Now, for some reason, the Brussels authorities have decided to crack down. It’s an intriguing story, more for what it doesn’t say than what it does.
First of all is the odd title of The Telegraph report:
“Women ‘enslaved’ by Arab royals”
Now why do you suppose the verb is in scare quotes? It’s obvious from the story that they are indeed enslaved. Perhaps this newspaper thinks there is not enough evidence to support the charge? Perhaps it would be a good idea to follow the money and ascertain who actually owns The Telegraph?
And on to the story itself:
Seventeen women have been taken by police from a luxury hotel in Brussels amid allegations that they had been enslaved by an Arab royal family.
Police officers and officials from Belgium’s Labour Audit Authority raided the Conrad Hotel, the city’s most prestigious and the preferred choice of many national leaders during European Union summits, on Tuesday evening.
The operation was triggered by the apparent escape of a maid who was among 20 servants working for the widow of a senior royal figure from the United Arab Emirates and her four daughters who have rented the entire fourth floor of the hotel for the last year.
Would you look at the weasel words here? “Apparent” and “allegations” previously and “allegedly” or “reportedly” further on in the story.
What gives? Is The Telegraph afraid of being sued? Most strange…
- - - - - - - - -
Officials took away 17 people, from countries including the Philippines, Morocco, India, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq and Syria, amid allegations they had been held captive for eight months.
Several members of the royal party have been questioned, police said yesterday. No charges have been brought but the investigation continues.
“We are convinced that these 17 girls are victims of people trafficking,” said an official.
The servants, dubbed “slaves” in the Belgian media, allegedly had to be at the service of the Arab royals 24 hours a day and had their passport taken away on arrival in Belgium. The women were reportedly not allowed to leave the hotel and their monthly salaries were as low as £80 a month.
“We were not allowed to leave the hotel and we had to be at their disposal 24 hours a day,” claimed one young woman of Middle Eastern origin.
“We were not allowed to complain or to ask any questions. We just had to be there at their beck and call.”
Last week four maids from the Philippines allegedly attempted to escape from the hotel. Three were detained by the royal family’s security staff but the fourth woman managed to alert the Belgian police.
There was no response last night from the Brussels embassy of the UAE when it was contacted to comment on the case.
Most Belgian newspapers have described the case as “slavery right in the heart of Brussels”.
If the story itself is a little sideways, what about the reality of the arrests themselves? What goes here? As I said, Western governments have known about these slaves for generations. I can’t believe someone in Brussels is growing a conscience…
…Anyone willing to guess on this one?
37 comments:
The quotations appear to be a fine point, given that the term "slavery" has very specific legal connotations stemming back to the 1926 Slavery Convention and is recognized throughout the EU. Meaning, according to the article, the women were not slaves, since it states they were paid "as low as £80 a month". So, since they were paid for their labour (albeit a pittance) they don't fall under the legal definition, hence the quotes. This certainly does not diminish the plight of these women, who are obviously suffering under deplorable conditions. Most likely the most accurate definition for them would be somewhere between "forced labor" or "debt bondage" since they were getting some sort of remuneration.
Either way, thank God they were rescued.
Presuming of course that they received their pay. And that they weren't "charged" for their food and clothing.
When this type of thing happens in the US, our media will almost always refer to the abusive Saudi employers as "Long Island couple" or some other deceptive term.
I regret having to delete that comment but the language was over the top and the references to the President went way past simple criticism of his policies to personal attack.
Please do not use words like that on this thread.
latté island --
Remember the Saudi couple in Colorado? The feds really went after them. They had to pay their slave 64,000.00 in back wages before she returned to the Philippines and they went off to jail.
A most satisfying conclusion to a creepy situation.
______________
@gun-totin-wacko --
Presuming of course that they received their pay. And that they weren't "charged" for their food and clothing.
Yes, that's the usual deal. Besides having their passports taken away, which is also SOP. And illegal.
I still can't figure out why the Belgian authorities decided to act now. They knew about the situation. Belgium has a very efficient intelligence service...
I'd love to know what's going on here. The Colorado case was straight-forward. The maid/slave escaped and that gave the feds the opportunity they'd been looking for to put this 38 year-old Saudi "student" out of action. He was an operative using his bookstore as a cover for infiltration.
Latte, we have to be very grateful we live in the information age. Just 15 years ago these things would have simply gone unreported. Now with cell/camera phones and internet access, there are simply no rugs these snakes can slither under. And that's what makes this story so incredible: the Saudis KNOW they are under the microscope, which is why what they did was so brazen. These days they keep their Child trafficking and "slave" entourages to 3rd world countries so as to stay off the radar.
Well, good on the Belgians.
Amazing. OT but not really, just a few minutes after my previous comment, I was reading the online SF Chronicle and found this story of suspected sabotage of an Israeli-related airplane at SF Airport, and the headline DOES NOT mention anything about terrorism or Israel. In other words, the SF Chronicle is aiding and abetting terrorists by hiding the significant info in the story instead putting it honestly in the headline. It's worth the effort of creating a link! Air cargo firm was threatened before plane caught fire at SFO
Qualis Rex: The quotations appear to be a fine point, given that the term "slavery" has very specific legal connotations stemming back to the 1926 Slavery Convention and is recognized throughout the EU. Meaning, according to the article, the women were not slaves, since it states they were paid "as low as £80 a month". So, since they were paid for their labour (albeit a pittance) they don't fall under the legal definition, hence the quotes.
Your legalistic hair-splitting is as tiresome as it is pathetic. I'd invite you to stop, save that your self-abasement provides a modicum of entertainment to the more morbidly inclined at this site.
Zen if you find legality tiresome and pathetic then you don't deserve the freedom of democracy.
Zenster, I"m with Qualis Rex. Technically, I think if they got paid, they weren't slaves. It is "hair-splitting", but it's also correct.
I have no issue with his original post. Maybe you need to take a chill pill.
A good friend spent a few years teaching in Kuwait. There, women come in to work from SE Asia, and ofttimes step 1 is to take their passport "for safe keeping". Step 2 is to stop paying them, and step 3 is to rape and beat them into submission. Great people, eh?
Yet sadly, he's pretty dhimmified. He thinks that Islam is no worse than any other religion, and that we should stop picking on them.
Gun-T, appreciate the comment. The world is unfortunately silent on the cases you mention (and there are too many to count). The reason is there are many agencies that make a LOT of money as middle-men to arrange the services of people from poor countries (usually women). And the governments of these poorer countries of course get their cuts via operating licenses. In the case of the Philipines, it is virtually impossible to prosecute these agencies, let alone the actual perpetrators of the abuse.
Qualis Rex --
Legalism got the murderer of Medgar Evers, a piece of human scum named Byron De La Beckwith (who shot Evers in the back in his own driveway with a rifle), a hung jury and charges dismissed for thirty plus years.
Legalism got OJ and Robert Blake free. Legalism counts procedure over justice. Legalism enforced Jim Crow.
I would submit that Legalism as an over-arching goal over every thing else results in an unstable society. Which rejects legalism for vigilante action. Such was the case in the Committee of Vigilance in Gold Rush San Francisco.
Beware the dangers that excessive legalism over a just and free society produces. Jim Crow was the LAW OF THE LAND. Even the Supreme Court held "separate but equal" was legally correct.
This problem of slavery is a growing thing. The Gulf is notorious for it, and it is spreading. The horrors inflicted in Florida by Mexican national gang traffickers in women (which I will not mention here due to it's incendiary and revolting nature) are only growing.
Sorry, being "paid" isn't enough. If you can't quit, and must obey all commands 24/7 on pain of violence, then that's slavery.
"If you can't quit, and must obey all commands 24/7 on pain of violence, then that's slavery."
Well, surely it isn't enough to make you a free laborer. But I note that both slavery and involuntary servitude are mentioned in the Thirteenth Amendment, which suggests that a distinction exists between them.
Historically, a slave had no right to life, nor to any kind of compensation. An indentured servant retained some rights, including (usually) monetary compensation paid to him at the end of his term of service. (I don't know of any systems in which indenture could be made lifelong, but of course, that doesn't mean there weren't any.)
But word-mincing on this subject is hardly appropriate on Independence Day. So let's flog the miscreants to within an inch of their lives and throw them in a dungeon for the rest of it.
I don't think putting quotation marks around "enslaved" and writing the word "allegedly" is problematic in any way.
This is routine journalistic practice. It protects the civil rights of people arrested, who are presumed innocent until proven otherwise by a court of justice. Even obvious murderers get the "alleged" treatment when arrested.
It might look like a bit over the top. But then, giving equal protection of the law to everyone, including suspected murderers, may also look over the top. Until you realise you have given away freedom and democracy.
So Arabs keep slaves. Arabs keep pre pubescent boy sex slaves. Arabs practice polygamy. Arabs practice capital punishment for the most minor of transgressions. They treat women worse than farm yard animals.
So why in the west are we not allowed to criticise Arabs?
Robert Kilroy-Silk an English Politician and an independent MEP criticised the Arabs and he was publicly ripped apart for it. Though in the Middle East I'm sure that ripping apart would of been more than just a metaphorical one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kilroy-Silk#Anti-Arab_controversy
Thank you, whiskey_199, for properly identifying what I found so repugnant about Qualis Rex's obnoxious post. A boatload of lipstick still can't hide the pig that resides behind Islamic enslavement. Using legal trivialities to whitewash or find exception to the morally abhorrent attitude of Muslims towards unbelievers doesn't cut any ice with me.
Brian H: Sorry, being "paid" isn't enough. If you can't quit, and must obey all commands 24/7 on pain of violence, then that's slavery.
Another fine and valid distinction.
Francis, you are of course right. Another distinction is that a slave can be bought and sold at will.
If partof slavery's definition is that one can be bought and sold at will, what is it when a woman can be passed on for free to one's friends. And when she ends up in the hospital because of the brutality of the friend's rape, her Owners can come and remove her, taking her back to the solitude of their home.
If it walks like a duck...
Dymphna, being "passed on for free" is the same as being bought and sold, as the legal definition is "gifted". This means, if you "gift" someone to another for any type of service (be it labour, sex, or even company) then it is as if you are waving fees you could have charged for the same. So, your above example is in fact slavery.
Now, this is of course different if I am PAYING the person in question (say, my driver) and I say, "I'm going on holiday, so I'll send my driver to work for you while I'm gone", since it is implied my driver would be receiving wages for work from me, regardless of where it is taking place (i.e. in your company).
The reasons for these laws and distinctions is precisely to be able to prosecute individuals who take advantage of the work or circumstance of others. But you can't blanketly use the word "slavery" in such cases, or it will diminish the case. It's like when people over-use "like Hitler!" or "is a Nazi!" or "another holocaust!" When people don't get the language precise, it doesn't do justice for true victims.
OK. So if someone rapes a girl, and then pays her afterwards, it's no longer rape but just a business transaction (so-called prostitution)? Is any small change left behind enough to transform the nature of the whole affair?
So if I have a slave, and give him one coin a year, then it's no longer slavery? The whole thing transforms into "involuntary servitude" or something like that, even though the person got no rights whatsoever. Just that one little coin a year transforms the nature of the whole affair. Wonderful for slave owners! So many meticolous legalists coming for our defence and comfort.
Swede, you are missing a key point: consent. If the servant enters into employment for one coin a year, then it is not slavery. Many people around the world work for simple room and board. That is reality. But if the servant in question agrees on 100 euros a year, then only receives a penny, then that servant of course has legal recourse to collect the remainder and can indeed stop working for he employer. It does not mean that person is a slave. However, if the servant is forced to continue to work against their will against the previous agreement, then that would procede into either forced labor or perhaps even slavery depending on the circumstance.
As to your first scenario, a rape is a rape is a rape. You don't have to be a slave to be raped. Throwing money at a woman after a fact does not make it a business transaction. The law is very clear on that.
Qualis,
Swede, you are missing a key point: consent.
You funny guy. That's my line.
Anyway, I'm glad that I managed to wake your mind to the significance of consent in these matters. Something that was not at all part of the picture when you wrote this:
according to the article, the women were not slaves, since it states they were paid "as low as £80 a month".
Not any mention of consent here. Just pay the £80 and it's no longer slavery according to your view here. A view that you defended so fiercely that you even threatened to deprive Zenster of freedom and democracy (a funny concept that is, democracy selectively applied).
Anyway, I'm glad to see that you have finally woken up to the significance of consent in these matters.
As to your first scenario, a rape is a rape is a rape. You don't have to be a slave to be raped. Throwing money at a woman after a fact does not make it a business transaction. The law is very clear on that.
Gee, where is people's receptibility today? The rape example was a parody of our reasoning around slavery, Qualis.
Swede, you give yourself far to much credit. The only thing you've managed to wake up is my impatience with annoying conversations today. And with that, I'm gone.
Swede, you give yourself far to much credit.
Quite possibly I did, but the point here was not about me, but about you. How you initially completely missed the significance of consent regarding slavery. A rather thick-headed confusion (which you thankfully no longer hold, not necessarily thanks to me) that you at the point of time stuck to so fiercely that you wrote to Zenster "you don't deserve the freedom of democracy", when he objected to it.
I guess you wouldn't say that to dear Zenster any more, am I right? Because you have by now (but not necessarily thanks to me) realized how completely you were in the wrong at the beginning of this thread. Well, maybe you haven't absorbed it fully yet. I mean, how my rape example was meant as a parody of your initial position, completely passed you by.
OK, all ends well, as so often in these threads. And now you have learned something new by participating here. If you want to learn more about law, I can recommend you one or two good books next time I log in. You will find after studying the basics of law that you won't be as inclined to make fundamental mistakes, as the one you did in the beginning of this thread.
Well, Con Swede, now you've done it. Qualis Rex left annoyed and it's all your fault.
Meanwhile, I will point out that the US does consider what the Saudis do with their "servants" as slavery.
Many of you were around for
Al-Turki Gets 27 Years. What he did wasn't different in kind from the servants in Brussels.
Nice to have a mass release like that. I only wish it could happen here, in every Middle Eastern embassy in this country.
But we do nothing.
Qualis Rex: And with that, I'm gone.
And thus endeth another infrequent appearance of the rare writ crested tantrumming snit.
Dymphna,
Well, Con Swede, now you've done it. Qualis Rex left annoyed and it's all your fault.
He shouldn't have taken it so hard. I was just pointing out that he had been mistaken.
@zenster--
the rare writ crested tantrumming snit???
What a great bird name. Hey, Natalie, have you ever seen one of these?
"Saudi employers as "Long Island couple""
They were not Saudi. They weren't even Muslims. They are Hindu's, another vile religion.
Qualis Rex:
If the servant enters into employment for one coin a year, then it is not slavery.
From the article:
"The women were reportedly not allowed to leave the hotel and their monthly salaries were as low as £80 a month."
There's nothing in the article that suggests that these women entered the contract voluntarily. Not even Qualis Rex or Gun-totin-wacko seems to think so. But they showed us how easily Muslims can play us like a violin.
Why was the payment done? Possibly to make the Qualis Rex' or Gun-totin-wacko's and Francis W. Porretto's to come in defence of the Arabic slave owners, with their talk about extenuating circumstances (i.e. those £80). No real contract, not even asked for, just those £80--that's it!--and you automatically get many Westerners on your side (while you can lock in the girls, beat them and treat them any way you please). And for an Arabic royalty, £80 is less than he spends on breakfast an average day. It's nothing to him. The cheapest legal insurance you could imagine.
How fun must it not be to be an Arabic royalty and watch those silly Westerners do their servile dancing after your pipe. And the funniest part is how all the money you have to spend was given to you by these Westerners in the first place, without you having deserved it in any way.
What is it about sharia that you guys do not understand? It's slavery pure and simple, then if the Arabic slave owners add some technicality just to play us (and since Westerners are so eager to get played they soon forget about the fundamental things like consent when mesmerized by a technicality as the £80. And in court there are no GoV commenters around, so it would surely have stopped at that. No seriously, look at the absurd quality of court verdicts nowadays.)
And whatever the girls save from their monthly £80, well it could be taken away from them at any point (they do not have any rights, remember?) Muslims do not honour deals with infidels in general, if they can get away with it. So what do you guys think in a case of a "deal" 100% dictated by your Arabic slave owner?
Conclusion: Muslims are smart and cunning. Westerners are stupid and gullible.
To expand on this point, what's the difference between this pittance wage and the provision of food and basic amenities to a slave? Without the freedom to come and go as they please and with the necessity to purchase food it's really just a nicety, a hobsons choice. They can choose what sort of food and amenities they have instead of eating and using what they're given but they're still just as enslaved.
Archonix: To expand on this point, what's the difference between this pittance wage and the provision of food and basic amenities to a slave?
None, because there isn't any. Islam is the embodiment of slavery, be it physical, mental or spiritual. It is a gulag mentality writ large.
Archonix,
To expand on this point, what's the difference between this pittance wage and the provision of food and basic amenities to a slave?
Yes, this is precisely my point. If you enslave someone and completely deprive her of her freedom, what difference does a pittance wage do? Therefore my comparison with rape. If you rape someone and then give her a pittance wage, would that make it less of a rape?
There has been to many smart-a**es in this thread getting lost in legalistic details. And then I mean really getting lost! As in have their nose to far up the bark of the closest tree so as to miss the whole forest. That sort of discussion is such in it's attitude that it's bound to converge towards quibbling about what sort of tax deductions that the pittance wages, paid by the Arabic slave owner, could allow for.
I fail to see how people could come here and comment and show such ignorance for their understanding of Sharia. A social act can only be interpreted in its social context. And the context is Sharia, and it's indeed slavery. There are no nuances about that in Islam. Then the cunning Muslims are of course always playing the gullible Westerners, since they know they are ignorant about Islam and Sharia, and since they are so easy to play like a Stradivarius. The smart-a** besserwissers are by far the easiest ones to play.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.