Sunday, January 9, 2011

The NAME GAME Explained - by Eldon Warman


Recent research here in Canada shows that the income tax, and all other statutory law, is imposed based upon the 'property right', and that property right is the property right of the corporate Crown in Canada, and corporate State (be it a State or the UNITED STATES) in the USA.

The same scheme can be found in any country that is a subject country of the Pontiff of Rome's Holy Roman Empire. Thus, in actuality, the assumed 'property right' is that of the corporate Holy Roman Empire, as the Crown or incorporated State is an agency for the Holy Roman Empire.

The ‘Crown’ is the administrative corporation of the Pontiff of Rome owned City of London, the financial, legal and professional standards capitol of/for the Vatican. The City of London is a square-mile area within Greater London, England, and is an independent city-state.

In the USA, the administrative corporation for the Pontiff of Rome is the UNITED STATES, and that corporation administers the Vatican capitol, for, primarily, military purposes, called Columbia, or the District of Columbia. The UNITED STATES also administers the 50 sub-corporate States of the United States of America, identified with the 2 cap letters – CA, OR, WA, etc.

All adult humans are deceived into using the fiction name, as imprinted on the copy of the birth certificate you receive when ordering it from Provincial/State Vital Statistics, or to whatever source you apply. Although the birth certificate is of somewhat recent origin and used to formally offer 'citizens' as chattel in bankruptcy to the Pope's Holy Roman Empire owned Rothschilds' Banking System, the false use of the family name goes back into the Middle Ages in England. Thus, it is with the family name made a primary, or surname, (example - Mister Jones), and the given names of the child (example - Peter) made a reference name to the primary name. This is the reverse or mirror image to reality. A 'family name' is NOT a man's name - it is a name of a clan - a blood relationship. [Replace the example names with your given and family name.]

We are then 'forced' or 'obliged' to use that name in all commercial and Government dealings and communications. So, when we do use it, as 99.99% of the human inhabitants of North America (and most of the world) do, we supposedly 'voluntarily' attach ourselves, the free will adult human, to the Crown/State owned property, called the 'legal identity name' as an accessory attached to property owned by Another party.

The State or Crown does not give us authority, grant, license, permission or leave to use the Crown or State owned legal identity name. Thus, our use of it as an adult free will man (male or female) is a form of 'theft' against a maritime jurisdiction entity (all incorporated bodies are 'make-believe ships at sea'. In maritime law, the accused is guilty until proven innocent. This allows the Roman Law system we have to impose 'involuntary servitude' upon an adult man.

We see this Roman Law within the US 13th Amendment (#2) instituted in the mid 1860's:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted," The crime with which you have been convicted is 'unauthorized use' of the State's or Crown's intellectual property - the legal identity name.

The Crown/State then invokes the legal maxim, accessio cedit principali, [an accessory attached to a principal becomes the property of the owner of the principal], where the principal is the legal identity name as 'intellectual property', the owner is the corporation called the Crown/State or UNITED STATES, and the accessory is the free will human who has supposedly volunteered himself to be 'property by attachment' of the Crown/State. An adult human who is property is, and by any other name, a 'slave', be it citizen, subject or freeman.

I would point out here that all concepts that teach that the relationship between free will man and Government/corporate bodies is contractual are incorrect. All supposed remedies in contract law, American UCC or Canadian PPSA are ‘red herring’ diversions – some intended, and some in ignorance by the teachers.

As a slave, one's property in possession, including body and labor, belongs to the slave owner 100%. And, the property right is a bundle of rights - own, use, sell, gift, bequeath and hypothecate property.

Thus, ALL 'income' resulting from the owned human slave's mental and/or physical labor belongs to the slave owner. That which is left with or granted to the slave for his own use and maintenance is called a 'benefit'. In Canada, the 'return of income' [the phrase itself tells the story] is called a T1 'tax and benefits package'. The T1 or 1040 is an accounting by the slave of his fruits of labor that belongs to the slave owner, and the prescribed 'benefits' that he may keep or have back from withholding. Thus, all income tax cases against the people', in reality, result from fraud, illegal concealment and theft by the accused slave of the slave owner's ‘property'.

Going back to an above paragraph, we find that the attachment of oneself to the Crown/State owned name is 'assumed to be voluntary', as the Crown/State has no valid right to impose slavery upon adult humans against their will. And, constitutional prohibitions of slavery only encompasses 'involuntary servitude', not 'voluntary servitude'. Anyone working as an employee is in a contract of voluntary servitude - direction and time control by, and obedience and loyalty to the employer. Until we ‘assumed to be slaves' get our heads around this key to the lock that holds our chains of slavery around our necks and ankles, we will continue to attempt to swim with that 100 lb ball chained to our leg.

Another factor of the use of the Roman Law system is contained within the 1860's 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, the Constitution of the corporate UNITED STATES, and not the 13th Amendment of the US Republic inserted around 1819. In the later 13th amendment, it says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Notice that this applies only to the corporate body called the UNITED STATES.

All corporate bodies are make-believe ships at sea, and are thus, internally, under maritime law. In maritime law, an accused is guilty unless proven innocent. Thus, a free will adult man who uses without authority the property of a corporate body is under maritime jurisdiction. This makes a free will man who uses a corporate Crown or corporate State owned legal identity name a 'convicted criminal, and thus subject to the imposition of slavery, involuntary servitude. You, as a child were Crown or State property by way of the birth registry, and thus, you could use Crown or State property, the legal identity name. When you became an adult, as a vessel on the seal of life as a sovereign captain/free will mind, you no longer had a right to use that Crown or State owned legal identity name.

Reports of unsuccessful attempts at paying government imposed debts using the Canadian Bills of Exchange Act or US UCC provisions of settling an account proved that there was no contract issue between a Canadian or American adult human and the Government as is commonly taught by some patriot gurus. Under contract, a 'bill' is a method of equalizing a contract - like value exchanged for like value. However, under the 'property right' of a slave owner in regard to property in the possession of an owned slave, a 'demand' for the property by the slave owner, or the slave owner's agent (such as the IRS, or county tax collector, or for a court imposed fine), is all that is necessary, without regard to due process of law. Remember, ALL that a slave possesses belongs to the slave owner. I am NOT saying you ARE a slave. I just point out to you that Government, and its employees, judges and officers SEE you as a SLAVE. See sections 35 and 46 of the "Bills of Exchange Act of Canada" regarding eligibility for use of the provisions of that Act. GOOGLE it. A bill can only be paid with money, and there is no money in Canada or the USA since the early 1930s. All that is left is a 'promissory note'.

Further, when any 'officer' of the corporate body, be it 'peace officer or police', all the way to King or President choose to declare someone 'homo sacer' (meaning a man who has been stripped of his status of 'person' - that being an obedient corporate slave member of the corporate body politic) - he is stripped of the rights of due process of law, and can be fined, punished, tortured or killed without repercussion to the officer, or officer involved. This happens all the time in the world of the Holy Roman Empire.

This doctrine of 'homo sacer' is clearly presented in the US Fugitive Slave Act 1850, Section 6:


In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever. Unquote

Three major points here:

1. The accused disobedient slave cannot enter evidence in his own defense. Sound familiar? The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and German 'Holocaust Denial' litigation courts declare that "truth is no defense". Judges constantly ignore offered defenses by Government accused defendants, especially in traffic and income tax issues. And, this may be acceptable if the judge were to explain why he need do that, but almost 100% of the time, no explanation is offered, and that is to hide the 'homo sacer' doctrine, and the fact that a slave is being tried for disobedience to the rules within the slave owner's property right.

2. The 'certificate' presented by the officer or agent of the property owner (declaration of property ownership) is sufficient for conviction of disobedience.

3. No molestation (such as criminal or civil complaints) can be made by, or on behalf of the accused or convicted disobedient slave. Anyone know of successful litigation against a police officer or judge who severely abused the unalienable rights of a man? Yes, there may be a few in well publicized cases, where the system has to hide their despotic Roman scheme, but that is rare.

I am not suggesting that the Fugitive Slave Act is still being used. It was likely rescinded at some time; however, what I do say is that the provisions written within that act were directly out of the Roman Law system in dealing with disobedient slaves, and it is Roman Law that is being imposed upon the free will adult people in America and Canada who have had Roman slavery imposed upon them.


However, since we are 'forced to', or 'obliged to' use the Crown/State owned legal identity name in all commercial and government dealings, services and communications, we can make a 'claim of right' under the Rule of Private Necessity – with the necessity being the means to sustain and maintain our life, as all food, shelter, clothing, means of travel and that which answers our need for happiness all has to be obtained or used in the realms of commerce. Briefly, commerce is all communications, contracts, and other interrelations and interactions with other parties, which includes government.

This should counter the claim that we 'voluntarily' attach ourselves to Crown/State property.

Repeating - The Private Necessity is that we cannot do anything in relation to life, liberty, property or due process of law without using the Crown/State owned name, and thus we cannot sustain or maintain our lives without that fiction name.

The name separation is only a court tactic, as the legal identity name is always the one charged. The Government intent, of course, is to get to the adult man (male or female) attached to that name - the attached accessory - you. Otherwise you, and your children need to 'use' that legal identity name in all commerce (communication), and you do so under private necessity. So, only in court do you need to prove:

1. That you are a separate party from the named defendant.

2. That you only use the legal identity name, named as defendant, under private necessity to sustain and maintain your life, and that you are not voluntarily attached to it permanently as an accessory to Crown property.

3. That you have Her Majesty's permission to use that Crown owned legal name according to Vital Statistics Acts of the Canadian Provinces.

4. That the copy of the birth certificate held by myself has been surrendered to the Court, and I deny any fiduciary responsibility for that Crown property or the name thereon. [Should have been previously surrendered, along with the Canada affidavit, to a judge in chambers hearing.]

5. It all comes right down to this: 'Informed consent'. You do not have to consent to identified as being the name found on the birth certificate. "I do not authorize you to recognize me as being one and the same as the legal identity name you find on your documents. I do not consent to that."

Also, a Freedom Of Information Demand should be sent to the Minister, or Representative requesting the authority, date, means and methods by which you, a free will man (m or f) became a slave owned by the corporate Crown or State.

A process that has worked recently in Texas is the 'surrender' of the copy of the birth certificate one has in possession to a judge, or the judge assigned to a case where you, in the legal identity name, are the defendant, in an 'in chambers' hearing. Some call this 'surrender' of the defendant (the legal identity name) as being on the 'private side' using the Biblical method of settling disputes privately if possible.

This is preferred to 'surrendering it in court' as that is on the 'public side', and as a human presence in the court room, the assumption that you are an attachment to the legal identity name has already been made. And being attached as an accessory to it, you become surety, guarantor and do 'represent' the legal identity name defendant.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Addendum 1 Name Game

I don't promote or use the Commercial Redemption system. I just suggest showing the 'authorities" that I, and the 'legal identity name' are not one and the same party. The Statement of Live Birth and the Birth Certificate can be used as proof of that, since, as a child, you had nothing to do with the registration of your birth, nor with the choice of names you were to be called as a child.

1. The Birth Certificate shows that it belongs to the State/Province where you were born, and thus, is the property of the State or Crown in right of the Province.

2. The name on that shows your family name to be the primary name of the 'legal identity name' - a 'surname', and the first and second names being referential to it. That is fiction. The family name is a clan name. It is not the name of an individual man (m or f).

3. The Statement of Birth shows that the first and second name is a gift (given names), and as such is a contract. An infant (under age 21) cannot be party to a contract. An acceptor of a gift must 'accept', and accept voluntarily. Thus, you have never 'accepted' the given names. There is no mechanism to do that in the Roman Law we are under. The Roman law only sees the legal identity name, a name that belongs to the corporate Roman Empire of the Pope.

4. An adult man is actually a mind inhabiting a physical human body. Only things can be named. A mind is a process, not a thing.

Thus, when a human becomes an adult, that is akin to the launching of a new ship. The adult mind is equivalent to the captain of a ship at sea. The captain is sovereign or supreme on his ship. The only way a captain of a ship can lose that sovereignty is by putting his ship 'in tow' voluntarily behind another ship. It is then that the tow ship captain gains sovereignty over the captain of the ship in tow.

The legal identity name is the rope that ties our vessel to the corporate Crown of the City of London (owned by the corporate Holy Roman Empire).

The Name Game Blog explains the rest.

Addendum 2 Name Game

The name "they" use on all their documents, including indictments, is the legal name. I believe there is no argument with that. In fact, the courts are usually ready to agree with that classification without hesitation.

By presenting the Statement of Birth (SOB) to them and asking them to do an investigation with a view to answering just two simple questions, will repel all attacks from the "system". The two questions are:

1. Who has secured the rights (legal and equitable) in the legal name??? (insert name exactly as it appears on the Birth Certificate even though the all caps aspect is a red herring); and,

2. What rights do I have in the legal name ???

The answers to these two questions will prove (in Ontario SOB's are admissible in any Ontario court as Proof, not just evidence, of the facts so certified) that

1. the government secured the rights (a.k.a. the secured party) in the legal name and, therefore, I have no rights in the legal name.

2. If I have no rights in the legal name, then how can I have any obligations related to the legal name?

The party that the law holds legally responsible for the financial and other obligations of the property (legal name) is the secured party, which is the government in the case of the legal name. This is all proven by the SOB!

It would seem to me that there is no place for the system to go once this truth is on the table. Certainly CRA can be easily defeated with this approach. However, the judge may make the assumption that by your ‘permanent’ use of the legal identity name, you have become an accessory attached to that Crown owned name, and thus you are the property of the Crown by the legal maxim, which arises out of the property right, accessio cedit principali. Thus, to complete the above procedure, you must, by affidavit or notice, make a claim of right of free will status and claim that the Crown owned name is used under private necessity in commerce to sustain and maintain your life. As such, your use of the Crown owned name is not a voluntary act by yourself.

Some claim that Her Majesty, or the corporate Crown, has given one permission to use the Crown owned legal identity name. That assumption is arrived at by way of the Ontario 'Change of Names Act' which says: "Ch. C7; Person's name: 2.(1) For all purposes of Ontario law, (a) a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by the name appearing on the person's birth certificate or change of name certificate". As it states, it only applies to 'persons' - which is the combination of the strawman name and the adult man, making that combined entity the 'property and subject of' the corporate Crown. That certainly is not the status we, as free-will-minded creatures, would wish to be.

Addendum 3 The Name Game


Regarding the use of the legal identity name, this thing comes down to consent. No means no and silence means yes.

We are all of the one individualized making you source energy flowing through a BC that is never not connected to the national treasury. In essence a BC is issued of the treasury so that all we do through the name on it flows to the/our treasury. However, that changes if you are recognized through a legal name.

The Birth Certificate is never un-connected from the treasury, 'For Treasury use only', just as you are never un-connected with the divine. You are the source, source energy, and in legal land, the treasury is source. The Statement Of Birth, as proof, is recognized by the government that it is so. Humans in this world are source energy. Source of commercial energy, to use that term, for without human, nothing happens. Just as in the bigger picture, without God nothing happens. So if you are searching for access to the treasury account look in the mirror.

An old 'Law and Order' show. A woman was after the police to get a man who was stalking her. Again and again she went to the police to get this man to stop stalking her. Finally a detective says, "Mam, that man is not stalking you." "Oh yes he is" she says. "No Mam, he is not. There is nothing in our law books about stalking. So, that man there is not stalking you." This is how law and legal authority work. If it is not on the books, then it does not exist. In the case of that show there was no such thing as a stalker or stalking.

Show me the law or authority upon which anyone may rely that authorizes any agent to recognize you through a legal name? There is no such authority WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT. How is consent obtained against you by the agents? By your silence. Anytime you are getting 'done by', and remain silent, you are capitulating (in agreement). We are entitled to be recognized THROUGH (by means through) the legal name on the BC, but we are also entitled to say "No. I do not consent to be recognized by the name". If as has been the case you make it clear that you do not consent to be recognized through the legal name and the other party ignores you, and you do not take an appropriate course of action to stop it, you are agreeing to get 'done by'.

So what we have going on here is a whole bunch of agents are recognizing us THROUGH a legal name, and we are not doing anything about it = silence. And, by = through.

WHEREAS [I like that word], if you know that there is no authority, legal, lawful or otherwise, for an agent to recognize you through a legal name, and you make it clear that you do not consent to be recognized through the name, that party is in the commission of a crime if he proceeds as if he has the authority because, in fact, there is no law that authorizes any agent to recognize you as anything or any capacity without your consent. No means no. Yes we must use a legal name, and yes, everything we do in that name is connected to the treasury, and the provinces/Canada, by holding the SOB's is in the loop as beneficiary/treasurer. But not if you are recognized through the legal name. By being recognized through the legal name, I say through because you are not the legal name, you are claiming ownership of property and the value of it; in essence, my stuff.

But if you do not consent to be recognized through the legal name, then the issuer of the BC is, and at that point is the owner of property and responsible for the debts, obligations, securities and undertakings of things you do through the legal name. The BC is always connected to the treasury (matrix), the question is, who the beneficiary is. If you allow yourself to be recognized through the legal name then you are the beneficiary but if you do not consent then the treasury (Canada) is the beneficiary.

Where we have failed ourselves is when we do not address the I do not consent to be recognized through the name on the BC properly. It is your license to do as you please. The license of licenses. There is no law or legislation anywhere that authorizes any agent to recognize you through a legal name. There is nothing that prevents them from doing so or trying either. It is up to you how you react if one does. What I am saying is, no agent has the legal backing to recognize you through the legal name that will indemnify them from harm (prosecution) if they do after you made it clear that you do not consent. In other words, they have ruled over us purely because we did not say I DO NOT CONSENT TO BE RECOGNIZED THROUGH THE LEGAL IDENTITY NAME, OR BY ANY NAME; and there is no law that authorizes you to recognize me through a name without my consent.

Addendum 4 The Name Game Blog

Consent #2 March 09

When you present government ID and you do not want to be recognized through the name on it just say; I DO NOT AUTHORIZE YOU TO RECOGNIZE ME THROUGH THE NAME ON THIS ID.

There is no other source of such authority is what you need to get here. You're it.

Now everything we have learned over the years and in particular lately backs this 'I do not consent' thing. A BC is not and was never intended to be personal identification it evolved as the deputy registrar said and it evolved through our giving consent to be recognized.

The Government holds title to the legal name and entitles you to be recognized through a legal name which it cannot do unless it has rights in the name. Significance of the government holding the SOB is proof. There is no proof that your parents gave you the name that appears on a SOB, impossible for that to be proven. Look up 'informed consent' at Wikipedia and you know now what's been going on.
"Informed consent" is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications and future consequences of an action. In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given.

Impairment to reasoning and judgement which would make it impossible for someone to give informed consent include such factors as severe mental retardation, severe mental illness, intoxication, severe sleep deprivation, Alzheimer's disease, or being in a coma. Some acts cannot legally take place because of a lack of informed consent. In cases where an individual is considered unable to give informed consent, another person is generally authorized to give consent on their behalf e.g. parents or legal guardians of a child and care-givers for the mentally ill. However, if a severely injured person is brought to hospital in an unconscious state and no-one is available to give informed consent, doctors will give whatever treatment is necessary to save their life (according to the Hippocratic oath) which might involve major surgery e.g. amputation. In cases where an individual is provided insufficient information to form a reasoned decision, serious ethical issues arise. Such cases in a clinical trial in medical research are anticipated and prevented by an ethics committee or Institutional Review Board." legal definition:

An agreement to do something or to allow something to happen, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives.

For example, a patient may give informed consent to medical treatment only after the healthcare professional has disclosed all possible risks involved in accepting or rejecting the treatment. A healthcare provider or facility may be held responsible for an injury caused by an undisclosed risk. In another context, a person accused of committing a crime cannot give up his constitutional rights--for example, to remain silent or to talk with an attorney--unless and until he has been informed of those rights, usually via the well-known Miranda warnings.

Security of the ''person''- Definition 1

An investment instrument, other than an insurance policy or fixed annuity, issued by a corporation, government, or other organization which offers evidence of debt or equity. The official definition, from the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, is: "Any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit, for a security, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a 'security'; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker's acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited."

Definition 2

Property which is pledged as collateral for a loan.

Security of the person is a financial instrument, given as equity to "persons" who become citizens and take on liability from joining the corporation or government. This is to secure remedy where the person faces financial liability on behalf of the government.


Your birth certificate is the link to your security which the government administers on your behalf and in our utter ignorance.

by us granting them the status of administrators they get to collect the dividends from the security and the voting share or power that comes with being the holder.

Now after that great piece from Eldon you deserve this

Debt bondage

Part of a series on

Early history
History · Antiquity · Aztec
Ancient Greece · Rome
Medieval Europe
Thrall · Kholop · Serfdom
Slavery and religion
The Bible · Judaism
Christianity · Islam
By country or region
Africa · Atlantic · Arab
Coastwise · Portugal · Angola
Barbary Coast
Britain and Ireland
British Virgin Islands
Brazil · Canada · India · China
Iran · Japan · Libya · Mauritania
Ottoman empire
Romania · Spanish New World
Sudan · Sweden · Texas · United States
Modern Africa · Debt bondage
Peonage · Penal labour
Sexual slavery · Wage slavery
Unfree labour · Human trafficking
Contemporary slavery
Opposition and resistance
Timeline · Abolitionism
Compensated emancipation
Opponents of slavery‎
Slave rebellion · Slave narrative
v · d · e

Debt bondage (or bonded labor) is an arrangement whereby a person is forced to pay off a loan with direct labor in place of currency, over an agreed or obscure period of time. When a debtor is tricked or trapped into working for very little or no pay, or when the value of their work is significantly greater than the original sum of money borrowed, some consider the arrangement to be a form of unfree labour or debt slavery. It is similar to peonage, indenture or the truck system.

Contents [hide]
1 Legal definition
2 Historical background to bonded labor
3 Historical peonage
3.1 Historical examples
4 Modern views
4.1 Modern examples
4.2 Marxist analysis
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

[edit] Legal definitionDebt bondage is classically defined as a situation when a person provides a loan to another and uses his or her labor or services to repay the debt; when the value of the work, as reasonably assessed, is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt, the situation becomes one of debt bondage. See United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. This was very common in Ancient Greece. In Athens debt bondage was terminated by Solon .

[edit] Historical background to bonded laborPrior to the early modern age, feudal and serfdom systems were the predominant political and economic systems in Europe.

[edit] Historical peonagePeonage is a system where laborers are bound in servitude until their debts are paid in full. Those bound by such a system are known, in the US, as peons.[citation needed] Employers may extend credit to laborers to buy from employer-owned stores at inflated prices.[original research?] This method is a variation of the truck system (or company store system), in which workers are exploited by agreeing to work for an insufficient[original research?] amount of goods and/or services. In these circumstances, peonage is a form of unfree labor. Such systems have existed in many places at many times throughout history.

[edit] Historical examplesThe American South - Such a system was often used in the southern United States after the American Civil War where African-American and poor white farmers, known as sharecroppers, were often extended credit to purchase seed and supplies from the owner of the land they farmed and pay the owner in a share of the crop.[citation needed]
In Peru a peonage system existed from the 16th century until land reform in the 1950s. One estate in Peru that existed from the late 16th century until it ended had up to 1,700 peons employed and had a jail. Peons were expected to work a minimum of three days a week for their landlord and more if necessary to complete assigned work. Workers were paid a symbolic 2 cents per year. Workers were unable to travel outside of their assigned lands without permission and were not allowed to organize any independent community activity. In the Peruvian Amazon, debt peonage is an important aspect of contemporary Urarina society.[1]
Thousands were sold into slavery during the West African slave trade and ended their lives working as slaves on the plantations in the New World. For this reason, section 2 of the Slave Trade Act 1843 enacted by the British Parliament declared "persons holden in servitude as pledges for debt" to "be slaves or persons intended to be dealt with as slaves" for the purpose of the Slave Trade Act 1824[citation needed] and the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

In Niger, where the practice of slavery was outlawed in 2003, a study found that almost 8% of the population are still slaves.[2] Descent-based slavery, where generations of the same family are born into bondage, is traditionally practised by at least four of Niger’s eight ethnic groups. The slave masters are mostly from the nomadic tribes — the Tuareg, Fulani, Toubou and Arabs.[3]

According to some claims, 40 million people in India, most of them Dalits, are bonded workers, many working to pay off debts that were incurred generations ago.[citation needed] The rise of Dalit politicians in India, with overwhelming support by non-Dalits, as well as a government commitment to overall improvement of education, communication and living standards has resulted in the rapid decline of bonded labor there. Penalties for those employing bonded labor are severe[citation needed] and Human Rights Groups are very active in curbing these practices.[citation needed] Television media and increased penetration of cheap satellite television has spread awareness to the most remote areas and made people aware of their rights, hence evidence of forced labor in India is rapidly declining.[citation needed]

These claimed figures are comparable to ones in Bolivia, Brazil, Peru and Philippines.[citation needed]

There are no universally accepted figures for the number of bonded child labourers in India. Again, Government's commitment to universal education and poverty eradication programmes have resulted in significant decrease in number of bonded labors. In the traditional industries of high quality hand-woven fabrics and handicrafts, increased awareness by international buyers and stringent checks put in place by multinational corporations on their suppliers has resulted in suppliers and manufacturers to replace bonded child labor by instead offering educational facilities to children of their employees and workers. International Tourists to places like Rajasthan also play their part and have at many times reported instances of child labor to authorities who swiftly act to curb any child labor.

In contrast, of 20 million bonded labourers in Pakistan 7.5 million are children.[citation needed] Also, a system of debt bondage called Kamaiya existed in the Terai lowlands of southern Nepal and was not nominally outlawed until 2000. It may still persist in out-of-the-way locations due to lax enforcement and collusion between wealthy families and local government. Victims were mainly Tharu and Dalits.

[edit] Modern viewsSee also: Human trafficking
According to Anti-Slavery International, "A person enters debt bondage when their labor is demanded as a means of repayment of a loan, or of money given in advance. Usually, people are tricked or trapped into working for no pay or very little pay (in return for such a loan), in conditions which violate their human rights. Invariably, the value of the work done by a bonded laborer is greater that the original sum of money borrowed or advanced."[citation needed]

According to the Anti-Slavery Society:

Pawnage or pawn slavery is a form of servitude akin to bonded labor under which the debtor provides another human being as security or collateral for the debt. Until the debt (including interest on it) is paid off, the creditor has the use of the labor of the pawn.[4]

Debt bondage has been defined by the United Nations as a form of "modern day slavery" [5] and is prohibited by international law. It is specifically dealt with by article 1(a) of the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. It persists nonetheless especially in developing nations, which have few mechanisms for credit security or bankruptcy, and where fewer people hold formal title to land or possessions. According to some economists, for example Hernando de Soto, this is a major barrier to development in those countries - entrepreneurs do not dare take risks and cannot get credit because they hold no collateral and may burden families for generations to come.[citation needed]

Some estimates place the number of people in debt bondage as high as 40 million.[citation needed] Researcher Siddharth Kara has calculated the number of slaves in the world by type, and determined the number of debt bondage slaves to be 18.1 million at the end of 2006.[6] He has updated this number for the end of 2009 to be 18.4 million, the increase primarily as a result of the 2007 global commodity bubble, followed by the global economic crisis of 2008 and 2009.

[edit] Modern examplesProstitution - News media in western Europe regularly carry reports about one particular kind of debt bondage: women from Eastern Europe who are forced to work in prostitution as a way to pay off the "debt" they acquired when they were illegally smuggled to destinations in Western Europe.[citation needed]

[edit] Marxist analysisAccording to Marxist economists, debt bondage is characteristic of feudal economies, where families are considered the responsible unit for financial relationships, and where heirs continue to owe parents' debts upon their deaths. Fully capitalist economies are characterized by the individual taking all responsibility, and such mechanisms as bankruptcy and inheritance taxes reducing creditors' rights (while increasing the power of the state). Heirs are freed from the creditor, but at the cost of a drastically increased power accruing to the state itself.[citation needed]

[edit] See alsoBonded Labour Liberation Front, India
Bondage in Pakistan
Debtor's prison
Human trafficking
Involuntary servitude
Karl Marx
The State of Bonded Labor in Pakistan
Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention
Modern day slavery


No comments: