The movie Sound of Freedom goes beyond entertainment to highlight a pressing global issue with terrifying implications. The film tells the true story of Tim Ballard, a former U.S. Homeland Security agent who embarks on a dangerous mission to rescue children from the clutches of the child sex trade. It opens with authentic, disturbing real-life footage of children being kidnapped off the streets and being trapped in the networks that are later portrayed.

The story is set in Honduras, where a desperate father, Roberto, unwittingly falls for the fraudulent promises of a former beauty queen called Giselle. She tricks Roberto into believing that his children Miguel and Rocío will work as models, but then they disappear into the dark world of child trafficking. Tim Ballard, stationed in Calexico, California, takes it upon himself to infiltrate the trafficking networks and pose as a predator to capture the traffickers and rescue the children.

While Tim successfully rescues Miguel, Rocío remains in captivity and is sold to Colombian rebels. Undaunted, Tim assembles a team to rescue the missing children, facing many challenges and setbacks along the way. The film underscores the horrific reality of modern-day slavery and highlights the ongoing global fight against child sex trafficking.

The film Sound of Freedom is not afraid to show deeply disturbing scenes that depict the harsh reality of child sex trafficking. While emotionally draining, these scenes show that child sex trafficking remains a lucrative industry that profits from the exploitation of defenseless children. As the film says, “Unlike drugs, which can only be sold once, children can be sold multiple times in a single day,” underlining the urgency of tackling this widespread problem.

Critiques and controversies

Despite its noble intentions, Sound of Freedom has found itself at the center of a storm of criticism and debate, with several aspects of the film coming under scrutiny. One prominent criticism revolves around the film’s alleged association with “QAnon conspiracies”. Critics argue that the film serves as a “QAnon dog whistle”, leading to debates about the film’s underlying motives and messages. This association has raised questions about the film’s ability to resonate with certain conspiracy theorists.

Peter Bradshaw’s review in The Guardian also suggested that Sound of Freedom might appeal to the QAnon community. Bradshaw criticized Jim Caviezel’s performance as Tim Ballard, describing it as wooden. He questioned the film’s underlying intentions, suggesting that it might promote ideas other than child sexual abuse and the need for intergovernmental cooperation.

Owen Gleiberman’s Variety article gives a mixed review of the film. He criticizes its overt Christian overtones and its association with right-wing media, suggesting that the film may appeal to the paranoia of the alt-right, which stems from platforms such as 4Chan and QAnon, which he sees as unfounded conspiracy theories.

Although the film has a few characters of Christian faith, what might be called ‘Christian undertones’ don’t go any further than a few lines like “God’s children are not for sale”.

Another point of contention is the film’s narrative simplicity. Viewers and critics alike have noted that Sound of Freedom takes a straightforward narrative approach, presenting Tim Ballard as an unwavering, incorruptible hero on a mission to fight pedophiles. While this narrative approach is consistent with the film’s goal of depicting real-life events, it has also sparked discussion about the lack of complexity in the narrative.

However, renowned Canadian psychologist, author and media commentator Jordan Peterson praised the film’s unique approach to the complex issue of human trafficking. He emphasized that the script conveys complex ideas through effective particularization, focusing on a specific case to address the broader issue of slavery and human trafficking, particularly child sex trafficking. Peterson praised this approach for giving the film a solid and emotionally engaging narrative foundation.

Criticism also came from various suspicious quarters, including the controversial writer Noah Berlatsky, who articulated his concerns in a Bloomberg article entitled “QAnon and ‘Sound of Freedom’ Both Rely on Clichéd Hollywood Elements”. Berlatsky’s perspective should be viewed with caution, given his affiliation with the “Prostasia Foundation”, an organization focused on destigmatizing “MAPs” (minor attracted people). The sinister aims of this organization include attempts to reframe pedophilia in the context of “sexual orientation”.

Unmasking the horrors of child sex trafficking     

In a recent interview with Prager U, Tim Ballard gave a chilling account of a cartel-controlled region where a child sex trafficking organization had reached unimaginable proportions. This criminal group was involved in trafficking children as young as six. Their sinister method involved recruiting vulnerable children from a charitable foundation ostensibly dedicated to helping the underprivileged, offering food and clothing in exchange for access to these innocent victims. The shocking revelation came to a head during a second undercover meeting when the traffickers arrived accompanied by police. In a shocking twist, the police actively assisted the traffickers by providing them with protection in marked vehicles with blue lights while they negotiated the sale of children. This horrific account underlines the urgent need for continued efforts to combat child trafficking and protect the most vulnerable members of society.

In another interview conducted by Jordan Peterson on his YouTube program, Tim Ballard responded to various criticisms of him and his operations, shedding light on the veracity of certain claims. In particular, he addressed questions about his connection to the QAnon conspiracy theories.

Ballard said: “Over the years, our FAQs have consistently expressed our disagreement with most conspiracy theories. While some of these theories may contain elements of truth, they are often overshadowed by a variety of falsehoods. Our FAQs therefore immediately refute these claims, as they ultimately undermine the credibility of our movement. I would even consider the possibility that certain individuals with vested interests are spreading these conspiracy theories to cast doubt on our cause.”

In the same episode, Ballard recounted a conversation on Capitol Hill in which a congressman asked for advice on how to raise awareness of the problem of unaccompanied minors entering the United States without proper tracking. Ballard replied, “The challenge is that we are not connecting the dots. We need to recognize the different ways in which children are at risk.” Not only are there some 85,000 missing children potentially exposed to the largest child sex market in the world, but we also see groups trying to replace the term ‘pedophiles’ with ‘minors attracted people’. At the same time, there’s a worrying trend towards the sexualization of children. For example, teachers in California and other states are advocating these practices under the guise of sexual liberation or sex education. There are also laws that allow a 13-year-old to consent to sex-altering procedures with potential reproductive consequences.

We’ve been here before?

While Sound of Freedom has sparked discussions about child trafficking and pedophilia, the film has been scrutinized and debated for its message, narrative approach, and potential societal impact. However, some might argue that we have seen this before with the Jeffrey Epstein case. It received a great deal of media attention, but some argue that certain aspects of the media attempted to downplay the seriousness of the case through sensationalist and tabloid-style coverage. Some media outlets focused more on the scandalous aspects of Epstein’s life and his connections to high-profile figures, celebrities, and politicians, rather than the actual allegations of sexual abuse and human trafficking.

Sound of Freedom‘s unflinching portrayal leaves no doubt: the scale of this operation rivals that of the drug trade, and to dismiss it as a mere “conspiracy theory” is a disservice to those who have suffered and continue to be victimized. While the world is plagued by various sinister activities, none compares in scale or moral turpitude to those who seek to diminish the scope and significance of the child sex trade. It is a stain on humanity that demands our unwavering attention and commitment to its eradication.

Morocco has always dreamed of hosting the World Cup in order to foster a positive image of itself to the world. The economic benefits, of course, are a prime consideration, but there are also other important, undeclared reasons. Yet, despite considerable efforts, thus far, Morocco has not yet managed to host the coveted cup; Morocco is busy with selling a positive image of its status as a moderate, pro-Western Muslim country, and one that spearheads the fight against “Islamist terrorism.”

To some, these titles are necessary, and especially for European politicians from all parties who are anxious to maintain good relations with Morocco because of its role as a paid policeman on the European Union’s southern border. According to international terrorism experts, including many Europeans, the “spearhead against terrorism” attribute might be exaggerated – but that is another story.

So, what a wonderful opportunity for a country whose image has deteriorated considerably in recent years after many violations of the fundamental rights of its citizens to find itself positively projected on the international scene with an event like that of the young boy Rayan, who fell into a water well near the village of Tamorot, a community located near the town of Chaouen in the mountains of northern Morocco. In this dramatic story, Morocco had everything to gain by capturing the solidarity and affection of the whole world in order to make people forget, at least momentarily, the regime’s shortcomings.

We are not going to get into second-rate conspiracy theories such as the claims that the Moroccan regime orchestrated the fall of little Rayan for political and diplomatic gain. This is neither true nor fair. But without too much hesitation one can say that the fall of this child and the quick realization in “high places” in Rabat, the capital, that Morocco could benefit from it in the media, made it possible to exploit this episode for propaganda purposes.

We saw it. As soon as the tragedy began, all public media outlets, including radio and television stations, as well as private media outlets and the written press were all immediately put to work, with special envoys or local correspondents, to make this accident a major event in the lives of Moroccans. A tragedy that was to end with a climax: Rayan was to be brought out of his grave alive. And above all, saved by Moroccan hands.

The fall of 5-year old Rayan was a tragedy that Morocco wanted to end with a climax: Rayan was to be brought out of his grave alive. And above all, saved by Moroccan hands.

By refusing to accept foreign help, precious and experienced, by making Rayan’s rescue a strictly national affair, and by putting in place the material and technical means to succeed, the Moroccan authorities had in mind a recent, similar tragedy that shook Andalusia in 2019, a Spanish region very close to the north of Morocco. There, a child named Julen had fallen into a well and rescuers had tried to save him from a gruesome death. After 13 days of superhuman effort, the Spanish rescuers, including a team of miners with expertise in underground rescue, failed. The child was found lifeless. But, for almost two weeks, Spain had found itself at the center of the world.

Today, questions and certainties remain. In seeking to show the world Moroccan “know-how” in this field at all costs – when Morocco has none – have the authorities sinned out of vanity? Did the person or persons who piloted the Rayan operation from Rabat and knowingly refused foreign help, especially that of a very experienced Spanish team that had worked on the rescue of little Julen, get carried away by a patriotic but ingenuous, even reproachful, impulse? It is difficult to answer, as the decisions taken at the top of the state are extremely opaque.

On the other hand, and this is the main backlash, during this crisis, Moroccans discovered that a significant part of their press, especially the prolific electronic sites, had a particular vision of what the National Press Council (CNP) calls “journalistic ethics.” This official body, which has so little regard for the many ignominious violations of human dignity practiced by media close to the government, suddenly remembered that a very large part of the electronic press, many of whose members had an official press card, were in fact “yellow” media.

The CNP had to wake up from its lethargy to condemn in strong terms this trashy press for having overstepped “ethical limits” by displaying “petty sensationalism to increase the number of views, among other methods, to monetize humanitarian dramas.” The CNP was obliged to detail this “petty sensationalism,” such as the publication of photos of little Rayan dying and bloodied at the bottom of the well.

While Morocco did, in fact, benefit from international media interest during the five days of this unfortunate misadventure, it was unable to achieve the climax it had hoped for – namely, to show the world the image of a living Rayan in the hands of Moroccan rescuers. Instead, Rayan unwillingly served up on a silver platter the obscene nature of this defamatory press, which is largely funded by the taxpayer.

Arguably, the only gain for the Moroccan population from this affair is a likely new legislation, which the House of Representatives of the Moroccan Parliament is reportedly preparing, to effectively regulate the illegal but tolerated practice of well construction. In the desert, south of the country, water wells are dug to alleviate the ravages of the endemic drought that prevails there. In the mountains of Morocco, to the north, wells are used to irrigate cannabis crops, the production and sale of which has just been regulated by a new law.

A very modest outcome from such a great and ephemeral media show.

Finally, it’s been put to rest. The passionate and polemical debate between those of true faith and the heretics; equality and exclusivity; those who believe in freedom and those who oppress. If anything could sound the moral death knell of Europe’s purported universalism and nonsenses their ethical absolutism, it is their treatment of refugee children. The awful abuse by those with unrivalled power upon the powerless – that too, children, is the surest indicator of venality.

Whether it’s the sexual abuse of unaccompanied children throughout Europe or the recent forcible seizure of children in Sweden, something truly unholy is happening. What kind of sick, depraved system relishes in inflicting further suffering on the grief-stricken? Pity the weak in the lands claiming liberty. More specifically, the manner in which Sweden is precariously confiscating refugee children from their biological parents is outright shocking. Not just in the grotesque manner that children have been treacherously taken away from their parents, but in the cruel, sanctimonious justifications by Swedish Social Services.

High-sounding, grand glutinous words that boldly advocate for child welfare are parroted to claim the moral high ground and then weaponized to pulverize their tender lives. Imagine the utter hypocrisy of justifying mental anguish upon already troubled, scarred families and their children, all of whom fled war. This is a criminal absurdity. Without due care, thought or consideration, the Swedish state violently disrupts the lives of some of the most alienated segments of their own society, and justifies inflicting violence with reckless allegations of parental impropriety. Could anything be more perverse and misshapen? Villainy wears many masks, none more dangerous than virtue.

Critically, to further explore this crime of stealing innocence from war-scarred refugee children, it is important to judiciously deconstruct the claims that Sweden makes. How does it justify such unscrupulous behavior? In other words, what is the rationale for taking children away from their loved ones? To begin, Sweden justifies these extreme steps based on promoting their own self-image of being ‘champions of children’s rights and by claiming “Sweden has very strong legislation in order to protect the welfare of children.” Of course, nothing more to talk about then. Let’s just take their word for it.

The Swedish state – through its child welfare services  – the ‘Social,’took possession of a newborn baby immediately after delivery.

With such logic, it is inconceivable that the Swedish social system is not altruistic, trustworthy and reliable. However, when probing the reasoning behind child seizures, the opposite is true. Stealing children is often on unfounded, flimsy allegations by third-parties, unverified checks of domestic abuse, or dubious contentions of extremism. The Swedish state – through its child welfare services  – the ‘Social,’ rapidly intervenes without a process of mediation.

In one alarming case, they took possession of a newborn baby immediately after delivery. What is especially unbelievable is that any basic level of understanding of the principles of social work and child welfare undisputedly cautions against taking children away from their families and allows so only under the strictest situations and as a ‘last resort.’

A few further problematic issues further stand out: (a) What is the record of Swedish social services when seizing children; (b) How effective are they in providing a loving, caring home to the seized children; (c) Are the religious, moral rights of the parents being respected in raising the stolen children as Muslims? First, the situation for unaccompanied refugee children in Europe, and state-seized refugee children in Sweden specifically, is abysmal.

A report, based on research conducted by Human Rights Watch in Sweden from January 25 to February 8, 2016 identifies key shortcomings in the Swedish child welfare system. As a result of these shortcomings, some children “are not receiving the care and attention they need and to which they are entitled.” In other words, the evidence by independent investigators is the Swedish child welfare program suffers from serious drawbacks. Second, there are horrific stories of child abuse occurring in the homes of the children by their adoptive guardians.

The situation for unaccompanied refugee children in Europe, and state-seized refugee children in Sweden specifically, is abysmal.

In fact, on October 16, 2021, Swedish TV Channel aired a segment on the sexual abuse of Syrian refugee children, including instances of rape of children by their Swedish legal guardian. Also, there are at least, two cases of Syrian children, Yasmine and Dina, who were forcibly taken away from their families and later committed suicide.

The suicide of those two children should raise alarm about the repercussions of the Swedish Social horrific process. So much for the unquestionable standards of Swedish child welfare. Third, the seized children rarely are placed in the care of families that recognize, or even respect, the rights of their families to have their children raised according to their own faith and ethical values. Is this not basic in a democracy which recognizes and allegedly champions pluralism? Again, no concern for the Muslim faith and heritage of these children.

Altogether, the Sweden government’s reasoning is not convincing. In fact, it is eerily familiar to the residential school system in Canada that led to unspeakable crimes against Native Canadian children who were seized by the state. Similarly, the horrible situation of child welfare services in Sweden curiously ignores the following: clear directives to only institutionalize children as a last resort; ensure the safety of refugee children; account for the horrific suicide of refugee children and prevent the alarming cases of rape and drug abuse by refugee children taken away from their families.

All of this, unequivocally, indicates that that Sweden’s policy on seizing refugee children is illegal, immoral, and untenable. And what we are witnessing in the new emerging global political, socio-economic, and cultural transformations is not just the making of a counter-world order. Rather, it is the unmasking of the utter hypocrisy, of countries like Sweden, who advocate for rights of children in order to erase them.

Since 2017, Judge Mario Carroza has been investigating the illegal adoptions from Chile which are estimated to number over 20,000 from the 1950s to the late 1990s. The judicial investigation so far has revealed that several professionals in trusted positions, such as doctors, social workers, religious persons and judges, were complicit in the trafficking network. So sophisticated was the network, that 19 juvenile court, 28 health centres, 24 religious or private homes, as well as 72 buildings in Chile were used as nurseries to host children pending their adoption. Mothers, meanwhile, were fed lies by professionals, including that their children were deceased, in order to sever any possibility of searches and reunification.

The US-backed Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet is well known for the neoliberal experiment unleashed upon the country. Against a backdrop of torture and disappearances which alerted the world to human rights violations in the country, the Pinochet dictatorship sought to embellish its image. Promoting a veneer of welfare was an integral part of its propaganda, and children became the unknown victims of an intricate trafficking network which facilitated the illegal adoption of minors to foreign countries.

Between 1971 and 1992, it is estimated that over 2,100 Chilean children were illegally adopted to Sweden. In October 2021, Swedish Social Affairs Minister Lena Hallengren announced an investigation into the adoptions. This comes after several years of the Swedish media reporting about irregularities in adoption documents.

Initial research in Chile pointed towards the Swedish Adoption Centre as facilitating the adoptions between both countries. Diplomatic relations between Sweden and Chile during the Pinochet dictatorship was marked by a right-wing campaign to combat the image portrayed by Chilean exiles which was vocal about the human rights violations in the country. The Sweden-Chile Society, which espoused fascist ideology and collaborated with Chile over the surveillance of exiles, was instrumental in facilitating ties between the dictatorship and the Swedish Adoption Centre.

Adoption became a policy for the Chilean state – a means through which Pinochet could establish diplomatic ties in countries where large communities of Chileans had sought exile.

Adoption became a policy for the Chilean state – a means through which Pinochet could establish diplomatic ties in countries where large communities of Chileans had sought exile. Between 1978 and 1988, the dictatorship institutionalized forced adoption through the National Plan for Minors

Charlotta Haggren was adopted to Sweden on January 1, 1974. She was the pilot case for adoptions from Chile to Sweden, according to Anna Maria Elmgren – a Swedish woman who worked for the Swedish Adoption Centre and whose name has been linked to several illegal adoptions.

CAW serves as a platform for adoptees globally. Many adoptees do not speak Spanish, having been brought up away from their home country and distant to news from Chile. The organization’s first concern was to bring news related to the illegal adoptions to the adoptees by means of their website, in English.

One of CAW’s main objectives nowadays is family searches and reunions. Alejandro Quezada, CAW’s founder, explains that a connection with the past, to establish what happened is important, notable the separation of children from the mothers and the ensuing abductions.

Currently, Quezada adds, the connection between adoptees is crucial. He explains that many adoptee groups may focus on different issues. “But one can see that one of the subjects is the “getting out of the fog”, understanding that the history they were always told about their adoption, might perhaps not be true. Or they know isn’t true because they found their biological family who tell the other side of the story which doesn’t coincide with what the adoptee was always told. Today, when adoptees get connected to our network and are looking for the truth, it is their believe there could be more to it and they look for like-minded adoptees from the same birth country to reflect with and understand their history more in depth.”

Quezada reflected upon how the investigations in Sweden are an important link in order to establish what went on Chile. “CAW as a platform is and will remain to be connected with the deputy who helped to have this investigation to start up. In case that we can offer anything in any form that can help the investigation move forward, then we will provide that, taking into consideration the privacy of the persons in case it would be personal information.”

“Because it is important that Sweden tries to get the truth to the surface like they did in the Netherlands, it is of the utmost importance that information is shared in order for the investigation team to have a clear picture of history in intercountry adoptions. We will be awaiting the outcome of the Swedish investigation while remaining actively involved in initiating similar investigations with other European countries and governments. Once the results of the Swedish investigation are being published, we will most likely have in depth conversations with the people who initiated the investigation to look into further steps towards the Chilean part of it. Taking into consideration that today, Chile is the only country who send their children away to be adopted abroad and is investigating their history towards this crime against humanity,” Quezada explained.

On the Sweden investigation, Quezada notes, “Any result of the investigation will have an impact. Not only on the adoptee but on the whole adoption environment currently in place in Sweden. Also, any investigation and their results of a government into intercountry adoptions is not only being followed by adoptees who live in that country, but by adoptees worldwide. Question remains, what will be the following steps of the government after the results have been published. Which action will be taken to future generations if any.”