Nothing progressive aboutequating abuse with freedom of speech
“A person should be allowedto possess anything, even if it’s images of an eight-year-old being raped andcut up.”
Those are the words of RobinSharpe, the 66-year-old man whose claim of a constitutional right to possesskiddie porn was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada last week.
It’s been a year since a B.C.judge first granted Sharpe the right to collect graphic pictures, drawings andstories of young boys engaging in sex and being tortured.
Donna Laframboise, a director of the CanadianCivil Liberties Association, assured readers of the National Post that “Mr.Sharpe has not been charged with molesting actual children.
Jonathan Kay, a member of the Post’s editorialboard, trivialized the material in Sharpe’s possession, perhaps toconvince his readers the law is worse than the crime.
Laframboise had made asimilar point. “Although it’s perfectlylegal for a 16-year-old girl to have sex with her 17-year-old boyfriend, ifthat girl sketches the two them in a sexual embrace, our law says she has justmanufactured child pornography.”
Unfortunately forLaframboise, citing the ludicrous extreme in the Sharpe case cannot justify theCCLA’s defence of this detestable man or the material he collects.
The material seized fromSharpe’s home is far more than mere sketches and diaries.
Thestories fill several binders. All areviolent, describing children (all boys, except for a single girl in one story)being tortured in horrific and extreme ways. Most depict the children deriving sexual pleasure from their abuse.
On top of this, Sharpe hadin his possession thousands of, not only drawings, but also pictures of naked,prepubescent boys. There are close-upsof their erect genitals and of their bound genitals.
Perhaps, as Laframboiseasserts, “no real children were harmed” during Sharpe’s production of thousandsof pages of what Kay calls “fantasies that he writes in his own diary.”
I do not much care whatconsenting adults do in private with other consenting adults.
Your actions may be a sin,but that is a matter between you and God, not between you and the minister ofjustice. Provided you keep your actionsprivate, I would oppose a law that forbade you doing as you choose.
Taking dirty pictures of children in and of itselfconstitutes abuse since children are incapable of understanding theconsequences of such actions and thus incapable of giving consent.
The current law as itapplies to 16- and 17-years-old is over-broad, and should be changed, but inParliament, not the courts.
However, when it comes toderiving sexual gratification from the abuse of children, have we become so“progressive” we cannot see the need to maintain this taboo fully in law?