Talk:Human trafficking in Angeles City/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Suugested merge with Sexual slavery

References currently being used in the criticism section

The only secondary source listed doesn't support the arguments being presented. Unless better sources are included that support the content, the section should be removed. Addhoc 10:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the sources support the opposite of the arguments being presented. However I don't think the section should be removed - maybe remove the first and third paragraphs and leave the second. I would prefer to encourage rational criticism than to try and suppress alternate views. Like it or not, some local residents have different views, and if those views can be expressed rationally then it might contribute to an understanding of the problem. Phaedrus86 12:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The second paragraph would obviously require sources:
  • "As with any city with a population of over one quarter million people Angeles does have crime including sex crimes." - dubious - the references indicate that Angeles has a very significant child sex tourism problem.
  • "Although sex crime laws are actively enforced" - unsourced - the references indicate a large number of child prostitutes and very few arrests, so this would appear to be incorrect.
  • "activists attempt to use the occasional arrest to try to paint a picture of a larger slavery problem instead of looking at it as a successful investigation of a rare sex crime." - dubious - the sources indicate that child prostitution isn't rare.
Addhoc 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You are quite right, the claims as currently expressed are dubious and the whole section is really badly argued, but the point I was trying to make was that:
  • some local residents see the problem in a different light
  • their viewpoint should be included if the article as a whole is to have a NPOV
  • it is very difficult if not impossible to find references for this viewpoint
  • therefore we should provide a short statement outlining this point of view.
I will shortly replace the section with a statement like this and see how we go. Phaedrus86 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, i put in some citations to show that sex crimes are enforced. i do have one question. why is it that "the references indicate a large number of child prostitutes and very few arrests, so this would appear to be incorrect" when the very few arrests could easily be indicative of the "large number of child prostitutes" being in error??

For the number of arrests to be indicative of the underlying crime rate there has to be a strong rule-of-law and there has to be belief that the crimes in question are in fact enforced. Many crimes all over the world are not enforced. I know in my part of the world it is a waste of time calling the police for a breakin apart from for insurance purposes. The number of arrests nowhere near indicates the number of thefts that actually occur.Phaedrus86 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

i am in angeles. we dont want pedophiles here. we dont want child prostitutes here. we dont want pedophiles coming here thinking there are child prostitutes here because some groups post on the internet that there are. law enforcement in angeles is aggressive with anyone suspected of harming a child. raising alarms on the internet is not doing anyone any good especially if there is not a problem here. all that is needed is accuracy in this article and not sensational articles slandering a city.

You have to ask yourself: are you going to know if foreign pedophiles go there and hire child prostitutes? I wouldn't know if it happens in my city, but I am fairly confident the practice would be found before too long and stopped because the police do look out for these things and people do talk. However in places where as is documented, the rule of law is weak, and widespread prostitution is tolerated because of poverty, it can very easily go on unseen.
You also need to bear in mind here that the customers tend to be wealthy and often foreign. They are the criminals as much as the pimps. Nobody suggests that the local residents of Angeles not involved in these crimes are to blame. Personally I would like to see all the scum who travel from my country to the Philippines for the purpose of child sex arrested. We do arrest some, but not nearly enough. I think that is reason enough to keep the problem in the public eye, not sweep it under the carpet. Phaedrus86 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
what seems to be missing in this whole equation is the actual child prostitutes? where are they? how is a foreign tourist supposed to find them if law enforcement can't even find them? it is well documented that the police do arrest and prosecute people. so why are there so few arrests if not for the fact that there are so few problems? why is it that not one single complaint was filed in angeles for the period i gave earlier?RodentofDeath 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Foreign tourists can often easily find contraband that law enforcement can't simply because the contraband is offered to the tourist, but its existence denied to law enforcement. That is an obvious argument.
I'm trying to include your point of view in the criticism section, but the arguments need to be sound. Please try and work with me here. Phaedrus86 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
hmmm, you think law enforcement isnt smart enough to run a sting operation? you think that almost anyone that is approached and offered a child for sex would not turn someone in to police? ok, let's just go over the numbers then to see who is credible and who isnt. 150,000 of the 280,000 residents?? ok, there goes the credibility of both the salvation army article and of susan bryce. i've already discussed the credibility of preda elsewhere. it is not a reliable independent source of information. how does one estimate the number of pedophiles coming to angeles for sex? they just ask people arriving at the airport? the only solid concrete numbers available are police and department of justice records. these indicate that there is no human trafficking problem in angeles. if you repeat bad information enough times does it become good information?RodentofDeath 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

for anyone reading this please feel welcome to come here. please try to find someone doing something illegal and report that problem to the police. it will be handled promptly and professionally. the community will thank you for getting a criminal off the streets. the victims will thank you for helping them. i can honestly tell you that the major law enforcement problem i see here is that locals do not respect traffic laws. it is anything goes on the streets but that is pretty much the same all across asia. if there were one thing that i could point out that is extremely dangerous to children it would be in how they are transported around. it is bad enough that children ride in trikes (motorcycles with sidecars) and of course they are not strapped in or in a child seat but when i see a family of 3 or 4 people including toddler children all on the same motorcycle and nobody is even wearing a helmet i am furious. to be honest i see this a significantly greater problem and a more significant threat to children.

Explanation of Low Conviction Rate In Angeles

The reasons behind the low conviction rates of those invloved in Human Trafficking can be found in this BBC interview with Senior Angeles City Judge, "Judge Pinto". The article is dated, 19 February 2006, and Judge Pinto states she has been trying trying cases here for 10 years: rape, murder, paedophilia, child trafficking. So she has excellant experience in the court matters of Angeles. She states, "She thinks back carefully over all her trials involving the local sex industry and admits that she has sent almost no-one to prison. In most cases, she says frankly, the key witnesses are simply paid off." Note how a Senior Judge in Angeles states that witnesses are paid off. This Senior Judge also refers to the "sex industry"" in Angeles. Also note how the prosecutor took the day off court. The article goes on to talk about a particular case involving a 12 year child who has been trafficked in the sex slave industry in Angeles. What is so amazing about this article is that the business that trafficked this 12 year old child is still in business in Angeles. This highlights the level of government protection the human trafficking industry recieves in Angeles.[1] To give balance, it may be an idea to add this to the article. Poppy2828 12:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent source, thanks Poppy. I have added it in the Corruption section. Phaedrus86 09:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

very good article. slightly slanted and i believe a few minor errors but still good. the business that employed, pimped, whatever you want to call it.... is NOT still in business. first of all, i think they got the location wrong but i am not 100% sure on that (maybe 90% sure). i believe the viper room was actually cheetahs before its current owners bought it. i think the location for g-spot is actually a few buildings down and has been torn down. it was vacant for quite some time and they are now building a multi-story casino/hotel called Golden Nile at the location. as if beer and prostitutes werent enough now they need to add gambling too.

anyway, both locations have changed ownership. in one case case a building was completely gutted and built again and in the other case the building was torn down completely and is now being replaced by a much larger building. this is a high profile business area with lots of hotels, restaurants and bars. if something closes the property still has value and a new business will quickly take its place. i wouldnt read into the fact that a new bar is now in the same location as an old bar.

as a foreigner i dont really want to comment on the legal system here because i dont truly understand it. i would rather a filipino explain it but it is my understanding that there is nothing wrong with paying a victim and it is even encouraged. i think the judge may be referring to the victim as the witness. obviously the victim can testify and be a witness.

i know it sounds suspicious that a guy was arrested for simply being a regular customer. i can tell you what i have personally seen. i was in a bar that was raided. it seems that one of the dancers got..... eh... "friendly" with one of the other dancers on stage and a body part fell out of the upper part of their "uniform". there was an under cover policeman in the bar at the time (who says law enforcement isnt looking??). they let all the customers out of the bar....except ONE. they thought he was the manager. he was not. the manager walked out with the customers. they brought all the dancers to one jail and all the remaining bar staff to another jail. the dancers were then treated as victims of the anti human trafficking law and the waitresses were detained for 8 days. they were being charged with human trafficking!! they also didnt receive any food for the first 40 hours they were detained. the foreigner mistaken as the manager was eventually set free also. the reason i tell this story is to point out that it is great to put pressure on law enforcement to make arrests but be very careful not to put too much pressure. this is their country and they will do what they please with it. by the way, these were not local police from angeles doing this but people from another jurisdiction. read into that what you wish.

the last thing is about the prosecutor not showing up for work. i can tell you as a business owner that if you can get 75% of your employees to show up and put a full day of work in you are having a great day. you would think that with such a high unemployment rate that workers that do have jobs would be punctual but that is not the case. its actually very difficult to fire someone in the philippines as labor laws highly favor the worker. it is one of the reasons most companies offer employment with contracts of 6 months in length. at the end of a contract you dont renew the workers you wished you could have fired five and a half months ago. i also dont pay my employees until they are leaving on friday. if i pay them earlier they all disappear.

this is all personal observations and has no merit here. RodentofDeath 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of allegations section

"i started to change part of this and then realized it needed major changes and probably should be discussed more. what i did change was i removed "as far as they can see" as it seemed redundant. it was already made clear that this was the point of view of the residents.

so here is the text as it is at this moment: Local residents criticize these allegations on the grounds that the problem they see is nowhere near as visible as these allegations make it appear.[original research?] They say that there is a strong law against sex slavery and child prostitution[21] and the law is enforced[22][23][24] and the low level of convictions demonstrates a low level of crime.[original research?]

Sources for these criticisms have so far not been found, but anecdotal evidence strongly supports the fact that local residents do hold these views."

how about removing the "local residents" sentence and simply starting the section with the following sentence... "Critics say that there is a strong law against sex slavery and child prostitution and that this law is actively enforced." i suggest adding "From June 2003 until January 2005 65 complaints were received nationwide. Not a single complaint was filed in Angeles" with the following citation: http://www.doj.gov.ph/news_06-07-05.html

Gang Investigation by BBC

I have just been made aware of this recent article by the BBC which is an in depth invesigation into gang controlled child sex slavery in the philippines. It makes a number of interesting points, first the involvement of police in the child sex slavery trade. Second: It shows how well organized the gangs are, a well layered mafia organization. "Over the years, the chairman has worked his way up, from trainee field recruiter, to running individual brothels, and now to overseeing an entire network - an underworld association, he calls it." The article also states there could be 100,000 Philippine children involved in the local sex trade. [2] I know this article refers to the whole philippines, but I believe it should be a valuable addition here.Poppy2828 13:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

i think it makes more sense for this article to be about the entire philippines. RodentofDeath 22:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Prtitution is a sub-section of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons act

Prostitution is a sub-section of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons act. This has already been clarified above.

As such, Human Trafficking includes all the following: Trafficking in Persons Prostitution Sex Tourism Sexual Exploitation Debt Bondage Pornography Slavery, etc

Using the word prostution is no good here, as it would mean I would still have to go and do seperate articles to cover all the rest. This article is about Human Traifficking, and prostution is just a sub section of that. Other areas of the article include cyber sex cafes, trafficking, debt bondage, etc which are all covered by Human Trafficking as per Government Legislation. In regards to the time of the United States military base, becvause it included prostitution, trafficking, sex tourism, sex slavery etc, the correct term in the article is Human Trafficking as per government legislation which defines all this under human trafficking. I refer people to the act that explains this....[3]

There is no need and logic to do a seperate article on prostitution, it would be much better to keep prostitution under the Human Trafficking article where it belongs. Susanbryce 15:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

what the above clearly states is not what you are claiming at all. it clearly gives two seperate definitions for "human trafficking" and for "prostition". at no point does it say that prostitution is human trafficking yet you continually try to use the terms human trafficking, prostitution and sex slavery interchangeably as if they are all the same thing. they clearly are not as defined above.

(c) Prostitution - refers to any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the use of a person by another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money, profit or any other consideration

(a) Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use o force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.

the closest thing you have to your statement is "prostitution of others" in the definition of trafficking in persons and that clearly is not the same as "prostitution".

More on Preda as unreliable source=

this is the type of trash that makes this article extremely biased. someone has inserted a link (gee, i wonder who?!!) to this outrageously inaccurate and biased article by the vigilante group PREDA. http://www.preda.org/archives/2004/r04062801.html this article talks about richard agnew (a living person, so look up the rules on that please) that was arrested because susan pineda, city council woman and associate of susan bryce, attempted to blackmail him. she claimed that one of the workers at the club got AIDS while employed by him. agnew did not go along with the blackmail and susan then had the owner arrested for employing underage girls. they even brought a dentist along to check the age of the girls (yes thats right, a dentist!!). the only problem is that after the arrest all the girls were found to be a legal age. all charges against him were dropped. the girl has since tested negative for HIV repeatedly.

Your note of the Susan Bryce -Susan Pineda connection reminds me of a priceless photo I have somewhere from the front page of the Sun Star Pampanga years ago. The front page had a large color photo (and article) of councilwoman and activist Pineda accepting a check with a large smile from a foreign bar owner taken in the bar for a Pineda sponsored activity. The foreign bar owner was known as the worst offender at the time for supplying fake IDs to prospective employees (something he could not get close to getting away with now), was a prominent member of a biker club suspected of smuggling drugs, and was later killed by a rival in the gang. Incidentally, Councilwoman Pineda's husband made his fortune in the illegal gambling "jueteng" racket targetting the poor. Her hypocrisy is unbelievable.'--Eli 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

the article claims that "girls look as young as 12 or 13" which is completely false. all the girls in the clubs are over 18. they all have licenses from the city and need to prove their age before starting work. they also need to go to a doctor weekly for checkups.

To many Westerners Philippine women look very young for their age. I have been with my wife to a restaurant, and they asked for her ID to serve her wine. She is 34. --Eli 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Richard owns all the clubs around here," except in another citation on this site it says there are 200 clubs (ok, it called them brothels in error but apparently nobody wants to fix that either). of these 200 clubs agnew is involved in 4.

"arrested Mr Agnew last August after raiding one club, the Blue Nile, and discovering six girls aged between 11 and 13." well, completely accurate except for the age thing. they were all proven to be over 18 and charges were dropped."a few weeks later police dropped the charges for lack of evidence." do you think not having underage girls would be lack of evidence if you are charged with underage girls?? brilliant!!

"He said he always insisted on seeing the birth certificates of people working for him. A police video of the raid, which followed a complaint that he was employing young girls, suggests he had an arrangement with local police. "I was promised there would be no more harassment," he protested repeatedly as he was led away.... and if you watch the video you will see that he was referring to the blackmail attempt the night before by susan pineda (she was now being investigated for the crime) and how she organized a raid for one of his other clubs where she accused him of having underage girls. all girls were found to be of legal age.

"He came back last Christmas on a 21-day single-entry visa and is still in the country, six months later." is there something wrong with this?? clearly they are trying to give that impression. everyone is given a 21 day visa on entry. if you want to stay longer you renew it.

"They used to dance naked, but the council cracked down." a complete lie. there was never naked dancing. its illegal.

"Father Shay Cullen, an Irish priest who has been fighting child prostitution in the Philippines for two decades, said: "He [Mr Agnew] is into clubs and bars, and minors are found inside, so let a court of law decide." ...and the court decided that father cullen (he was arrested for sexual assault on a 9 year old girl) is incorrect and there were no underage girls in the clubs.

wikipedia is playing the fool. it is allowing itself to be manipulated by activists with a continual pattern of spreading lies through the internet and press releases to media outlets that are blatantly in error.

on what basis??

what is the reason for the article being reverted? my sources are well cited. is it because the article would then have a neutral point of view instead of the biased sensationalism that susan is attempting to put here??

Your changes obviously lacked consensus. Also, they were based on your analysis of primary sources and consequently introduced concerns relating to original thought and neutrality. Finally, calling Phaedrus a vandal is clearly uncivil. Addhoc 12:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
well at least you were kind enough to give an explanation. the reason for the vandal comment was the only thing stated at all anywhere was a the one word comment "nonsense" in the reasons for the revert. no discussion. no explanation. deletion of primary and secondary sourced material. deletion of corrections in other people's sourced material. Rather than correcting any error he reverted back to a version with more errors and a version with a more biased point of view. my edit was well cited with primary and secondary sources and summarized the thoughts of a government official quoted in the news. there are two versions of the first sentence. one says human trafficking is a significant problem and one says it is not. how is choosing one over the other considered a neutral point of view? RodentofDeath 06:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I labelled it nonsense because any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. It is completely unproductive to debate obvious nonsense. Phaedrus86 09:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, perhaps you would like to point out the part that is nonsense to me since i apparently have a reading comprehension problem of some sort and can't find what you are referring to. the article your reverted from states:

Human trafficking in Angeles City, Philippines is not a significant problem. Department of Justice records show that from June 2003 until January 2005 there were 65 complaints received for alleged trafficking in persons violations in the entire nation. Not a single complaint was received for Angeles.[4][5] Despite this fact some organizations continue to attempt to raise funds to combat what they refer to as a serious problem.[6][7] UNICEF quotes the Philippines Department of Social Welfare and Development that "anywhere from 60,000 to 600,000 streetchildren are victims of child prostitution" in the Philippines as a whole.

while the one your reverted to states:

Human trafficking in Angeles City, Philippines is a significant problem.[8][9] UNICEF quotes the Philippines Department of Social Welfare and Development that "anywhere from 60,000 to 600,000 streetchildren are victims of child prostitution" in the Philippines as a whole.

so on one hand we have official government crime statistics with citations pointing to the official government site and a citation to an article from a widely circulated philippine newspaper. on the other hand we have two books used as a citation to say that human trafficking is a currently a significant problem. both books are over a decade old and neither mentions "human trafficking" even one time. then you have a line talking about the philippines as a whole with nothing specific to angeles at all.

i'm sorry. perhaps the "nonsense" part should be obvious but apparently i am having trouble.... or was it the part about the donations as i tried to tie the old and the new parts together. it cant be that or you would have just deleted that one part, right?

or maybe you preferred the nonsensical "Human Trafficking was highly prominent during the time of the U.S. military base" instead of what the citations were referring to as prostitution.

ALRC investigation

As Rodent pointed out recently, the reference in para 1 of foreign governments reaction doesn't say the Australian Law Reform Commission mounted an investigation, it says one of their lawyers attended a conference in Manila. I don't think it diminishes the credibility of the report or the reference by much, although it obviously does a little. The ALRC thought enough of it to publish it, and the ALRC has credibility. Thanks for pointing that out Rodent, I do listen to what you say, just not when you get irrational. Phaedrus86 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for recognizing it. there are recommondations in the report but it does not say if any of them were implemented or if the australian government had any reaction at all to the report. it certainly does not seem to equal a "reaction of a foreign government" as the title of the section suggests. i would think that laws passed would be wonderfully suited for this section and i am fairly certain that the australian government has passed laws to deal with human trafficking. however, this article seems to fail to qualify as an official reaction of the australian government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RodentofDeath (talk • contribs) 01:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
further info from the citation states "The majority of conference participants were women from non government organisations working in women's issues or with poverty alleviation." again, this would seem to warrant it not being appropriate in a section about official government reactions. there is also another reference to this article in the corruption section where it again falsely claims the statement as something from the australian government.RodentofDeath 01:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Good points. I'll move it somewhere more appropriate. Phaedrus86 07:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

history section

the line "Forced prostitution is regarded as slavery. Children and teenagers are lured into the industry from poor areas by promises of money and care, and are kept there by threats, debt bondage and the fear of poverty." seems out of place and meant to stir emotion more than it is to provide a factual history. see an article by susan bryce on propaganda and how some words which are emotive to some people. http://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/australian_magazine_analyzes_dru.htm

also, the citation for "the current trade is dominated" line is over a decade old and hardly seems an accurate description. (i can tell you from personal experience that it isnt accurate but that would be personal research). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RodentofDeath (talk • contribs) 10:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Ok, regarding the first item, I agree the statement should be clarified, a reliable source should be cited and the organization that considers forced prostitution to be slavery should be named, however I don't think this would be very difficult. Regarding the second item, the purpose of the article isn't just to give an up to the minute account - this is encyclopedia article writing not journalism. Addhoc 11:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
i think you are missing the point. by putting this definition in the history section it implies that there is a history of forced prostitution in angeles. i wasnt really worried about being up to the minute. if i was i would inform people that a "barfine" no longer exists but that an "early work release" is 1300p. i thought that having information from the correct decade would be more pertinent as koreans seem to be buying up the bars but i guess it doesnt really matter. in reality there really is no slave trade in angeles so whats the difference who you blame for it. RodentofDeath 23:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL - sinister sounding, yes - true, no

This quote is currently on the Angeles City page under the somewhat confusing title "Arrests and people actions" -

In Angeles City a women’s organisation has sponsored street food stalls, outside the foreigner bars and clubs, which are run by women who have left the sex industry. The stalls now form a venue for past and current workers and their friends and associates to gather and organise over issues such as the rape of bar staff by expatriate owners.[24] The illegal squatters stalls were removed by The Clark Development Corporation in 2005.[25]

I had to laugh out loud. The two references here are to an online newsletter from a Filipina owned restaurant/bar about the illegal stalls being removed, and from a page that says nothing about gathering over issues such as rape.... The cited reference to that is Murray, 1994, pg 9. The only reference I can find in the bibliography for Murray is to a book about using corporal punishment with children. Now back to why I laughed out loud - the reason the stalls were torn down is because they were on public land, they did not meet any hygiene standards; and all their trash and sewage were dumped directly on the street. Locals had tried for years to get the area cleaned up. Finally they were cleaned up, and cement plumbed and properly wired stalls were put up nearby. Unfortunately some stalls are rebuilt and have to be again torn down. The stalls were not funded by women's groups, and were not havens for abused women to gather and organise; but were mainly areas for Filipinos and foreigners unwilling to pay bar prices to try to pick up bar girls on their breaks. Now, all of this is just irrelevant because it is firsthand, personal knowledge - but I believe I have debunked the paragraph unless Susan Bryce can make up some more references.--Eli 20:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Challenge to Statement and Citations

Im going to challenge the following statement and coitations and request senior editors give a ruling on this please. in the Critism of Allegations section... "Department of Justice records show that from June 2003 until January 2005 there were 65 complaints received for alleged trafficking in persons violations in the entire nation. Not a single complaint was received for Angeles.". First, no-where in these two articles does it mention Angeles! So these two articles do not confirm one way or another in regards to Angeles. Second, I cite three citations which clearly show during the time frame stated police action on complaints and arests and charges being prepared under Republic Act (RA) 9208 or the Anti-trafficking of Persons Act and the republic act ra 9208 anti trafficking persons , which make the above citations completely wrong. Heres the links to those complaints, police actions... http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:rqmtwny7IrYJ:www.arellanolaw.net/publish/itlj-issue3_13-2.html+Child+Sex+Tourism+Act+of+1994+angeles+philippines&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9

and.... http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:X7Ay0VzELFUJ:www.pnp.gov.ph/press/policedigest/2004/october_2004.pdf+Republic+Act+(RA)+9208+or+the+Anti-trafficking+of+Persons+Act+angeles+philippines&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11

and....http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Pt2kABOYXM4J:www.pnp.gov.ph/about/content/offices/central/cidg/content/ar_cidg_2004.pdf+republic+act+ra+9208+anti+trafficking+persons+angeles+philippines&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15


would apprecaite a ruling on these citations from senior editors, regardsSusanbryce 15:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these references, it appears at first sight to be useful, although I haven't read it in detail.
I have already pointed out regarding the criticisms section that the logic is nonsensical - a lack of complaints does not prove lack of a problem, and there is plenty of evidence cited elsewhere that there is a problem. However some people are incapable of grasping the significance of faulty logic and continue to argue in spite of it. There is nothing I can do in that situation but leave them to their nonsense.
I will look through your references over the next few days and if I can find enough to back it up then I will add a counter claim to the criticisms section pointing out that the reference claiming no complaints appears to be contradicted by other references. Might take me a few days, as I am fairly busy at the moment. Phaedrus86 08:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC

the reference does not need to mention angeles specifically. i am not quoting it. i am using it as a citation. it mentions 65 complaints and accounts for all of them. not one of the complaints was in angeles. are you trying to argue that there was a complaint for angeles filed with the justice department?? please provide information on what you see in the department of justice records that is in error. the citations provided above by susan include one case in makati and some arrests in angeles in october 2004. was the complaint filed in the time frame i specified? your links dont say. you are the one making the argument so please prove they were filed and the justice department records are in error. phaedrus, are you saying that a lack of complaints indicate there IS a problem? is that your logic? if you can provide statistics instead of estimates i would be happy to see them. my argument is that the ESTIMATES are silly. how do you find out how many pedophiles are traveling to angeles? ask everyone at the airport if they are a pedophile and where they are going? arrest records are hard numbers, not estimates. department of justice records are hard evidence, not estimates. what you and susan are calling evidence is news reports (very sensational ones) of people being arrested. i know for a fact that some of those people were arrested as an extortion attempt and that all charges were dropped against them when they were found to be doing nothing illegal. of course, this is personal knowledge so wikipedia wont include it in the article and newpapers rarely write articles about people being cleared of charges here. 58.69.50.128 04:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

phaedrus, are you saying that a lack of complaints indicate there IS a problem? No, you have still failed to grasp the point. A lack of complaints does NOT prove there is not a problem. The evidence of the problem is provided in the many other references. You are being wilfully obtuse here. Phaedrus86 08:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Challenge to Absurd Statement and Citation

Ok, im also going to challenge the following wich has just been added to the article... "Women working in the bars have to be registered and are required to undergo frequent health checks. Recently, the government has announced measures to battle the country's child prostitution and sex tourist image. Bar girls have to be at least 18, are issued ID tags as GRO’s (Guest Relations Officers). They are required to have weekly health checkups for STDs and monthly be tested for HIV. Many of the bargirls/dancers wear their ID tags around their necks".[5]...

First, the citation is from a Sex Blog, and the guy says he gets his info from a taxi driver! Now this most certainly does not fit into wikipedias reliable sources! Second, the statement seems to imply Prostition is licensed by the goverment, well prostitution is a serious crime here and the government does not license prostitution! Also, this same license is issued to fast food workers, workers in 5 star hotels, and even workers in the foreign embassys in manila, etc, its not a license for prostituon. It is a broad license thats issued right across the Philippines to millions of workers. But, Ill tell you why the gangs leak out this false story about the gro license, because it fools the customer into thinking everything is legal and above board and as long as the grl has the license she is licensed to engage in Prostitution. False. What happens is that these poor unsespecting customers walk off down the road with these grls feeling safe, they suddenly get arrested by the police and charged with procuring the services of a prostitute. And then they find out that in fact the grl is under 18 and their on a more serrious charge. The police soon extort usd$50,000 from the customer. The money is then divided up between the police and the gangs with the grl getting some too. This scam has been going for decades here. It happen several times a nite in fields ave , Angeles.

Also, there is no law in the philippines that can force anyone to take a std or hiv test, if there is, then rodent needs cite the exact law. Also, the government cannot stop issuing a license to anyone if they refuse to take these tests because there is no law that allows this. If there is, Rodent must cite the exact law. Also, a gro cannot be forced to attend a medical clinic for a std hive checkup, if there is a law, the exact law must be cited. I require a ruling on this from a senior editor pls? Phaedrus86 or Adhoc pls give us a ruling on this. Susanbryce 15:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Susan, I am not a senior editor and I am not here to give rulings. I am thoroughly sick of trying to deal with the moronic quasi-arguments attempted by RodentofDeath, so I am going to ignore this article entirely for several weeks. Someone else can wade through his utter nonsense for a bit. Phaedrus86 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


this same license is issued to foreign embassy workers?? i will have to check at the embassy. it will be very interesting to see the embassy people in manila wearing a license from angeles city that says "dancer" on it. your argument here is silly. nobody is saying it is a license to be a prostitute. it is a license to work in a bar. are you disputing that the girls in the bars have licenses?? are you disputing that they get tested weekly? what part of the information cited are you saying is incorrect? yes there is a law stating you can not be forced to take an aids test. yet you cant get a license without taking one. you are not being forced to take one you simply wont be issued a license or the bar wont hire you. if the gro does not show up for their weekly std check then their license is no longer valid. nobody said anything about forcing anyone to get the checkup. they need to do it to maintain a valid license. for someone that claims they were born in a bar i dont see why you dont know this stuff already. by the way, you claim the bar is still there. what bar is it? or is this like your claims of a multi-story restaurant with girls chained to the bed and armed guards patrolling outside?? only problem is i cant seem to find any multi story restaurants with armed guards patrolling and girls chained to the beds. i will keep looking because i know they must be there somewhere since you said they are there. 58.69.50.128 04:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


oh looky, looky what i found: Presidential Decree No. 856 (1976), ss. 57, 62. As a pre-condition to employment in entertainment establishments or massage parlors, sex workers are issued a health certificate, sometimes known as a “pink card,” noting the results of regular STD tests. so it appears susan is once again in error. it is a pre-condition to employment. she is correct that nobody can be forced to take a test for HIV however it is encouraged by the government and is in fact practiced. i guess this would mena that the president is part of "the gang" leaking information!!58.69.50.128 05:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

susan's argument for deleteing good information is "First, the citation is from a Sex Blog, and the guy says he gets his info from a taxi driver!" once again you misrepresent the facts. the report is a first hand account. you also say he gets his information from a taxi driver. this is false. he gets his information first hand as clearly stated in the article and the taxi driver CONFIRMS what he states. for a professional journalist you seem to be unable to clearly understand who is saying what in an article. it is either that or you are deliberately trying to misrepresent things to promote your own agenda.


First, I suggest everyone calm down. Now I have added some "citations required" to the challenged section. This will allow RodentofDeath a few days to back up his claims with quality sourced citations. Please give him a chance to do this. In the meantime, I suggest everyone refrain from making any further changes to the article so things can settle down.Poppy2828 14:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


I removed the link from margarita station as this is site is clearly against Wikipedias rules. Susanbryce 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

put cited information back in. susan, are you trying to tell us that the stalls are still there? if you are it shows that you are more interested in pushing your agenda of slandering angeles than you are about telling the truth. also, i would like to see what rule this link "clearly violates" as it is a newsletter just the same that preda is a newsletter. if this one goes then i am going to argue that all of the biased information from preda should go also. RodentofDeath 23:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


It should also be added that children as young as 11 are easily able to get a Guest Relations Officer license and work in the bars in Angeles that front for child prostitution. Heres the links...http://www.preda.org/archives/1997/r9708011.htm and....http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/14/1063478066604.html .

bullshit. if thats true then why not jsut report EVERYONE involved to the NBI. once again it just proves that preda, you and father shay are more interested in pushing a political agenda then you are about telling the truth. nobody at the age of 11 in working in the bars. that is absolutely absurd!!!! RodentofDeath 23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


removed unsourced reference that bars are fronts for human trafficking. removed sentence about bar owners being charged. one link didnt work and the other two referred to a charge against richard agnew who later had charges dropped because all girls were found to be over 18 despite what preda says. this is in reference to the famous case that susan bryce's friend, susan pineda, attempted to extort money from richard agnew and when he didnt go along with the blackmail his clubs were raided and they used a DENTIST to "estimate" the age of the girls!!! RodentofDeath 23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

personally, i think this article is (as of this moment, anyway) about as nuetral as its going to get. most of the outrageous claims such as 56% of the residents being prostitutes and things like that are now gone. the requirements for people working in the bars is correct but since the rules have been modified for 2007 as both the government and the barowners dont want underage people in their bar i havent yet been able to find citations. i'm working on it though. it shows the laws are being enforced and the government is serious about arresting offenders. RodentofDeath 04:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

here's the version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_trafficking_in_Angeles_City&oldid=129780501 any objections? RodentofDeath 10:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted back to last version by Adhoc

I have reverted this back to the last version by Adhoc, as what has happened since then is people attempting to hijack this page to push their own slant on this article. Now, in future before any further changes are made, people should post their suggestions here and a consensus will be reached. That is the only way this article is going to move forward from here. If people continue with their childish actions I will request both the user and the IP address be banned from Wikipedia.Poppy2828 12:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

more susanbryce errors

"A number of arrests against those involved in the trade has taken place as a result of international media attention.[6]

Child welfare Organization, "Preda", has led the fight against the child sex slavery trade in Angeles. Working undercover, volunteers with hidden cameras have uncovered child brothels in Angeles.[22][6]"

well, the first line talks about a number of arrests and the cause is international media. yet the citation does not say anything about the cause being international media. again, it is a pattern by the contributor to intentionally distort information for a political agenda. the cause of this arrest was an undercover police operation NOT the media.

the next line is an advertisement for preda. they have apparently "led the fight" since they had one guy wear a camera in a bar in 2002. you would think that the police are leading the fight or maybe even the NBI because they have done more than one operation..... but no, its PREDA. is there next slogan "stay with the leader, donate now!!".... such a shame that so many other organizations could put the money to better use than using vigalante tactics.

oh, and the child brothel part.... when did a bar become a brothel? why did you change the name of the establichment from a bar (as it says in the news article) to a brothel? where's the second one? you said brothels not brothel. more deliberate misinformation by susanbryce. listen, i am glad the scum bag got arrested and i hope he rots in jail. lets not oversentationalize the story. no need to distort the facts. they guy was a scum and got caught by the police in an undercover investigation. GOOD!!! RodentofDeath 11:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, Preda has not led the fight, but, they have certainly been actively involved. So I have changed that from "led the fight" to being "actively involved". The rest I need to look at, but this takes time, just be patient.Poppy2828 15:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Your statement that..."There is a strong law against sex slavery and child prostitution", is correct, it is backed up by the tough anti-trafficking law. As such I have shifted this to the top part of the article. However, the wording that the law is strongely enforced does not seem to be correct. There is plenty of sources to indicate the opposite. I think a compromise statement needs to be said here....im open to suggestions.Poppy2828 17:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You are also right in regards to the wording on arrests taking place as a result of international media attention, but, there is also little doubt the media attention will pressure a government to take action on a problem. And the sex trade in Angeles has gained international media attention. With that said, to be fair, I have simply made a change to the wording and added some supporting sources.Poppy2828 17:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The link from margarita station is clearly questionable and the site itself contains content that is not within wikipedia guidlines.

This type of site should never be used as a citation, I have removed the link, but, I have made notation in the article that the stalls closed in 2005. This is a fair result for all.Poppy2828 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


On a side note, I have talked to the other party in this dispute and they have agreed to make no more changes to the article and have agreed to pursue consensus here in the discussion area based on Wikipedia guidlines. Now if you can agree to the same we can all slowly move forward in a constructive way. The key here is to provide a well sourced article from quality citations.Poppy2828 15:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious from looking at the above debate here that every single citation and every single word is being challenged. With that said, it appears that most statements are going to need several citations as support. That is quality citations. Wording must be supported by these citations. If anyone petitions this form to add anything further to this article they had better make sure they have at least 2-3 citations to back up what they are saying and they better be quality citations.Poppy2828 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion page has also become too long, so I have shifted some of the earlier content into archives.Poppy2828 18:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


i hate to bring up more errors but once again "sex slave" is inserted where the word "prostitution" should be after the line about the pinatubo eruption. RodentofDeath 00:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
i think we need a reference for "rape of barstaff by expatriate owners". certainly a serious accusation and there is no proof it ever has happened. RodentofDeath 00:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
since one of the citations uses World Sex Guide as a source of information it should then also be suitable to be used as a source of information directly, correct?? the line i am talking about is "However, in October of that year, a Bill sentencing paedophiles to death failed after a congressional committee disagreed on whether the death penalty was an effective deterrent and on the definition of a child prostitute (World Sex Guide, 1996, Internet)." on the citation [10] what i am trying to establish here is if the report uses a citation can that source (or lack of source) of information be challenged? if it can not then is the source of information itself used in the citation now a credible source? if a citation uses information from a source not up to wikipedia standards then we can assume that unsourced information in that citation maybe be equally or even more bogus?? RodentofDeath 00:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
while the information on preda and members leading the fight is getting better i am still not sure of its accuracy. the line still fails to mention that Fantastic investigation was part of a police investigation and instead gives all the credit to preda volunteers. the line from the article citation is "undercover officers of the Philippines National Bureau of Investigations and staff of an American-funded child protection agency wearing hidden video cameras visited Fantastic". i also think it is wrong to change what the business is (a bar) into something it is not (a child brothel). the citation then goes on to say it has since re-opened. if you change what the business is from "bar to "child brothel" you are implying that a legal business now operating in angeles is a child brothel. its great the guy got caught but lets be accurate. RodentofDeath 01:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


I see your points, give me a few days to investigate it.Poppy2828 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have included a small section on The Trafficking in Persons Act with just a brief summary. Trafficking in Persons is defined under Philippine law as prostitution, sex slavery, debt bondage, etc. So where possible, it will be better to use Human Trafficking as the definition in the article, also as that is the title of the article.Poppy2828 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Prostitution is NOT trafficking in person. hiring a someone to be a prostitute is. in other words, pimping is trafficking in a person. the exact wording is "recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means.....for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage". for instance, freelance prostitution is not human trafficking. however, in order to make your paragraph more accurate i think it would be easier to simply change it to "forced prostitution" RodentofDeath 20:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point on the child brothel, and have changed that to read preda working with Law Enforcment agencies. I have changed it from child brothel to a bar trafficking children.Poppy2828 17:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Now to Susans challengs to the statement: "Department of Justice records show that from June 2003 until January 2005 there were 65 complaints received for alleged trafficking in persons violations in the entire nation. Not a single complaint was received for Angeles."

Susan has provided three citations which seem to show this is not correct and clearly show actions during the time frame specified. Also, it refers to too short a time frame, just 18 months from when the act was implemented. The Human Trafficking trade in Angeles has spanned over a number of decades. This sort of link will be better suited over in prostitution in the philippines. Ill transfer it over there.Poppy2828 20:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

if susan is showing you links she has previously posted then she is showing you that police action had taken place, not that complaints were filed at the department of justice. let me also point out that susan has repeatedly pointed to an article about the arrest of richard agnew on charges of employing underage dancers in his club. there were news articles about his arrest. there were no charges filed with the department of justice because all girls were later found to be over 18 and charges were dropped. so showing that police action has taken place is not a valid way to show that the department of justice records are not accurate. the point of showing the records on this page is to show that people with a political agenda are taking the few arrests that thankfully have taken place and using them to try to justify outrageous accusations that simply are not true. RodentofDeath 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have transferred the following to The Prostitution In Philippines page.... Department of Justice records show that from June 2003 until January 2005 there were 65 complaints received for alleged trafficking in persons violations in the entire nation. http://www.doj.gov.ph/news_06-07-05.html Thanks.Poppy2828 20:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thnks Rodent, the links I checked were the ones she actually posted above, here, ill post them here again....http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:rqmtwny7IrYJ:www.arellanolaw.net/publish/itlj-issue3_13-2.html+Child+Sex+Tourism+Act+of+1994+angeles+philippines&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9

and.... http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:X7Ay0VzELFUJ:www.pnp.gov.ph/press/policedigest/2004/october_2004.pdf+Republic+Act+(RA)+9208+or+the+Anti-trafficking+of+Persons+Act+angeles+philippines&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11

and....http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Pt2kABOYXM4J:www.pnp.gov.ph/about/content/offices/central/cidg/content/ar_cidg_2004.pdf+republic+act+ra+9208+anti+trafficking+persons+angeles+philippines&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15

In the philippines, Police, Immigrations and certain other law enforcement come under the Justice Dept. The point is, that action on the Anti-trafficking of Persons Act" took place, and to say that no complaints were recieved by the Justice Dept appears to be wrong or at the very least misleading. With that said, the article is still better suited in the Prostitution in the Philippines section to where I placed it.Poppy2828 21:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

i disagree that it is better suited for the Prostitution in the Philippines section. this is directly related to human trafficking in the philippines. if there is a seperate wikipedia entry for that then it deserves to be here. The statement also shows that no complaints were filed with the justice department for the period specified. the statistics are one of the very few concrete numbers available to show the scale of the problem as almost every other number given in this article is an estimate or an opinion (such as the opinion that "human trafficking is a significant problem" which is allowed to remain as an opinion for some unknown reason). the assumption that the justice department is wrong or misleading is in error. the citations given make no mention of when or even if charges were eventually filed with the justice department. therefore, i think it is in in the best interest of wikipedia to post the facts that are available and minimize opinions given by posting the following fact along with the additional citation i have found. "Department of Justice records show that from June 2003 until January 2005 there were 65 complaints received for alleged trafficking in persons violations in the entire nation. Not a single complaint was received for Angeles.[11][12][13] RodentofDeath 12:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
the whole thing is better suited to Prostitution in the Philippines but susan was the one that didnt want it there because it would not help her agenda as much, apparently. RodentofDeath 21:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, everyone here has an agenda on many articles on Wikipedia. With that said, this is a difficult subject. But with the help of outside editors, some consensus and balance can be reached, it just means both sides have to give ground here. The suggestion by Phadeus to revert this article and susans respnse to do that signalled a major giving way. Since then she has been almost silent on this article and has indicated she is happy to leave the article in its basic form without any more additions, unless there is something major in the future. Its really up to others to give ground now and start to move on. Im not saying we should stop improving the article, but, it is time to give ground and cease all hostilities. Ive seen worse enemies become best friends over time. I noticed you mentioned you had an electronics business in Angeles, how about writing about the positives of that, its job creation, etc. Show the positive movements forward in the city. In the end, Human Trafficking will be defeated by economic growth. thanksPoppy2828 21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 Articles

There is still some debate on some of the wording, but what is really needed now is for people to focus their efforts on citing articles and information from 2007. Most of what is being discussed now seems to relate to past articles being rehashed over and over again. People would now be better trying to find current news from 2007 and discussing that here now.Poppy2828 21:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

thats the problem... there really is no news. nobody reports on there not being arrests. perhaps that is why most of the articles citied are from the 90's. i can tell you from personal experience that inspections of the bars still happen on a regular basis. i have bumped into the PNP and the NBI and some other groups on a few occasions. havent heard of arrests or closures in quite a while except for a private party held in a closed bar being raided for nudity. again, no charges filed so no news articles. havent heard of any bar staff being raped by managers, no thousands of prostitutes being killed and dumped in a fields, no 11 year olds in bars and i have had no offers of anyone selling me any children. sorry, its personal experience so it doesnt count. RodentofDeath 21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You fail to grasp this is an encyclopedia article, not journalism. The article should avoid recentism and consequently your suggestion is completely wrong. Addhoc 21:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems Im wrong, my apologies for the suggestion.Poppy2828 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


Where to Report

i took the liberty of adding a where to report section myself without discussing it here first because i think i can safely assume that nobody would have any objections on telling people where to report an incident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RodentofDeath (talk • contribs) 12:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Excellant addition to the article. Im sure it has the full support of everyone.Poppy2828 13:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

corruption

the line quoted "Police investigators have been found to let off foreign men accused of having sex with minors in exchange for sums of several thousand euro." seems to be based on a country-wide statement by a senator. it does not seem to be specific to angeles. i think that should be noted in this angeles-specific article. this citation does not accuse police in angeles if being corrupt but states there are some corrupt police in the nation.

the next line about the australian law reform commission has the same problem. i dont think you can say because it may be a a problem nationwide that it is necessarily a problem in angeles. its a bit like saying there are many crocodiles in america. new york is in america. new york has crocodiles.

people actions

i really think there needs to be further justification of "the rape of bar staff by expatriate owners". the way it is stated in the citation assumes that it is actually happening with no proof provided. i agree the stalls can be a meeting place to discuss things but to single out "rape by bar staff" seems as justified and as likely as it being "a gathering place for people to discuss the underground alien base under mt pinatubo." in reality they probably discuss which customers tip the best more than they discuss the owners raping people.

ok, i will skip the part about father shay being an extremely unreliable source of information since he publishes outrageous things like AIDS was prevelent during the vietnam war[14] .... but what exactly is a "sex bar"?? i have never seen a sex bar in angeles. also, apparently the zero tolerance thing in 2005 didnt work because there are still service men allowed in the bars in angeles so i am questioning the notability and the reasoning behind this being put in the article.


Suggested New Info

In Angeles City, drugs and sex work are so integrated that those who control the drug scene also control the prostitution industry. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/mhvbt.htm

well, filipino ex-cops control the drug scene along with a current high ranking policeman. i dont think you are going to let the foreigners off the hook for the sex work, are you? RodentofDeath 19:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Emrita isnt near Clark

somebody needs to fix this as it is completely inaccurate and i dont even know where to begin.

Through much of the 20th century, prostitution flourished in the Ermita district of Manila due to the proximity of Clark Air Base, a major United States military facility.[15][16] In 1991 a volcanic eruption of nearby Mount Pinatubo forced an evacuation and destroyed much of the base, which closed shortly thereafter.[1] Mayor Alfredo Lim proceeded to crack down on Manila's remaining sex industry, causing many of these businesses to relocate to nearby Angeles City.[17]—Preceding unsigned comment added by RodentofDeath (talk • contribs)

I'd be happy to help fix this if you could tell me what's wrong. My edits to this section were basicly just tidying what was already there, so hopefully I didn't introduce any new errors. / edgarde 20:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

here's what i think you were trying to do with a further little editing by me. i'll explain after.

Through much of the 20th century, prostitution flourished in Angeles due to the proximity of Clark Air Base, a major United States military facility.[15][16] In 1991 a volcanic eruption of nearby Mount Pinatubo forced an evacuation and destroyed much of the base, which closed shortly thereafter.[1] In 1992 and 1993 Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim proceeded to illegally close Ermita's go-go bars and massage parlous in the entertainment district, causing some of these businesses to relocate to Angeles City.

not sure about all of the 20th century but certainly the second half. i am not going to argue that point. you may want to put in that the eruption killed hundreds (thousands?) of locals. i'm doing this on a cell phone now so i am limited to what i can cut and paste so i dont have citations yet. i did insert the closure of businesses in emrnita was done illegally as per a supreme court decision issued later. i dont think it is correct to say "many" relocated to angeles although i did see that in one of the citations. i believe the majority of them relocated to other areas inside manila, mostly on EDSA and Roxas blvds. personally, i dont think the businesses moving had as much an effect as the fact the tourists moved yo angeles but i doubt i can find a citation for that.RodentofDeath 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)