• news
  • SUNDAY MARCH 6 2005 9:00 AM

Niger Decides Not to Free Slaves

Submitted by Michael_J_Totten

Edited by Michael_J_Totten

The government of Niger decided at the last minute that it's easier to pretend slavery doesn't exist than to enforce their anti-slavery law and actually have to free slaves.

The government of Niger has cancelled at the last minute a special ceremony during which at least 7,000 slaves were to be granted their freedom.

A spokesman for the government's human rights commission, which had helped to organise the event, said this was because slavery did not exist.

It is not clear why the government, which was also a co-sponsor of the ceremony, changed its position.

At least 43,000 people across Niger are thought to be in slavery.

Representatives of the slaves, the government and human rights campaigners had been due to attend the event at In Ates, near the border with Mali.

A local chief had agreed to the release after the introduction of a new law, which punishes those found guilty of slavery with up to 30 years in jail.

Anti-Slavery International had described the ceremony as a historic step forward.

The British-based campaign group said the people who had been due to be freed made up 95% of the local population.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAR 06, 2005 12:38 PM

TheFuckOffKid said:

Roethke said:

bean said:
Frankly, I think it's absurd that every civilized nation on Earth hasn't been shouting at the top of their lungs about this. I don't know why everyone's obsessed with the question of invading. If international pressure can force Syria to agree to pull out of Lebanon, surely international pressure could force Niger to abolish slavery.

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 by bean]


Slavery is more rampant now, and by now I mean this very minute, than it has ever been in the history of the world. Niger is not the only place where human beings are rouinely bought and sold for the equivalent of a few dollars.


Roethke is right.

Australia's has an ongoing problem with sex slavery, mosrtly of Asian women brought over under false pretences or under duress, and kept in brothels with their passports confiscated.


I'm not saying it's not a problem in other places, I'm just saying that the fact that global pressure on slavery around the world is pathetic is not the fault of any one country, or any one international body, but all of them.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAR 06, 2005 12:40 PM

reprobate said:

bean said:
Frankly, I think it's absurd that every civilized nation on Earth hasn't been shouting at the top of their lungs about this. I don't know why everyone's obsessed with the question of invading. If international pressure can force Syria to agree to pull out of Lebanon, surely international pressure could force Niger to abolish slavery.

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 by bean]



Perhaps if the slaves had yellow cake we could send an envoy.


...or maybe if Libyan troops were occupying part of the country.

Michael_J_Totten

Michael_J_Totten

Iraq
February 2004

MAR 06, 2005 12:46 PM

bean said:
Frankly, I think it's absurd that every civilized nation on Earth hasn't been shouting at the top of their lungs about this. I don't know why everyone's obsessed with the question of invading. If international pressure can force Syria to agree to pull out of Lebanon, surely international pressure could force Niger to abolish slavery.

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 by bean]


I second that!

Graven

Graven

Reading, MN
March 2003

MAR 06, 2005 12:58 PM

Michael_J_Totten said:

bean said:
Frankly, I think it's absurd that every civilized nation on Earth hasn't been shouting at the top of their lungs about this. I don't know why everyone's obsessed with the question of invading. If international pressure can force Syria to agree to pull out of Lebanon, surely international pressure could force Niger to abolish slavery.

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 by bean]


I second that!



No shit. I wonder if the people in our government treat this as if it were in the "Oddly Enough" section of Yahoo!.

"Gee, honey, so all these slaves show up to be freed, yet they're turned away because slavery doesn't even exist! Isn't that funny?"

"Shut up, dear, Regis is on."

Cruorem_Angelus

Cruorem_Angelus

Littleton, CO
June 2004

MAR 06, 2005 12:59 PM

Racer_X said:
What the hell does this have to do with anything ?

Where is the UN ? Where is the EU?

And precisely why should the US do anything about slavery in Niger ? Or maybe it would be better to get involved in another tribal war with people and culture who have been exercising cultural hate for thousands of years ?

Yaya America bashing. whatever



I reccomend asking France, Germany and Russian what position the US government should take. Then we should ask the UN what they want us to do. That is, if they can take a break counting all the oil for food kickbacks they got from Sadam.

legionnaire

legionnaire

Belgium
November 2003

MAR 06, 2005 01:01 PM

Cruorem_Angelus said:

Racer_X said:
What the hell does this have to do with anything ?

Where is the UN ? Where is the EU?

And precisely why should the US do anything about slavery in Niger ? Or maybe it would be better to get involved in another tribal war with people and culture who have been exercising cultural hate for thousands of years ?

Yaya America bashing. whatever



I reccomend asking France, Germany and Russian what position the US government should take. Then we should ask the UN what they want us to do. That is, if they can take a break counting all the oil for food kickbacks they got from Sadam.


You win the "Most strawmen used in a single post" award of the day. Congratulations.

Cruorem_Angelus

Cruorem_Angelus

Littleton, CO
June 2004

MAR 06, 2005 01:05 PM

aegies said:
i still think it could effectively be argued that situations like this are very much in our interest. earning global goodwill should be a priority for us right now, and the kind of ill will ignoring something like this will bring us could very well make our fight against terrorists and terrorist states more dificult.



The first thing that was reported after US warships with relief supplies ariaved in the Tsunami didaster area was "You should have been here sooner" quickly followed by "you should have given us more aid". That's nice.

Some how, I don't give a shit about most of the world's opinion of us.

[edited for type-o]

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 1:06PM]

theseeman

theseeman

Asheville, NC
December 2002

MAR 06, 2005 01:17 PM

"Why can't we all just get along?"

Indeed, Reginald Denny, indeed.

Noir

Noir

SUICIDEGIRL

I'm lost

MAR 06, 2005 01:27 PM

I really should have read that title more carefully.

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

MAR 06, 2005 01:43 PM

Michael_J_Totten said:

Michael_J_Totten said:
jake_lex said:
Yeah, to me, that's the fatal flaw of the neo-con world view. They make noises about fighting wars to bring "democracy", but then the fights they pick are ones that, hey, by sheer coincidence, put us in control of great amounts of the world's oil supply.


We pick fights that are strategically significant to us, as all countries do and have throughout history. The political dysfunctions in the Middle East are our business because they lead to the toppling of skycrapers in our cities. Democratic reform/revolution in the Middle East is in our self-interest as well as in the interest of Middle Eastern liberals and democrats. Why is this hard to understand?

Besides, I thought the anti-war argument is that Iraq was a distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda. I don't agree with that argument, but I do understand it and I don't think it's insane. But you can't then turn around and say "we should have invaded Niger" instead of Iraq without being accused of advocating a more serious distraction yourself.



what's the point of bashing america's plans to dominate the world with puppet democracies? at least it gets rid of terrorism.

oh...wait...it doesn't.

i guess you could call them insurgents instead, seeing that they don't attack our country directly. really, don't be so naive.

oh, and it's not like osama bin laden or al Qaeda are big threats, really, don't believe me? i find it funny how he was supposedly the main reason we went to "war" yet we don't even bother looking for him anymore. there was some cia report claiming that bush ordered bin laden to be ignored, that iraq was the main issue. since when? that wasn't the reason we started. so now we're going after governments we don't agree with instead of a man who vows to attack again!

and it's not a manner of invading niger, it's a manner of participating in the anti-slavery talks. would that show a certain level of hypocrasy? or would it show atonement for our past actions?

with that $157 billion war price tag, you've got to wonder if using september 11 as an excuse for invading countries that don't have anything to do with it and overthrowing their governments is really worth it? or could that money have gone somewhere else? the whole spreadin democracy thing in iraq, you know that's plan e, right. there were around 4 other excuses or reasons for attacking iraq. whatever happened to the statement that we only needed $1.6 billion to fund the war? the new skyscraper to replace the world trade center: $1.5 billion (estamated).

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 1:58PM]

waldo

waldo

I'm lost
June 2004

MAR 06, 2005 01:49 PM

Michael_J_Totten said:

bean said:
Frankly, I think it's absurd that every civilized nation on Earth hasn't been shouting at the top of their lungs about this. I don't know why everyone's obsessed with the question of invading. If international pressure can force Syria to agree to pull out of Lebanon, surely international pressure could force Niger to abolish slavery.

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 by bean]


I second that!


Absolutely.

waldo

waldo

I'm lost
June 2004

MAR 06, 2005 01:51 PM

Cruorem_Angelus said:

aegies said:
i still think it could effectively be argued that situations like this are very much in our interest. earning global goodwill should be a priority for us right now, and the kind of ill will ignoring something like this will bring us could very well make our fight against terrorists and terrorist states more dificult.



The first thing that was reported after US warships with relief supplies ariaved in the Tsunami didaster area was "You should have been here sooner" quickly followed by "you should have given us more aid". That's nice.

Some how, I don't give a shit about most of the world's opinion of us.

[edited for type-o]

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 1:06PM]



Maybe it's the reporting you listen to which is the problem. Where are you getting your info?

aegies

aegies

Oakland, CA
June 2004

MAR 06, 2005 02:40 PM

Cruorem_Angelus said:

aegies said:
i still think it could effectively be argued that situations like this are very much in our interest. earning global goodwill should be a priority for us right now, and the kind of ill will ignoring something like this will bring us could very well make our fight against terrorists and terrorist states more dificult.



The first thing that was reported after US warships with relief supplies ariaved in the Tsunami didaster area was "You should have been here sooner" quickly followed by "you should have given us more aid". That's nice.

Some how, I don't give a shit about most of the world's opinion of us.

[edited for type-o]

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 1:06PM]



and again, some could argue that opinions like that are the reason that all the global support we had following 9/11 has evaporated. it isn't the only reason; santioning countries and regimes that benefit european countries hasn't helped. but still, it isn't hard to connect the dots and state that a lot of the hatred for our country comes from our roughshod foreign policy.

woolworthwarrior

woolworthwarrior

Canada
December 2002

MAR 06, 2005 02:41 PM

It is refreshing to see an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq admit that the US only feels the need to support freedom and democracy in areas where it suits its geopolitical interests, such as stabilising the middle east, even if the analysis is a bit simple (it's much easier to iconify buildings falling down in New York than to address the root causes of the instability). However, far be it from me to deny that the US has as much right as any other state throughout history to act out of self interest. If history has taught us anything, it's that might makes right. I think the so called "left" are just tired of hearing the empty rhetoric coming from the other side. Perhaps if more of the neocons made such admissions as our man here did, it would clear things up. Either the, basically moral, American people would think "that ain't right" and withdraw their support for the current policy or, at the very least, there would be no more room for whining lefty accusations of hypocrisy.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's all stop pretending that the intervention in Bosnia was simply out of the goodness of anyone's heart. Having a destabilised Balkans (or a "stable" dictatorship run by a racist nut) on the doorstep of western Europe was not in anyone's interest. We've seen how that worked out a few times before...

RACER_X

RACER_X

Philadelphia, PA
February 2003

MAR 06, 2005 02:45 PM

RadioPortishead said:



And us Americans have never excercise cultural hate or slavery before.

[Edited on Mar 06, 2005 3:19PM]


Still doesn't answer my question and doesn't have a thing to do with the price of tea in China.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews