Sully Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Lets face it when it comes to kids, right across the country, partisan ties diminish and protection of kids is first and foremost in people's minds. The public can differentiate between child porn and parents taking pictures of their children, common sense dictates what is appropriate in that regards. And as far as artistic merit is concerned, who cares about it, the childrens well being is the paramount concern, not the philosophy or product of an artist, to me this is a simple problem with a simple answer. And penalties for this type of crap should be far more harsh than they are today. One strike and you are out!!!!!! Quote
Argus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 The Liberals are always using the charter as a way to protect their inane policies.In the case of child porn, theyuse it as an excuse to allow persons to claim it as freedom of expression,or art,and therefore ,maybe not individually,but as a party,they fully allow and support child porn Simplistic nonsense. If I support the right of Communists - who I hold in contempt - to free speech, to form political parties and run in elections, does that mean I support Communism? A. As offensive as it is, no one has demonstrated any harm from kiddy porn - or any other porn. B. There is virtually none of it out there anyway. C. The Child porn laws criminalize material which is not, by any logical judgement, child pornography. Now I find the material as distasteful as anyone else - just as I would find, say, gay sadomasochism porn distasteful, or bestiality porn distasteful. But that doesn't mean I believe the uh - people - who enjoy such material should be locked up. They have no more control over what arouses them than I do - or you do. I doubt anyone ever actually asked to be turned on by kids - or ponies, so I can't logically blame them for their mental condition. I can, of course, blame them if they act on it. Were I in charge of the criminal justice system I would focus a lot more effort in psychological treatment and monitering of paedophiles, and in imprisoning child molesters for a very long time. Ban the dirty pictures of actual children because that's exploitive of kids who can't, of course, give consent. But criminalize actions which harm others, not thoughts we happen to find disgusting. Hey, I'm sure I have thoughts others find disgusting too. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Did you know that you can go to jail for up to ten years if you are found with naked pictures of 17 year olds? But it's all right to have sex with them! Or with sixteen or fifteen or fourteen year olds! That kind of logic is akin to having a cut on your hand but to treat it, you cut off your arm........there should be tougher laws against having pictures of a youth, What? You think five years isn't enough? If I smash you in the face with a baseball bat and permanently blind you in one eye I won't get five years, nor much over two (actual case). In fact, rapists don't get five years. And you want to put a guy in prison for MORE than five years for having a video of some bimbo teenager dancing naked on her web cam? Why not just bring back the Inquisition and put them in charge of morals? What the tories want to do is remove the artistic defence, which has already been watered down. That is to say since the book Lolita features sex between an adult and a child it will be considered kiddy porn. Likewise, anyone who possess it will be put in prison for up to five years. Think of all those summer teen sex movies, from Porkys to Fast Times at Ridgemont High. They all featured adults in the actual roles of sex and nudity. But that doesn't matter under our law. Those are kiddy porn movies, and anyone who owns them can to go prison - except for the artistic merit defence, which the Tories want to withdraw. Artistic defence? I guess in this case, one persons "art", is another persons filth. In this case, I'd be in favor of having a nation wide referendum to decide this issue. I don't mind being "lax" in some areas such as aboration or gay marriege, but when it come to anything even close to a form of abusing children, I prefer to "error" on the side of caution..... Y'know what? You've sold me. What's your address? I'm coming over to your place. If I find one video or DVD movie which features any actors playing at being teenagers having sex, if I find one book which features an underage character having sex, if I find a naked baby picture, I'm gonna kick your ass, drag you down to jail, and lock you up for the next ten years as a child pornographer and obvious paedophile.But that's fair, right? It's about protecting children, after all. So we can't be lax. In fact, the hell with a trial! I'll just shoot you on the spot. Anything to protect children. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bro Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Are you for real,or are you just to simply stupid to see that children everyday are murdered after being sexually abused,even in Canada,I know that must come as a surprise to you.Do you think that maybe those killers acted on their impulses by viewing kiddy porn,and killing their victim was the only way out of being caught,in their own warped world? If you support any kind of kiddy porn,you are in effect responsible for the dark consequences,regardless if you think you are only upholding freedom of expression.There are times when common sense should prevail,and protection of our children is one of them. Quote
Sully Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 A. As offensive as it is, no one has demonstrated any harm from kiddy porn - or any other porn. Hmmmmm, guess you have not been watching the news about the killer Micheal Briere and the little girl he killed ,Holly Jones in the GTA. Go look up the things he mentioned about child porn and how it helped him act on those impulses. Seems the child porn he looked at in this case, acted as a catalyst for him to act out on this sick perversion. That to me demonstrates HARM!!! B. There is virtually none of it out there anyway. Crap, who you kidding there is way too much of it out there, disgusting. Look at the reports of the police who catch these guys with it on their computers, thousands of pix. I assume you are like the most of us and do not actively seek out child porn, which needs to be more secretive for these smut peddlars to get their jollies off. Therefore how do you know how prevalent it is? C. The Child porn laws criminalize material which is not, by any logical judgement, child pornography. Maybe quite true and I think common sense will prevail in the end. But sorry children first, artistic merit second. And I think we both would agree on whats Ok and what is not Ok. Now I find the material as distasteful as anyone else - just as I would find, say, gay sadomasochism porn distasteful, or bestiality porn distasteful. But that doesn't mean I believe the uh - people - who enjoy such material should be locked up. Ok this is where you lose me big time. Its ok for someone else to make child porn and post it, then let some other guy enjoy looking at it eh!!! You are telling me that is cool and ok with you. Hell no, lock up the guy who is looking at it too, obviously he supports the work of the people who produce those pictures and the children they harm. Maybe you should focus more on the rights of the children that are hurt by this, not the rights of the pervert to get off from it. . They have no more control over what arouses them than I do - or you do. I doubt anyone ever actually asked to be turned on by kids - or ponies, so I can't logically blame them for their mental condition. I can, of course, blame them if they act on it. I could care less if they are not getting enough vitamin B12 in their diet and that makes them want to look at child porn, quit trying to make excuses for this crap. The moment a "chemical imbalance" starts to become a defence, then there will be no more crimes, as all illegal behaviour will be attributable to too much caffeine, niacin, dimetapp, you get the point!!!! Were I in charge of the criminal justice system Thankfully you are not in charge of the criminal system. I would focus a lot more effort in psychological treatment and monitering of paedophiles, and in imprisoning child molesters for a very long time. I would focus that money on rehabilating the victim, not the criminal. I would monitor convicted pedophiles, with an implant thats lets the police know where they are at all times. And child molesters I would throw in the general prison population, as the those guys would love to have a chat with a pedophile. Quote
Argus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Lets face it when it comes to kids, right across the country, partisan ties diminish and protection of kids is first and foremost in people's minds. The public can differentiate between child porn and parents taking pictures of their children, common sense dictates what is appropriate in that regards. You're quite right - and entirely wrong. Yes indeed, the public can decide, but unfortunately, the law cannot. The law is fairly explicit, and what safeguards were in place, well, the Tories and others are trying to remove. There was a case here in Ottawa of a Portugese family, very happy, very loving, almost shattered and destroyed because the father took a roll of film to the local processor which had his very young son cavorting naked after a bath. It seems the Portugese hadn't yet acquired our fanatical aversion to the slightest hint of child nudity.In rushed the CAS, the police, the prosecutors and child psychologists. They took the kids away and branded the father a paedophile. For months he was unable to see his traumatized kids, who couldn't, of course, understand what was happening. The psychologists badgered them to talk about being molested, went to every kid the family knew to find out of this guy had molested them. Only under intense public pressure after the media caught wind of it did the CAS and crown very reluctantly, and very surly to the end, agree to drop the case and let his kids return to him. The kids will probably never recover from the trauma. And this is NOT a unique case. The zealots out there don't have much judgement in this kind of thing, and the law already allows a wide, wide lattitude. And as far as artistic merit is concerned, who cares about it, the childrens well being is the paramount concern, not the philosophy or product of an artist, to me this is a simple problem with a simple answer.Only for simpletons. What is it about people who completely ignore explanations and then make absolute judgements? "the children's well being is the paramount concern"? Uhhhh, okay, talk to me about the well-being of the children depicted in Peel's "After the Bath", children dead over a hundred years. Please enlighten me on how the cast of Porky's needs to be protected from exploitation. Tell me about why the character in Nabokov's Lolita needs the protection of the law.Or did you simply ignore the pointed explanation that this law does not merely govern actual pornographic videos and pictures of actual children? This law governs ANY depiction of sex between anyone who "appears" to be under 18, including actors and actresses who are in their mid 20s. It outlaws any written story which features made-up characters, any painting or drawing, even of characters from the imagination, and almost any child nudity - depending on how the cops choose to interpret it. If you have nude baby pics you could be charged NOW. Of course, you might be found not guilty - eventually, after you're name has been dragged through the mud, your kids taken away and interviewed, you've mortgaged your house to pay for lawyers, your friends have abandoned you as a paedophile, and you've lost your job. But hey, the system works, right? Most of the time anyway. And penalties for this type of crap should be far more harsh than they are today. One strike and you are out!!!!!!Uh huh. The penalty for even visiting a web site which contains child porngraphy - even if you don't save or download anything, is already five years in prison. The penalty for disseminating child porn is ten years. Do you realize that's the same penalty as for second degree murder?! What are your dirty little fantasies, I wonder, and would they hold up to public scrutiny? Have you ever looked at some half dressed, sixteen year old cutie and had lustful thoughts? Does that make you dangerous? Someone we should lock up forever? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Sully Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Y'know what? You've sold me. What's your address? I'm coming over to your place. No actually I think we should get the cops over to your place my friend!!!! Quote
Argus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Are you for real,or are you just to simply stupid to see that children everyday are murdered after being sexually abused,even in CanadaHave you ever heard of the rape of Constantinople? It's a fairly nasty bit of history which happened during one of the crusades. All those holy, God fearing men came upon Constantinople, where they worshipped God differently, and engaged in an orgy of bloodletting and rape. There wasn't a virgin over the age of six left in the city when they'd gotten through, and an awful lot of women and girls were killed horribly.Amazingly enough, there was no pornography present!!! Children murdered and sexually abused? Yup. It sure does happen. It happened a hundred years ago, too. Happened a thousand years ago. Porn isn't the problem, though. I don't think there was much of it around in the middle ages. Do you think that maybe those killers acted on their impulses by viewing kiddy porn,and killing their victim was the only way out of being caught,in theirown warped world? No, actually, I don't. Legions of bluenoses and feminists and anti-Porn activists have cut down entire forests trying to prove, with study after study, that somehow or other pornography incites men to violence. All of them have failed miserably. Every truly scientific study undertaken has failed to find any casual link between porn and violence.Let me put it another way. A guy gets arrested for repeated car theft. When the cops go to his home they find it full of car magazines, car models, car pictures. Now are you going to say that it was the car magazines that drove him to steal cars? Or are you going to realize that it was his own fascination or fixation with cars which led him both to buy all those car magazines and to steal cars? If I show you videos of men having sex with horses are you going to develop a desperate urge to go out and attack the next pony you see? More to the point, if I show you videos of kiddy porn are you going to become aroused and want to go and attack kids? Uhhhh, nooooo. I don't think so. If you support any kind of kiddy porn,you are in effect responsible for the dark consequences,regardless if you think you are only upholding freedom of expression.That would only be the case if you could show that kiddy porn causes men to attack kiddies. So far no one has been able to do that. The landmark study, the "big one" was the President's commision on pornography which was set up more than thirty years ago to prove that pornography was dangerous and caused men to attack women. It not only found it did not, but found that in some cases it could actually act as a release valve for some men, and thus prevent violence. Needless to say the study was tossed in the garbage by an unhappy president.Years later, Ronald Regan launched another such study with the same aim. This time he took care to stack the commision with born agains and anti-porn activists. Unfortunately for him he needed to put in some actual psychologists, sexologists, and psychiatrists to add a modicum of credibility. He tried to find ones which were as conservative as opssible, but almost all of them quit when they saw the nonsensical interpretations the blue-noses and anti-porn types were putting on the study. The study eventually did find that porn was dangerous (not surprisingly), but it was mocked and jeered and dismissed by virtually everyone. There are times when common sense should prevail,and protection of our children is one of them.Uhh, would you like to tell me what times common sense should NOT prevail?I love common sense. Try using some instead of emotional nonsense. Kiddy porn is disgusting. Sure. I grant that. So? It hurts children? Okay, how? Oh the actual real, honest to God depictions of children engaged in sex, or involving sexually exploitive nudity - yes, ban it completely, and arrest the people who took the pictures or videos. But we should reserve criminal sanctions for those who cause harm to others, and I don't see how some pathetic guy sitting in the dark staring at a computer monitor with a naked kid on it is hurting anyone except himself. He might be offending a lot of people, including me, but so what? I offend people too. Fairly often, in fact. My problem is that if we start arresting people for having thoughts and desires we find unpleasant, where does it end? If we start arresting people for things without proving that it causes harm, then where does that end? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Y'know what? You've sold me. What's your address? I'm coming over to your place. No actually I think we should get the cops over to your place my friend!!!! Ahh, the Stockwell Day offense! If you defend people who like kiddy porn you must like it yourself! Be careful with that one. Remember what happened to Stockwell. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Stoker Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 What? You think five years isn't enough? If I smash you in the face with a baseball bat and permanently blind you in one eye I won't get five years, nor much over two (actual case). In fact, rapists don't get five years. And you want to put a guy in prison for MORE than five years for having a video of some bimbo teenager dancing naked on her web cam? Why not just bring back the Inquisition and put them in charge of morals? Who brought up assault with a weapon? Where did I say anything about making "normal" assault charges lighter? I also agree with toughening all laws, our current justice system is a joke.... And yes, anybody watching a nude teenager over the internet should be charged.... Y'know what? You've sold me. What's your address? I'm coming over to your place. If I find one video or DVD movie which features any actors playing at being teenagers having sex, if I find one book which features an underage character having sex, if I find a naked baby picture, I'm gonna kick your ass, drag you down to jail, and lock you up for the next ten years as a child pornographer and obvious paedophile. You know what......I don't have any videos, DVDs, Books or pictures in my home that even come close to being what you describe......and if you do, I'd suggest the Mods of this site give your IP address and/or E-mail address to the RCMP. But that's fair, right? It's about protecting children, after all. So we can't be lax. In fact, the hell with a trial! I'll just shoot you on the spot. Anything to protect children I'm all for bringing back the dealth penalty, and I would be more then willing to allow crimes against children to be part of it's jurisdiction......Hang em, shoot em, give them a needle, let them breath poisonous gas I don't care.....as long as the end result is achieved. Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Sully Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Hey I cannot say whether or not you have child porn on your computer, I sure hope you are not that twisted. But only you know that!!!! You seem to think that incident of normal families being disrupted would spike, because they have naked pictures of their children, I highly doubt it. Like I have said common sense would prevail and those families would be exhonerated. There will be room for safeguards, no one is saying there would be no investigation. But shitty things happen sometimes, no doubt. We are talking about children engaged in acts of sex or someone who has naked pictures of many different children on his computer, ya that would need to be explained to the authorities and investigated. But the fact that you defend guys who look at the pictures is sickening, its all ok if you did not take the pictures. Quote
Argus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 We are talking about children engaged in acts of sex or someone who has naked pictures of many different children on his computer, ya that would need to be explained to the authorities and investigated. Actually, we are NOT talking about children engaged in acts of sex. Maybe you should investigate before you make such statements. Here is a good place to start. Canadian Civil Liberties Association But the fact that you defend guys who look at the pictures is sickening, its all ok if you did not take the pictures.Do I get to look into your mind, your closet, your bookcase and your computer to see if there's anything there I'd find disgusting? And can I put you in prison for it if I find it disgusting enough?It's none of your business what turns other people on, what pictures they look at, what fantasies they have, or what books they read. As long as they cause no harm to others. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 I'm all for bringing back the dealth penalty, and I would be more then willing to allow crimes against children to be part of it's jurisdiction......Hang em, shoot em, give them a needle, let them breath poisonous gas I don't care.....as long as the end result is achieved. Which is uhhh what? Just what "end result" do you think you're going to achieve? To make the world safer for children? Not going to happen by murdering anyone who even looks at them odd. In fact, what this fanatic fearmongering and laws are doing is making the world a sadder place. Or so the head doctors say. Children used to be hugged a lot more. They used to get touched a lot more - and children crave that human contact, friendly touching, back patting, head stroking. Nobody touches kids any more. Even their own fathers are wary. Men aren't going into teaching any more. They're too scared to be around children. Adults don't speak to kids, let alone show affection, unless they're closely related. Any strange adult who so much as smiles at a little boy or girl runs the risk of being seen as a potential child rapist. So children are growing up in a world of fear, where they run from every strange adult and are taught to be wary even around their own parents, where they don't know the same level of human contact, affection and warmth as my generation did. And those who know less affection as children tend to grow up to be less affectionate, less warm. Of course, all this has done absolutely *nothing* to reduce crimes of violence against children, sex attacks on children, or the murder of children. As the CCLA states in its brief, what do people think paedophiles are going to do if child porn is somehow miraculously eliminated? Forget about kids and take up stamp collecting? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
maplesyrup Posted June 20, 2004 Author Report Posted June 20, 2004 Conservative logic on child pornography: 1 - Opposed to child pornography (who isn't?) 2 - Most people access child pornography on the 'net. 3 - the CRTC is the organization to oversee the 'net in Canada 4 - Conservatives want to dismantle or severly curtail the CRTC. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
Sully Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 MS ure under the assumption that the CRTC is effecient and effective, hmmmmmm can you guess my response!!!!! Go ahead giver a stab!!!! Quote
caesar Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Good post Argus. It was a silly attack to turn it into anyone supporting or even tolerant of child pornograpy. I wish they would all stay on the real issues where there are genuine differences. I would like to see a strong central government. We need a stabilizing force and a strong joint government approach to issues like foreign trade, education, and health care and inter-provincial infrastructure. I would like to see a better military but one that concentrates on homeland defense not transport planes to take our soldiers to foreign lands. We need military that would be readily available and trained to help out during natural disasters. We have a large coastline that needs to be patrolled regularly and would be available to help in sea rescues. Quote
Stoker Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Argus, is there proof that cases of Child abuse have not gone down from say, the 1950s? Even if there has been a study conducted, wouldn't you say that it has been skewed by the fact that Child abuse was not talked about as much or reported 40-50 years ago? As for the punishment, I'm not sure that the dealth penalty would solve Child abuse, but the abuser sure as hell wouldn't be doing it again....... As the CCLA states in its brief, what do people think paedophiles are going to do if child porn is somehow miraculously eliminated? Forget about kids and take up stamp collecting? Who said anything about stoping at the elimination of child porn? I'm by all means in favor of going all out, let's not just eliminate child porn, let's eliminate paedophiles.... maplesyrup, I'm still waiting on your stance regarding Bill C-12? You in favor of it, or are you against it? Good post Argus. It was a silly attack to turn it into anyone supporting or even tolerant of child pornograpy.I wish they would all stay on the real issues where there are genuine differences. caesar, you don't think that the abuse of a child is a real issue? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
playfullfellow Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is no artistic merit in naked kids running around or posing for a picture in the nude. Ok, parents taking pictures of their kids splashing in the tub is different, those are used to embarass us later on in life when we bring a date home. But seriously, who supports people allowing semi-erotic pictures of kids or provocative stories about kids? I am sorry but people like that need to have their heads examined. If anyone ever did that to my kids, jail would be the safest place for them. We can all agree that kiddy porn is wrong but we seem to disagree on what constitutes kiddy porn. The artistic line is a pack of bull, just a bunch of weirdos who get their jollies from kids. The supreme court should not be the place to fight this, the government should have enough brass to stand up to this issue once and for all. We need definative laws and harsh punishments, no ifs, ands, or buts. Quote
caesar Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 That my dear fellow is what all the nonsense is about. Not that the Liberals or NDP support child pornography just that they did not support a conservative bill that could add innocent people being charged for innocent pictures. The Liberals were almost ready to present a better thought out bill of their own. Harper is a fool to keep trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. He is completely out of line. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pictures of children in innocent play in the nude. It is quite natural and innocent. Only very sick minds can turn that into something other than natural child play on a warm day. Quote
Bro Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Sadly,people like Ceaser will continue to vote liberal,a party interested only in what their power can give to themselves and the cronies they support,and screw the average Canadian,becuse the sheep will fall in line and vote them in power again,to destroy more of the fabric that once was Canada. Quote
Argus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Conservative logic on child pornography:1 - Opposed to child pornography (who isn't?) 2 - Most people access child pornography on the 'net. 3 - the CRTC is the organization to oversee the 'net in Canada 4 - Conservatives want to dismantle or severly curtail the CRTC. Do you actually think for even a second that the CRTC or anyone else is going to be able to do anything about child pornography on the internet? I mean, given the stuff must be awfully hard to find (does anyone know where it is?) and that probably 99.99% of it is in foreign countries, and that the CRTC is made up of overpaid party bagmen and fundraisers... come oooooooonnnn! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Good post Argus. It was a silly attack to turn it into anyone supporting or even tolerant of child pornograpy.It was basic politics, the "I'm more moral than him" attack we see from both sides. I don't like it when the Liberals do it, I don't like it when the NDP does it, and I don't like it when the Conservatives do it. Especially since it's almost always bullshit. Now if it was actually true... but it never is.I would like to see a strong central government. We need a stabilizing force and a strong joint government approach to issues like foreign trade, education, and health care and inter-provincial infrastructure.I actually agree. I am not a fan of decentralization. I think health care should be under one national program rather than a dozen provincial and territorial ones. And education is in the toilet, with far too many graduates unable to count or read or write properly, with little or no knowledge of history or geography - or how their own government works.I would like to see a better military but one that concentrates on homeland defense not transport planes to take our soldiers to foreign lands.Well, if you want Canadian troops to be offered up abroad for UN and other peacekeeping/peacemaking missions you need to be able to move them and their equipment around. If asked for my top priority, however, it would be homeland defence. I'd like to see the coastal defence vessels we bought for the reserves used 24/7, and I'd like to see a lot more of them. I want to know who gets into this country. Mind you, protecting our borders seems a little pointless when we have minimum wage security guards doing scanning at the airports, and when anyone can get off a plane after flushing his ID papers, call himself Joe Smith - refugee, and be on the street within hours. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Argus, is there proof that cases of Child abuse have not gone down from say, the 1950s? Even if there has been a study conducted, wouldn't you say that it has been skewed by the fact that Child abuse was not talked about as much or reported 40-50 years ago?You're probably right in that studies would be hindered by underreporting from previous generations. But sexual murders of children certainly get reported. I'm not going to launch an all-out internet study of statistics, but there seems to be more of them than when I first became a news junkie more than 30 years ago.Anecdotally, nobody much worried about letting their kids out thirty or forty years ago. If there were a lot of child sex murders and violent child rapes (which also get reported from the hospitals) n the papers I think there would have been more concern. As the CCLA states in its brief, what do people think paedophiles are going to do if child porn is somehow miraculously eliminated? Forget about kids and take up stamp collecting? Who said anything about stoping at the elimination of child porn? I'm by all means in favor of going all out, let's not just eliminate child porn, let's eliminate paedophiles.... Two problems. One, Paedophilia is a mental condition. Do you also want to execute all schizohrenics? They tend to commit a lot more murders than Paedophiles. And of course, the majority of people who suffer under both conditions harm no one. Two, the countries which have much fewer Paedophiles are the countries which are most open about sexuality. I think paedophila comes about due to repressive sexual cultures which inhibit the free expression of sexual fantasies, desires and behaviours. There seem to be far, far fewer crimes of sexual violence in the Nordic countries, for example. Now if you want to say "We find their sexual desires disgusting so let's execute them!" it's not exactly going to contribute to a more open environment of sexuality. And you have to worry about what other sexual fetishes, perversions and kinkds people will start demanding punishment for. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is no artistic merit in naked kids running around or posing for a picture in the nude.Uh, I think artists would disagree with you - pretty much ALL artists, in fact. For example, the picture I posted of "kiddy porn" certainly has artistic merit. Okay, it's not kiddy porn now, but it could be if the law was changed to eliminate artistic merit. And remember, we're also talking about books and stories, made up or not.But seriously, who supports people allowing semi-erotic pictures of kids or provocative stories about kids?Who gets to judge what is "semi-erotic"? Hell, we can't even agree on a definition of pornography! Before there were porn magazines and videos people used to get off on the underwear section of the Sears and Eatons catalogs! We can all agree that kiddy porn is wrong but we seem to disagree on what constitutes kiddy porn. The artistic line is a pack of bull, just a bunch of weirdos who get their jollies from kids.I'm afraid is is not a pack of bull. Nor is the artistic line the only one I have trouble with. I think the safest course would be to steer for what the CCLA said, which is ACTUAL, REAL videos and pictures of ACTUAL children being abused or in obviously sexual positions (such as those found in Hustler or Penthouse, or perhaps even Playboy). And leave in the artistic defence for legitimate works of art such as After The Bath. I think this would probably take care of 99% of what you and most Canadians would really consider kiddy porn.And remember, this is pretty much a false issue. Anyone who actually touches a kid in a sexually way is already breaking the law, so clearly if they record it on film that's nothing but evidence of their crime. The kiddy porn law, so far as I'm aware, has mostly been used to arrest people who have downloaded images, but who have never harmed any children. I don't consider them to be all that big an issue. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 That my dear fellow is what all the nonsense is about. Not that the Liberals or NDP support child pornography just that they did not support a conservative bill that could add innocent people being charged for innocent pictures. The Liberals were almost ready to present a better thought out bill of their own.Not much better thought-out. In fact, their proposal would simply make an already bad law worse. As the brief from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association stated. I suggest you read it. It was specifically directed towards that proposed bill. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.