Sexual Exploitation of Children

maplesyrup · June 22, 2004

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's election campaign hit a low point with his decision to play politics with the inflammatory issue of child pornography. His actions cast doubt not just on his commitment to free expression, but his powers of judgment.
The issue broke out on Friday when the Conservatives issued a press release bearing the headline "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?" It suggested that by voting against an Alliance party motion on child porn, the Liberal government had shown its lack of commitment to cleaning up the scourge -- an outrageous comment to make just a day after the sentencing of the killer of Toronto's Holly Jones, who said his desires were fuelled by porn.

The Conservatives quickly withdrew the release, but, when confronted with it, Mr. Harper refused to apologize. Instead, he stepped up the attack. "The substance of the attack is clearly true and that is that Mr. Martin and the Liberal Party have in fact been soft on porn," he said. The next day, he went further, saying that Mr. Martin had "misrepresented -- I'm tempted to say he lied -- about his position." Mr. Harper claimed: "The position of the Liberal Party allows substantial exceptions for child pornography and it was not his No. 1 priority. . . . He didn't pass legislation on the matter."

What nonsense. Canada has a tough child-porn law, brought in by the Liberals, that among other things provides for sentences of up to 10 years in jail for putting child porn on the Internet. An even tougher bill was in the works but did not make it through Parliament before the election, a common fate for legislation.

Harper is no longer the teflon man.

CanadaRocks · June 22, 2004

I believe if we call it what it really is, we would call it a social sickness, that to the best of my knowledge at this point, remains incurable.

It is entirely likely that the answer lies in prevention, detection, and isolation from society, or from any possible encounter with the subject of the sickness ie: children.

Thinking that we can simply "outlaw it" and thereby solve it seems very unreasonable.

I believe as well, that it is very likely that when used as an election issue in this manner it is with the hope of working on resolving it that is the real heart of their why, but instead that the fears and abhorences of society are being played on for an emotional vote. That these comments were released just after an occurence hit mainstream media would seem to support my conclusion.

Don't play on my emotions to get me to vote for you. Show me that you really are seeking answers and solutions that will truly make a difference. Show me the latest up to date knowledge on the topic by our foremost educators in the field. Show me their conclusions as to what will wind up being the greatest preventative, and then, THEN .. take those steps into law firmly and with conviction. Not as some political ploy, but because it is the right thing to do for our children's safety.

August1991 · June 22, 2004

Harper is no longer the teflon man.

I disagree, MS. I think Harper was on the right side of an issue that matters to people out of the political loop. I think Harper's comments have brought some undecideds particularly in Ontario into the Tory fold. It's the chattering classes and political junkies that have criticised Harper. Their minds are already made up or don't matter.

The Liberals and Canadian governments in general have not made this more of a priority. The UK and other jurisdictions have done more than Canada has.

I agree that going negative is simplistic and demagogic. But it sometimes works. The Libs have gone negative on Harper to a much greater degree. Layton opened the campaign with his homeless remark.

In truth, the Libs and NDP are more inclined to care about reforming the criminal rather than ensuring the punishment deters others.

CanadianPatriot · June 22, 2004

As much as I like Harper, I think this move was a dumb one on his part. To attack Martin and suggest that he supported child pornography was a foolish idea to say the least. Yes, this issue is important to the public but it should have been brought to light in a more tasteful manner.

idealisttotheend · June 23, 2004

I agree with CR that this is not a problem best solved by new legal mechanisms. Restricting actaul child porn should be done on the internet just by making it illegal for ISPs to host them and putting the onus on them to prevent illegal activities. But much as the popular sentiment may be more jails and longer sentances I don't think that will work.

I wonder if we couldn't put more money into psychological research and dealing with the problem directly. Maybe sex education earilier in life would help with this or redirecting the urges in adults. In any case I think this is usually is "passed down," people who have had it done to them want to do it to others when they are adults. If we could eradicate it for a generation we may get rid of it all together.

Still, I think that we need direct solutions to this not new legal ones.