened to her,  the assumption is that Mrs Scot took her back to the Borders to live. 

The Tumbling Lassie gives her name to a Scottish appeal raising funds and awareness for anti-slavery and anti-trafficking charities, they are generously sponsored by the Faculty of Advocates. Among other events they have an annual Charity Ball, at Prestonfield House in the city.

There is also a mini-opera is based the story.

[murderousink23]

07/30/2024 is National Cheesecake Day 🇺🇸, National Father-in-Law Day 🇺🇸, Whistleblower Appreciation Day 🇺🇸, International Day of Friendship 🇺🇳, World Day against Trafficking in Persons 🇺🇳