|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LAW UNDER ATTACK BY HOMOSEXUALS
In the confusion surrounding Royal Assent
granted July 20, 2005 to the same-sex marriage law, it was
overlooked that Royal Assent was also given at the same time
to amendments to the Criminal Code on the child pornography
law (Bill C-2). The amendments in Bill C-2 were helpful, but
still do not provide full protection for vulnerable children.
There is no doubt that child pornography is
harmful to children. Dr. William Marshall of Queen's University,
who has carried out extensive research on sexual deviants
at Kingston Penitentiary, found that paedophiles use child
pornography both to incite themselves to carry out their offences,
and also to seduce their victims into believing that such
activity is normal and acceptable. Child pornography destroys
the self-worth of the children used in these depictions. It
causes a devastating emotional toll on them as they not only
have to endure the abuse, but must also carry with them, throughout
the rest of their lives, the knowledge that there is a visual
record of their abuse circulating in society. Understandably,
these victims demonstrate symptoms, such as depression, emotional
withdrawal, guilt and shame, which destroy their sense of
worth and security.
Even when child pornography depicts only fictional or computer-generated
children, (that is, not actual children), such material is
still deeply harmful since, as discussed above, it is used
by deviants in the seduction process to lure children to participate
in sexual acts.
Child pornography is also deeply destructive
because it conveys the notion that adult sexual relations
with children are acceptable and that children are suitable
objects for adult sexual desire and gratification.
For these reasons, it is critical that children be protected
from harm by a strong child pornography law. Unfortunately,
the amendments included in Bill C-2 include some serious loopholes
for those charged with violations of our child pornography
law.
The amendments in Bill C-2 include the following
provisions:
- The defence of "artistic merit"
to a charge of child pornography was retained in the amendment,
provided that the artist's work serves a "legitimate
purpose" (undefined) and does not pose an "undue
threat" to persons under 18 years of age.
The notion, however, that child pornography can be excused
because it is "artistic" defies common sense,
owing to the fact that it can never have a legitimate purpose.
Artists Should be Held Responsible
Why should the artistic community not be accountable for
their works like everyone else in society, who are required
to be responsible for their actions, whether they are a
plumber, carpenter, doctor or lawyer? That is, why should
the freedom to express oneself by an artist be an exception
when it comes to the harmful effects that the artist's works
may have on others?
Artists, should not have "rights" which are not
accorded to others in society, especially when these "rights"
cause harm and interfere with the rights of others. Children
can be victimized by artists expressing their creativity
or "freedom of expression", should they depict
children as sexual objects. A limitation on "freedom
of expression" in regard to child pornography is, therefore,
justified and reasonable.
Further, freedom of expression, like all the other rights
and freedoms set out in the Charter of Rights, are not absolute
rights without limits. Since all rights in the Charter can
be limited, the right to freedom of expression should also
be limited, especially in the instance when freedom of expression
can cause harm to others - namely, innocent children.
- No minimum sentence was included in the
bill when it was introduced in the House of Commons. However,
when REAL Women appeared before the Justice Committee reviewing
the Bill, we strongly recommended, as did some other witnesses,
that the bill include a minimum penalty for the offence
of contravening the child pornography law. This is crucial
because some Canadian judges have become notorious for repeatedly
giving child pornographers a mere slap on the wrist for
their offences. For example, convicted child pornographer,
Vancouver's Robin Sharpe, charged under the previous law
for possessing approximately 500 photographs of child pornography,
many of which were taken by himself while in Asia, received
only a four-month confinement to his home for this horrendous
wrong. A minimum sentence prevents judges, such as the one
in the Robin Sharpe case, from handing down lenient sentences
for the terrible acts that strike at the very heart of our
society. Fortunately, the Justice Committee did propose
an amendment to the bill to include minimum sentences for
offences under the child pornography law which amendments
were passed into law.
- Despite the fact that the Provincial Attorneys
General had approved, at their annual federal/provincial
meetings in October 1998, December 1999, and again in September
2003, to raise the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years,
this provision was not included in Bill C-2.
This was a grievous disappointment, as young people, at
14 years of age, do not have the maturity to make responsible
decisions in regard to sexual activity with adults. Sex
between young persons and adults can lead to long-range
problems that will affect the children for the rest of their
lives. Such activity can and does lead to sexually transmitted
diseases (STDs), AIDS, unexpected pregnancies, the lowering
of self esteem, and the curtailment of education, among
other difficulties. It is the duty of society to protect
young people from sexual predators who take advantage of
their youth and vulnerability.
- Bill C-2 strengthened the provision against
the exploitation of children: The bill includes a provision,
which states that it is an offense to have a sexual relationship
with a person while in a position of trust and authority
over an adolescent, if he/she is between 14 and 18 years
of age. Under this exploitation amendment, a judge may assess
such a relationship as exploitative by considering such
circumstance as the age differences, degree of control over
the young person and the actual age of the young person.
The problem with this provision, however,
is that a court is required to analyze each case in which
a charge is laid, in order to determine whether the adult
is, in fact, exploiting the child. This approach is not only
cumbersome, it also fails to create the certainty of protection
that all children require. It is also far too complex, and
using this provision, a skilled defence lawyer can and will
shift responsibility for the sexual relationship onto the
shoulders of the victim, arguing that the adolescent gave
his/her consent willingly and that the relationship was in
no way exploitative.
According to the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra,
February 10, 2005:
… the government strengthened the
sexual exploitation laws … in order to stave off demands
from provincial justice ministers to raise the age of consent
to 16 ….
The article went on to state that this is
a compromise and that EGALE, opposes raising the age of consent,
and therefore finds this proposed amendment "the lesser
of two evils."
Although this amendment may satisfy homosexual
activists, it is completely unsatisfactory for those who want
children to be protected from adults who desire sexual access
to them.
Homosexual Community Unhappy with Amendments
Despite the fact these amendments to the child
pornography law are mild, they made the homosexual community
decidedly unhappy. Homosexual activists claimed that, although
three of their organizations, EGALE, Coalition for Lesbian
and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO) and Sex Laws Committee,
submitted briefs to the Justice Committee when it was reviewing
Bill C-2, the Committee never received their briefs. However,
the clerk of the Justice Committee strongly denied this, stating
that two of the homosexual briefs were reproduced and presented
to the committee (Capital Xtra July 14, 2005).
Since it is well known that the Liberal government
never brings forward legislation unless it has passed inspection
by the homosexual lobby, how did it happen that the homosexual
seal of approval was not given to the amendments to the child
pornography law before it was passed into law? Further, why
do the homosexual activists, such as those in EGALE claim
their brief was not presented to the Committee?
The truth is that EGALE never lets the facts
stand in the way of its propaganda.
According to the homosexual newspaper Capital
Xtra, (February 6, 2005 and July 14 2005), the board of EGALE
discussed Bill C-2 at a meeting in December but was unable
to reach a consensus on the bill. The disagreement among the
board members arose because some of them were parents and,
therefore, were aware that the child pornography law needed
to be strengthened in order to adequately protect children.
This position did not sit well with other members of the EGALE
Board, who disliked Bill C-2 because they claimed it both
created risks for homosexuals in their sexual activity, and
denied adolescents the "right to chose their sexuality".
Further, they felt that it threatened the artistic freedom
of homosexual artists and writers to write about youthful
homosexual experiences, such as their own "coming out"
as homosexuals.
However, in March, EGALE had a turn-over in
its Board members and the new Board decided, on April 14,
2005, to publicly criticize Bill C-2. It did not however,
submit a brief to the Justice Committee, despite the fact
it had assured its supporters it had done so.
The, two other homosexual groups, Coalition
for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO) and the Sex
Laws Committee did submit their briefs to the Justice Committee.
In its brief, the CLGRO complained that Bill C-2 would deny
lesbian, gay and bisexual teens the free expression of their
sexuality and create more circumstances in which sexual relations
with adolescents would be criminalized. The brief claims that
there is a blurring in Bill C-2 between sexual assault and
consensual sexual activity.
CLGRO stated:
Unfortunately, the amendments contained
in Bill C-2 will create more instances In which consenting
sexual relations between a person between the ages of 14
and 18 and someone over that age are criminalized. The result
will be infringement of the human rights of both parties
and, in particular, the right of young persons to express
their sexuality …
There is a widespread belief that older,
predatory persons lure young people into homosexuality.
This is coupled with a refusal to accept that younger persons
are capable of seeking and do seek out consensual same-sex
relationships with older persons and, in fact, may be the
initiators of such relationships. In addition, contrary
to popular belief, a relationship with an older person may
not in fact be damaging for a young person.
It is significant that CLGRO's interest in
adolescent sexuality was apparent as far back as 1994 when
it distributed a background paper in which it raised the argument
that sexual relationships can be initiated by the younger
party and that sexual relationships between older men and
adolescents were not necessarily dangerous. Obviously, CLGRO
did not stray from this position in its 2005 brief to the
Justice Committee.
The Sex Laws Committee brief took much the
same position on adolescent sexuality. It stated in its brief,
quoted in Capital Xtra, June 16, 2005:
The dangers presented by the Criminal
Code provision is that any same-sex consensual relationship
involving a person over the age of 18 years and a person
who is under the age of 18 but over the age of 14 will be
deemed exploitative. There is a plausible risk, under this
new amendment that the older person will always be presumed
to be exploiting the younger person and "luring"
them into a homosexual lifestyle.
Although Bill C-2 left the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Committee without amendments, the homosexual
activists remained concerned about the implications of the
bill. Consequently, Senator Serge Joyal, a homosexual who
appears to act as the point man for the homosexual cause in
the Senate stated, as quoted in the Hill Times (July 25, 2005
issue):
It's a bill that doesn't convince us
that it will satisfy the objective for which it has been
tabled, … In the present code, the artistic merit is
objective. You have to prove that the work has artistic
merit. In the new defence, you have to prove not only that
the work has artistic merit, but that you did that work
of art for legitimate purpose.
Senator Joyal then went on to say that he
was worried that classic works of literature such as Vladmir
Nabokov's Lolita could be seen as child pornography under
the new law.
As a result of Senator Joyal's expressed concern,
as well as that of another Quebec Senator Pierre Claude Nolin,
although the Senate Committee sent the bill back to the floor
of the Senate Chamber without amendments, it did so with "observations",
calling for the government to review the legislation in three
years, instead of five, owing to the fact that the bill trampled
on artistic freedom and other constitutional rights.
Globe and Mail Objects to Child Pornography
Amendments
The Globe and Mail, which never fails to promote
the homosexual agenda, jumped on Bill C-2 in an editorial
on July 6, 2005. It stated that Bill C-2 was "extreme"
and objected to the limits placed on freedom of expression.
The editorial also stated that the restrictions on freedom
of expression should not apply to artistic works, which come
directly from the imagination and do not abuse or involve
"real" children. The Globe went on to say,
Freedom of expression includes the freedom
to trespass in areas of social taboos - to write of the
sexuality of those under 18 and of acts which if committed
in reality, would rightly land the perpetrator in prison
…
The editorial also expressed its distaste
for minimum sentences in regard to child pornography when
it stated:
The second flaw in the proposed bill
is its plethora of new minimum sentences for sexual crimes.
The goal is to strip discretion from judges who, considering
the circumstances of a case, might feel justice would be
better served by imposing house arrest or community service.
The homosexual activists' objection to Bill
C-2, together with the Globe and Mail editorial, are setting
the stage for our liberal judges to overturn the child pornography
law at the first opportunity they get. Apparently, the sexual
demands of homosexuals override society's obligation to protect
children.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
