BuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2931 posts, RR: 3 Posted (8 years 2 months 1 week ago) and read 2902 times:
The Portuguese vice-state secretary José Magalhães today said that low-cost flights are opening new ways for human trafficking.
José Magalhães, who spoke at the opening session of an international seminar about trafficking and sexual exploitation in Alfragide, explained that these flights "make the routes simpler", enabling criminal organisations to "distribute" trafficking victims more easily.
It also allows for them to be transported more cheaply.
Question to His Governmental Brightness: how do low-cost flights make it easier to smuggle people? Check-in and other things are basically the same as any other flight... "Make the routes simpler???"
While sexual exploitation must of course be fought as strongly as possible, I really don't see the point of these comments. See for example "Lilya Forever", a realistic (and very disturbing) film about trafficking. The girl easily gets on board the flight - LCC or not. So I wonder if this Magalhães chap really knew what he was talking about...
Trintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3269 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2487 times:
This can be summarized in two words - cheap politics. It is always easy to point fingers at any organization or system when problems are perceived and one wants to gain public sympathy. The low cost airlines are already being scapegoated as environmental assassins (despite often flying newer planes with more passengers at a time than some others), among other things. To add this issue of prostitution amounts to jumping on the bandwagon.
The truth is, the sex trade is hundreds of years old and predates any sort of flight. The simple growth of the human population has generally led to the trade getting larger - there are simply more takers! Above all, the airlines are under the same obligations as all others (security at check-in, proper documentation and all that).
Where there may be concern is that the consumers of the trade are probably able to travel more freely to experiment in different locales. In the large part, though, the whole issue of prostitution is more complex and multi-faceted than a simple pointed finger at orange and blue flying machines can account for.
Sevenair From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 1728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2444 times:
Yeah, don't you jus love the way that planes are the cause of all the world's problems nowadays. Politicians and popular press have moved away from fast food "restaurants" being an axis of evil and seem to be focusing all of their problems toward aviation, and blaming aviation for governmental failings.
Art From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3407 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2363 times:
Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Thread starter): Question to His Governmental Brightness: how do low-cost flights make it easier to smuggle people?
He explains this, as you report. He makes the observation that "simpler routes" allow criminals to distribute victims of trafficking easily. I take this to mean that the extra direct flights to more destinations provided by the rise of the LCC networks allow criminals to distribute victims of trafficking easily.
There is no criticism, according to what I read in the articles, of low cost flights.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7819 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2341 times:
This appears to be a politician playing on the sex trade in an effort to gain public support for an anti-LCC stance to protect the status quo. i.e Since LCCs are 'opening new ways for human trafficking' let's ban them from Portugal. Guess there's only one thing worse than using human trafficking like this and that's being involved in human trafficking.
Of course if Mr Magalhaes was made to defend his position he would say that if the number of flights double so the opportunities to traffic double, which is effectively what he said. But that was clearly not why he said it.
Ahlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1347 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2292 times:
Yeah, it's like back in the day when ships made it really easy to traffic slaves. I guess we should have just banned ships and it would never have happened to the scale it did. HELLOO, what logic is this?
M404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2235 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
Possibly it's the additional flights and passengers that authorities are trying to monitor for the trade that is the problem. More flights, more airports, more passengers, but the number of police stays the same. Pretty simple.
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding