Newsgroup: it.scienza.ambiente
Titolo: Re: Huge Tits

the great Creator's benevolence,
    which constitutes infanticide, is beyond comparison with the
    indulgence granted to the system of buying and selling children to
    prolong their existence."
As though these benevolent persons only bought slaves for this one
laudable purpose, to preserve their lives! "As regards the buyers,
they look upon themselves as affording relief to distressed people,
and consider the matter as an act akin to charity," etc.
A flood of light is let in upon the matter of the reluctance of
British officials to move in the putting down of domestic slavery and
the buying and selling of boys among the natives, in the following
well-deserved thrust at the weak point in the armor of the British
officials:
    "The office of the Registrar-General was charged with the
    superintendence of prostitutes and the licensing of brothels
    and similar affairs. But _from 80 to 90 per cent of all these
    prostitutes in Hong Kong were brought into these brothels by
    purchase, as is well known to everybody_. If buying and selling is
    a matter of a criminal character, the proper thing would be, first
    of all, to abolish this evil (brothel slavery). But how comes
    it that since the first establishment of the Colony down to the
    present day the same old practice prevails in these licensed
    brothels, and has never been forbidden or abolished?"
This was a center shot, and calculated to weaken the hands of at
least the guilty officials. What could they say? Were the officials
prepared, since the report of the Commission a few months before had
made public the scandals connected with the licensing and inspection
of brothels, to set about reforming the abuses by radical measures?
Certainly the Chief Justice was. He did everything in his power to
abolish slavery _as slavery_, not simply to abolish 

doubts, and difficulties which have paralyzed
public opinion and public action here; which arguments, doubts and
difficulties are the less easy to combat because they have been rather
hinted at than avowed."
The Chief Justice then sentenced several prisoners for enticing,
kidnaping or detaining children with intent to sell them into slavery,
to penal servitude for terms ranging from 18 months to 2 years.
On October 20th, Sir John Smale wrote the Governor:
    "I cannot understand why such classes should as classes increase
    in this Colony at all, unless it be that (in addition to the
    Chinese demand for domestic servants and brothels) there be an
    increased foreign element increasing the demand. I fear that a
    high premium is obtained by persons who kidnap girls in the high
    prices which they realize on sale to foreigners as kept women.[A]
    No one can walk through some of the bye-streets in this Colony
    without seeing well dressed China girls in great numbers whose
    occupations are self-proclaimed; or pass those streets, or go into
    the schools in this Colony, without counting beautiful children
    by the hundred whose Eurasian origin is self-declared. If the
    Government would inquire into the present condition of these
    classes, and still more, into what has become of these women and
    their children of the past, I believe that it will be found that
    in the great majority of cases the women have sunk into misery,
    and that of the children the girls that have survived have been
    sold to the profession of their mothers, and that, if boys, they
    have been lost sight of or have sunk into the condition of the
    mean whites of the late slave-holding states of America. The more
    I penetrate below the polished surface of our civilization the
    more convinced am I that the broad undercurrent of life here is
    more like that in the Southern States of America, when slavery
    was dominant, than it resembl

bar as a witness, and she was used again at the Supreme
    Court, it might look like a breach of good faith to treat her now
    as a criminal.... As to the druggist's case, I think that the only
    thing that can be said is that it would look to be a breach of
    faith to proceed against him now."
When the case was referred to the Crown Solicitor, he said:
    "As to the druggist the parties had now left the Colony, and there
    were no witnesses against him. The purchase by Chinese of young
    orphans, and indeed of others whose parents are too poor to keep
    them, is a social custom amongst the natives, and is of constant
    occurrence in Hong Kong. These 'pocket-children,' as they are
    usually termed, are often treated with great affection, and are
    far better off than they were previous to their being so bought."
It was the 30th of May when the Chief Justice called the Governor's
attention to these cases. It was July before the Attorney General and
the Crown Solicitor seem to have paid any attention to the cases. It
was no wonder, then, that some of the witnesses could not be found.
Meanwhile the Governor had left the Colony for a trip to Japan, and
W.H. Marsh was acting in his place. On July 16th, he returned answer
to the Chi

who defended domestic servitude, was bound to declare,
namely, That Chinese law does not forbid adoption and domestic
servitude. We have already quoted Sir John Smale's statement of the
Chinese law, which restricted the adoption of boys to the taking of
one with the same surname as the family. And as to the buying of girls
for domestic servitude, though largely _practiced_ in China, yet these
Chinese merchants could hardly have been ignorant of the fact that it
was an _illegality_ before the Chinese law. "The reason of this," says
the Chinese protest, "is the excessive increase of population, and
the wide extent of poverty and distress." But there was neither
over-population nor distress at Hong Kong which should necessitate the
introduction of the practice into that Colony. "If all those practices
were forbidden, poor and distressed people would have no means left
to save their lives, but would be compelled to sit down and wait for
death." In other words, these men would claim that their motives were
wholly, or largely benevolent in purchasing the children of the poor!
And what better could the poor do for a living than to beget children
and sell them into slavery to the rich!
"Whilst all those practices, therefore, may be classed together
as buying and selling (of free persons), it is yet requisite to
distinguish carefully the good or wicked purposes which each class of
practice serve, and accordingly apply discriminate