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).
