Here is a story from page A22 of today's Toronto Star. It's about a man who downloaded and collected videos and photos of horrific child and sexual abuse. These were collected, not once by accidence or curiosity, or not even over a short-term if were to believe he was working on an artistic project, but over the span of seven years (1999 to 2006).
The court said, according to the Star article, that the material showed, "the actual abuse of real children, including babies."
Now, here's the stupidity of it all. A 2005 law that Parliament passed said a person can be acquitted of a guilty decision if he has "a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education, or art".
Instead of doing what Parliament intended to do, this law left more room for offenders to hide behind it claiming they're looking at child pornography for the sake of art. Give me a break.
I say if looking at, downloading, or having child pornography is a criminal offense, pretending you're doing it for the sake of art should be too.
The only way one should be allowed to download or view or possess such material for all the legitimate reasons I can think of (to help defeat it, eliminate it, reduce it, or catch those that do it, and maybe perhaps to help treat pedophiles) -- the only legitimate way to do that, is to require a special permit granted by some body that is capable of discerning whether the rationale for doing so helps society rather than harms it.
When you think about what I'm suggesting, you see a parallel with the legal use of drugs or marijuana in particular. If we don't do that, then maybe we can allow drug addicts to use such drugs "for artistic reasons" and not be guilty of any crime. What rubbish. What insanity.
And then think of the cost of this now overturned higher court appeal decision to the Supreme Court which already resulted in the Supreme Court ordering a new trial 'to be fair'. The only fair thing on the prima facie evidence is to throw this guy in the solitary slammer for years. That would be too good for him.
On the other hand, being a most reasonable man, I understand that this is the price we have to pay for democracy. In many other countries making the news these days -- someone like this just might be stoned without a trial. But then again, he might not, since we're only talking pedophilia and not homosexuality. Don't we just have a crazy mixed-up world.
Here's your link, I've said enough.
Canada News: New trial ordered for man at centre of child porn-as-art case - thestar.com
[Are you looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]
Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.
The court said, according to the Star article, that the material showed, "the actual abuse of real children, including babies."
Now, here's the stupidity of it all. A 2005 law that Parliament passed said a person can be acquitted of a guilty decision if he has "a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education, or art".
Instead of doing what Parliament intended to do, this law left more room for offenders to hide behind it claiming they're looking at child pornography for the sake of art. Give me a break.
I say if looking at, downloading, or having child pornography is a criminal offense, pretending you're doing it for the sake of art should be too.
The only way one should be allowed to download or view or possess such material for all the legitimate reasons I can think of (to help defeat it, eliminate it, reduce it, or catch those that do it, and maybe perhaps to help treat pedophiles) -- the only legitimate way to do that, is to require a special permit granted by some body that is capable of discerning whether the rationale for doing so helps society rather than harms it.
When you think about what I'm suggesting, you see a parallel with the legal use of drugs or marijuana in particular. If we don't do that, then maybe we can allow drug addicts to use such drugs "for artistic reasons" and not be guilty of any crime. What rubbish. What insanity.
And then think of the cost of this now overturned higher court appeal decision to the Supreme Court which already resulted in the Supreme Court ordering a new trial 'to be fair'. The only fair thing on the prima facie evidence is to throw this guy in the solitary slammer for years. That would be too good for him.
On the other hand, being a most reasonable man, I understand that this is the price we have to pay for democracy. In many other countries making the news these days -- someone like this just might be stoned without a trial. But then again, he might not, since we're only talking pedophilia and not homosexuality. Don't we just have a crazy mixed-up world.
Here's your link, I've said enough.
Canada News: New trial ordered for man at centre of child porn-as-art case - thestar.com
[Are you looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]
Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
