DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2012

AUTHOR: MCCOSKRIE
Prominent Irish homosexual and political commentator Richard
Waghorn
Marriage is vital as a framework within which children can be brought up
by a man and woman. Not all marriages, of course, involve child-raising.
And there are also, for that matter, same-sex couples already raising
children. But the reality is that marriages tend towards child-raising and
same-sex partnerships do not. I am conscious of this when considering my
own circle of friends, quite a few of whom have recently married or will
soon do so in the future. Many, if not most or all of them, will raise
children. If, however, I or gay friends form civil partnerships, those are
much more unlikely to involve raising children. So the question that
matters is this: Why should a gay relationship be treated the same way as a
marriage, despite this fundamental difference? A wealth of research
demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with
the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together
do best across a whole range of measures. This is certainly not to cast
aspersions on other families, but it does underscore the importance of
marriage as an institution. This is why the demand for gay marriage goes
doubly wrong. It is not a demand for marriage to be extended to gay people
it is a demand for marriage to be redefined. The understanding of
marriage as an institution that exists and is supported for the sake of strong
families changes to an understanding of marriage as merely the end-point
of romance. If gay couples are considered equally eligible for marriage, even
though gay relationships do not tend towards child-raising and cannot by
definition give a child a mother and a father, the crucial understanding of
what marriage is actually mainly for has been discarded. What that
amounts to is the kind of marriage that puts adults before children. That, in
my opinion, is ultimately selfish, and far too high a price to pay simply for
the token gesture of treating opposite-sex relationships and same-sex
relationships identically. And it is a token gesture. Isnt it common sense,
after all, to treat different situations differently? To put it personally, I do
not feel in the least bit discriminated against by the fact that I cannot marry
someone of the same-sex. I understand and accept that there are good
reasons for this.
MMA Adresses Sunday Times Misreporting of Human Trafficking
14 February 2012
The article on Sunday January 15th, 2012 Woman tells of ordeal as drug-mule slave refers. I would like
to raise our concern about a crucial omission in the article, as well as highlight some additional ethical
concerns.

The story presents a powerful firsthand account of a womans experience at the hands of drug traffickers.
We learn how she was lured and trapped into a situation that endangered her life and saw her exploited
by her captors. The story is not only newsworthy but also a gripping account. Our concerns is not the
subject, but rather a substantial omission in that the sum of the crimes referred to in the story human
trafficking is simply absent. This case, which clearly constitutes human trafficking, needs to be named
because the crime committed in the article is exactly that.

In line with the definition of human trafficking outlined by the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and
Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children referred to as the Palermo Protocol, the
story detailed every component of the crime of human trafficking (lured, tricked, transported, trapped and
exploited/enslaved), but nowhere in the article is it mentioned. It relayed in detail the experience of the
woman, from her being lured under false pretences of employment after answering a job advert in a
Durban newspaper (by a false company), transported to another country, warned that her family in South
Africa would be killed if they tried to escape, forced to sleep with men on a regular basis and forced to
swallow condoms filled with drugs to courier them to other countries accompanied by handlers.

It is quite possible that the reason the journalist did not mention human trafficking, was that no source
mentioned it. Its also quite common for victims/survivors of human trafficking themselves to not be aware
that they were victims - and survivors - of human trafficking. It may also be that because we do not have
comprehensive legislation against human trafficking, that it was not mentioned as cases often have to be
prosecuted under various other crimes, including abduction, extortion, fraud etc. The only exceptions
where human trafficking is currently legislated are to be found in the South African Childrens Act, which
covers trafficking of children for any purpose, and in the Sexual Offences Act for adults of sexual
exploitation. It should be noted that in the current case, the woman could be classified as a trafficking
victim under the Sexual Offences Act as she was often forced to sleep with four men every night.

To not acknowledge human trafficking where it occurs relegates it to a position that does not correlate to
the serious intentions and motivations of those behind the crime. Human trafficking is most often a willful
violation of anothers most basic human rights and can only be referred to in this case as slavery. The
concept of slavery, looking back to the institutionalized slave trade in history, is something that horrifies
and appalls. Slavery was an entrenched global system that benefited a select group of people and
nations to the most severe detriment of others, most commonly Africans. It was organized, there were
processes and strategies of capture, of movement and delivery and of purpose - behind those who traded
in and exploited slaves. Likewise human trafficking in most cases today is just as organized, processes
are planned and strategies are put in place for the capture, movement, delivery and usage of victims.
We would not label the slave trade as anything other than that. We should not label human trafficking as
anything less than human trafficking, if not slavery.

This woman did not just make a bad decision and get stuck in a situation she didnt want to be in, she
was intentionally fooled, lied to, offered false promises, transported, held captive, forced to undertake
illegal activities and raped. Failing to name and identify the crime is similar to ignoring the rape of a rape
survivor. It is also a denial of a bigger more encompassing crime.
Further by not identifying the crime as human trafficking, the dignity of the victim is also harmed, as it
denies the full horror of her experience. Further it is also crucial that it is identified, if not for the sake of
the woman in the story, but to be able to acknowledge that this is what happens to South Africans,
particularly the most vulnerable, who usually dont have the access to protection they need.
Acknowledging that this is a story of human trafficking also brings into stark relief the ethical issue of
naming and photographing the woman concerned. The risks in doing so are profound, given that she is
the witness to her own abduction, that she is a victim of sexual assault, all of which is under
investigation. The decision to name and identify her is all the more extraordinary given that the article
also states that she is in a witness protection programme.

Had the writer perhaps understood that the person they were interviewing and writing about was a victim
of human trafficking, they and the Sunday Times may not have published her name and what is an
identifiable photograph of her. It states they were often warned that their families in South Africa would
be killed if they tried to escape. It is known among those who work to combat human trafficking that this
is no idle threat. While the woman may have given consent for her name to be used, it is not clear that
there was informed consent and when dealing with a person in a state of trauma, it would be hoped that
media would exercise greater care in taking such decisions.

Human trafficking stories are incredibly newsworthy, they are powerful and important stories, that tend to
impact the most vulnerable. They can also be told with sensitivity and dignity and powerfully without
putting the victims and survivors at further risk.

By Melanie Hamman

Sunday Times Public Editors response, 12 February 2012

Writing Requirements
In English

Submitted To: Mrs.Josephine Piedad

Submitted By:Heidi Ricci V. Jama
G11-Rinkaby
 Writing Requirements
in English

Submitted to : Mrs. Josephine Piedad

Submitted by: Erica S. Monion
G11-Rinkaby
 Writing Requirements
in English

Submitted to : Mrs. Josephine Piedad

Submitted by: Kathlyn A. Andico
G11-Rinkaby
 AGAINTS SAME SEX MARRIAGE
I do." These two simple words have the power change lives in an instant. For most
people, the phrase conjures up images of a man and a woman being joined in
marriage. But for gays and lesbians, having the chance to legally say "I do" is a far-
off dream, not a reality. In many European countries, marriages between same-sex
couples are federally recognized, but unions of American homosexuals still go
unrecognized by the United States government. Same-sex marriages deserve to be
legalized in this country. Homosexual couples should be entitled to the same rights
as heterosexual couples.
To initially understand this issue, one must understand what a marriage is in the
eyes of the law. The federal government as well would not recognize legal same-
sex marriages. However, according to the U.S. Constitution's full faith and credit
clause, states must recognize each other's laws and regulations. In addition to that,
DOMA defines marriage for federal purposes as a legal union between a man and a
woman. Since the passage of the act. This bill is clearly an unconstitutional,
unprecedented attack on the rights of gays and lesbians. It is discriminatory,
designed to deny same-sex couples equal protection under marriage laws. Many
people oppose the legalization of same-sex marriages because they are "morally"
wrong. These people, however, confuse religious aspects of marriage with legal
ones. The legalities of the issue have nothing to do with what a religion specifies. A
"legal" marriage is a contract established by the state government. No matter
where it takes place, a marriage is not legal unless accompanied by an official
marriage license ("Quick Answers About Same Sex Marriages"). A church can
choose to recognize whatever unions it wants, regardless of what the government
says is legal.
Heterosexuals, and automatically thought as less able to performed by same-sex
couples. This is incorrectly assumed, people dont know whether those couples
would be more likely to work or even place a higher standard on marriage. People
want to get married, not only for the legal benefits offered by marriage, but also
because they want to be viewed as couple in a serious, long-term relationship.
Because in most states same-sex couples are not allowed to marry, it reinforces the
view that same-sex relationship cannot be as sincere as straight relationships.