Bishop Lehay's sentence inadequate.

[Scotty]

You're citing Catholics and wikipedia as proof that the entire Catholic scandal is a product of the media? Well, I'm convinced.

No, I cited the first ones which popped up, and you've cited, uh... NOTHING, right?

It ain't just priests

Edited January 15, 2012 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Just for the hell of it, I googled Catholic Priest Scandal and got 1,190,000 hits. Yep, its all a product of the media's imagination.

Really? I just googled Mormons and Child Molesting and got 3,500.000 hits.

Teachers and child molesting got 9.800,000 hits, same as Elvis and child molesting.

Maybe you need a better scientific method than "There's a lot of hits on google, so it must be true"

[Scotty]

Then he'd better be locked up to prevent lifelong damage to children's lives.

You want to lock up people just in case they attack children? Do you want to lock of schizophrenics too?

Pictures of children being sexually assaulted are pictures of crimes and of victims. Those viewing them are criminals.

The fact you are resorting to emotionalism is not lost on me. It bespeaks someone uncomfortable with their facts.

Child pornography is made up of many things, including 'children being sexually assaulted', but for the most part, as far as I'm aware, they are basically just nude pictures, many of them of teenagers taken by themselves, and of drawings, and of written fiction. And while I'm not denying that the criminal code makes it a crime to view such material what I am saying is there's no evidence that viewing them actually harms anyone.

Are you reconsidering your statements at all?

No, not in the least. Nothing you've said is more than pure emotion, and appealing to emotion does not convince me. Coherent arguments, logic and evidence does.

Viewing child porn is NOT a victimless crime, and it is a crime.

I believe that in most cases it is a victimless crime. I don't disagree it is a crime.

Where is the victim in reading a fictional story about someone under 18 having sex?

Where is the victim in looking at a computer generated image of a naked cartoony child or youth?

Where is the victim in looking at a painting of someone under 18 who is nude?

[Guest Peeves]

"I believe that in most cases it is a victimless crime. I don't disagree it is a crime."

Like pointing a gun but not shooting? That just might cause a lasting effect on the target.

There are of course more pictures of more children taken when they are in demand.

If you encourage a demand because of a depraved proclivity to view children posed in sexual \acts or actually participating in such acts, then there certainly are victims regardless those that might suggest it is 'generally harmless'.

Supporting such depraved 'needs' with subjects that are children quite simply contributes to more child victims.

One result obviously follows the other.

[prairiechickin]

Really? I just googled Mormons and Child Molesting and got 3,500.000 hits.

Teachers and child molesting got 9.800,000 hits, same as Elvis and child molesting.

Maybe you need a better scientific method than "There's a lot of hits on google, so it must be true"

This isn't my field so I'm not going to waste my time doing thorough research for someone like you who's obviously convinced that sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is a minor affair blown out of context by the media. The very fact that Catholic priest is now synonomous with pedophile in our culture should be your first clue that something is amiss. You just go on fogging the issue, while trusting children are abused in the one place they should feel safe. Even trying to obscure this ongoing tragedy tells me a lot about where your moral compass is at.

[Scotty]

"I believe that in most cases it is a victimless crime. I don't disagree it is a crime."

Like pointing a gun but not shooting?

Anything can be made a crime, if the government so chooses. Cutting my fingernails can be made into a crime. But where is the victim?

It's undeniable that it's a crime. Ie, it's against the law. I'm just not seeing a victim (absent evidence such pictures/videos are specifically done with pornoraphy in mind and not for the perverse sexual desires of the person involved).

There are of course more pictures of more children taken when they are in demand.

There's no evidence of that.

If you encourage a demand because of a depraved proclivity to view children posed in sexual \acts or actually participating in such acts, then there certainly are victims regardless those that might suggest it is 'generally harmless'.

As I've previously stated, child molesting happens, with or without the presence of cameras. The cameras are not the inspiration for the molestation. The pictures/videos are a byproduct of the act, not the cause of it. And there is no real way to profit off such things, as far as I'm aware, without taking enormous risks for very little reward.

Any number of studies, often biased, have attempted to prove a causal affect between pornography and sexual violence and all have failed. Pornography does not cause sexual violence.

[Scotty]

This isn't my field so I'm not going to waste my time doing thorough research for someone like you who's obviously convinced that sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is a minor affair blown out of context by the media.

I didn't say it was a 'minor affair'. I think the Church behaved disgracefully, and the individuals involved should have been defrocked the instant their guilt was known. However, the evidence I have 'wasted my time' in looking for suggests the vast majority of such incidents involved post adolescents, ie, teenagers, and not small children, and that the rate of molestation, or illegal activity by Catholic priests was no higher than in the general population. Now one might say that's not good enough, but nevertheless, the incidents were not nearly as numerous as people seem to believe, and are in the past.

The very fact that Catholic priest is now synonomous with pedophile in our culture should be your first clue that something is amiss.

Yes. 1) Shoddy journalism which loves to focus on the Catholic church because it's seen as the 'enemy' of social liberalism and 2) shoddy journalism which doesn't know what a pedophile is (hint, it's not screwing teenagers), and 3) intellectually lazy people who don't bother to actually look into anything themselves but simply take it for granted that the impression they get from casual viewing of the media must be completely accurate.

[prairiechickin]

Yes. 1) Shoddy journalism which loves to focus on the Catholic church because it's seen as the 'enemy' of social liberalism and 2) shoddy journalism which doesn't know what a pedophile is (hint, it's not screwing teenagers), and 3) intellectually lazy people who don't bother to actually look into anything themselves but simply take it for granted that the impression they get from casual viewing of the media must be completely accurate.

So its all about shoddy journalism and an anti-Catholic bias, eh? Shoddy journalism in Canada, Boston, Chile, Ireland, Holland, and on and on and on. That's one big conspiracy. The poor Catholic Church, such a victim in all this.

Edited January 15, 2012 by prairiechickin

[prairiechickin]

I didn't say it was a 'minor affair'. I think the Church behaved disgracefully, and the individuals involved should have been defrocked the instant their guilt was known.

But they weren't, were they? No, they were sent to some quiet retreat for 're-education' until the fuss died down, then they were assigned to a new unsuspecting congregation where they could re-offend over and over again.

[Scotty]

So its all about shoddy journalism and an anti-Catholic bias, eh? Shoddy journalism in Canada, Boston, Chile, Ireland, Holland, and on and on and on. That's one big conspiracy. The poor Catholic Church, such a victim in all this.

Incompetent journalism which seeks out 'shocking' stories is not a conspiracy.

If you're unaware of its existence perhaps you shouldn't really be commenting on such things.

Then again, as a person who basically said you're not interested in informing yourself of any of the facts behind a position you hold what value is that position worth?

[cybercoma]

Are you really defending people's right to support an industry based on victimizing children? Seriously? Have you read nothing about child porn rings?

Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and around the world joined forces to probe an online message board called Dreamboard, a private, members-only network "that was created and operated to promote pedophilia and encourage the sexual abuse of very young children, in an environment designed to avoid law enforcement detection," according to a statement released by the DOJ.

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110803/international-child-exploitation-network-110803/#ixzz1jae7PBjZ

[Scotty]

Are you really defending people's right to support an industry based on victimizing children? Seriously? Have you read nothing about child porn rings?

You haven't shown that people downloading pictures support anything but their own fantasies, and you haven't shown that there is any industry.

Pardon me for desiring facts before putting people in prison.

[fellowtraveller]

You haven't shown that people downloading pictures support anything but their own fantasies, and you haven't shown that there is any industry.

Pardon me for desiring facts before putting people in prison.

The fact is that Catholic clergy are not put into jail randomly or withoput evidence, they are put in jail for sexually assault, viewing and sdistributing and possessing kiddie porn and other actual crimes. Perhaps the media has sensationalized the situation, but I just do not see any other clergy in anywhere enar the same numbers from any other religion in the same situation.

[guyser]

You haven't shown that people downloading pictures support anything but their own fantasies, and you haven't shown that there is any industry.

Pardon me for desiring facts before putting people in prison.

All those police who spend countless hours online targeting child abusers havent found an industry?

Amazing.

Oh and your link....well what does one say now , and I quote

ZENIT is a non-profit international news agency, made up of a team of professionals and volunteers who are convinced of the extraordinary richness of the Catholic Church's message, particularly its social doctrine. The ZENIT team sees this message as a light for understanding today's world

Yup no bias , none at all.

Also, you have been told that child porn is not naked teenagers. Your repeated obfuscation of the facts, not to mention wilful denial of what is out there makes one wonder....what the hell are you defending and why?

Child porn is not paintings, its not magazine adverts (although it is noted that many pedos get thier jollies from underwear ads for kids.)

And this from your post...

intellectually lazy people who don't bother to actually look into anything

...you are talking about yourself are you not?

It would appear that others here have some semblance of what goes ojn out there, but according to you its almost all poppycock.

Wow...just wow.When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Edited January 16, 2012 by guyser

[Scotty]

The fact is that Catholic clergy are not put into jail randomly or withoput evidence, they are put in jail for sexually assault, viewing and sdistributing and possessing kiddie porn and other actual crimes. Perhaps the media has sensationalized the situation, but I just do not see any other clergy in anywhere enar the same numbers from any other religion in the same situation.

That you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Sexual abuse by Protestant Clergy Difficult to Track

[Scotty]

All those police who spend countless hours online targeting child abusers havent found an industry?

Amazing.

Not amazing at all. There's no industry to find. Common sense ought to tell you as much. An industry gets established because of the profits in it. There's no profit to be had in spending a century in prison. As I said earlier in the thread, you'd be safer running cocaine into Florida.

Also, you have been told that child porn is not naked teenagers. Your repeated obfuscation of the facts, not to mention wilful denial of what is out there makes one wonder....what the hell are you defending and why?

I'm sorry that you're completely ignorant of the law and too lazy to actually look at it. But that's really not germane to the reality of the situation.

Criminal Code of Canada Definition of "Child Pornography"

According to Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code, "Child Pornography" means:

a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means

that shows a person who is, or is depicted, as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in, or is depicted as engaged in, explicit sexual activity, or

the sexual depiction of the sexual organs of a person under the age of eighteen years; or

any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years.

The above specifically includes any 'mechanical means' such as computer animation or drawing, and explicitly points out the 'person' depicted does not actually even have to be under 18. Further, the defense of artistic merit has been removed.

BTW, we have little description of the pornography found with Lehay, but we do have this from the forensic psychiatrist who testified as a clue.

Bradford was unshaken on a number of critical issues while on the stand: Lahey is not a pedophile, he is not a risk to the community, and he doesn’t need treatment.

Bradford said the ex-bishop of Antigonish, N.S., did exhibit an interest in male youths aged about 14 to 18, as well as in men.

And from the Edmonton Sun, a statement that of lehay's huge collection of gay porn (some 150,000 pictures and videos), about 1% was considered 'child pornography'.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Scotty

[guyser]

Not amazing at all. There's no industry to find. Common sense ought to tell you as much. An industry gets established because of the profits in it. There's no profit to be had in spending a century in prison. As I said earlier in the thread, you'd be safer running cocaine into Florida.

BS and BS.

Running drugs involves moving things physically.

Ever tried to digitally move cocaine? Pretty easy but the high sucks.

I'm sorry that you're completely ignorant of the law and too lazy to actually look at it.

More aware of the law than you ever will be. One need only look at a concurrent topic about parliament to see that.

But that's really not germane to the reality of the situation.

Criminal Code of Canada Definition of "Child Pornography"

In the sense that the quoted passage addresses, you are correct, but in most cases here we are talking about pedophilia which is not teenagers and you damn well know it.

But I ask again, why defend the indefensible?

[cybercoma]

The article that I posted from that major bust said the investigators expliclty uncovered images and videos of children under the age of 12.

[Scotty]

BS and BS.

Running drugs involves moving things physically.

Ever tried to digitally move cocaine? Pretty easy but the high sucks.

I'm not sure what your point is. How long do you think a child porn web site would stay up? How long do you think a credit card processing company would continue to work with them? How many pedophiles do you think would give their credit card to such an enterprise? How do you make money?!

In the sense that the quoted passage addresses, you are correct, but in most cases here we are talking about pedophilia which is not teenagers and you damn well know it.

I do? How do I know it? Do we get an itemized list of what the child porn found on someone's computer or in their possession contains? No. And in this case, from what little we do not it seems fairly clear that all or most of the child porn images were of teenagers. And yet you find this to be irrelevant for some reason?

But I ask again, why defend the indefensible?

What is it I'm defending, Stockwell?

[guyser]

I'm not sure what your point is.

You are comparing cocaine movement and child porn movement. I call BS.

How long do you think a child porn web site would stay up? How long do you think a credit card processing company would continue to work with them? How many pedophiles do you think would give their credit card to such an enterprise? How do you make money?!

You really think they label themselves as "Kiddy-diddlers-R-Us.com ? " The websites are not web sites like you get w regular porn. They are more chat room type sites where you are more private and or they have domain rooms that not anyone can get into.

They are forums, m uch like this is. Except not easily infiltrated as this one is.

Google Toronto Life pedophile story. Your eyes will be awakened by the brutality and disgusting criminal behaviour of these vile pricks.The idea for most is not to make money but to cover some costs and to get funds to provide more for the users out there.

Pedophiles are stupid, they give their credit cards all the time. How they hell do you think they are easily traced? I know one woman quite well, thats how they caught her now ex husband.

I do? How do I know it? Do we get an itemized list of what the child porn found on someone's computer or in their possession contains? No. And in this case, from what little we do not it seems fairly clear that all or most of the child porn images were of teenagers. And yet you find this to be irrelevant for some reason?

What is it I'm defending, Stockwell?

600 photos , admitted in court to being a porn addict and having an interest in young boys.

You are defending all of this by your 'this aint so bad mantra' and your denial of facts.

I suppose this is just a "couple of fun guys having guy fun" ?

An Internet pedophile ring with up to 70,000 members thought to be the world's largest has been uncovered by police, a security official said Wednesday.

The European police agency Europol said in a statement that "Operation Rescue" had identified 670 suspects and that 230 abused children in 30 countries had been taken to safety. More children are expected to be found, Europol said.

It said that so far 184 people had been arrested and investigations in some countries were continuing. Most of those detained are suspected of direct involvement in sexually abusing children.

They include teachers, police officers and scout leaders, AP reported. One Spaniard who worked at summer youth camps is suspected of abusing some 100 children over five years.

Europol director Rob Wainwright said Wednesday the ring, which communicated using an Internet forum, was "probably the largest online pedophile network in the world."

"The website operated from a server based in the Netherlands and, at its height, boasted up to 70,000 members worldwide," it added.

Advertise | AdChoices"It attempted to operate as a 'discussiononly' forum where people could share their sexual interest in young boys without committing any specific offences, thus operating 'below the radar' of police attention," Europol said.

"Having made contact on the site, some members would move to more private channels, such as email, to exchange and share illegal images and films of children being abused. Computers seized from those arrested have harvested huge quantities of child abuse images and videos," it added.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42108748/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/massive-online-pedophile-ring-busted-cops/

Edited January 16, 2012 by guyser

[Scotty]

You really think they label themselves as "Kiddy-diddlers-R-Us.com ? " The websites are not web sites like you get w regular porn. They are more chat room type sites where you are more private and or they have domain rooms that not anyone can get into.

Well, I don't know, except that from what I've read the average site doesn't stay up more than a week or so, and that a friend of mine who does have porn sites - for written porn - is constantly being inspected by his credit card processor. I just don't see how you can make any money on kiddy porn to justify the extreme risk you'd be taking.

600 photos , admitted in court to being a porn addict and having an interest in young boys.

Yeah, the guy had 150,000 pictures! How the hell would he ever even have time to look at them!?

You are defending all of this by your 'this aint so bad mantra' and your denial of facts.

Defending? What I'm saying is that there's no evidence that his particular hobby leads to any actual harm to children sufficient to justify the heavy handed penalty - a penalty which might actually be heavier than actual molestation. AND that the law itself is far too broad in that it calls possession of pictures of teenagers 'kiddy porn'.

I'm not suggesting it should be legal to create, distribute, or even own child pornography. I just think we need to focus more on putting child molester in prison and less on chasing old guys downloading pictures.

[jacee]

This isn't my field so I'm not going to waste my time doing thorough research for someone like you who's obviously convinced that sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is a minor affair blown out of context by the media. The very fact that Catholic priest is now synonomous with pedophile in our culture should be your first clue that something is amiss. You just go on fogging the issue, while trusting children are abused in the one place they should feel safe. Even trying to obscure this ongoing tragedy tells me a lot about where your moral compass is at.

Well said.

[Scotty]

Well said.

Oh yes, by all means. Try to lecture me about my moral compass while proudly admitting you don't really know what you're talking about and are too lazy to even do the most basic of research to find out.

Sooo impressive.

[Guest Peeves]

Oh yes, by all means. Try to lecture me about my moral compass while proudly admitting you don't really know what you're talking about and are too lazy to even do the most basic of research to find out.

Sooo impressive.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Dl4Qm54Km7YC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=experts+consider+child+porn+victims&source=bl&ots=nU_MYBxrqh&sig=R3qehKovPSJfoAo9Qvt4Fyj4opg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jr4VT435PMvpgQfmmp3RDw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=experts%20consider%20child%20porn%20victims&f=false

WE have every right to opine about your certainly indefensible position. Whether it's victim-less or not is clear to most. Personally I don't for one second think you've made your case. You must I suppose believe your position but it is contrary to the experts that consider child porn subjects to be victims.

The children's rights are ignored. They may be drugged,intoxicated, threatened, they certainly suffer. So regardless your position they are victims. Some experts think cild porn leads to more child molesting.

So if you wish to maintain what I consider an indefensible position, expect to be lectured it come with the territory.

[fellowtraveller]

That you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Sexual abuse by Protestant Clergy Difficult to Track

I see, You are countering the irrefutable fact that many Catholic clergy have been packed off to jail for sex crimes versus allegations of sex crimes by others posted on a bizarre pro Catholic website?

Nice work if you are trying to convince pre schoolers.

I think tonight the missus and I will watch that CBC documentary outlining the systematic, for profit selling of newborn children. It was run by The Church is Spain for 30 years. While they told the grieving parents their child had died at birth, it had actually been sold out the back door.

Did the Baptists do that too?