Index of articles, click here
By Luc Loranhe (2007)
Ron O'Grady, the founder of ECPAT once wrote: "If you can help save one child from the violence of sexual abuse, your life has had meaning and purpose." (http://www.hri.ca/tribune/viewArticle.asp?ID=2531)
He is from New Zealand and male (though I understand he is a priest), but his statement so beautifully exemplifies the frame of mind of mostly female Scandinavian anti-child prostitution campaigners that I chose to quote it at the beginning of this article.
In accordance with O'Grady statement, I assume that the primary concern of many Scandinavian anti-child prostitution activists is to add meaning to their own lives. Their countries are so rich that they have everything... except, maybe, a genuine purpose for being alive. Live, of course, is much more entertaining if you have something to dedicate it to.
Much the better, if the purpose they decide for has some sex appeal. Fighting for the rights of sexually abused children seems ideal. It allows them a high degree of self-righteousness, and that's very good indeed for their egos.
But they cannot justly claim to act out of moral concerns. Morally, they are nothing but hypocrites with a do-good hobby.
To have a genuine basis to claim morals as the basis of their actions, they would have to address the worst moral problems first.
Yes, the dying, from malnutrition and easily preventable diseases, of millions of African children every year is a worse moral problem than the sexual contact between Western men and child prostitutes in Asia.
A genuine moral approach to the suffering in this world must be guided by a sense of justice: the worst suffering, which constitutes the worst moral problem, should be addressed first, and then, help should be divided as equally as possible.
Favoritism may be best suited to give an activist a sense of meaning in life (because of the gratitude of the recipient of the favors), but it isn't morally right. (And the same judgement applies to the lottery played with Third World children, adopted by rich Scandinavians. "Which child will draw the grand prize?")
If Scandinavian woman want to be moral, instead of seeking some form of self-fulfillment, they should campaign to have their countries' restrictive immigration policies changed. Scandinavians have seized a huge chunk of the world's best land, rich in natural resources and largely free of climate-dependent diseases.
To be genuinely moral, each Scandinavian country should let 50,000 African families with children on the brink of death from starvation migrate into their rich societies.
But rest assured: Scandinavian anti-child prostitution activists will never campaign to let large numbers of suffering children with their parents into their beautiful countries. In reality, while they are willing to sometimes make handouts, they don't want to share.
Because, after all, they are just a bunch of hypocrites on an ego trip to add meaning to their lives, and for that purpose, they play with the child prostitution issue.
Maybe, if in the future, Scandinavian countries have Muslim voter majorities and the then government shall decide to join a worldwide caliphate, moral brotherly and sisterly sharing will be implemented (as for Muslims, the afterlife anyway is more important than the current life, so if sharing in this world makes them more likely to enjoy benefits in heaven, it's an advantageous trade-off to have others participate in one's wealth). Imans anywhere in the world advise Muslim families, especially those in Europe, that they should have as many kids as possible (a minimum of 7 or 8).
Index of articles, click here
Copyright Luc Loranhe