BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

ANOTHER LIBERAL ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LAW

The Liberal government seems to be having trouble drafting an effective child pornography law. This may be due to government officials spending too much time listening to arts groups who are "gung ho" to protect their "artistic rights" in such legislation, i.e. they want no restrictions on their creativity, even if their creative work leads to a firestorm of problems.

The government is especially sensitive to the issue of child pornography since the June 2004 federal election, during which Conservative leader Stephen Harper accused Mr. Martin of being "soft on child pornography." Mr. Harper's statement was based on the fact that the Liberal government's previous draft on child pornography, which died on the Order Paper when Parliament was closed down for the election, contained large loopholes. For example, that bill, tabled by former Minister of Justice, Martin Cauchon, permitted child pornography if it served the "public good." "Public good" has been interpreted by the courts to mean material that has medical, educational, scientific or artistic merit. This provision was a generous loophole for artists, as it is not difficult to get "experts" (fellow artists and academics) to testify that the material in question has artistic merit.

Consequently, during the first week of the new Parliament, on October 8, 2004, Minister of Justice Irwin Cotler tabled yet another version of the child pornography law. This version narrowed somewhat the "artistic merit" defence by requiring that child pornography must serve a "legitimate purpose" in connection with justice, science, medicine or art, and that the so-called artistic work must not pose "an undue risk of harm to children." However, as stated by Conservative deputy leader, Peter Mackay, this provision is ludicrous. He argued that the artistic merit defence should be done away with altogether. He stated (Globe and Mail, October 9, 2004):

We need to do away with this loophole - anything that leaves open the possibility that child pornography can be interpreted in any fashion as artistic, to me, is ludicrous.

That's just common sense.

True to form, however, the Canadian Conference of the Arts claimed that even this broad loophole was not good enough, stating that this proposed amendment "creates a nightmare for artists, criminalizes artistic expression and puts a chill on artistic expression." Just why does the artistic community think it doesn't have to be answerable for its works? Everyone else in society is responsible for his/her actions, whether he/she is a plumber, carpenter, doctor or lawyer. Why should freedom to express oneself by an artist be an exception to being held responsible for one's actions?

It is well established that child pornography can be dangerous. Studies indicate that child pornography is used by paedophiles to both excite themselves and encourage their sordid activities. They also use it to show their intended victims, in order to persuade them that such activities are "normal." Child pornography is intrinsically harmful, corruptive, and morally reprehensible. Freedom of expression for artists must not be used to allow exceptions to legislation that is supposed to protect children.

The fact is there is no artistic merit in child pornography; it serves no legitimate purpose. In a civilized society, such a vague concept of merit should not be permitted. The defence of "legitimate purpose" in art in the present child pornography law must be removed.

There is yet another glaring problem with Mr. Cotler's child pornography law. Although the bill proposes increasing the maximum sentence to 18 months from the present 6 months, it does not include a minimum sentence. Canadian judges have become notorious for repeatedly giving child pornographers a mere slap on the wrist for their offences. For example, convicted child pornographer Robin Sharpe, charged under the previous law for possessing approximately 500 photographs of child pornography, many of the pictures taken by himself while in Asia, received only a four-month confinement at home for this horrendous wrong. A minimum sentence is absolutely essential in child pornography laws in order to prevent judges from handing down lenient sentences for such offences.

It is troubling that the Liberal government is so concerned about the freedom of expression of artists that it is prepared to neglect the protection of innocent children.

Please write to:

The Right Hon. Paul Martin, PC, MP
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Building
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Tel: (613) 992-4211
Fax: (613) 941-6900
E-mail: Martin.P@parl.gc.ca

The Hon. Irwin Cotler, PC, MP
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Justice Canada
East Memorial Building,
4th Floor, 284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8
Tel: (613) 992-4621
Fax: (613) 990-7255
E-mail: Cotler.I@parl.gc.ca

Your MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Please demand that such loopholes as "serving a legitimate purpose" be deleted from the proposed legislation since child pornography can never serve any "legitimate purpose," and insist that a minimum sentence be included in this proposed legislation.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS