No Jail for Guelph Child Porn Girl

[Rue]

Here Argus go knock yourself out with the following studies that would disagree with you.

http://www.camh.net/Research/Research_publ...pedophilia.html

http://www.meldpunt-kinderporno.nl/files/B...0Pedophilia.pdf

http://criminology.utoronto.ca/faculty/michaelseto.htm

http://www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/Cr...amp;%20Ecke.pdf

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-...000/rr00_5.html

http://www.atsa.com/pdfs/effectsBiblio.pdf

http://mentalhealthlibrary.info/library/po.../porneffect.htm

http://mentalhealthlibrary.info/library/po.../porneffect.htm

http://nopornnorthampton.org/files/28534-2...n_Optimized.pdf

[moderateamericain]

Here Argus go knock yourself out with the following studies that would disagree with you.

http://www.camh.net/Research/Research_publ...pedophilia.html

http://www.meldpunt-kinderporno.nl/files/B...0Pedophilia.pdf

http://criminology.utoronto.ca/faculty/michaelseto.htm

http://www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/Cr...amp;%20Ecke.pdf

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-...000/rr00_5.html

http://www.atsa.com/pdfs/effectsBiblio.pdf

http://mentalhealthlibrary.info/library/po.../porneffect.htm

http://mentalhealthlibrary.info/library/po.../porneffect.htm

http://nopornnorthampton.org/files/28534-2...n_Optimized.pdf

Fuck the studies, ask the real question.

Argus why are you defending kiddy porn?

[Rue]

Fuck the studies, ask the real question.

Argus why are you defending kiddy porn?

I personally don't think Argus is defending kiddy porn as being acceptable that is a different issue. I will let him speak for himself but my impression is he is making a point about the dangers of censorship based on jumping to conclusions that may be premature. Also one of the arguements is if you try censor it, it will go underground. Another point is if you are too strict with regulation of the internet it punishes the innocent and prevents freedom of speech.

I think that is what Argus is getting at. I think with due respect he is taking a classic Libertarian approach which I disagree with but really are disagreement is over the extent of regulation. I believe we need some, he may not believe we need any. Like Argus though I would never want regulation to be so severe it does things other then what it was intended to do. That is the slippery slope with these kinds of issues.

Child porn though I believe is an exception.

There are studies by a person in Australia suggesting if pedophiles were given compuerized films of child sex he thinks it can be used to control pedophiles. I disagree with that. There is also a police chief in England who said he did not feel child porn causes pedophilia.

Me personally I strongly disagree. Pedophile rings in Dennmark, Holland, Spain, Belgium and cells in England, Canada, the U.S., the Phillipines, all used the child porn internet sites to network and grow in strength.

Its a serious enough topic the UN is meeting regularly about it.

[Oleg Bach]

I don't recall ever hearing about a girl being charged or convicted for possessing child pornography. Given what we know about male predators, how is it that they think that a female would be much different and can be rehabilitated. Does she not pose more of a danger considering that society does not view teen girls as being potential sex predators (although I'm sure some would suggest otherwise)?

http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/378451

Once the person gets the taste of abusive power it can be continually alluring to some. The sex of the preditor is of no consequence. For instance a friend of mine had issues regarding woman. Finally I found out as a young child he was repeatedly tormented and demasculated as a young boy by a babysiter. The person who made my friend a partial sexual dysfunctional was a young female - go figure.

[Argus]

Fuck the studies, ask the real question.

Argus why are you defending kiddy porn?

Well that's the Stockwell Day sort of question isn't it. He all-but accused a pedophile's lawyer of being a pedophile, or at least being sympathetic to pedophiles, else he wouldn't bother defending the man. For which Day lost his house after he was sued, btw.

I'm not defending kiddy porn. I'm defending freedom of speech and expression. I think that in order to accept a prohibition on any material - especially a prohibition which carries a stiff criminal sentence, it is incumbant upon the government to show how that material is causing harm - not merely that it's disgusting. I dont believe the government has succeded in showing that with kiddy porn, or even that they've made the attempt. The Canadian Civil Liberaties Association is opposed to the child porn law and has been from its inception, as have the Ontario and Quebec bar associations. I am personally opposed to it, as well, as I am to almost any kind of censorship.

[Argus]

Agus you stated

"This is a study of the relationship convicted sex offenders had with porn and child porn and even it does not even begin to suggest that the consumption motivated the crimes."

It shows consumption fuels opportunity and access to pedophilia. That was the point and something you seem to keep denying.

Because it doesn't matter. If you are sexually attracted to children, then whether or not you can gain access to porn is really not going to affect what seems to be an inate psychological disorder. And it is that disorder which drives some pedophiles into molesting children.

"Did you even read any of your own cites?"

Well we know you don't but still argue against them. Not exactly credible Argus.

I clearly did read them otherwise I would not have pointed out how they contradicted you. Simply because I didn't feel it necessary to read a 168 page report in order to deal with a question on a web site discussion thread that does not mean I'm not willing to read cites.

" However, it is known the US Postal Service does not target people at random for its stings. It targets known sex offenders. So it's hardly a shock if we learn that many of those it then catches up are people who have molested children."

However above comment would not support your contention nor does it repudiate mine.

It points out that the results of any study can be grossly distorted depending on the means of selection.

"Oh I'm sure there's a correlation. But that doesn't imply causation."

The above comment Argus is what I am criticizing. The issue when it comes to studying the relationship between child pronography and sex crimes is whether child pornography creates networks for pedophiles to meet each other and gain opportunity and access to children. Its whether it enables the financing of sex crimes and the fact it is evidence a crime of pedophilia was committed on a child for each and every child porno tape we see.

Would you disagree with the statement that 99% of child molestation has nothing whatsoever to do with "networks of pedophiles" exchanging their dirty pictures and videos, that in fact, most of it involves family members who have nothing to do with such "networks"?

I'm saying that child pornography - the real kind, not the kind as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada - is the byproduct of child molestation, and eliminating it will have no affect whastsoever on the child molestation itself because that is inspired by the sexual drives of the people involved, not by porn. Do you really think that if all the cameras in the world were to magically disappear there would be no more child molestation?

To suggest child pornography does not cause pedophilia is absurd. To make this conclusion you pretend the children in these movies are not children.

It has been shown over and over again that pornography, even extreme and violent pornography, does not cause violence against women. Why would you assume it is different for child pornography?

I will look into reading and providing cites when I have more time for research. That likely won't be until the weekend.

[Rue]

I will respond to your comments Argus which I will place in quotation marks;

"If you are sexually attracted to children, then whether or not you can gain access to porn is really not going to affect what seems to be an inate psychological disorder."

That is not the issue. I again repeat the issue is not whether child pornography will turn someone into a pedophile. It never was. The issue is and I have provided you clear evidence to support my position and you have provided none to repudiate mine, that child pornography does the following;

1-promotes and increases both actual acts of and the oppotunity and access for pedophiles to molest children;

2-finances criminal organizations and organized behaviour that increases and enables the actual acts of pedophilia to be carried out on an international scale

3-empowers pedophiles to feel that engaging in pedophilia is acceptable

4-requires acts of pedophilia to exist and therefore serves as a pathogen to enable the act of pedophilia

5-provides assistance in enabling the abduction and movement of children across borders.

You stated;

"I clearly did read them otherwise I would not have pointed out how they contradicted you. "

With due respect you did not otherwise you wouldn't keep responding to the points I am raising with a point that is not germaine to the issue. You again keep trying to argue child pornography will not make someone a pedophile. Why I do not know.

You also provided this response;

"It points out that the results of any study can be grossly distorted depending on the means of selection."

Again had you read what I provided you would know that the studies I quoted deliberately safeguard the means of selection to prevent the distortions you accuse them of.

The studies I quoted right here from Toronto were not distorted. Please show me how they are. As for crime rates there is nothing distorted about them. The statistics the UN and Interpol keep and the statistics and information police forces keep that track the movement of pedophilia through the internet are not twisted.

Actually the methodology Interpol and the FBI and the Metro Toronto Police ( a leader in internet sex crime investigations) to name but 3 organizations use are not hidden from the public neither are the methodoly used by criminologists and forensic psychiatrists.

I think we should also clear something up. A lot of statistics may come from two areas-one is actual convictions, the other is the actual self-reporting by pedophiles.

You asked me;

"Would you disagree with the statement that 99% of child molestation has nothing whatsoever to do with "networks of pedophiles" exchanging their dirty pictures and videos, that in fact, most of it involves family members who have nothing to do with such "networks"?"

Argus absolutely not. Let me make this as clear as can be. I absolutely agree with you that a pedophile doesn't suddenly become one because he watches a child porno tape. Absolutely.

However no I must tell you the statistics and studies now available clearly show that pedophilia has always been about access and opportunity. Those 2 factors are what predicates whether a pedophile will commit an act of pedophilia.

We know pedophilia happens in families precisely beause there is opportunity and access but incestuous pedophilia is only one of many types of pedophilia and to be very specific its more common for incest to happen once a child develops sexual features which is technically yet another kind of pedophilia different from pedophilia where a child with no sexual features is molested.

To get clear and accurate statistics and understanding of such sex crimes its really important not to mix the kinds of sexually deviant behaviour we are talking about.

That said, when child porn allows pedophiles to network to gain access to children and finance acts of pedophilia and enable pedophiles to organize their access to get to children it most certainly has everything to do with why pedophilia has flourished and is now easier to get away with.

There is a reason so many organzied rings of pedophiles from Spain, Denmark, Holland, Canada, the U.S., Russia, Belgium, Thailand, Sri Lanka, even China are now able to provide hotels and junkets to come and screw children or buy and sell them.

Let's face it Argus, the internet plus today's international travel together create a far different opportunity to commit sex crimes then say in the 19th century when yes you would probably be right, most of the child molestation would have occurred in families and cities and not in such an organized manner although there is ample history to show organized religion was a primary pathogen that enabled pedophiles to network.

You stated;

"I'm saying that child pornography - the real kind, not the kind as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada - is the byproduct of child molestation, and eliminating it will have no affect whastsoever on the child molestation itself because that is inspired by the sexual drives of the people involved, not by porn.'

On that particular point I would agree with you that in terms of a clinical cure for pedophilia no, stopping a pedophile from watching child porn will not cause them to suddenly stop being a pedophile. Of course not. In fact what we know as of today, is that there is no known therapy that has ever been known to prevent pedophiles from having their sex drive. In fact when the testacles of some pedophiles were removed they went out and purchased hormones to create erections to go on to molest children - which would suggest in addition to testosterone there are other things going on in the pedophile's brain driving them on.

However again you have missed the point. The purpose of regulating the internet to try prevent the dissemination of child porn has nothing to do with trying to clinically cure pedophiles and everything to do with trying to prevent it from creating opportunity and access to children. It is not meant to be a cure for pedophilia but one of many tools used to combat and try prevent or at least contain pedophilia.

You asked;

"Do you really think that if all the cameras in the world were to magically disappear there would be no more child molestation?"

Absolutely not. No more then if we were to magically prevent regular pornography there would then be no consensual adult sexual intercourse. Of course not. That is not the point. The point of regulating child porn is to reduce it and contain it as much as possible by restricting the opportunity and access it enables. It is not meant to be a cure simply one of many approaches I would suggest a healthy society needs to engage in to protect itself from disintegration. If we can not protect our children from sexual molestation what kind of society do we expect to see continue? Do we not have enough emotionally scarred people engaged in repeating cycles of dysfunctional behaviour?

You stated;

"It has been shown over and over again that pornography, even extreme and violent pornography, does not cause violence against women."

Actually no on that one you are dead wrong. There are now numerous studies that show the corelation to men who feel empowered by watching violence against women in porno which then serves as part of the social process that leads them to take the next step.

What we do know is that people who watch violence whether sexual or non sexual, become desensitive to the acts of violence they watch which then means they are more able to carry out those acts of violence and not be affected by them.

Now where you draw the line between how much of the pathology of a disturbed person comes from what they watch and become desensitivized to and how much is genetically pre-ordained in their dna no one knows for sure.

But what we do know is a child who witnesses their mother brutally beaten has a far higher rate of probability of going on to become an abuser of women. Is that because they inherited a gene? Maybe. Studies have shown certain tendies towards violence are inherited but many others are simply learned and then some a mix of both.

Surely you don't need me or any study to tell you the obvious - person brought up in a culture that promotes the belief that sexual violence is acceptable, will assimilate and pursue those cultural values in their relationships.

What we do know is that in our society where we are taught to purchase and dispose and then purchase again as a precept of our cultural values and measurable means of defining value (which of course fuels our economy predicated on us buying and not not holding on to things) we have been programmed to dispose. This programming of disposing material products has of course infected and spread to our human relationships. We dispose of relationships with other human as we do our products and the reason for that is we have most certainly been desensitivized by our media.

You only need look at the cultural of music to see how it promotes violence against women to understand how it would be assimilated by both young men and women and go on to become socially acceptable behaviour in their culture.

When I have dealt with young men who have raped, what I have encountered are people who have a whole range of factors that could have made them what they are but they certainly I can tell you feel empowered by cultural messages to do what they do.

It would be far easier for me to work with young men teaching them respect for women if they couldn't counter what I say with their own cultural values that continue to teach them violence against women is o.k.

I am not some crazed lunatic who wants to castrate everyone and control humans. I am more likely to be sympathetic to your classic concerns as to freedom of expression which you have mentioned in other posts and I know underline most if not all your arguements.

No I do not want thought police and castration squads. But I do think we need to regulate certain behaviours and child porno is one of them and sexually violent porno is the other. For me I focus on those 2 subject areas and for me the crucial one with children flows from the fact they are vulnerable and can't consent and so need added protection. as for sexual violence against anyone I personally, and this I admit is my personal opinion, I believe it is a red flag that something is seriously wrong if the only way a human can express affection is to hurst or mutilate someone. I am not sure if that requires any further explanation on my part.

I do not relish a society that molests its children and engages in brutal violence against women or the vulnerable.

Its the same sort of reason I would argue we also have a higher standard of care to protect the disabled or seniors.

I am trying to argue it Argus not from the classic Liberal approach but the classic Conservative one where possible as I believe the classic conservative approach is more likely to try promote regulation people choose rather then have imposed on them.

I am not sure if it is possible though when it comes to criminal behaviour and in particular violence whether we can ever expect humans to behave in an enlightened manner and evolve past our primative behaviour.

I am just not sure whether the only life form on this planet that indiscriminately kills will ever learn.

Hope I have given you spirited debate on the matter.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Rue

[PoliticalCitizen]

And here's the guy who believes slavery is a good thing striking again. :lol:

As much as I dislike cops show, arrest of criminals is not a crime. Abuse of children is, and child porn is a direct product of that crime. And yes, those whoooo buy and view these products are encouraring their makes to keep producing them and keep abusing children.

So you're saying it's more like snuff films...

You've got a point...

[PoliticalCitizen]

Ah, yup. We know he's guilty, we just can't prove it. It is so easy in our society to blame the nearest male - father, uncle, brother, whatever. In the end, it is his fault anyway as the parent - he didn't raise her right, he obviously empowered her, he should have known. I don't think that she should get jail and a sex offender status, as she would in the USA, but let put the responsibility were it should be - the one who had the love of family and strength of character to stand up and admit to collecting taboo, forbidden and illegal material. She can have any lover as young as 12 (depending on her age) but no lower and she CAN NOT make a video record of their lovemaking - dumb as that sounds - and she CAN NOT possess a visual record of another's sexual activities if they are under 18. Until that law is changed, to do other wise has risk. You have to decide from there.

It is funny how you're trying to paint me as an anti-male sexist, me being a male and you having a female name

But honestly, how many girls you know who are into younger girls? What about older guys? You get it...

Seriously, unless there was some psychiatric examination of the girl that indeed proved that she's attracted to younger girls OR if she has been involved in making of any of these videos I'd still say it's her dad's collection...

As to the anti-pedophilia campaign in general - they should probably be more discriminate with the ages of the victims... There should probably be stiffer punishments for younger ages and milder for ages nearing legal... there should also probably be some distinction as to pre- and post-puberty... in many cultures girls were (and some still are) wed as young as 10 or 12... Violence and drugs used should also add to the sentence... as should probably the perversity of the act itself...

[Argus]

So you're saying it's more like snuff films...

You've got a point...

In the context that the whole idea of "snuff films" is nothing more than hysterical myth, yes.

[Argus]

I will respond to your comments Argus which I will place in quotation marks;

"If you are sexually attracted to children, then whether or not you can gain access to porn is really not going to affect what seems to be an inate psychological disorder."

That is not the issue. I again repeat the issue is not whether child pornography will turn someone into a pedophile. It never was.

No, nor did I suggest it was. The issue is whether a paedophile exposed to child porn would become more likely to actually molest a child. That is to say, whether, absent the child porn, the paedophile would not be molessting children, but would simply live quietly with his or her dark fantasies.

The issue is and I have provided you clear evidence to support my position and you have provided none to repudiate mine, that child pornography does the following;

1-promotes and increases both actual acts of and the oppotunity and access for pedophiles to molest children;

I would disagree that you have provided anything remotely akin to "clear evidence" to support this statement. I fyou can find me one cite that says child porn increases "access and opportunity" for paedophiles to molest children I'd be very interested in seeing it.

2-finances criminal organizations and organized behaviour that increases and enables the actual acts of pedophilia to be carried out on an international scale

Utter nonsense. In all the coverage, studies and reports on child porn I'm aware of only a very few, isolated cases where someone was actually paid to molest a child for pornographic purposes.

3-empowers pedophiles to feel that engaging in pedophilia is acceptable

I don't see, franklly, how viewing a few pictures or videos of naked kids will manage to "empower" a sane person into that belief given the overwhelming message society is delivering to the contrary.

4-requires acts of pedophilia to exist and therefore serves as a pathogen to enable the act of pedophilia

Not actually true. Chil pornography in Canada, and in the US and many other countries, consists of any sexual material related to anyone under the age of 18. I don't frankly see a pair of 16 year olds having sex to fit into the definition of something a paedophile would be attracted to in the first place. Also, even works of fiction, paintings, drawings or computer images made from the imagination, and images of people who are over 18 but "who appear to be" under 18 constitute child pornography in Canada.

5-provides assistance in enabling the abduction and movement of children across borders.

You're kind of reaching here, even for you.

You again keep trying to argue child pornography will not make someone a pedophile. Why I do not know.

Sorry, but I've never argued that. My argument is that child sexual abuse is caused by the offender's sex drive, not by the material the offender views. In other words, the presence of child porn will not cause anyone to molest children. Possibly the contrary, in fact.

The studies I quoted right here from Toronto were not distorted. Please show me how they are. As for crime rates there is nothing distorted about them. The statistics the UN and Interpol keep and the statistics and information police forces keep that track the movement of pedophilia through the internet are not twisted.

Speaking of crime rates and the internet, it's interesting to note that the spread of pornography, especially violent pornography, and child pornography, has exploded with the internet over the last twenty years. Yet far from rising in tandem to this availability of porn, sexual violence against women appears to have fallen dramatically. In fact, some studies are now suggesting that the presence of online porn is having an affect on reducing sexual violence.

Porn and sexual violence

Slate on sexual violence and the internet

Furthermore, your own cites have shown that there is no real causal link between consumption of pornography and sexu crimes.

In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson established the National Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. But after three years of extensive research, the Commission found no convincing evidence of a causal connection between pornography and sex crime

Hoping that additional research would find different results, another government-funded U.S. Commission on Obscenity and Pornography was instituted in 1970. However this commission concluded: "[We] find no evidence that exposure to or the use of sexual explicit material plays a significant role in the causation of social or individual harms.

Meanwhile, the British decided to launch their own investigation into a possible link between sexual materials and sex crime.

After considerable study they issued the following conclusion: "We unhesitatingly reject the suggestion that the available statistical information for England and Wales leads any support at all to the argument that pornography acts as a stimulus to the commission of sexual violence."

"Would you disagree with the statement that 99% of child molestation has nothing whatsoever to do with "networks of pedophiles" exchanging their dirty pictures and videos, that in fact, most of it involves family members who have nothing to do with such "networks"?"

Argus absolutely not.

Then why don't we stop this stuff about international criminal networks of child abusers and kidnappers dragging people across borders, hmm.

However no I must tell you the statistics and studies now available clearly show that pedophilia has always been about access and opportunity. Those 2 factors are what predicates whether a pedophile will commit an act of pedophilia.

Yes, and not whether or not he can look at child porn on-line.

We know pedophilia happens in families precisely beause there is opportunity and access but incestuous pedophilia is only one of many types of pedophilia and to be very specific its more common for incest to happen once a child develops sexual features which is technically yet another kind of pedophilia different from pedophilia where a child with no sexual features is molested.

You are talking about hebephilia, which is the sexual interest in adolescents. It is not a "type" of paedophila but an entirely different clinical syndrome.

That said, when child porn allows pedophiles to network to gain access to children and finance acts of pedophilia and enable pedophiles to organize their access to get to children it most certainly has everything to do with why pedophilia has flourished and is now easier to get away with

.

Hello? Reality calling. Easier to get away with? Are you kidding? Child porn was actually legal in the seventies and parts of the eighties. And paedophila was a term virtually no one outside the medical world had ever heard of. Now you can go to jail for having a video given to you by a seventeen year old girl showing her breasts to her own webcam.

"I'm saying that child pornography - the real kind, not the kind as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada - is the byproduct of child molestation, and eliminating it will have no affect whastsoever on the child molestation itself because that is inspired by the sexual drives of the people involved, not by porn.'

On that particular point I would agree with you that in terms of a clinical cure for pedophilia no, stopping a pedophile from watching child porn will not cause them to suddenly stop being a pedophile.

That's nice but that's not what I said. I said that removing child porn would not stop paedophiles from molesting children.

However again you have missed the point. The purpose of regulating the internet to try prevent the dissemination of child porn has nothing to do with trying to clinically cure pedophiles and everything to do with trying to prevent it from creating opportunity and access to children.

Earlier in the thread I posted something which you have not disagreed with.

As far as I'm aware child porn comes in three distinct categories.

1. Professionally made for sale decades ago when such stuff was legal.

2. Kids (teenagers) taking pics and videos of themselves.

3. The byproducts of some pervert molesting a child and taking images as souvenirs.

I would say that 95%, from what I've read of police studies, falls under the first two categories

Presuming you don't disagree, does that not seem to indicate that your worries over vast criminal networks of child porn are somewhat overblown?

What we do know is that people who watch violence whether sexual or non sexual, become desensitive to the acts of violence they watch which then means they are more able to carry out those acts of violence and not be affected by them.

We know no such things. There have been studies indicating that there can be a desensitizing but only in the short term. That is, immediately after viewing, test subjects displayed a desensitization towards violence, but that faded within a very short time.

Surely you don't need me or any study to tell you the obvious - person brought up in a culture that promotes the belief that sexual violence is acceptable, will assimilate and pursue those cultural values in their relationships.

And yet, as violent pornography has become more available in our culture sexual violence has fallen. Explain that.

[Rue]

Argus I am going to stop talking in circles with you. You keep stating there is no proof a pedophile becomes a pedophile from watching child porn so based on that fact say there is no harm in it and keep insisting that is what the issue is.

No of course not. The issue is and remains whether sending and receiving child porn on the internet serves as a pathogen for the crime of pedophilia because it incites or promotes access and opportunity to molest children. I actually provided you studies that directly address both issues to deliberately show you they are seperate issues and should not be confused. I.e., your assumption that because a pedophile would be one whether he watched child porn can not be used to leap to the conclusion that child porn causes no harm and therefore should not be regulated and in my opinion criminalized.

I said it makes sense to regulate and try prevent child porn for a couple of reasons the most important being and which of course you ignored and that is child porn requires the act of pedophilia to be committed and a child molested for it to exist.

Your consideration of that issue, that practical real issue of how children must be molested to be able to film the child porn is completely absent. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one when another poster asked why you were defending child molestation and now I wonder are you? Why have you not acknowledged the filiming of a child having sex is a crime we must try prevent? I think that earlier poster's question with due respect needs answering by you or at least clarified by you don't you think? To me it is a crucial weakness in your argument. A glaring one if I may say so.

Let's go to the next assumption you have made and that is child pornography is not used as a pathogen to commit pedophilia.

What is absolutely known from interviewing pedophiles, rapists, and a wide range of sexual deviants is that they can and do use pornography to engage in crime and facilitate crime. They tell us that. So do their victims.

In the specific case of pedophilia, pedophiles and children have both corroborated that its used by child molests as a method to lower the child's inhibitions and/or to show them what to do and these testimonials are recorded and screened to prevent prompting or avoid people with issues that could cause them to fabricate.

For example in information I provided to you I provided information that referred to an archival study that reviewed case notes from 78 children who contacted a United Kingdom telephone help-line for children over a six month period.

That study found that 41 percent of those childrenreported that their sexual abuse occured either while being shown pornography magazines or videos or becoming involved in the making of them. Would you believe they are all liars? If just one of them is telling the truth does this not warrant some kind of consideration?

In fact I find it hard to believe you would pretend you are unaware of the plethora of studies whereby both pedophiles and victims testified as to how child porn played an integral role in the committing of pedophile crimes and how it leads us back to the question you keep refusing to ask and that is - how do you think child porn tapes get made?

A child has to be abducted, molested and filmed being molested. If someone makes money selling child porn tapes, that finances the crime of pedophilia and for you to deny that is astonishing.

For you to suggest the corelation between getting paid to make, sell and distribute child porn tapes is nonsense with due respect makes no rational sense. The facts speak for themselves. Who are in the tapes? What is the system used to distribute them? You think all child porn tapes are done for free and the children are midgets?

In your reasoning, we just completely ignore who gets paid, why they get paid, and what crimes they commit to get paid let alone the victims of these tapes. No harm you say? No harm? Tell that to the child being filmed!

I provided information to indicate in a study done by Prof. Belanger which analyzed 55 sex rings, he found that adult pornography was shown to children in 62 percent of the cases. The rings he s tudied recorded the abuse of children (their pedophile crimes) through the creation of pornography. How you can keep stating say there is no corelation to acts of pedophila and child porn and how one is used to carry out the other is beyond me.

You live in this selective world where you ignore the studies shown to you and the obvious, that child porn is evidence of a crime and distributing evidence of that crime is provides financial incentive for it to continue.

There are also no shortage of testimonials from pedophiles to state how they use the internet and child porn to trade not just evidence of crime but the very children used to make more porno tapes. Where do you think these children come from? Who do you think is filming them?

I suppose when you have been in a room sitting across from a pedophile like I have you learn things about how they operate that seem obvious but I guess may not be to you or others.

I think it would be common sense to understand when you film a child having sex that this is evidence of pedophilia and the pedophilia occurs because someone is going to get paid to distribute that tape if not for the tape itself a related crime that tape's distribution sets up, i.e., trading of children, travel to Sri Lanka on a sex junket..

Do all pedophiles use child porno> No and I have not suggested that. But that is not the issue. Many child pedophiles I have met need the real thing and don't use them at all. So?

That does not change for a second what we are talking about and that is, as long as there is even l child being filmed being molested we have an obligation as a society to try prevent that from happening.

I say the same thing about the commission of any crime including sexual crimes and its why I do not believe in the regulation of porn with adults who are consensual unless they depict crimes that are clearly not delineated as not being crimes.

There are numerous sex tapes out their showing s + m and the pornographers at the end of the tape clearly indicate it was fabricated and no one was hurt. I say that because some pornographers seem unlike you to accept responsibility for the harm their tapes could encourage and I commend them for at least taking responsibility and trying to do something about it.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Rue

[Rue]

Argus asked me if I thought reports of international sex crime involving child porn and pedophila were overblown. All I can ask him try find out for himself by starting with;

Top Ten Reviews ™ “Internet Filter Review” an online resource that reviews Internet Safety. (Reported that CP generates $3 billion annually)

“Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study” (Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, 2005) page 4.

Internet Watch Foundation, United Kingdom

“Internet Sex Crimes Against Minors: The Response of Law Enforcement, November 2003. (Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, November 2003) page 3.

“Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study, 2005”, page x.

“Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study, 2005”, page 4.

“Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study, 2005”, page 5.

“Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study, 2005”, page 5

Argus may also want to ask himself why credit cards are used to purchase child porn and why that finances the commission of pedophile crimes and is the financial incentive fueling a billion dollar industry that necessarily sells the acts of pedophile crimes.

This is why for example Ernie Allen, President and CEO, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) stated and I quote; “The fact that child pornography can be purchased using a credit card, or traded at no cost on the Internet, is causing an exploding global problem and an immeasurable impact on the sexual exploitation of children.”

Over blown? Perhaps Argus may want to consider that a 2002 report by ECPAT International and the Bangkok Post, estimated that 100,000 child pornography web sites existed on the Internet in 2001 and since 1997, the number of child pornography images on the Internet is estimated to have increased by 1500%.

The CMEC’s CyberTipline received 21,603 reports of child pornography in 2001, and then in 2004 received 106,176 reports. Do the math that is an increase of 491% increase in four years.

Anyone can go to the NCMEC website at www.missingkids.com or they can contact Metro Toronto Police, Project P to get info.

To suggest this is overblown, wow.

[Argus]

Argus I am going to stop talking in circles with you. You keep stating there is no proof a pedophile becomes a pedophile from watching child porn so based on that fact say there is no harm in it and keep insisting that is what the issue is.

Do you speak English, Rue? Do you have a comprehension problem? Did you not read this from the post above to which you are replying:

YOU: You again keep trying to argue child pornography will not make someone a pedophile. Why I do not know.

ME: Sorry, but I've never argued that. My argument is that child sexual abuse is caused by the offender's sex drive, not by the material the offender views. In other words, the presence of child porn will not cause anyone to molest children. Possibly the contrary, in fact.

Perhaps you simply have a basic misunderstanding of what a paedophile is. A paedophile is someone with a singular sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. Regardless of whether the paedophile ever acts on that desire, he or she remains a paedophile. Most, btw, don't act on it. The point I'm making, Rue, is that paedophiles exist, and will continue to exist, with or without the presence of pornography. And child sexual abuse is driven by paedophila, not porn.

No of course not. The issue is and remains whether sending and receiving child porn on the internet serves as a pathogen for the crime of pedophilia

You use the expression "the crime of pedophilia". This is akin to saying "the crime of paranoid-schizophrenia." These are not crimes, they are psychological disorders. Perhaps you are unaware of this and this is leading to your confusion about what I'm saying. But frankly, for you to write as though you have long experience with paedophiles and not know this (nor even how to spell paedophila) makes me question just what you have learned from that experience - assuming it exists.

I said it makes sense to regulate and try prevent child porn for a couple of reasons the most important being and which of course you ignored and that is child porn requires the act of pedophilia to be committed and a child molested for it to exist.

I didn't ignore it. I responded to it by pointing out to you on several occasions - which you have ignored rather than tried to argue against - that the crime of "child pornography" does not actually require the use of children. People over 18 "who appear" to be under 18, written works of fiction, drawings and paintings and computer animation from the imagination can all be termed child porn. Furthermore, I pointed out that the vast, vast majority of 'child porn" is comprised of pictures and videos of people in their teens taken of themselves to share with boyfriends/girlfriends which wound up on the internet. Most of the remainder is 30 year old material from the days when child porn was legal. You haven't argued against this either so I'm presuming you don't disagree.

Your consideration of that issue, that practical real issue of how children must be molested to be able to film the child porn is completely absent

Actually, in the case of videos and pictures of real children really being molested my consideration has been we ought to concentrate on getting the guy doing the molesting. The filming of the action is rather secondary, so far as I'm concerned. It's like I'm trying to catch bank robbers but you're worried about grabbing people who are viewing the security camera video footage of the bank robberies in case that might somehow inspire more bank robberies.

. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one when another poster asked why you were defending child molestation and now I wonder are you? Why have you not acknowledged the filiming of a child having sex is a crime we must try prevent? I think that earlier poster's question with due respect needs answering by you or at least clarified by you don't you think?

I already answered him, too, but I'm not surprised you lack any awareness of that. You appear to lack any awareness of anything I say. Certainly you don't respond to any of the points I make, and ignore any of the cites I include. Neverthless, as insulting and stupid as the question you ask is, it's typical of the knowledge-free, emotional mindset of the anti-porn crusaders. Rather than dealing with the contradictions and lack of real scientific evidence to support their often hysterical claims they resort to attacking the person who questions them by insinuating that their motivation must be some secret lust for children. After all, who else would attack the noble defenders of children - which is how the crusaders seem to like to think of themselves.

Do you know how Canada's child porn laws were created? No, of course not. You haven't a clue. They were drawn up by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, very hastily, right before an expected election. Why? Well, because they wanted the opposition to vote against it so they could use that in the upcoming election. So they deliberately crafted the legislation so broad that it would catch any number of artists in hopes the Liberals and NDP would oppose it. The opposition was too crafty, however. They supported the legislatioin. The Canadian Civil Liberities Association opposed it, as did the Ontario and Quebec bar associations, the Canadian Writers Assocation, and most Canadian artistic groups. They all called it an absurdly broad law which could lead to prosecution of all manner of people.

Later, in another attempt to score political points, the law was broadened to include written material, and works of imagination, ie, paintings and computer imagery drawn from the imagination. In other words, even material where no real children were involved. I can't remember if that was the Liberals or Tories, but I do remember the minister at the time desperately trying to find some child porn so he could hold it up in the House of Commons to show what a dire danger the "flood" of child pornography was. Only problem was he had a hard time getting any. The RCMP had none. Customs had none. Justice had none. He finally got some from Ontario's Project-P, anti porn squad. I think the tories later tried to remove even the artistic defence on the grounds that even works of art or great literature which had naked children was still child porn. Can't recall if they succeeded or not.

My point here is that the laws surrounding child porn in Canada were all drawn up with politics in mind, not the protection of children. Child porn was already illegal, after all, creating it, distributing it. All the law did was focus on those poor schmucks who downloaded it, most of whom never molested children and never would have.

That study found that 41 percent of those childrenreported that their sexual abuse occured either while being shown pornography magazines or videos or becoming involved in the making of them. Would you believe they are all liars? If just one of them is telling the truth does this not warrant some kind of consideration?

Unless you are now suggesting we should ban all pornography just what difference do you think that makes? If you eliminate all child porn they will simply show them adult porn. Eliminate that and they'll show them the Victoria's Secret catalogue, or the Sears catalogue underwear page. It's not going to make any difference. A paedophile set on abusing children is going to abuse children regardless of what enticement he uses on them.

A child has to be abducted, molested and filmed being molested.

Oh please. First, most "child porn" consists of teenagers fooling around. Most that feature actual children being molested are 30 years old. The remainder, a tiny percentage, are the souvenirs perverts take when they molest children. The souvenirs are not the point of the molestation, they are simply byproducts. Take away the pervert's camera and he'll still be molesting children.

If someone makes money selling child porn tapes, that finances the crime of pedophilia and for you to deny that is astonishing.

The number of people who actually molest children for money in order to sell the videos is probably akin to the number of albino homosexuals hit by lightning in any given year.

In your reasoning, we just completely ignore who gets paid, why they get paid, and what crimes they commit to get paid let alone the victims of these tapes.

Since they constitute about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of child sexual abuse cases I guess I prefer to focus on the bigger issues.

I provided information to indicate in a study done by Prof. Belanger which analyzed 55 sex rings, he found that adult pornography was shown to children in 62 percent of the cases.

So are you now suggesting we ban adult porn too?

I think it would be common sense to understand when you film a child having sex that this is evidence of pedophilia and the pedophilia occurs because someone is going to get paid to distribute that tape if not for the tape itself a related crime that tape's distribution sets up, i.e., trading of children, travel to Sri Lanka on a sex junket..

Once again, you seem confused about what the term "pedophile" means. Paedophilia is a psychological disorder not a crime. You don't go to jail for being a paedophile any more than you go to jail for being a schizophrenic. You go to jail for commiting acts of violence or sexual assault which are inspired by those psychological disorders. And as I said above, my concern is with child molesting, not porn, and "paid" child abusers constitute such a tiny, miniscule number compared to those who do it out of lust that I just think we have to focus our attention on the latter.

[Argus]

Argus asked me if I thought reports of international sex crime involving child porn and pedophila were overblown. All I can ask him try find out for himself by starting with;

Top Ten Reviews ™ “Internet Filter Review” an online resource that reviews Internet Safety. (Reported that CP generates $3 billion annually)

That would make child porn bigger than adult internet porn. There are millions of adult porn sites on the internet, and I've NEVER run across a child porn site, which, presumably, would be raided the moment it became known to police sources. Yet somehow you believe that child porn on the internet generates more money than adult porn sites!? Do you ever engage your brain for anything or do you just repeat the nonsense that some anti-porn website spouts out? I did try to check this out but the only references to the three billion for child porn I could find - and there are many of them - all cite the same source "internet filter review". That site gives no basis for its figures whatever so they might well have just pulled the number out of their rectal cavity.

Over blown? Perhaps Argus may want to consider that a 2002 report by ECPAT International and the Bangkok Post, estimated that 100,000 child pornography web sites existed on the Internet in 2001 and since 1997, the number of child pornography images on the Internet is estimated to have increased by 1500%.

And just what qualifications does the Bangkok Post have for estimating the number of child porn sites on the internet? as for ECPAT, that's a network of vigilantes, not any kind of governmental or scientific agency. Like the other site of yours their numbers are unexplained and not backed up by any data. Furthermore, frankly, they're dumb. I mean, any time the authorities find a child porn site the owners are in trouble. And yet you think there are 100,000 of them operating out there making sales? Good grief. Try and think for a moment about how on earth they could survive.

The CMEC’s CyberTipline received 21,603 reports of child pornography in 2001, and then in 2004 received 106,176 reports. Do the math that is an increase of 491% increase in four years.

Uhm, no, that's an increase in the knowledge of the tip line, and/or an increase in hysteria about child porn.

I've been surfing the internet since before they came out with graphics. I've seen an awful lot of porn sites, but I've never come across any kind of child porn. Yet somehow it's a $3 billion business with a hundred thousand web sites. Uh huhhhhhhh.

[kengs333]

The point I'm making, Rue, is that paedophiles exist, and will continue to exist, with or without the presence of pornography. And child sexual abuse is driven by paedophila, not porn.

People are always influenced by the media they expose themselves to. If that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't be an advertising industry.