Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. – A.J. Liebling
Considering that “sex trafficking” hysteria grew from the same fertile racist manure as “illegal alien” hysteria, one would have thought that Mexico, long the chief target of American xenophobia about migrants, would’ve been named as the chief North American source, destination or corridor of “sex trafficking” from the very beginning. So why wasn’t it? Maybe it was because the anti-immigration panic-mongers had already cast Mexican women as welfare cheats and producers of the dreaded “anchor babies”, so the “trafficking” alarmists were concerned that there weren’t enough of them to go around. But whatever the reason, it seems to have gone by the wayside now; prohibitionists and their flying monkeys in the yellow press are touting stories about whole Mexican towns populated entirely by “pimps and hos”, and apparently making up for lost time by multiplying claims about their numbers of clients far beyond the bounds of logic and sanity.
We might theorize that if immigration reform becomes a reality American racists will have to recast Mexican women as “trafficked slaves” and Mexican men as “traffickers and pimps” in order to keep using them as convenient bogeymen. But that wouldn’t explain why the Mexican media have jumped on the bandwagon as well; up until a year ago Mexican prohibitionists had little success in pushing an aggressive anti-whore agenda in their country, where most news coverage of sex workers recognizes that sex work is work and that women engage in it to get an education, provide for their children, etc. So why has Mexico now passed an “anti-trafficking” law which “…establishes penalties for those who buy space in newspapers or on websites to serve ads that encourage trafficking, even if they disguise themselves as a legal activity“? It sounds suspiciously like the US campaigns against Backpage, and is comparable in the damage it will cause if not overturned; in a recent editorial in El Norte, Sergio Sarmiento pointed out:
…Mexican law has always prohibited trafficking in persons…[and] prostitution is legal. The new law does not prohibit it. It has long proscribed pimping…[and] the new legislation…does not add anything on this subject…What is new…is the punishment, with penalties of 5 to 15 years in prison and a fine of a thousand to 20 thousand minimum daily salary wages of those “who lead, manage or edit…print, electronic or virtually…publish[ed] content…which facilitates, promotes or procures any criminal conduct…” This provision violates the freedoms of expression and publication…[by seeking] to punish publishers and media executives that publish advertisements for prostitution, although prostitution remains legal in our country…[furthermore] Article 33 speaks of publishing “content”, not just advertisements, “through which…to facilitate, promote or provide any of the criminal conduct” [covered by the law]…With this law the Mexican government would not only [have] imprisoned Vladimir Nabokov, author of Lolita, but also his publisher and the marketing director of that publisher. A similar problem arises from Article 34, that punishes with 2 to 7 years imprisonment those who, “knowingly” give a loan, lease or rent a property, house or room in the commission of offenses established under this law. It punishes not only those who participate in trafficking, but who rents and leases real estate…
As I pointed out in the discussion about New York’s new “taxi sex trafficking” law, “knowingly” is a mighty thin defense once the police and prosecutors decide to railroad someone under such a law. In the US we’ve been building toward this sort of tyranny for years, but in Mexico it happened rather suddenly; when I asked the Mexican journalist who provided me with this editorial and its translation why that was so, he explained (paraphrased to help retain his anonymity):
In Mexico most big newspapers carry adult ads of all kinds (including independent sex workers) both in the paper and on the website. Well, about a year ago Reforma (a paper in Mexico City) uncovered an illegal deal between Televisa Network and Nextel Telephony and Radio which was accomplished while the government looked the other way. Lots of people got in trouble and many millions of dollars were lost. In revenge, Televisa started a big “investigation” which alleged that the sex ads in Reforma were being sponsored by “Sex Traffickers”, including the owners of the newspaper. Despite huge amounts of TV coverage they could never prove that any ads were sponsored by sex traffickers, but the politicians Televisa owns were instructed to revive the moribund sex trafficking law and push it through with additions stipulating severe punishments for the owners of media carrying sex ads. You should have heard how the Televisa news anchormen emphasized that part…
Armed with this information, I think we can see why Mexican “sex traffickers” have also become big news in Los Estados Unidos during the same time period. And beyond that, one has to wonder if there isn’t some similar rivalry involved in the anti-Backpage crusade supported by rival media outlets such as CNN and The New York Times.
This makes me think of how, for many years, the biggest funders of groups like Partnership for a Drug-Free America were tobacco companies.
Some of the biggest contributors to anti-drug causes now are liquor companies. It’s things like this that make me wonder why so many people are up in arms about the “Citizens United” ruling. If it’s OK for big corporations to bankroll campaigns to invade privacy, eradicate civil liberties and imprison five times as many people as we should be imprisoning, are the campaigns of individual politicians all that big a deal?
Odd that. Neither of my parents were American, yet no one considers me a “anchor baby”.
That’s because you’re white and English-speaking. The panics against “illegal aliens” and “sex trafficking” are almost pure racism, merely disguised so those who promote them can pretend it’s not about race.
Now, while I have no love for the term ‘anchor baby’… did your parents obtain permission to enter and remain in the US from the US government? Was this permission at any point based on your being a US citizen?
Simply having non-citizen parents isn’t the criterion there.
They just had a big election in Mexico, and the party that won was very pro-American and ran on a law and order platform. Besides, the current US government want any excuse to send agents over the border (hence, the incompetent and ill conceived “Fast and Furious” sting operation), and sex works well in propaganda (Hence, “Libyan Soldiers armed with Viagra” to justify intervention in Libya by our mad king. I’m really shocked that people bought into that one, but they did. )
“Election in Mexico”
Ain’t no such thing. Mexico’s chief export to the United States is labor, and the “candidate” most willing to terrorize Mexican citizens into going North “wins”.
Well, right. However, they did have a change in manager, and the new manager wants to impress the boss.
Really, migrant workers are “terrorized” into going into the USA. Nobody’s doing because they want to make money?
And you’re making this comment on an article about how migrant sex workers aren’t “terrorized” into it but are doing to make money.
Migrant workers do come for the money, but not enough of them come to the satisfaction of the Overlords. The Overlords won’t be happy until every job is filled by an illegal wiith no labor rights.
Neither the Obama or Bush administrations are that smart. The whole Mexican affair is a textbook study in Hanlon’s razor. Bush had to deal with Vincente Fox for most of his administration and it was NOT a loving relationship. Nothing should be surprising about the rise of the PAN party in Mexico. Due to the U.S.’s prohibitionist laws against drugs – Mexico has become a staging ground for violent drug cartels and therefore the rise of PAN. I’m hearing now that PRI is actually making a comeback due to PAN’s failures to control violence – which has actually worsened under PAN governance.
What you have is a self-licking ice cream cone here. The drug policies of the US feed the drug cartels. The violence of the drug cartels drives the Mexican government into the arms of the US – just as Geronimo’s rebellions and raids in Mexico did in the late 1800’s. The US and Mexicans get jointly involved to solve the problem – which only makes the cartels more violent – and the whole thing just feeds itself into a great big abyss.
There is no sinister plot by government here – only one helluva lot of stupidity going on. It would all be solved by getting rid of the drug prohibitions here in the U.S.
I know that a lot of people like to believe in conspiracy theories – but, I used to work in the H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations and I can tell you – there’s no conspiracy – just a lot of very stupid people. This is the way of Washington, DC.
So, do you not agree that the US government want to suppress drugs and prostitution in Mexico, and plans on using close co-operation with the Mexican government to accomplish these goals? Because that’s not a conspiracy, that’s an ATF press release.
I think it’s very naive to believe that any US government would long tolerate a Mexican government on its Southern border that said, “No thank you, we don’t agree with your prohibitionist policies. Please police within your own borders if you must but leave us out of it.”
Read what I said …
We have these prohibitionist policies – but let’s not PRETEND that they were dreamed up by the US government – they have the support of the majority of Americans – even if most of us who read THC don’t agree with them.
That’s a complete strawman. It’s more naïve to think that the Mexican government would even ever think of saying that. And, it’s not because they fear some “US invasion” if they don’t go along with us – it’s because they’re in a symbiotic relationship with the U.S. – they need us as much as we need them.
The Mexican government right now is fighting for control of the country against the drug cartels. There’s no way they’re going to turn a blind eye to the power of the cartels – because governments have a need to establish themselves as the ONLY sovereign authority. They need the US to help them fight the drug cartels. That’s why this is a self-licking ice cream cone – because it’s US drug policies that beget the cartels in the first place.
Additionally – you seem to be insisting that the US government would INVADE Mexico, and overthrow it’s government and establish its own puppet state. If that’s not what you mean, then I’m sorry – let me know.
But the US government has MANY more options than simply using military force. We could overturn NAFTA and we could remove every bit of foreign aid we currently give to Mexico – which receives about $800 million annually and they’re one of the top ten recipients of US foreign aid. We could completely seal the border and all that combined is enough to make the Mexican government scream. So there’s no way what you’re suggesting could ever happen – it’s just not even a realistic because Mexico and the U.S. are just too much in bed with each other for it to happen.
Maggie when I clicked on the link “claims about their numbers of clients” in the first paragraph it’s going to a different article named “Cabbies off ‘hook'” which although a good article I don’t think it’s the one you intended. Or maybe I’m missing something here?
It’s the right one; look at the last few lines. She’s talking about the so-called “brothels on wheels” the “trafficking” fanatics dreamed up, which are supposedly staffed almost entirely by Mexicans.
“Brothels on Wheels?” Cool-ness! Sounds like just the ticket for shut-ins who can’t get out of the house much! Does it work like ordering a pizza?
Brothel on Wheels indeed.
It was a link to the ZZ Top video for their song “Legs,” in which The Car shows up and out step beautiful girls dressed in stereotypical hooker garb. They do good deeds like helping the wallflower discover her inner babe and escape her boring life. So they’re sort of like angels, too.
[…] column from Monday: Why “sex trafficking” suddenly became a subject of concern for Mexican politicians within the past […]
It has been puzzling me a while why, given the amount of rhetoric about benefit cuts here in the UK (Tory Govt sought to cut the social security for disability budget by £4.4×10^9, overturned by public opinion, thank fuck).
Many people have highlighted that there is a ringfenced Foreign Aid budget of ~£8×10^9 which the UK government, to the mind of many people, should use elsewhere inside the UK on the basic principle “charity begins at home”.
But that money isn’t charity, is it : It is used as incentive for foreign governments to make certain policies of benefit to the UK Government.
There’s a nice short and pithy name for that : Bribery.
Small wonder the FA Budget is ringfenced.
Yes, I’m a cynic. 🙂