4

Slavery vs Child Porn

Slavery Still Exists!

We all like to think of slavery as a problem from the 19th century, but it still exists and is a significant problem! Kevin Bales gave an interesting TED talk about how to combat modern slavery [1]. Currently there are an estimated 27,000,000 slaves in the world, it’s a lot but it’s a smaller proportion of the world population in slavery than at any time in history. Also the price of slaves is lower than ever before, instead of being a capital asset a slave is a disposable item (this is really bad for the slaves).

The estimated average cost to liberate a slave is $US400, this involves rescuing them from slavery and teaching them the skills that they need to have a sustainable life – there’s no point rescuing them only to have them get captured again! Kevin notes that the US is still paying the price of the botched emancipation of 1865, so the liberation of slaves really needs to be done properly.

The estimated total cost to liberate all the slaves in the world is $US10.8 billion. Think about the trillions of dollars that have been spent on wars to supposedly liberate people, when a mere $US10.8 billion would liberate all slaves. That’s a fraction of the cost of the proposed National Broadband Network – which would you rather have, fast net access for cable TV services or a world without slavery?

Censorship of Child-Porn (and other things) vs Liberating Slaves

It is often claimed that child porn needs to be stopped to prevent there being economic incentives to molest children in other countries, to achieve this goal the Australian government wants to filter all net access to prevent access to child-porn, other prohibited porn, documentation about euthanasia, and the occasional dental practice (seriously, they just can’t get their filters right).

Methods that are proven to prevent children being molested should be given a much higher priority than censoring the Internet in the hope of removing economic incentives for child abuse.

It seems reasonable to assume that a significant portion of child-slaves are molested (because we know that slave owners are really bad people and there’s nothing to stop them from molesting children). Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that 1/4 of child slaves are molested. So that would give an average cost of $US1600 to free one child from sexual slavery and three other children from physically abusive environments.

Currently the Australian government plans to spend $44,000,000 in Internet censorship with the supposed aim of protecting the children. The fact that the majority of child-porn is believed to be transferred via protocols other than HTTP has not deterred the government from pushing forward a HTTP-only filter for censorship. Also the fact that anyone could use a VPN, tor, or other services to trivially bypass a HTTP filter has not deterred them.

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that $US400 equates to $500 Australian, the exchange rate is lower than that but it varies and it’s best to be conservative. Therefore the $44,000,000 the government wants to spent on censorship could be used to liberate 88,000 child slaves. If my estimates are correct that would save 22,000 children from being molested. In the unlikely event that slavers happen to be nice people who don’t do nasty things like molest children (which really isn’t credible) then freeing 88,000 children from slavery and all the physical abuse that it involves is still a really good thing!

If a plan to prevent child sexual abuse by liberating slaves fails to actually prevent any sexual abuse then at least you end up with some freed slaves (which is a really good thing). But if a plan to prevent child sexual abuse by censoring the Internet fails then all you end up with is slower Internet access and censorship of totally unrelated things that the government doesn’t like.

20

Too Stupid to be a Bishop

A Stupid Bisop breaks the Godwin Rule

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Catholic Bishop Anthony Fisher has just claimed that “GODLESSNESS and secularism led to Nazism, Stalinism, mass murder and abortion” [1]. This is a violation of the rule part of Godwin’s Law. We might not expect clerics to have enough general knowledge of society to know this rule, but it does seem reasonable to expect them to have enough empathy to understand why inappropriate Hitler analogies will just offend people and don’t advance their cause. But anyone in a position of leadership in a global organisation who is going to talk to the media should have enough intelligence to check historical references.

The Wikipedia article about “Positive Christianity” is worth reading, it includes references to Christian based race-hate in Nazi Germany as well as modern references [2]. There is also an interesting Wikipedia page about the Religious aspects of Nazism [3], there seems to be room for a lot of debate on the matter of how religion fit in to the Nazi regime – but it seems quite clear that it was not an atheist regime.

The Wikipedia page about the Rechskonkordat (the agreement between the Nazi Germany and the Catholic Church) is also worth reading [4].

Also I’m sure that the Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet wasn’t the only Catholic despot.

Community Services and Moral Authority

Cardinal Pell was quoted in the same SMH article as saying “we find no community services sponsored by the atheists“, of course if he was to investigate who is contributing to the religious based community service organisations he would find plenty of atheists. I know I’m not the only atheist who donates to The Salvation Army [5] on occasion. I wonder how many religious people would be happy to donate to an explicitly atheist organisation, I suspect that the prevalence of religious charities is due to the fact that a religious charity can get money from both religious people and atheists while a charity that advocated atheism in any way would be limited to atheist donors. If I was to establish a community service charity I would seriously consider adding some religious element to help with fund raising – it’s just a matter of doing what’s necessary to achieve the main goal.

Even if it wasn’t for violating Godwin’s law and a total lack of any knowledge of history Anthony would still have failed. We all know the position of the Catholic Church on the sexual abuse of children. The Catholic policies are implemented in the same way in every country and as far as we can tell have been done so for all time. I believe that makes them unqualified to offer moral advice of any kind.

Criticising the “Secular World”

Peter Craven has written an article for The Age criticising the “secular world” [6]. He makes the extraordinary claim “the molesting clergy are like the brutal policemen and negligent doctors and corrupt politicians: they come with the territory because pennies have two sides“. The difference of course is that police, doctors, and politicians tend to get punished for doing the wrong thing – even when they do things that are far less serious. But the “molesting clergy” seem to be protected by all levels of the church hierarchy.

Peter makes some claims about the “secular world” as if there is a Borg collective of atheists and claims that there is an “incomprehension of Christian values“. I believe that the attitudes of atheists and the secular justice system correspond quite well with what most Christians would regard as “Christian values” – the problem is that the actions of the church leaders tend not to match that.

It’s All About Money

I would like to know why Christians almost never change church and never cease donating. Religious organisations are much like corporations, they seek new members and new revenue sources. If a significant number of Catholics were to pledge to not donate any money to their church for a year after every child sex abuse scandal then Catholic policies might change. Also if Catholics were to start changing to Christian denominations that do the right thing in regard to moral issues then the Catholic church would either change or eventually become irrelevant. If you keep paying people who do bad things then you are supporting them!

I suggest that any church member who cares about the moral issues of the day should vote with their checkbook. If their church fails to do the right thing then inside the donation envelope they should put a note saying “due to the immoral actions of the church I will donate to other charities“. I am not aware of any church that would expel members for such a protest, but I know that some smaller parishes have cash-flow problems and would rapidly escalate the issue through the management chain if even a few members were to protest in such a manner.