https://www.reuters.com/article/us-guatemala-politics/guatem...
https://www.insightcrime.org/investigations/the-zetas-in-gua...
http://latinalista.com/columns/globalviews/venezuela-no-1-tr... (see the chart, plenty of flights stop in Guatemala).
Still, it's no excuse to search Canadian citizen's phones or laptops. Either find probable cause (ie, some actual evidence which indicates a crime besides abstract "red flags" about travelling which could apply to thousands of innocent people) and get a warrant or don't do it. Otherwise it's open for tons of abuse and unnecessary invasions of privacy.
Notice that this guy is now free and able to tell his story. He wasn't detained in handcuffs for days. He wasn't transported to a remote jail for interrogation. He wasn't charged with some trumped-up excuse to hold him. He wasn't subjected to a body cavity search. He wasn't added to some terror list. There is no allegation of racism. They seem to have politely explained the situation and let him on his way. Canada does things differently.
[edited for clarity, for those who require simple literality].
> 3) based on reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and there is evidence to be found at the place to be search.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...
This is not some unique American concept. Otherwise I don't see what point you're trying to make...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Cha...
In other words, just because this kind of profiling wouldn’t constitute probable cause in the US, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t constitute probable cause in Canada. (I’m not sure that it does constitute probable cause in Canada; I just don’t know for sure that it doesn’t.)
As a Canadian, I would say “not really”. Plenty of examples of people’s rights being violated by Canadian officials. Those events don’t get the scrutiny that US events do, but they certainly happen.
I don't know why you're trying to make a point about Canada vs US and how one is better than the other. Just because he's free to tell his story and wasn't prosecuted doesn't mean that the CBS is off the hook for seizing upon his electronic devices - without reason - and even threatening that they would be sent to a lab to be cracked.
I'm neither an American or Canadian citizen, but when I do travel to these countries I would expect that my privacy not be breached, especially not without reason and when I've already cooperated and consented to my bags and other personal items to be searched.
Now the next time you travel, and the CBS or US CBP decides to seize your devices, are you going to just surrender your devices, given that they've explained everything nicely and will let you go on your way?
I think you mean US Customs and Border Protection, not the TSA.
A relatively wealthy, privileged person going someplace poor for sex is probably doing it because it facilitates doing rather nasty things in a way that is comfortable for them. They don't need to be ugly about it. Someone else will be ugly about it on their behalf while making them feel great about spreading their money around.
This often means they are raping children or otherwise indulging sexual predilections too unseemly for sex workers in more well-heeled parts of the world.
So sex tourism is generally understood to be a polite term for exceedingly depraved behavior with a veneer of civility.
Keep it among genuinely consenting adults, and I don't care how many, what genders are involved, how you folks agree to get your freak on and yadda.
Just one easily findable prior comment by me:
That's just how politicians package it so the people swallow the poison pill.
That said, I feel like people vastly overestimate the similarity of governments of the US and the UKs vassal states like Canada, and that false expectation is part of why people get outraged. Once one understands this the authoritarian approach of the "Commonwealth" nations things make much more sense.
If you want to narrowly define Puritanism as against child rape, okay, I will proudly accept that label.
Beyond that, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not here to discuss politics. I have very little to do with politics. If you think explaining the term sex tourism is some sort of political agenda, agreeing with a particular policy, etc, you are reading in a whole boat load of stuff that isn't there.
I'm a private citizen, not a politician. I'm engaging in discussion on a forum. That's the extent of that.
>I'm a private citizen, not a politician.
You mean citizens don't bear responsibility for politics? Does it mean that politics is disconnected from society?
You've provided no basis for this claim.
> Let's get real here, stuff like this is about control, not about security, and certainly Nota about morality...
You've provided no basis for this claim.
> That's just how politicians package it so the people swallow the poison pill.
I take this as an expression rather than a claim, but still it doesn't teach us anything.
You haven't tied your point about sovereignty to the topic of discussion, and when commenters don't do that we get taken off into generic tangents.
This is not about holding controversial opinions. It's about failing to meet the standards of discourse here, and meeting them is a rather mechanical thing which all commenters are capable of.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Or simply because it's easier because prostitution is not (as) criminal and/or it's well organised (e.g. red light zones), and not forgetting it's likely to be much cheaper. To assume their choice of destination for something as nasty as raping children is quite a jump.
It may not be universally true, but the fact that it is fairly often true is why the term has such negative meaning for most people.
I have no idea why you are nit picking this. I'm not going to discuss it further with you.
Hence, I was interested in actual data. That's all. Enjoy the rest of your day.
But a 17 year old is legally still a child in many jurisdictions. A lot of men in their twenties see nothing wrong with getting involved with a 17 year old.
If you are talking a dating situation, my views on that get a lot more complicated. If you are talking prostitution, a 17 year old sex worker is highly unlikely to be there by choice.
At that point, it is, in fact, child rape, even if you aren't comfortable with the terminology and wish nicer language were used to describe it.
I don't feel compelled to try make it sound nicer given how damaging it can be to the child in question.
Statutory rape doesn't have to be violent. The minor may even have nominally agreed. But the law says they can't actually meaningfully consent as a minor.
If they are a minor and a sex worker, they are likely being trafficked. That's where this gets really nasty. The guy paying for the service may be blissfully oblivious to just how much she is being pressured, has no real choice, etc.
I covered that in my original comment. That's a large part of why this is an ugly thing.
You (the general "you", not you in specific) hand wave away that she's 17 instead of 18 because it's only a few months and he may not have actually known her age etc.
It's a slippery slope that basically says if you can fudge on enough "little" details, it's totes fine to rape children. Traveling to a foreign country for your cheap sex is a very handy way to gloss over those details and pretend it was all above board and nice when it probably wasn't.
Now will you please consider giving some data or some kind of percentage or explain why you said "probably"?
No one is trying to claim this kind of horrible behavior doesn't exist. But I want to understand the scale of the problem. Trying to figure out if it's 10% or 90% is not nitpicking!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sex_tourism
There are many readily available articles on the topic just a Google away if you really want to know more.
> Thailand’s Health System Research Institute reports that children in prostitution make up 40 percent of sex workers in Thailand.
I can't find this report even though I've been using the HSRI's own searchable database[2] and search engines (you'll need Google Translate unless you can read Thai). I did, however, see see numerous other reports reusing the same quote in the searches returned by an engine, so it's well used.
If we continue the same paragraph:
> At the other end of this debate many NGOs estimate the number of CSEC victims to be in the hundreds of thousands. Other reports estimate the number of child victims of prostitution to be at least 80,000 but likely to be in the hundreds of thousands (ECPAT International; The Protection Project, 2002: 539).
I can't find any Protection Project report about Thailand in their publications[3], nor do they include Thailand in their list of country reports[4]. I also cannot be sure that either of the reports[5][6] I found on ECPAT's site are the one cited. The larger one, which was published in 2011 (but is the 2nd edition so perhaps it is from 2002) does not include the figure. It does however have this:
> Prostitution is technically illegal in Thailand, but sexual services are sold openly with an estimated 60,000 children under age 18 involved in prostitution.15
This is note 15: > U.S. Department of State, 2009 Country Report on Human Rights Practice, Thailand. Accessed on 13 July 2010 from: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/ hrrpt/2009/index.htm
This is the statement in the report[7]:
> In 2007 the government, university researchers, and NGOs estimated that there were as many as 60,000 prostitutes under age 18.
No note for that one, it's a dead end.
This doesn't mean the figure is wrong, of course, but it does support the idea that people should be able to question figures, and when challenged, claims should be backed up by something better that circular references, missing reports, and dead ends.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20070712223227if_/http://www.uni...
[2] http://kb.hsri.or.th/dspace/
[3] http://www.protectionproject.org/publications/
[4] http://www.protectionproject.org/country-reports/
[5] https://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Factsheet_Th...
[6] https://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/a4a_v2_eap_t...
[7] http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/index.htm
Edit: formatting, a little bit of javascript wouldn't go amiss for the comment boxes!
> At that point, it is, in fact, child rape, even if you aren't comfortable with the terminology and wish nicer language were used to describe it.
- Where did I say or imply that it wasn't child rape? - Where did I say or imply I wasn't comfortable with that terminology? - Where did I say or imply I was wishing nicer language were used to describe it?
I'm not sure how you hope to have an adult discussion on a sensitive topic if you're going to insinuate that asking you a question is tantamount to defending child rape.
I for my part have tried to find out more from someone who says they know more. I'm reading the research from one of the Wikipedia references you gave and questioning some of my assumptions while trying to remain sceptical and clear headed enough to analyse it.
> I don't feel compelled to try make it sound nicer given how damaging it can be to the child in question.
I think it's unlikely that most people in this discussion are condoning or defending this behaviour (or maybe they are but they should still get a chance to give their point and be challenged). Since we know most people will say they're for the protection of children wouldn't it be better to take them at their word, play the numbers and realise the majority here will be the same, and, if not tone down the description, tone down the attitude?
It's Hacker News, not Twitter.
That's true for most workers of all ages.
From what I have read, even sex workers generally agree that most adult sex workers "made a choice" if they remain in the life and "it's different if they are underaged."
Among other things, I've read a few biographies by sex workers.
I would love to see sex work generally see an improved track record of human rights protections. In developed countries, child labor is generally deemed to be a bad thing, even when the work in question isn't inherently exploitative.
I stand by "raping children is a bad thing" and "underaged sex workers are victims of child rape."
Travelling abroad as a tourist for sex, with willing and legal participants, is obviously fine.
Edit: fine. I guess some people here need the talk. This is about the phenomena of men traveling from rich countries to poor countries to engage in sex with children. Not this guy, but it does happen. These men often return with digital images stored on laptops and cellphones. Possession of such images is illegal in canada and so Canadian boarder services targets men who fit the profile of a potential "sex tourist". The term is a polite euphemism for a darker profile, not a literal reference to having sex while being a tourist.
I for one did not immediately equate sex tourism with child slavery or pedophilia until I saw your sibling comment.
That isn't what this is about. Nobody is talking about what this is really about and it isn't anything to do with him being a lawyer. This guy (1) was traveling alone (2) to a distant (3) and poor (4) country without preexisting business ties (5). Those are all red flags for sex tourism.
I cannot say this strongly enough: I would never say this guy is a sex tourist, nor would boarder services. But they do run a program that targets people who meet certain criteria, criteria that this guy seems to have fallen into. Most famously, a bishop returning from Thailand had his laptop "randomly" searched by this program. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Lahey) There have been other less-pubic successes too. The program is controversial but within the bounds of Canadian law.
So before everyone goes nuts about terrorism and attorney-client privilege, realize that this innocent person was caught up in a program that has nothing to do with those things. Canadians are polite, especially when dealing with sensitive matters. Canadian cops don't shout things from rooftops. Because of the nature of what they are looking for, boarder services isn't going to give any public explanations. They will hold the electronics for some time, as is their right, but they likely regret "randomly" selecting this particular person. In the future they will probably add "not a lawyer" to the criteria.