Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, “rape of a child under 13” is an offence of penetrative sex with a child under the age of 13. A child having consented to the activity is not a defence, so no distinction is made between forcible rape and consensual acts, even if those acts involved only children of the same age. If, for example, a 10 year old boy has consensual penetrative sex with a girl of 12, he has committed the offence of “rape of a child under 13”. The girl, by comparison, is automatically considered the “victim” and may not have committed any offence. So much for preventing discrimination on the basis of gender.

Following the ruckus over the conviction of the boys, one commentator argued that the children were so young that their crime could not have been sexually motivated. He claimed that they were, in fact, “sexualised” by the media. While pre-pubescent children do have lower sex drives than sexually mature individuals, sex play amongst children was accepted as a common occurrence long before the days of pop stars gyrating their hips and pole dancing kits for kids. Such sex play undoubtedly has a sexual undertone and one should not be surprised that some children choose to take that sex play further than others. To treat the behaviour in question as anything other than natural and generally harmless is to be indoctrinated by the pervasive moral panic over the reality of child sexuality.

One wonders why this case was even taken to court, and furthermore, one must question why it remained there. If a 10 year old physically assaulted an 8 year old, the case would be dealt with by parents, not police. The sexual nature of an interaction should not elevate the case from a childhood altercation to a criminal case to be heard at the Old Bailey. Reports do indicate that, in a pre-recorded interview with a police officer, the girl claimed to have been forced into sexual activity. When the girl was questioned in court, however, she revealed that the boys had not forced her to engage in sexual activity; the activity had in fact been consensual. This difference raises the question of suggestive interviewing or coerced testimony having taken place in early stages of the investigation, followed by a mere rubber stamping by the Crown Prosecution Service, who previously used discretion in cases involving sexual activity amongst children.

When the girl informed the court that the sexual activity was consensual, the charges should and could have been dropped with immediate effect, even though the boys were technically guilty. Rather than admitting their mistake in prosecuting the young boys, prosecutors evidently hoped to salvage their reputation by dragging young children through court, knowing that the boys’ actions would inevitably result in a guilty verdict. By prosecuting those boys to the point of conviction, the judicial system has labelled them sex offenders, which will inevitably result in repeated failures of ISA criminal background checks, which will soon be required for millions of jobs and volunteer positions. Not only has the state ruined the boys’ childhood, but it has also destroyed their career opportunities for years to come. The 8 year old girl, meanwhile, appears to have been coerced and manipulated by the authorities in order to extract evidence, forced to testify in court and made to feel like a victim of rape. The judicial system which is supposedly in place to protect children and others has in fact tarnished the lives of all who it touched, including the “offenders” and the “victim”, relatives and friends of the children, and the taxpayers who must foot the bill for the prosecution.

This case highlights the problem of the state becoming so deeply involved in matters related to sexuality. Even if the young boys had forced the girl to have sex with them – which would indeed have been very troubling – a case involving offenders of 10 years old is a matter which should be dealt with by parents, just as it would have been in the case of physical assault. In my opinion, it would not be misplaced to initiate prosecution of such cases only with the consent of a victim, parent or competent social worker, except in extremely serious cases such as those of incest or prostitution (when police really may need to press charges). Such a policy would cut out the intervention of police and prosecutors in cases of childhood sex play, and one suspects that even the most neglectful parents and incompetent social workers would apply for prosecution upon learning that someone actually did sexually abuse a child for whom they are responsible.

This case is closely linked with the paedophile panic, hence my decision to post this article on a website about paedophilia. While parents are led to worry somewhat obsessively about paedophiles, they are accordingly made oblivious to the threatening actions of the state, which systematically takes childhood concerns out of their hands and into the hands of judicial systems which are not fit for such a purpose. In doing so, decisions about children’s lives are made by judges and prosecutors who know little about these children’s lives and who are subject to bureaucratic systems which fail to account for context and personal issues and histories. If the crusade against sex play amongst children continues, more children are going to be dragged through court for consensual behaviours with peers, tarnishing the lives of everyone involved. While parents are slowly led to believe that their children are at serious risk from bogeymen, the state quietly takes children out of their hands and into the courts of injustice. This is a problem which needs to be addressed.

One of the many misconceptions about paedophilia is the belief that most paedophiles prefer to be “in the closet” or “in the toy box“, as if paedophiles are ashamed of their sexual orientation. Naturally, some paedophiles may be ashamed of their sexuality because of society’s attitudes towards people who are attracted to children. This feeling of shame over a hard-wired orientation is not shared by all paedophiles, however. Many paedophiles justifiably feel proud about having the levels of control necessary to behave responsibly, despite having a sexual orientation which will prevent the possibility of ever having a sexual partner.

Coming out as a paedophile is currently very dangerous in many developed countries, much like coming out as gay is dangerous in many Middle Eastern countries. The consequences of coming out, or being outed, may include physical and verbal abuse, loss of employment, vandalism to one’s property, false accusations of illegal behaviour, harassment and intrusion from law “enforcement” and alienation from friends and family. This article briefly discusses the stories of several people - including a 14 year old boy - who have been stalked and harassed simply because they had the bravery to discuss their sexual orientation.

In 2006, the sexual orientation of Dutch technical administrator and programmer Roderik Muit was widely publicised when he defended the pro-paedophile MARTIJN Association against questionable legal action, brought by a royal family who have been criticised for suing people in relation to dubious claims of breach of privacy. After defending the organisation in court, Roderik faced a barrage of unexpected questions from the media, who aired his name and image on national television. Following his outing, Roderik lost his job and parts of his social life, despite having never attempted to act on his attraction to children. The publicising of his sexual orientation, both in the mass media and vigilante websites, left him unable to find permanent work for two years, despite the fact that he possesses an excellent CV.

But Roderik is not the only non-offending person who has suffered harassment on the basis of his sexual orientation. In 2007, Jack McClellan was forced to leave his home after he was subjected to abuse for running a website which discussed public events at which one could legally admire children. He had also published pictures of fully-clothed girls, all of which were taken at public festivals and were not remotely pornographic. The media’s response was hysterical. Numerous news outlets described the website as a “how-to” for paedophiles, exploiting the public’s misinterpretation of “paedophilia” to falsely imply that Jack encouraged unethical and illegal activity. After being forced to leave his place of residence, Jack moved to another state, however he was then targeted by two lawyers. The lawyers filed for a restraining order, which forced Jack - who had never committed an offence of any kind - to stay over ten feet away from all children, meaning that he could be imprisoned if a child walked within ten feet of his car. The restraining order claimed that two teenage girls - who were older than the publicised ages of Jack’s interest - were frightened to attend public events as a result of Jack’s website. One of the involved attorneys even stated that they were “most fortunate” in obtaining the restraining order, which could be interpreted as an indication of the dishonesty of the claims which were made against Jack.

Later that year, Jack was asked to conduct an interview aside a high wall which, unbeknownst to him, adjoined a childcare facility at a university campus. The police were notified of Jack’s location and he was arrested on live television. Jack feels that the intention was to record a live arrest, not conduct an interview, but when someone is known to have a sexual orientation such as Jack’s, they will never be equal before the law.

In the Netherlands, Marthijn Uittenbogaard formed a political party, the PNVD, whose platform was most notable for calls for a modification of the age of consent and the legalisation of private possession of child pornography. The party’s other goals, which focused heavily on providing all people with basic civil liberties which are often ignored by the Dutch government, were overlooked by the media and vigilantes who engaged in a character assassination of Marthijn and other members.

Despite having never molested a child or committed any other offence, Marthijn was subjected to repeated attacks on his house, resulting in several broken windows, verbal assaults at the supermarket, and intimidation from vigilantes and even a biker gang. Another member of the PNVD, Norbert de Jonge, was forced to leave his course at university as a result of the formation of the party, and was refused admission to other universities on the basis of his sexual orientation and political ties, despite having never abused a child.

One of the most disturbing cases of attacks on responsible paedophiles is that of a teenager, who will be referred to as “Robert” to prevent his name being broadcast further. Robert was “stalked” online by vigilante organisation Perverted Justice from the age of 14, then outed to his family and church congregation. Not content with this, Perverted Justice also provided information for others who sought the underage person’s identity. After being outed, Robert was physically assaulted by his church’s pastor on account of his sexual orientation, even though he has never molested a child. When I sent an e-mail to ask about his experience of being outed, he began with the following statement:

“I was reluctent to even reply to your E-mail or even open the very first message you had sent me in fear that you were some Vigilanti. But I feel that it is important for people to know what happened. Honestly As I type this I’m thinking to myself why bother I’m getting panicy and my arms are shaking just by typing this message out. Discomfort from thinking about these events happens to me on a daily basis, I think about it til I get physically sick and end up having diarrhea.”

Robert was delighted when he finally persuaded his frightened mother to allow him to attend Church after he was outed to the congregation. He attended with his mother, and nothing was said about his sexual orientation at that time. Later that evening, when he attended a group for young members of the church without the presence of his mother, he was confronted by the Youth Pastor. Robert was lured into an office without any indication of what was about to happen. He provides the following account:

“I took a seat on the sofa in the Youth Office. The pastor sat in an office chair with wheels and proceeded to raise his voice. [….]He took misquotings that obviously were given to him via [a vigilante website] and yelled and I don’t mean loud I mean Yelling. [….]

I politly asked if I could get a drink (there was a mini-fridge stocked with soda at the other end of the room) and started to get up when I was blocked and slammed back into the Sofa by the senior pastor. I then after being in somewhat of a shock asked once again politly to get a drink in which I was denied. I then after feeling quite uncomfortable and panicy asked to leave the room so that I may call my mother. This was responded by the senior pastor with Violent Yelling, and Threatening to call the cops and have me arrested if I left the room. His Yelling Degenerated into slander and Verbal Assault. Calling me names such as but not limited to Child Rapist, Child Molester, Monster. ect. He Then left the room and order three other people to watch guard over me. (It felt as if I was being imprisioned in this office. [….]

I began sobbing uncontrolably and was probably histerical. Three more people showed up an equally violent and old man and two older women who began laughing and taunting at me because I was crying. I finally called my mother and was still sobbing uncontrollably on the phone asking for her to pick me up she finally did and that was the last time I ever went to that church.”

When you’re a minor who is simply attracted to younger minors, you don’t receive any protection from the authorities, even when you’re assaulted by a church pastor. Instead, the authorities join in with the harassment. When asked about how he was harassed by vigilantes, Robert described how the police colluded with vigilantes in order to harass him:

“They have sent fake letters to the police saying I’ve done this that or the other. or that I’m going to commit suicide in attempts to try to have cops arrest me. The Police activly began knocking on my door at all hours for quite some time and shining lights into my house even though they had no evidence to arrest me on anything they can still legally harass you for hours. This in itself was quite tramatising as I spent many nights sleeping in the bathroom to get away from all the police yelling and harassment at my door.”

Robert’s story is distressing, but it’s not the only such story. Indeed, there are hundreds of cases of innocent paedophiles suffering harassment, however documenting all of those cases would lead to an article of an unreadable length.

In a climate such as this, there is an obvious (but often overlooked) reason for people’s inability to locate paedophiles within their area. Most paedophiles will never out themselves due to the general population’s unwillingness to act sensibly upon the knowledge of their sexual orientation. Until people learn to not discriminate against a person on the basis of their sexual orientation, very few people will ‘come out’ as a paedophile. For a society which is so concerned about paedophiles, albeit as a result of misinformation and hysteria, this is a problem demanding serious consideration.

A spokesman for civil rights group Liberty claimed that “while we do need to protect children from sick, evil paedophiles - who we oppose…. please note that we oppose them - we think this goes just a little too far”. Zoe Hilton, policy advisor for the NSPCC, rubbished Liberty’s vile attack, explaining that the move was “a sensible and balanced response to the serious problem of child abuse”, adding that anyone who doesn’t support the NSPCC is a child abuser.

Feminist author Melissa Money-Grab, of victim support group PROFIT, added that the current plans are the only way to protect women from “the evil, predatory nature of men”. She cited an NCMEC study which found that 99% of men had committed a violent sexual offence at some point in their life. The study, which took place in a clinic for violent sexual offenders, also revealed that donating to the NCMEC reduced the risk of child abuse by up to 900%.

Operators of private prisons were rejoicing in the news. One anonymous director added: “We love the Labour government. We’ve made millions from their imprisonment of harmless individuals”.

The new legislation, which is expected to gain majority support from MPs, will be introduced in May. Click on the image to the right of this article in order to view the entire form.

In their earlier defence of legislation against images of virtual children, Labour ministers claimed that the images were also illegal to publish or distribute under the Obscene Publications Act. That is clearly not a logical defence for the prohibition of possession, but it is also not true. The new law criminalises the possession of any image which “focuses solely or principally on a [virtual] child’s genitals or anal region” or depicts any sexual act which involves virtual children or is witnessed by virtual children, and is “pornographic” and “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.” These standards are obviously not clear, but the standard of obscenity under the Obscene Publications Act – the “tendency to corrupt or deprave” – is not present in the new legislation, even if the Ministry of Justice would like you to think otherwise.

In a piece which I wrote in July, I described how the proposed law against virtual child erotica will not reduce the grossly exaggerated risk of sexual assault against children. In brief, nobody has been able to provide evidence for the allegation that the use of drawn child erotica encourages sexual abuse – a fact which the Ministry of Justice conceded during their “consultation”. Research is increasingly showing an inverse relationship between the availability/use of child erotica and sexual assaults on children, so this law is probably a danger to children and not something which will protect them.

Sadly, the Labour government’s supposed use of evidence-based legislation is simply a myth. To the current government of the United Kingdom, science is as an enemy which threatens their rather unscientific use of fear and panic to control the population and crush legitimate protest. The politics of paedophilia is essentially an extension of the politics of fear, which deliberately frightens people towards accepting a particular ideology (the historical definition of terrorism) which is favourable to the powers that be. The politics of paedophilia is not only useful for power-obsessed politicians who wish to extend the iron tentacles of the state and gain points over their political rivals; it is also major source of income for modern children’s charities. The NSPCC is a good example, as an arguably fraudulent charity which obsessively markets itself to garner donations, then spends an atrocious proportion of those donations on aggressive marketing practices rather than protecting children. Unfortunately, nobody is really thinking of the children.

The legitimacy of the new law against possessing images of virtual children is also questionable within the European legal framework. The European Convention on Human Rights and domestic Human Rights Act dictate that a person has a right to privacy, with certain exceptions. One of those exceptions is that if the relevant aspects of legislation are believed to protect children, any breach of privacy is held to be acceptable. While the prohibition on the possession of indecent images of children is supported by various weak studies which incorrectly claim that children are harmed by possession of naked or erotic photographs, no such evidence exists in relation to drawings of cartoons. A person appealing against a conviction of possessing a prohibited image of a child has a good case if arguing on the grounds that their right to privacy has been breached.

Another dubious clause within the new legislation is the attempt to extend jurisdiction over service providers in the European Economic Area. If a web host or ISP managed from anywhere in the EEA is in possession of “prohibited images of children” in the course of providing a service, the UK may attempt to have the owners or directors extradited to face charges in the UK. According to the UK parliament’s “research paper”, “the significance of these measures could extend beyond the control of child pornography in that they could potentially provide a test bed for the future development of wider internet regulation”. By using a topic which typically circumvents concerns over liberties and excessive state authority, the British state may succeed in their attempt to apply their draconian laws to other European countries.

Update: The Coroners and Justice Act is now available online. Sections 62 to 68 cover the criminalisation of “prohibited images”, Schedule 13 extends criminal liability to “information society services” such as commercial web hosts and ISPs, and Part 3 of Schedule 21 makes minor amendments to three previous Acts.

The first and most significant claim of ministers, made in the original “consultation on possession of non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse”, was that “fantasy images themselves fuel abuse of real children by reinforcing potential abusers’ inappropriate feelings towards children” (Home Office, 2007). The Home Office noted “an absence of research into the effects of these images”, but proceeded to ask if their proposal was “nevertheless justified”.

Upon publishing the “summary of responses and next steps”, the Ministry of Justice (2008) was unable to provide any evidence for the claims made in its paper, explaining that it had taken the decision to legislate against computer-generated images on the basis of a public consultation (in which the opinions expressed were far from unanimous) and closed meetings with “interested parties”. Those “interested parties” were comprised mostly of charities which have a financial stake in the matter, as well as the Child Exploitation & Online Protection Centre, which receives funding to investigate potential sexual offences committed online and is currently seeking public support for a doubling of its funding.

Evidence-based legislation?

In 2009, the Coroners and Justice Bill – which intends to criminalise the possession of virtual child erotica - was introduced by Jack Straw and Lord Bach. The accompanying research paper (Almandras et al, 2009) cites a report by the Longford Committee (1972) and Ray Wyre’s appendix in Tim Tate’s (1990) book on child pornography as evidence, however both works discuss photographic pornography rather than computer-generated or drawn imagery.

The Longford Committee’s findings were published several years before the “discovery” of child pornography, which was not the subject of public or scientific debate prior to 1975 (Stanley, 1987; O’Donnell & Milner, 2007) and was not subject to legislation until 1977 in the USA or 1978 in the UK. The committee’s findings therefore cannot be taken as conclusive evidence with regard to child pornography, nor can they be assumed to be applicable to computer-generated pornography (which was not available at the time). The findings of the committee - as cited in the research paper – are also rather vague. According to the Ministry of Justice, the committee’s report stated that “pornography clearly must have some effect” but admitted that “only in very rare cases can a causal connection between pornography and anti-social behaviour be conclusively proved” (Longford Committee, cited by Almandras et al, 2009). The evidence provided by the Longford Committee clearly does not support the beliefs expressed by legislators in proposing the prohibition of virtual child erotica.

Child pornography had been acknowledged and formed part of the criminological discourse when Tate’s book was published, however there is no empirical (or even anecdotal) evidence of the existence of computer-generated child pornography prior to the publication of Tate’s book. Wyre’s argument was based solely upon his experiences in working with sex offenders at the time, and was therefore based upon his observations of how offenders allegedly used photographic child pornography. Even if one discounts the fact that virtual pornography is yet another step away from reality in relation to photographic pornography, the reliability of Wyre’s argument remains debatable. One must remember that a correlation may not involve a direct causal link; while many of the contact child sex offenders which Wyre studied may also have used pornography – and may have used it as an excuse for their behaviour – it is quite possible that the contact offenders would have committed a contact offence regardless of their use of pornography. If, as Wyre suggested, a contact child sex offender “will use anything – including child pornography or child erotica” to “make his behaviour seem as normal as possible” (Wyre, cited by Almandras et al, 2009), child erotica is not necessary for the facilitation of contact offending, as the offender would find other ways to justify their behaviour. The government’s use of Wyre’s work in supporting the proposed legislation is actually a serious misinterpretation (or misuse) of the text and does not justify the ban which is proposed by legislators.

Contrary to the largely irrelevant research cited in the research paper for the proposed legislation, there is a significant body of evidence which suggests that child erotica has a positive effect on the behaviour of people with a sexual interest in children, providing a sexual relief which reduces the likelihood of contact offending. Sheldon & Howitt (2008) found that despite the popular belief that fantasy leads to action, “fantasy deficit may be involved in contact offending against children” as contact offenders are unable to generate mastubatory fantasies without engaging in contact offences. The correlation between liberalisation of pornography laws and a decrease in cases of contact offences is also worthy of note here. A major correlation was observed in Denmark and West Germany (O’Carroll, 2000), while a correlation between an increase in the availability of virtual pornography (including child and rape pornography) and a decrease in contact offending has been observed in Japan (Diamond & Uchiyama, 1999). While the O’Carroll and Diamond & Uchiyama studies only prove a correlation, it is unlikely that the increased availability of child pornography and a decrease in contact offences against children could have a common causal factor, indicating that the legal availability of pornography (both child and adult) reduces the risk of sexually harmful behaviour.

A charitable concern?

Two of the primary campaigners in favour of the prohibition of cartoon child erotica are the NSPCC (a children’s charity with statutory powers) and CHIS (a coalition of charities in which the NSPCC is an influential member). In a response to the Scottish consultation on the proposed prohibition of virtual child erotica, CHIS argued that “advances in technology have made it possible to create materials which are entirely artificial but which, in turn, are indistinguishable from photographs or videos of real events” (CHIS, 2008). Such an argument is clearly misleading as a reason for legislating against virtual child erotica, as erotic photo-realistic images of children are already illegal under UK law and possession of such images carries the same maximum sentence as actual photographs (Sentencing Advisory Panel, 2006). It is evident that CHIS was already aware of the illegality of photo-realistic indecent images of children when they responded to the consultation, as they quoted from the relevant law on the same page of their response. It is therefore difficult to interpret the CHIS response as anything other than an attempt to mislead the public, media, and undereducated civil servants.

Before progressing to a further analysis of the children’s charities’ use of misleading information, it would be careless not to mention that the same manipulative tactics are also being used by politicians. When the Ministry of Justice announced the intention to criminalise virtual child erotica, Justice Minister Maria Eagle issued a press release claiming that “paedophiles could be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons” (Eagle, 2008). Regardless of whether or not this is true (there is no evidence for or against the claim), Section 69(3) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (2008) criminalised the possession, distribution, showing and making of images derived from indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children three weeks prior to Eagle’s announcement. In short, the “loophole” which Eagle referred to had already been closed. The implications of her announcement are therefore quite disturbing; either the Justice Minister was unaware of the content of a major bill which had just been enacted, or she was deliberately attempting to mislead and manipulate the media and public into supporting her department’s proposals.

Despite the misleading statements of CHIS, the motivations of the NSPCC themselves are of the greatest concern. The NSPCC has a history of using sensationalism, half-truths and deception in its campaigns for donations. In 2007, it emerged that the NSPCC had mailed fake stories of child abuse - presented as genuine accounts - in order to garner donations from concerned members of the public (The Daily Mail, 2007). Prior to this discovery, Sociology professor Frank Furedi (2004) described the NSPCC as “a danger to the nation’s children”. His article drew attention to the NSPCC’s use of expensive marketing companies and misleading statistics to frighten both parents and children into donating to the organisation. Similar concerns were also expressed in an article in the Observer (Rayner, 1999) and by the Social Issues Research Centre (1999).

Of greater concern with regard to the proposed law against virtual child erotica is the NSPCC’s conflict of interest in responding to the proposal. Unbeknownst to the general public (and possibly even to legislators), the NSPCC conducts a significant number of sex offender therapy programmes (NSPCC, 2008). The amount of funding which they receive for conducting such programmes has not been disclosed, however intense public fears over child sex offenders and the costs associated with finding staff who are prepared to work with such offenders would suggest that the NSPCC receives significant funding for carrying out this service. Considering the revenue which the NSPCC is likely to generate from providing such services, expecting them to provide objective input on a proposal which will increase the number of people who use those services is highly optimistic.

Another argument proposed by the NSPCC and by other proponents of the legislation is that the availability of cartoon child erotica implies tolerance of child sexual abuse, therefore encouraging paedophiles to act out (Hilton, 2009). The first problem with this argument is that the broad definition of “prohibited images” in the Coroners and Justice Bill includes images which simply focus on certain areas of a child’s body and are perceived to be “grossly offensive” or “disgusting” (Coroners and Justice Bill, 2009), even if no sexual activity is depicted. Furthermore, the claim that the availability of cartoon child erotica - even if it depicts sexual abuse - implies a tolerance of child abuse is unfounded and grossly illogical. Firstly, a glance at (legal) discussion boards for paedophiles - such as Annabelleigh.net - indicates that paedophiles are extremely aware of the negativity of attitudes towards paedophilia per se as well as child sexual abuse. Contrary to the argument of the proponents of the proposed legislation, the fact that child erotica is only legal in cartoon form clearly suggests that society is so opposed to any indication of child abuse that it prohibits material which depicts real children in a potentially sexual manner. By criminalising mere cartoons, the government risks providing additional justification for the (justifiable) belief that much of the crusade against paedophiles is a matter of prudism or playing on people’s fears, rather than an attempt to protect children. The prevalence of this belief is clearly problematic for a government whose policies rely heavily on a veiled politics of fear, using the “think of the children” mantra as an excuse for abuses of state power. By providing additional evidence for the belief, the government also challenges any message of the kind which the NSPCC were referring to, as it characterises pornography laws as an attempt to legislate morality rather than a disapproval of child abuse.

One of the original arguments in favour of the prohibition of cartoon child erotica is the belief that contact offenders could use cartoons to “groom” children (The Register, 2007). While this may be true, the act of grooming a child is already a serious criminal offence in the UK. If someone is prepared to violate laws against grooming, committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence and attempting sexual activity with a child, they are unlikely to be deterred by laws against the possession of virtual child erotica.

Everyone needs a release

One major concern raised by the proposed prohibition of virtual child erotica is that such a prohibition may encourage some paedophiles to use real child pornography. While viewing or possessing child pornography per se is unlikely to encourage production, the purchase of such material may stimulate production, which must surely be of concern to those who have an interest in protecting children. Criminalising the possession of virtual child erotica will obviously criminalise a legitimate and responsible release for paedophiles’ sexual urges. If virtual child erotica were criminalised, the only available releases (other than clothed and non-erotic images of children) would be illegal activities, such as the use of illegal photographs or harmful behaviour involving real children, or the new offence of using virtual child erotica. While the sentence for possessing illegal photographs of children is slightly harsher than the recommended sentence for the proposed crime of possessing “prohibited [virtual] images of children”, an offender would be outed as a “paedophile” in both cases, with all of the destructive social and financial effects which that entails. It would therefore be unsurprising if anybody who required a release involving some kind of erotic stimuli depicting children chose illegal photographs, as the consequences would not differ significantly from those which would result from viewing cartoons. The greater issue is with the minority of paedophiles who have no concern for the welfare of children or believe that having sex with children is harmless. In the case of people who avoid sexual contact with children solely as a result of the legal consequences - and who desperately require the release which virtual child erotica provides - the consequences of banning virtual child erotica are a major concern.

Conclusion

Children’s charities and legislators are clutching at straws and ignoring the plethora of evidence which indicates that child erotica has a socially positive effect on paedophiles. While the motivations of children’s charities are presumably financial, one must ask why the government are so insistent on legislation which will have no benefit to the safety of children or any other person.

A more cynical interpretation of the proposed legislation would be that the government is attempting to tighten its grip on the population. By exploiting the natural concern of protecting children as an excuse for monopolising power within the state, power-hungry legislators are able to increase their ability to further their personal political agenda. While such a belief could be dismissed as a conspiracy theory, one must consider the possible intentions of someone who chooses a political career; a career which does not provide huge financial rewards for people whose necessary social engineering skills could achieve seven-figure salaries in the private sector. Inevitably, many politicians will be motivated to influence and control others.

Many politicians find that arguing for “child protection” laws is an easy way of soliciting votes from a public which is misinformed by the media and manipulative “childrens’” charities. Politicians may also find that they can persuade the public to support controversial legislation by claiming that such legislation is “for the children”. Furthermore, any elected politician who disagrees with any legislation which is “for the children”, however reasonable their grounds, is liable to lose their position at the next election.

The current political system supports politicians who crusade under the guise of protecting children in order to justify policy types which support their own world view or increase their power over those who they govern. The laws which result from such policies threaten the civil rights of everyone, as they may be used to justify further intrusions into the private lives of citizens. The proposed law against the possession of cartoon and drawn child erotica is one such law, and the effects which it may have should be of significant concern to both civil libertarians and people who genuinely care about children.

This article has been published prior to the collection of full references due to an imminent debate on the proposed legislation. Full references will be published shortly

In this post, I will present three very real news stories and assess whether in my opinion they constitute thoughtcrime. For the purpose of this article, I will define thoughtcrimes as crimes convicted with laws and/or rationales entailing explicit and deliberate prejudice against the thought processes of a defendant. I do not deny that in reality many child porn convictions are based on faulty rationalisations, leaving no arguable rationale other than thoughtcrime.

1. Concerns over Exeter porn charge man.

“Mr Bennett told the court that other “material” was found at the defendant’s home when it was searched by police. “These images have to be seen against the fact there is clear evidence they are fuelling some very unlawful fantasies,” he said. “This is borne out by the fact that there are artefacts fuelling these fantasies, although fantasies are as far as they go.”"

The prosecutor is suggesting that the defendant’s fantasies are illegal in and of themselves. But as anyone well studied enough in British Law will tell you, there is no law on the statute that can be legitimately used against pedophilic fantasies. Whether through his own stupidity or opportunism, the prosecutor is therefore talking rubbish. It can therefore be concluded that what we are seeing here is a proposed thoughtcrime, and one from a biased, non legislative source at that.

2. Pervert had sick baby fantasy.

“A PERVERT has been jailed for four years for fantasising about kidnapping and raping a baby before strangling it. (…) Lloyd told how he wanted to steal a baby, rape and strangle it before burning the body to destroy DNA evidence. (…) Mr Roberts said: “Lloyd admitted what he said – but said it was stupid fantasy talk and he never meant it. “He told police he had downloaded sexual images and films on to his girlfriend’s computer from the internet but had deleted them.” Lloyd was sentenced to four years in prison for threats to kill and downloading child pornography.”

Whilst Lloyd’s fantasies are sadistic and fundamentally non-pedophilic, they form an important part of our analysis. Despite his suicidal admission to downloading child pornography, Lloyd was also convicted for threats to kill. One can only assume that whilst there was no solid evidence that Lloyd threatened any particular child or was about to victimise one at random, the court nevertheless convicted the “pedophile” with extreme prejudice. This case can not be described as statutory or explicit thoughtcrime due to the good intentions of the law used to convict and the justification given for using it. However, the conviction may be better characterised as a phantom thoughtcrime - not explicitly stated, but implicit in the prejudices of those who lawyered for it.

3. Judge refuses to reduce 48-year prison sentence.

“A Champaign County judge refused Friday to reduce the 48-year prison sentence of a former Urbana teacher convicted of child molestation. (…) Clem sentenced White in early April on eight counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse to which White pleaded guilty in February. White admitted that he had eight blindfolded girls, about ages 7 to 9, lick sauces off a banana for his own sexual gratification (…) Olmstead argued 48 years was excessive given that the offenses did not involve actual sexual contact, that White never threatened or intimidated the girls, and that his conduct didn’t cause or threaten physical harm. “The acts were made criminal because of what was in his mind, something they couldn’t know,” he said of the victims who played White’s “tasting game.” (…) “Teachers should be safeguarding children in their care. They (children) certainly shouldn’t be reduced to bit players in someone’s sexual fantasies,” the judge said.”

This case differs markedly from the one above. Whilst the charge (sexual abuse) is again, not specifically tailored towards the conviction of thoughts, it is very clear that through the “pedophilic gaze” of the prosecution and judge, White’s thoughts modified a harmless, non-criminal tasting game into an abusive “sexual act”. In deciding whether this case should be described as an explicit thoughtcrime, we may ask ourselves whether there really is anything implicit about redefining “acts” as criminal based on the thought processes of a defendant. On that consideration, only one conclusion is appropriate. From this case alone, we can say that explicit thoughtcrime is alive and well in the United States of America.

CHRISTMAS has been cancelled for a second year, following the arrest of Santa for “evading the prohibition on the importation of indecent material”. According to the Metropolitan Police’s Paedophile Unit, Santa first came under suspicion after he was found to have travelled to Thailand more than 200 times over a period of just 200 years. Upon entering the UK, he was found to be in possession of sick images of child abuse, including copies of a music album which was recently censored by the Internet Watch Foundation.

“Gifts”

Santa protested his innocence, explaining that the records were merely gifts, however these claims were struck down by Shaun Kelly of childrens’ charity NCH. Kelly explained that “paedophiles often use jusitifications such as “it was only a hug”, “it was only a picture”, “this wouldn’t be a crime in any other country”, or “I really do like listening to The Scorpions”, however nobody in their right mind would believe this”. Jacqui Smith explained that “the Home Office will do everything it can to make the public feel safe, whether this means censoring artists, banning photography in public, or manipulating figures on the extent of knife crime in London”.

“Mistaken Identity”

Santa Claus, who The Daily Sun can EXCLUSIVELY unmask as Mr Paul Doe from Air Strip One in Oceania, claims that he is a victim of mistaken identity. Mr Doe argued that he was “just pretending to be Santa in order to make some extra money for Christmas”, however CEOP’s Jim Gamble does not believe this claim. He explained that “Mr Doe clearly sought a job where he would have access to young children, so he is obviously a determined and dangerous child molester. We need to send the message that if you work with children in the UK, we will find you and we will prosecute you; there is nowhere to hide.”

The Metropolitan Police stated that “it is our policy to arrest everyone who may have thought about committing a potential crime. Once we have arrested them and provided their details to the local press, we decide whether they are guilty before submitting their cases to the Crown Prosecution Service. It is then for the Jury to decide whether they look like a Muslim, a black youth, a paedophile, or somebody else who must be guilty.”

This incident came just two hours after Santa was turned away from Vatican City for wearing a coat which “looked too much like a dress”. The Pope declined to comment, stating only that he was acting under the authority of a higher power.

The amendments to Slovenia’s law against child pornography are presumably a result of the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse which was discussed here.

Many people claim that simply downloading child pornography from the internet “creates a demand”, however this is an illogical assumption. The problem with applying the supply and demand theory to people who possess but don’t purchase is that they are not creating a demand, because the supplier is not interested in producing images for people who are effectively “stealing” them by downloading them for free, for the same reasons that artists don’t record music for people downloading it from file sharing networks. Supply and demand is an economic theory which applies to commercial sale, not products being used for free. Producers of any material do not want their material to be used freely, so an increased interest in freely available pornography would only harm them. People would be less likely to purchase child pornography if viewing freely available child pornography was legalised, as viewing freely available child pornography would become the safe [and legal] option. Production levels of child pornography would therefore fall because of a lack of commercial demand, meaning that less children would be used in pornography.

Another argument against the possession of child pornography is that the use of child pornography encourages viewers to abuse children, however nobody has been able to show a causal link between the use of child pornography and the commission of contact offences. A study by Freel in 2003, which focused on social workers with a sexual interest in children, explained that “If someone is fully inhibited from sexually abusing children, no amount of emotional congruence, sexual arousal, or blockage will lead them to abuse children.” Research by O’Carroll, published in 2000, found a correlation between an increase in the availability of child pornography and a decrease in the commission of contact sex offences against children, which suggests that, for some people, child pornography may serve as a substitution for contact offending.

Four members of the party peacefully joined the protest in The Hague (Holland) on October 11, however they were confronted by an aggressive fellow protester who, without holidng any authority, told them to leave. When the PNVD refused to forfeit their right to peaceful protest, they were approached by the police. Rather than asking the aggressive protester to cease the harassment of the PNVD, the police demanded that the PNVD leave or face arrest for “threatening the public peace”.

The four members of the PNVD agreed to leave without causing a disturbance, however the police followed them to the station until the activists stepped onto the train. The censorship of the PNVD may contravene Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The original news report can be found here, in Dutch.

Update, 2008/12/14: We still intend to make these changes; they have simply been delayed.