Hacker News Reader

Guatemala is well known as a drug transport point. Plenty of the politicians there were caught being directly involved. Which, along with other contraband, accounts for the majority of the customs actual work and far more likely to be the concern with any traveller from there:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-guatemala-politics/guatem...

https://www.insightcrime.org/investigations/the-zetas-in-gua...

http://latinalista.com/columns/globalviews/venezuela-no-1-tr... (see the chart, plenty of flights stop in Guatemala).

Still, it's no excuse to search Canadian citizen's phones or laptops. Either find probable cause (ie, some actual evidence which indicates a crime besides abstract "red flags" about travelling which could apply to thousands of innocent people) and get a warrant or don't do it. Otherwise it's open for tons of abuse and unnecessary invasions of privacy.

Don't use american definitions of "probably cause". Canada is a different country and defines probably cause very differently. Canada has a different relationship with its boarders than America. The physical scale is are different. Sovereignty is different. Canada's "charter rights" are different than american "constitutional" rights. Canada placed greater trust in individual enforcement officers and, generally, doesn't play the legal dances that are common in the US in relation to searches. Canadian boarder services agents may have greater power than their US counterparts but they are still a billion times easier to deal with than that TSA. Ask canadians if they want to adopt US-style rules and plenty would say no on principal alone.

Notice that this guy is now free and able to tell his story. He wasn't detained in handcuffs for days. He wasn't transported to a remote jail for interrogation. He wasn't charged with some trumped-up excuse to hold him. He wasn't subjected to a body cavity search. He wasn't added to some terror list. There is no allegation of racism. They seem to have politely explained the situation and let him on his way. Canada does things differently.

[edited for clarity, for those who require simple literality].

Probable cause is a core part of the Canadian charter:

> 3) based on reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and there is evidence to be found at the place to be search.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...

This is not some unique American concept. Otherwise I don't see what point you're trying to make...

Though Canada's constitution has this weird ability to suspend fundamental rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Cha...

Yes, both countries have a concept of probable cause, but they have different definitions of what constitutes it—of which only a little is what is spelled out in the charter/amendment; most of the effective criteria come from case law.

In other words, just because this kind of profiling wouldn’t constitute probable cause in the US, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t constitute probable cause in Canada. (I’m not sure that it does constitute probable cause in Canada; I just don’t know for sure that it doesn’t.)

Canada does things differently.

As a Canadian, I would say “not really”. Plenty of examples of people’s rights being violated by Canadian officials. Those events don’t get the scrutiny that US events do, but they certainly happen.

And the Canadian courts are far more likely to say the infringement was acceptable, either in that court, or under an appeal if the government loses.

Which is terribly unfortunate, and makes me value my Canadian citizenship less and less.

I don't think he was specifically referring to the american or canadian or australian or <insert country X here> definition of probable cause, but rather the concept itself.

I don't know why you're trying to make a point about Canada vs US and how one is better than the other. Just because he's free to tell his story and wasn't prosecuted doesn't mean that the CBS is off the hook for seizing upon his electronic devices - without reason - and even threatening that they would be sent to a lab to be cracked.

I'm neither an American or Canadian citizen, but when I do travel to these countries I would expect that my privacy not be breached, especially not without reason and when I've already cooperated and consented to my bags and other personal items to be searched.

Now the next time you travel, and the CBS or US CBP decides to seize your devices, are you going to just surrender your devices, given that they've explained everything nicely and will let you go on your way?

> Canadian boarder services agents may have greater power than their US counterparts but they are still a billion times easier to deal with than that TSA

I think you mean US Customs and Border Protection, not the TSA.

What is wrong with sex tourism?

In most parts of the world, sex workers don't exactly have strong human rights protections. In a poor country, it's generally worse.

A relatively wealthy, privileged person going someplace poor for sex is probably doing it because it facilitates doing rather nasty things in a way that is comfortable for them. They don't need to be ugly about it. Someone else will be ugly about it on their behalf while making them feel great about spreading their money around.

This often means they are raping children or otherwise indulging sexual predilections too unseemly for sex workers in more well-heeled parts of the world.

So sex tourism is generally understood to be a polite term for exceedingly depraved behavior with a veneer of civility.

Are you saying that single men who travel to Thailand specifically to have easy access to prostitutes are often in it for the child sex and degrading sex acts? Isn't that like saying people that go to mosques are often terrorists? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your comment, but as worded it sounds like you believe the majority of sex tourists are pedophiles. In my experience, having spent several years in Thailand, most of them are there to have lots of consensual sex with adult sex workers because there is no legal prostitution where they live. The notion that more than a fraction of a percent of them are kiddy fiddlers is pretty out there. I also disagree with your claim that the term sex tourism is used as a euphemism for sexual exploitation. I've never heard it used that way, at least. A sex tourist is someone who travels to a location for the express purpose of having sex with prostitutes.

This. Anyone who thinks they are targeting people visiting Amsterdam's red light district, or Nevada's bunny ranch, needs to read more. This is about people seeking underage sex in countries where it is more accessible than in Canada. Thailand, Vietnam, all of south america ... a single male with no family ties, returning alone from such countries should expect some attention at the Canadian boarder. They are looking for the pictures, the possession of which is a serious crime in Canada.

> A relatively wealthy, privileged person going someplace poor for sex is probably doing it because it facilitates doing rather nasty things in a way that is comfortable for them

Or simply because it's easier because prostitution is not (as) criminal and/or it's well organised (e.g. red light zones), and not forgetting it's likely to be much cheaper. To assume their choice of destination for something as nasty as raping children is quite a jump.

It's not an assumption. That's based on reading about the topic.

It may not be universally true, but the fact that it is fairly often true is why the term has such negative meaning for most people.

What kind of percentage are you talking about? "Fairly often" covers a, erm, multitude of sins.

I've gone back and reread my initial comment. It has plenty of qualifiers. I think it is adequately clear and stands on its own just fine, without further clarification.

I have no idea why you are nit picking this. I'm not going to discuss it further with you.

It was a sincere question. You say you've read up on this. I haven't, though I have lived in Thailand and travelled around the region, and from my personal experience (not as a consumer, but I don't need to be a smoker to have some idea (anecdotally) of the level of smoking around me) the vast majority of foreign men that were consumers were not involved in anything to do with children or any such thing.

Hence, I was interested in actual data. That's all. Enjoy the rest of your day.

You may think I mean straight up pedopholia involving elementary school aged children. That can happen certainly.

But a 17 year old is legally still a child in many jurisdictions. A lot of men in their twenties see nothing wrong with getting involved with a 17 year old.

If you are talking a dating situation, my views on that get a lot more complicated. If you are talking prostitution, a 17 year old sex worker is highly unlikely to be there by choice.

At that point, it is, in fact, child rape, even if you aren't comfortable with the terminology and wish nicer language were used to describe it.

I don't feel compelled to try make it sound nicer given how damaging it can be to the child in question.

Statutory rape doesn't have to be violent. The minor may even have nominally agreed. But the law says they can't actually meaningfully consent as a minor.

If they are a minor and a sex worker, they are likely being trafficked. That's where this gets really nasty. The guy paying for the service may be blissfully oblivious to just how much she is being pressured, has no real choice, etc.

I covered that in my original comment. That's a large part of why this is an ugly thing.

You (the general "you", not you in specific) hand wave away that she's 17 instead of 18 because it's only a few months and he may not have actually known her age etc.

It's a slippery slope that basically says if you can fudge on enough "little" details, it's totes fine to rape children. Traveling to a foreign country for your cheap sex is a very handy way to gloss over those details and pretend it was all above board and nice when it probably wasn't.

How about we avoid that slippery slope entirely, by using a very expansive definition lumps in sex with anyone under 21 as going in the 'depraved or otherwise a problem' category.

Now will you please consider giving some data or some kind of percentage or explain why you said "probably"?

No one is trying to claim this kind of horrible behavior doesn't exist. But I want to understand the scale of the problem. Trying to figure out if it's 10% or 90% is not nitpicking!

Thailand’s Health System Research Institute reports that children in prostitution make up 40% of prostitutes in Thailand. In Cambodia, it has been estimated that about a third of all prostitutes are under 18.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sex_tourism

There are many readily available articles on the topic just a Google away if you really want to know more.

The reference on Wikipedia is from a report[1] by the "UNITED NATIONS INTERREGIONAL CRIME AND JUSTICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE", which is a "desk review" that cites and reviews other research. The quote Wikipedia uses is from a paragraph on page 18:

> Thailand’s Health System Research Institute reports that children in prostitution make up 40 percent of sex workers in Thailand.

I can't find this report even though I've been using the HSRI's own searchable database[2] and search engines (you'll need Google Translate unless you can read Thai). I did, however, see see numerous other reports reusing the same quote in the searches returned by an engine, so it's well used.

If we continue the same paragraph:

> At the other end of this debate many NGOs estimate the number of CSEC victims to be in the hundreds of thousands. Other reports estimate the number of child victims of prostitution to be at least 80,000 but likely to be in the hundreds of thousands (ECPAT International; The Protection Project, 2002: 539).

I can't find any Protection Project report about Thailand in their publications[3], nor do they include Thailand in their list of country reports[4]. I also cannot be sure that either of the reports[5][6] I found on ECPAT's site are the one cited. The larger one, which was published in 2011 (but is the 2nd edition so perhaps it is from 2002) does not include the figure. It does however have this:

> Prostitution is technically illegal in Thailand, but sexual services are sold openly with an estimated 60,000 children under age 18 involved in prostitution.15

This is note 15: > U.S. Department of State, 2009 Country Report on Human Rights Practice, Thailand. Accessed on 13 July 2010 from: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/ hrrpt/2009/index.htm

This is the statement in the report[7]:

> In 2007 the government, university researchers, and NGOs estimated that there were as many as 60,000 prostitutes under age 18.

No note for that one, it's a dead end.

This doesn't mean the figure is wrong, of course, but it does support the idea that people should be able to question figures, and when challenged, claims should be backed up by something better that circular references, missing reports, and dead ends.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20070712223227if_/http://www.uni...

[2] http://kb.hsri.or.th/dspace/

[3] http://www.protectionproject.org/publications/

[4] http://www.protectionproject.org/country-reports/

[5] https://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Factsheet_Th...

[6] https://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/a4a_v2_eap_t...

[7] http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/index.htm

Edit: formatting, a little bit of javascript wouldn't go amiss for the comment boxes!

It's nice that you made the clear distinction with the general "you" but it'd be good if you worked a bit harder to cut out the other insinuations. For example:

> At that point, it is, in fact, child rape, even if you aren't comfortable with the terminology and wish nicer language were used to describe it.

- Where did I say or imply that it wasn't child rape? - Where did I say or imply I wasn't comfortable with that terminology? - Where did I say or imply I was wishing nicer language were used to describe it?

I'm not sure how you hope to have an adult discussion on a sensitive topic if you're going to insinuate that asking you a question is tantamount to defending child rape.

I for my part have tried to find out more from someone who says they know more. I'm reading the research from one of the Wikipedia references you gave and questioning some of my assumptions while trying to remain sceptical and clear headed enough to analyse it.

> I don't feel compelled to try make it sound nicer given how damaging it can be to the child in question.

I think it's unlikely that most people in this discussion are condoning or defending this behaviour (or maybe they are but they should still get a chance to give their point and be challenged). Since we know most people will say they're for the protection of children wouldn't it be better to take them at their word, play the numbers and realise the majority here will be the same, and, if not tone down the description, tone down the attitude?

It's Hacker News, not Twitter.

>If you are talking prostitution, a 17 year old sex worker is highly unlikely to be there by choice.

That's true for most workers of all ages.

The fact that some adult sex workers are also victims in no way makes child sex trafficking somehow more acceptable or justifiable to me.

From what I have read, even sex workers generally agree that most adult sex workers "made a choice" if they remain in the life and "it's different if they are underaged."

Among other things, I've read a few biographies by sex workers.

I would love to see sex work generally see an improved track record of human rights protections. In developed countries, child labor is generally deemed to be a bad thing, even when the work in question isn't inherently exploitative.

I stand by "raping children is a bad thing" and "underaged sex workers are victims of child rape."

"Sex tourism" is usually implied to mean sex with people who are either underage or somehow unwilling.

Travelling abroad as a tourist for sex, with willing and legal participants, is obviously fine.

Really? I think you know. I'm not going to spell it out.

Edit: fine. I guess some people here need the talk. This is about the phenomena of men traveling from rich countries to poor countries to engage in sex with children. Not this guy, but it does happen. These men often return with digital images stored on laptops and cellphones. Possession of such images is illegal in canada and so Canadian boarder services targets men who fit the profile of a potential "sex tourist". The term is a polite euphemism for a darker profile, not a literal reference to having sex while being a tourist.

That's not a useful reply. People travel to countries where prostitution is legal for that purpose, and so someone who doesn't necessarily know the extra connotations that phrase carries for you.

I for one did not immediately equate sex tourism with child slavery or pedophilia until I saw your sibling comment.

They may be referring to the legal aspect, that it does not mean they are a criminal. It is more of a rightly so frowned upon moral issue, but legally is usually okay.

Yikes. In case you're serious, it's the slavery, and children.

I think you’re thinking of sex trafficking. The John being a tourist is orthogonal to the prostitute being a victim of trafficking. Many sex tourists visit Germany, for example, where prostitution is a safe, unionized profession.

Yeah, I'm not talking about Germany. We're talking about why border patrol might investigate something.

Highly naive picture of germanys pragmatic situation - basically nobody is registered much less unionized and trafficking is everywhere.

It's still a dragnet. They're not SWATing a semiautomatic rifle up your nose - nobody's claiming they're not polite - but the fact remains.

Police generally have access to full-automatic machine guns. They’re not limited to the semi-automatic models sometimes available to civilians (e.g. in the US).

US cops. Canadian cops dont carry full auto often, and when they do it is never used. It goes against rcmp training. I cannot think of any canadian examples of cops using full auto.

Dragnets tend to catch more people. This is less than 1% of 1% of travelers. It is a very limited program.

> other less-pubic successes

Freudian slip right there if I've ever seen one