Background on Child Pornography Law

In June 1993, Parliament passed a law outlawing child pornography –  at least it thought it had done so.  Canadian courts, however, thought that this law needed improvement; they believed it was too severe, as it did not allow for "freedom of expression."

The courts, therefore, "read-in" this exception to the law, and also allowed an existing loophole providing for the defence of "artistic merit" against a charge of possession of child pornography.

Activist Judges and the Child Pornography Law

In 1995, Mr. Justice David McCombs of the Ontario Divisional Court held that Toronto artist Eli Langer’s drawings of naked children engaging in sexual relations with each other and with naked sexually aroused adults were "artistic" and, therefore, did not violate the child pornography law. As a result, the Court permitted these pictures to be hung in a Toronto art gallery.

The pictures were also published in an illegal publication of a paedophile association, North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

• In December 1998, BC Supreme Court Judge Duncan Shaw held that Vancouver paedophile Robin Sharpe was not guilty of possessing child pornography because the exploration of material depicting children as vehicles of sexual gratification was an integral part of Mr. Sharpe’s character and his freedom of expression and conscience; and also an essential part of his intimate and private life.



• In January, 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the decision of Mr. Justice Shaw, but at the same time read-in "improvements" to the child pornography law to allow for "freedom of expression" based on exceptions which were in addition to the already existing exemption for artistic merit.



• These further exceptions "read in" by the Supreme Court were as follows:
  
  
  1. Writings or drawings, from the imagination (not using  real children), of sexually explicit depictions of children are acceptable providing they are for personal use only; and
  2. Videos or photographs of lawful sexual activity in which the accused is shown, providing they are for private use only and not distributed, (for example, sexual activities between two adolescents, providing they are 14 years of age or over, and legally able to give a valid consent).



• In March 2002, the same Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw who had presided at Mr. Sharpe’s first trial, presided at his retrial. He concluded, after the rehearing, that the accused’s 243-page written document, which consisted of 17 short stories describing man-boy and boy-boy sex, including sadism, masochism and fellatio, was "artistic" and, therefore, did not violate the child pornography law.



• Mr. Justice Shaw did find Mr. Sharpe guilty, however, of possessing child pornography in regard to his collection of approximately 500 photographs of young boys displaying their genital organs or anal regions and engaged in sexual activity.These photographs were mostly taken by Mr. Sharpe himself in Sri Lanka and other Asian countries



• In May, 2002, Mr. Justice Shaw handed Mr. Sharpe a minimal sentence of house arrest for four months for his possession of the pornographic photographs. The maximum sentence for this offence is two years’ imprisonment.

CHILDREN MUST BE PROTECTED

We cannot sit idly by and allow the sexual victimization of children to continue. The possession, as well as the distribution of all child pornography must be made illegal. If it is not, the time will come when child porn will be socially acceptable.

The Problem with Artistic Merit

Child pornography normalizes the degradation, the torture and raping of children. It allows paedophiles to believe that what they are doing can be vindicated and accepted. Studies indicate that child pornography is used by paedophiles to excite and encourage them in 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 must not be used to overturn legislation which purpose is to protect children.

There is no artistic merit in child pornography. In a civilized society, such a vague concept should not be considered more important than the protection of children. Society must remove the defence of "artistic merit" in the present child pornography law.

Liberal Government’s Response to Court Decisions on Child Pornography

The federal Liberal Government has now announced that it has a plan to change the child pornography law by way of an amendment that will limit or restrict the application of the artistic merit defence, BUT it will not totally eliminate the defence of artistic merit, because the government does not want to restrict freedom of expression entirely!

We already know what the courts can do to weaken the child pornography law and make it less restrictive. This proposed amendment, which will retain the "artistic merit" loophole – albeit limiting its application – is unreasonable and unacceptable.

The defence of "artistic merit " must be 'entirely' REMOVED from the child pornography law.'

What You Can Do

Please write to the following to insist that the defence of artistic merit be completely deleted from the child pornography law (not merely redefined, as intended by the Liberal Government):

The Honourable Jean Chrétien, PC, MP
Prime Minister’s Office
80 Wellington St 2^nd Floor
Ottawa OntarioK1A 0A2
Tel 613.992.4211 / Fax 613.941.6900
Email pm@pm.gc.ca

The Hon. Martin Cauchon, PC, MP
Minister of Justice
Justice Building 284 Wellington St
Ottawa Ontario K1A 0H8
Tel 613.992.4621 / Fax 613.990.7255
Email Cauchon.M@parl.gc.ca

Your MP
House of Commons
Ottawa Ontario K1A 0A6

WHO WILL PROTECT OUR CHILDREN?

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY MUST BE STOPPED

REAL Women of Canada

(Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life)
is a national women’s organization.
We are a non-partisan non-denominational
pro-family lobby group.

Box 8813
Station T, Ottawa ON K1G 3J1
Tel 613.236.4001
Fax 613.236.7203
Email realwcna@on.aibn.com
Web www.realwomenca.com