The Adverse Effects of Child Sexual Hysteria (Part 1)
June 22nd, 2008
If we were to put aside our case for non-contact pedophile rights - just for a moment, how many adverse consequences could we list for society in general? I almost considered grafting extra fingers to count them all. In this half of my post, I consider the negative impacts on Children:
1. Denial of contact with children - a problem that has already seen some coverage in the media.[2] When violent and/or illegal acts against children are confused with universal feelings of affection and caring/physical responses, we end up seeing a degree of stand-offishness that denies young people their share of affection, and the right to feel valued. As a result, normal physical contact - common among closely related species and nearly always present in the more peaceful of human societies is characterised as perverse - something the young should fear.
2. Priming of children for victimhood - whereby a child who has been raped, traumatised or has no conception of the “wrongness” of his or her sexual involvements is told that they must be a victim. This is a mechanism of coercion and constraint that contributes to the formation of moral absolutes and the persecution of pedophiles - who according to the proponents of such propaganda, make up the majority of child sex offenders - a false claim.
Plummer[3] applies this to Girls:
“Again, this floods over into their sexual meanings: their sexuality is much more a matter of something that others do to them and define for them. It is something relatively out of their own control. At its most extreme edge, little girls may come to realize that it is totally out of their control — in dim, inarticulate ways they may come to see themselves as the objects of massive sexual terrorism”
3. A lack of guidance for children - when all unofficial, non-parental relationships between legal children and legal adults are seen as exploitative, or at least dangerous (possibly due to their ability to subvert order), childhood becomes a matter of mere indoctrination and replication of “family” propaganda. Children become the property of their parents; exposure to mind-opening and diverse opinions, values and practises is prohibited. Such over-protection in a risk - oriented society is very likely to lead to overly risk-averse adults who have no will to exploit positive opportunities outside of a normative framework that they will in turn attempt to replicate. This kind of paranoia has also been covered in the media.[4]
4. Banning of children - and this can be taken quite literally. When groups involving children and generally accepted children’s activities become risky, the rational response is to impose bans, or risk prosecution. We are seeing at least some compromised reporting of this, from some sources. For example:
“Children could be barred from joining sports and hobby clubs because of the increasing burden of red tape, campaigners fear. Organisations which run activities for youngsters are already struggling to recruit volunteers because they must undergo criminal records checks. But when a new child protection database is introduced next year - which one in four adults will have to sign at a cost of £64 each - it is feared that many groups which admit members of all ages will decide it is cheaper and simpler to exclude children.” [5]
5. Obesity in children - self evident, and a natural consequence of the previous point. As fears of “stalking predators” have been ramped up, parents have become less likely to allow their children to be active outdoors, or join sports clubs - assuming that they have not been banned. With an expansive service economy and an increasing denial of physical outlet, it is important that we do not allow the youngest members of society to grow fat and lazy for other reasons.
In Part 2, I will cover the adverse effects for society as a whole. These are Vigilante Justice, Murders, Expenditure, Validation of Pseudo-Science and False Allegations and Validation of Psychic Mediums.
Reference:
1. http://www.freewebtown.com/newsstand/archive1/1272.html
2. http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1408828,00.html
3. Plummer, K. (1990). Understanding Childhood Sexualities. In Sandfort, T., Brongersma, J, & van Naerssen, A (eds.), Male Intergenerational Intimacy. New York: Harrington Park Press.
4. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1918842.ece
5. Daily Telegraph, 20/06/2008, “Child protection rules could see youngsters banned from sport and hobby clubs”.
Politics of an Obscene Character
May 29th, 2008
The suitably Orwellian-sounding Ministry of Justice has announced that it is to criminalise the possession of “all images of child sexual abuse, including drawings and computer-generated images”.
When the Home Office originally outlined their plans to criminalise such cartoons, I urged people to send a reply to the Summary of responses and next steps“, which reveals legislators’ intentions in relation to this issue. A brief analysis of this response suggests that the primary aspect of the legislation will look something like this:
-
1. It is an offence to make, distribute, show or possess any visual depiction of a child which is not a photograph or a pseudo-photograph, which shows —
-
(a) An excessive focus on a child’s genitalia; or
(b) A person of any age performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with a child; or
(c) An act of masturbation by, of or involving a child; or
(d) Penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of a child with a part of the person’s body or with anything else; or
(e) Bestiality involving a child;
and is of an obscene character.
Justice Minister Maria Eagle attempted to justify the proposed law by claiming that “paedophiles could be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.” This is blatantly untrue, as indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph is treated for all purposes of the Act as an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph. In short, it’s already illegal to make, possess, distribute or show cartoons and drawings which have been manipulated from real photographs.
It is also illegal to distribute any “obscene publication” under the Obscene Publications Act, and despite the contrary claims of the Ministry of Justice, it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show or possess a pseudo-photograph, which means that all efforts to implement the proposed new law can have only one effect: the possession of material which is not derived from photographs of “abuse” and which is clearly non-photographic will be criminalised.
Shaun Kelly, speaking for previous claim that indecent photographs of children are wrong because, “for [..] images to be made children were abused.”
It is evident that the Ministry of Justice and NCH are attempting to hide the true intentions of this proposed law. To understand the motivations behind this proposal, a little background is required. As I explained at GirlChat,
The criminalisation of “non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse” was first proposed by “children’s charities” - who are forever desperate to encourage donations by exploiting people’s emotions - in 2006. In 2007, the campaign was backed by low-importance MPs who wished to elevate their profile, but who were most likely uninterested in the issue in question.
The campaign became irrelevant when, earlier this month, any image derived from an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child became illegal under Section 69 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.
Unfortunately, the UK economy is heading for recession and the criminal justice system is under attack due to a lack of space in prisons (the latter is ironically due to silly, politically-motivated legislation). The Labour government recently suffered a horrendous defeat in the recent by-elections, due to their drastic inability to deal with these issues. They have no choice but to use distraction techniques to divert attention from their incompetency.
Paedophiles are being used as pawns for political and economic reasons, simply because we are currently the weakest minority who nobody will speak out for.
The pathetic irony of the proposed legislation is that someone who is convicted of possessing a cartoon derived from an image of a child masturbating will get the same sentence as someone who is convicted of making a photograph of an adult molesting a child, because the person in the former case would be charged under the recently amended Protection of Children Act and the new law, whereas the latter would only be charged under the Protection of Children Act. It is clear that the UK government is not “only” using paedophiles as pawns; it is using children as pawns too.
The Content of “Indecent Images”
May 1st, 2008
It is often claimed that child pornography involves violence and sexual abuse against children. That claim is used to justify a vast amount of funding for organisations such as CEOP, as well as restrictive and illiberal legislation.
The book indecent images, using a sample of 106 cases in Ireland, between 2000 and 2004. The content of the images was described by police officers who had investigated the cases, and the following (legal) definitions are used:
| Level | Definition |
| Level 1 | Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity |
| Level 2 | Sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child. |
| Level 3 | Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children. |
| Level 4 | Penetrative sexual activity between children and adults. |
| Level 5 | Sadism or bestiality |
The figures below - which can be found in page 123 of the book - refer to the most serious level of images involved in each case:
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | Level 5 |
| 44% (47 cases) | 7% (7 cases) | 7% (7 cases) | 37% (40 cases) | 5% (5 cases) |
This suggests that, in roughly 44% of cases involving “child pornography” (in Ireland), people’s lives are being destroyed due to their possession of images which show no sexual activity at all.
The Contemporary Moral Crusade
March 31st, 2008
UK nationals living in any part of the world could face prosecution under UK law - for acts done legally abroad - if the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill is enacted as amended at present.
Schedule 2 of the Sexual Offences Act. Currently, a UK national may be prosecuted in the UK if he commits such an offence abroad, if his actions also constitute an offence in the foreign jurisdiction.
The offences listed in Schedule 2 of the Sexual Offences Act include non-contact offences, such as the possession of indecent photographs (or pseudo-photographs) of children.
The bill also intends to amend Section 1(1) of the Act in relation to any image which is derived from an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child. Interestingly, this amendment would make it illegal to access images which appear to show adults, if the images are derived from indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children. A knowledgable source believes that Parliament will actually criminalise all “indecent” depictions of children.
Of interest on a tangential level is Section 63 of the bill, which will make it illegal to possess extreme pornographic images of adults. An extreme image, according to the bill, is one which depicts activity which is threatening to the life of a person, one which could cause harm to the genitals, anus or breasts of an actor, one which involves sex with a corpse, or one which involves bestiality, which is also “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.”
The proposed amendment regarding offences committed abroad - described in Section 71 of the bill - is a result of the “COE-wide guidelines on definitions of “child abuse” and “child exploitation”, how to establish jurisdiction over people who commit offences contrary to such guidelines, and how to punish people who commit a child sex offence.
The amendment described in Section 71 of the bill is somewhat surprising. One must ask why UK representatives within the Council of Europe were prepared to sign a document which means that UK nationals who are to be labelled as child abusers could be extradited to face charges in the UK. Although the public hates paedophiles, I suspect they would be happier for “paedophiles” to be viewing indecent images (or even committing contact offences) in a foreign country than posing a (perceived) threat to their children by being returned to the UK. I wonder how the public would feel if they knew about this aspect of the bill?
It is likely that nationals of other Council of Europe member states will also become subject to their country’s laws in all parts of the world, once the other member states enact legislation to conform to the treaty. Even the Netherlands has indicated that it intends to conform to the oppressive terms of the treaty, stating that it will criminalise the act of accessing child pornography on the internet, per Article 20 (f) of the treaty.
We’re not “sleepwalking into Police states”, we’re being catapulted into a Police World at the speed of light.
Nonsexual aspects of paedophilia
March 4th, 2008
Many researchers have pointed out that paedophilia often has a romantic and emotional element. This post aims to contradict the misconception of paedophilia as purely sexual by documenting their comments.
Evidence further suggests that those persons whose primary sexual interest is genuinely pedophilic often exhibit a complex set of attitudes, beliefs, and perceived needs in regard to children of which sexual desire may be subordinate rather than superordinate (Groth, Hobson, & Gary, 1982; Howells, 1979, 1981; Lanyon, 1986; Ravitch & Weiss, 1962). Interactions between such persons and children sometimes have been characterized as “affectionate” and inclusive of many non-sexual components, some of which may be experienced by the child as rewarding (Groth et al., 1982; Howells, 1979: Ingram, 1981; Krivacska, 1990; Lanyon, 1986; Li et al., 1990; Money, in Geraci & Mader, 1991; Peters, 1976; Sandfort, 1984; Schultz, 1973).
~ Okami, P. & Goldberg, A. (1992).”“Personality Correlates of Pedophilia: Are They Reliable Indicators?”, Journal of Sex Research, 29(3):297-328.
From Table 4 [of our study] it can be seen that both physical appearance and personality characteristics are claimed as important determinants of the appeal of children to the paedophile, with personality descriptions being given slightly more commonly than physical descriptions. The most important personality trait that the men find attractive in children is their innocence and openness, this being expressed in a variety of different ways (lack of inhibition, honesty, simplicity, curiosity, openness to experience, willingness to learn, spontaneity, etc). Their warmth, affection, friendliness, charm, softness and understanding were also mentioned, although this might have referred to the particular children with whom the men were able to establish some relationship. Other descriptions related to energy level, e.g. vitality, vivaciousness, enthusiasm, mischief, liveliness.
…
Answers to the question concerning the kinds of relationships with children that are engaged in are summarised in Table 13, with some of the more typical and interesting responses given verbatim in Table 14. The most common descriptions were in non-sexual terms such as affectionate, caring, loving, gentle, intimate, platonic and fatherly.
~ Wilson, G. & Cox, D. (1983). “The Child-Lovers: A Study of Paedophiles in Society.” London: Peter Owen Publishers, 1983.
The general problems [faced by pedophiles] are not distinctive to pedophiles but common to all people. For example, the problem of a lost love or an unrequited love may occur more frequently amongst pedophiles, but all people can in principle have such experiences. As one heterosexual pedophile wrote:
“How can it ever be possible to convey to people that we can suffer the same pangs of jealousy, emotional distress, at being parted from a loved one, and suicidal tendencies (when it appears the child who is the object of affection seems to have vanished for ever) as “normal lovers” do. How can they understand the terrible loneliness of a crowded room because she is not there. Helpless, lonely, living in a world of hopeless frustration because the one you love is constantly absent and yet ever constant in dreams, awake or sleeping. How could we tell them of the tears that can be shed because a little seven year old girl is no longer there.”
Apart from the reference to a seven-year-old girl, that observation may be common to many people’s lives, as may the following:
“I get so desperately in love with these people. Any of them, you know. If I had any sort of relationship with anybody, in the first place I wouldn’t have it if I didn’t like the person, there comes a kind of possessiveness that nobody likes. I wish I weren’t possessive. Nobody likes anybody who is possessive. But if you are by nature possessive you can’t help being like that, and I always get very much in love with them. It sounds silly to express what you mean by being in love. I want that person all the time you know, and I don’t find many people like that.”
Such problems could be illustrated many times. It is important to distinguish them because some sexually different people can see their lives being full of such problems, unique to themselves, whereas in fact such problems are widespread through many groups of society.
[…]
This is not to say that the adult loses interest in the child, it is to say that the erotic component now dwindles. Many pedophile relationships established in early years can continue till the twilight of life, but the eroticism ceases at puberty.
~ Plummer, K. (1981). “Pedophilia: Constructing a Sociological Baseline,” in Adult Sexual Interest in Children, Eds. Mark Cook and Kevin Howells. London: Academic, 1981. 221-48.
Phenomenologically speaking, pedophiles are adults who fall in love with and at the same time erotically and sexually desire boys or girls.
~ Vogt, Horst (2006). Pädophilie; Leipzicher Studie zur gesellschaftlichen und psychischen Situation pädophiler Männe (”Paedophilia - Leipzig study on the societal and psychological situation of paedophile males”), Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers. ISBN 3-89967-323-9
Pedophiles are men whose sexual wishes and desires for relationship bonds and love are focused either primarily or exclusively on children who have not reached puberty, whereby the relative importance of each of these three areas–sexuality, relationship, and love–may vary, as it does with other people as well.
~ Schmidt, G. (2002). “The Dilemma of the Male Pedophile,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31(6):473-477.
Pedophilia is not primarily a matter of sex, but of love, of being wanted, of childhood enjoyment, of things that the adult world cannot provide. […] Whether they feel that they are born pedophile, or that pedophilia is a normal and legitimate variation of human sexual expression, most of my informants have stressed the experience of love, affection, or closeness in their encounters with children. The sense of emotional contact with another human person is as important as, if not actually more important than, the excitement of sex. Among these informants, four have explicitly articulated their experience with children in terms of romantic courtship and love. […] To some pedophiles, their relationships with children are constituted by an intense love and affection.
~ Li, Chin-Keung (1990). “The Main Thing Is Being Wanted,” Journal of Homosexuality, 20(1-2):129-143
It’s not chronological age that’s decisive [for pedophilic attraction], but rather a combination of physical and personality characteristics. Therefore, the pedophile takes seriously those young people with whom he could fall in love.
~ Lautmann, Rüdiger (1994). “Attraction to Children.” Ingrid Klein Pubs. Inc., Hamburg. ISBN ISBN 3-89521-015-3
The feelings they [pedophiles] report towards children are more often ones of love and tenderness […]
Crawford, D.A. (1981). “Treatment approaches to paedophiles,” in M. Cook and K. Howells (Eds), Adult Sexual Interest in Children. London: Academic Press, p. 184. Quoted here.
The mental health of paedophiles
March 3rd, 2008
This post is a collection of research showing that there is no reliable evidence for the claim that paedophiles display clinically significant pathology.
Individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward children manifest the same range of personality, temperamental, and character traits as individuals whose sexual orientation is directed towards adults.
~ Berlin, F. S. (2000). “Treatments to change sexual orientation,” The American Journal of Psychiatry, 157:5.
The psychoticism score of the paedophiles [in our study] is slightly elevated compared with controls, but not drastically so, and certainly not to the extent that they could be called pathological as a group. There are several occupational groups listed in the Manual that have P[sychoticism] scores of approximately the same order, including actors, apprentices, architects, doctors, drivers, students and welfare officers, none of which could be regarded as clinically psychotic as a whole. Thus, there is no reason on the basis of these results to suppose that men with paedophile sexual preferences are necessarily marked by any exceptional degree of thought disorder.
[…]
The neuroticism scores of the paedophiles are again slightly higher than controls but not to an extent that would justify describing them as clinically abnormal. Among groups of men with similar N[euroticism] scores according to the Manual are actors, apprentices, machinists and students, and a great many of the female groups given in the Manual show N scores that are higher than these male paedophiles.
[…]
Perhaps the most striking thing about these results is how normal the paedophiles appear to be according to their scores on these major personality dimensions - particularly the two that are most clinically relevant (N[euroticism] and P[sychoticism]). The only marked characteristic of the PIE [Paedophile Information Exchange] members with respect to these major dimensions is their tendency to introversion, and this in itself is not usually thought of as pathological. Furthermore, the fact that the Lie Scale scores of the paedophiles are not distinguishable from those of controls would suggest that, overall, they were not bent on creating an artificially favourable impression on the questionnaire, but were giving an honest and accurate self-report.
…]
Obsessionality, as indicated by this particular item from the EPQ does not seem to be characteristic of the paedophiles; in fact, the proportion endorsing this item is lower than that for controls.
~ Wilson, G. & Cox, D. (1983). “The Child-Lovers: A Study of Paedophiles in Society.” London: Peter Owen Publishers, 1983.
Okami and Goldberg (1992) systematically reviewed the literature and found that pathology has not been reliably associated with paedophilia. They conclude:
The clearest finding of the present review is that relatively little may be stated about the personality or phenomenology of pedophiles […] Looking at the very scanty data pertaining to pedophilia per se, then, we are unable to report any reliable findings. […] as Wilson and Cox (1983) and several others have pointed out, the types of affective and social pathologies associated with samples of pedophiles … seriously beg the question of causal direction. Guilt feelings, feelings of ostracism loneliness, low self-esteem, etc., clearly are exacerbated by, if not sequelae of, the social condition of pedophiles … and should not be interpreted as representing etiological variables or intrinsic correlates of sexual preference for children. […] For example, because an unknown percentage of true pedophiles may never act on their impulses or may never be arrested, forensic samples of sex offenders against minors clearly do not represent the population of “pedophiles,” and many such persons apparently do not even belong to the population of “pedophiles.”
~ Okami, P. & Goldberg, A. (1992). “Personality Correlates of Pedophilia: Are They Reliable Indicators?”, Journal of Sex Research, 29(3):297-328.
Not all paedophiles molest children
March 2nd, 2008
As should be obvious from the paedophiles molest children:
Although one-in-seven men expressed a sexual interest in children, it is likely that a significantly smaller number of men actually sexually abuse children. Empirical evidence indicates that inhibitors are effective in preventing a sexual interest in children becoming actual perpetration. […] Research suggests the presence of socio-cultural inhibitors in the male population. If someone is fully inhibited from sexually abusing children, no amount of emotional congruence, sexual arousal, or blockage will lead them to abuse children.
~ Mike Freel, in Child Sexual Abuse and the Male Monopoly (British Journal of Social Work)
The current results suggest that sexual arousal to pedophilic stimuli occurs among a sizable minority of normal men who report no pedophilic behavior and is not necessarily associated with pedophilic behavior.
~ Gordon Hall, et al., in Sexual Arousal and Arousability to Pedophilic Stimuli in a Community Sample of Normal Men (Behavior Therapy)
Terms such as ‘child sexual abuse’, ‘incest’, ‘child molestation’ and ‘pederasty’ are not equivalent to pedophilia. Terms that denote sex with minors are criminal actions; pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children. Not all who sexually abuse minors are pedophilic. For example, some who sexually abuse minors may opportunistically select minors simply because they are available. Sex with a minor is not, ipso facto a determination of pedophilia. Also, not all individuals who fulfill the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia actually abuse children.
~ Peter Fagan, et al., in Pedophilia (Journal of the American Medical Association)
Although the terms are often used interchangeably, a distinction must be made between “sex offender against a minor” and “pedophile.” The former refers to a criminal sexual behavior and the latter to an anomalous sexual preference. Many pedophiles never act on their impulses. The DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) defines pedophilia in terms of recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children, and requires that the fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. It is therefore possible for an individual who meets these criteria to have never engaged in illegal sexual behaviors. At the same time, not all sex offenders against a minor are pedophiles. All mental health professionals acting in an expert witness capacity should know this distinction.
~ Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield, in Coping With Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony (Institute for Psychological Therapies)
Fantasies and Consent
February 28th, 2008
Adult-attracted men - whether heterosexual or homosexual - often state that being attracted to children is wrong, citing a child’s inability to give informed consent as a justification for their stance. While I do not believe that children can give informed consent to engage in sexual activity with adults, for reasons both psychological and social, I feel that adult-attracted people are being horrendously hypocritical when referring to consent in fantasies.
It would be absurd to claim that adult-attracted people seek consent to fantasise about an adult. Indeed, men will typically fantasise about other men or women who would not - or could not - give informed consent to have sex with them. The fact of the matter is that most people don’t act upon abusive fantasies, which is also true in the case of paedophiles. Why is it that paedophiles’ fantasies - about people who can’t give informed consent - are apparently so different to adult-attracted peoples’ fantasies, which also frequently involve people who wouldn’t (or couldn’t) give informed consent?
People should analyse their own fantasies before they criticise those of others.
The Metropolitan Police: Harassing Paedophiles
January 26th, 2008
In July 2007, the Metropolitan Police published plans to engage in the “proactive disruption of 130 individuals with a sexual interest in children“. The article was reported by the Daily Express, here [pdf].
The response to a Freedom of Information request regarding this issue can be found HERE. Please note: in order to save bandwidth, the scans of the letter load from external (Photobucket) servers.
It’s all in the mind….
January 8th, 2008
I’m currently writing another (very long) article about laws against images of children, discussing the motivation for such laws. As part of my research for the article, I have been reading the responses to the (Scottish) “Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions of child sex abuse”.
I have selected several quotes which I may use for my article, but I thought I’d share them now, as they illustrate the disgusting, manipulative and fraudulent nature of the authorities and “childrens’ charities” in the UK. The people whom I’ve quoted are responding to a proposal to make it illegal and imprisonable to view CGI images depicting child sexual abuse. The proposed definition of “child sexual abuse” includes fantasy depictions of penetrative sexual activity between same-age minors.
One may notice how these people believe that the possession of both photographic material and CGI images should carry equal sentences. This is highly relevant to the censorship of real photographs, as it can be said that, if censors genuinely believed that possessing an image harms the person depicted (an argument frequently used for the prohibition of possession of indecent photographs), and if their concern was one of protecting children, they would obviously not support equal sentences for people who have images of real children and people who have CGI images. These quotes therefore expose the people quoted as dishonest or uninterested in children, yet willing to persecute people for their thoughts, in order to advance their own political careers.
Please read our disclaimer before using the contact details below.
“We note the absence of empirical research on this subject, however, we believe that the prohibition of such material and the criminalisation of those in possession of it, is justified. Our view is predicated by the belief that any right minded member of society would find possession of such material abhorrent.”
“We can find no evidence to suggest that the viewer/ reader of such material is any less likely to be sexually aroused or otherwise corrupted from that of “photographic” material. Therefore we are of the view that possession of such material should be treated in the same way as photographic material”
- Joe Grant (joe.grant@spf.org.uk), Scottish Police Federation
“We can see no reason why the indecency threshold for nOnphotographic depictions should be any different from that which applies to photographic or pseudo photographic depictions. Similarly we see no reason why the penalties should differ. If there are any attenuating circumstances these can be reflected in the sentencing.”
“We are concerned by the current proposal that would not include within the legislation non penetrative sexual activity between children or sexual images of children on their own
- CHIS (coalition of a number of fraudulent charities, including the NSPCC (which faked abuse stories in national TV adverts in order to encourage donations))
The interesting aspect of the above quote is that the coalition had claimed that such images should be illegal because they would encourage “potential abusers” to act out what they had seen in the images. Clearly, if they are “concerned” about images not involving adults, their “concern” is not what they claim it to be.
“Clearly any person within an interest in such animated images has demonstrated an inappropriate understanding of the need to be responsible towards the protection of children. It is therefore our view that all images portraying or depicting child sexual abuse should be outlawed. These materials encourage further fantasising and increase the potential for sexual/physical harm to children.”
“Creating ’stand-alone’ offences would ensure that anyone convicted of a relevant offence could be made subject to a confrontation therapy exploring the real reasons for their behaviour.”
“A particular concern is, and should continue to be, the reasons for these images being stored on personal computers.”
“Although computer generated images, cartoons and drawings may not be taken from actual photographs or images of children being abused the intention behind the making of these pictures shows an unnatural interest in the abuse of children. The creators and distributors of these images should be mentioned in the new legislation”
“Penalties need to be at the level suggested if the seriousness of possession of such materials is to be recognised. A custodial sentence is an appropriate penalty. Offenders should be expected to serve three years - as a result a custodial sentence of a maximum of five or six years should be applied. As noted previously, although it cannot always be proven that real children were initially used in the creation of these materials, the intent and unnatural interest of such material is extremely serious and should be treated as such.”
- Gordon Mcintosh ((+44) 01307 462405; mcintoshg@angus.gov.uk) & Kate Mearns ((+44) 01307 473340; mearnsk@angus.gov.uk), Angus Child Protection Comittee
“Although the Society is not opposed to custodial sentences, we are concerned that the adoption of a maximum custodial period would reflect a punitive, rather than a therapeutic, response. Our experience suggests that working motivationally with those presenting with such antisocial/deviant interest is of greater value in the medium and long term.”
- Dr C M Crawshaw (c.m.crawshaw@hull.ac.uk), British Psychological Society
“We have found that individuals can fuel their abusive fantasies by using images of children in different formats, such as, catalogues and even children’s drawings of non-sexual subjects. It makes complete sense to criminalise the possession, creation and distribution of CGIs, cartoons and any other images designed to explicitly arouse inappropriate sexualised thoughts/feelings towards children. As technology progresses so to must our laws to protect children and to punish abusive behaviours.”
“The justification that it is not/or may be a “real” child depicted in such an images does not diminish the inappropriate nature of being sexual aroused to an image of a child being abused.”
“Many perpetrators use the justification of “it was just poses”; “there was no contact/force/sexual activity” to minimise their abusive sexual interest in children.”
- Steve Hopton ((+44) 01592 413 320; steve.hopton@fife.gov.uk), Fife Council
Thought Police, you should be ashamed..
Next Page »