This was on The Age online a few minutes ago. I think Bravehearts is letting itself be diverted from its original and laudable purpose, and needs to take a reality check.

"IT'S official. The naked girl that sparked the Bill Henson fuss is not porn. The sight of her on an invitation to the photographer's Sydney exhibition a couple of weeks ago provoked shock and outrage, but the Classifications Board has now declared the picture "mild" and safe for many children.

It is believed the Director of Public Prosecutions is on the verge of advising NSW police that any prosecution of Henson would be unlikely to succeed.

The case against Henson appears close to collapse.

The Classification Board, under its new chief, former head of the ABC Donald McDonald, has now given the young girl on the invitation the rating PG.

Considered one of the most confronting in the Henson exhibition, the picture came to the board for classification when it was discovered in a blog discussing pornography and the sexualisation of children. But the classifiers found the "image of breast nudity … creates a viewing impact that is mild and justified by context … and is not sexualised to any degree".

While a minority of the board thought the impact of the picture was "moderate" rather than "mild", none of the classifiers thought it deserved banning or called for any restriction on its display."

Ms. Hetty,

By way of introduction let me state that I was a recipient of child sexual assault. Not in my mid or late teens when you selectively apply a legal definition of child (18, read "minor" instead), which has no association with individual variation in biology or cognitive ability, but when I was really a child - at the age of 8 as a state-ward at a religious-run orphanage. I have no doubt that the perpetrator needed psychological help, and it did significantly affect my ability to trust people at said institution - which was legitimated by two other less serious incidents.

Contrary to what you claim, I do believe that child sexual assault is discriminatory (definition: characterised by or showing prejudicial treatment). Numerous studies have shown that there are significant correlations, especially between incidence and other dysfunctional family dynamics. I am extremely surprised that as an organisation that educates and conducts research on this issue that you appear not to be aware of even this most basic data.

I also find it utterly ludicrous to suggest, as you have, that Bill Henson's photographs constitute a "sexual context" on account of nakedness and lighting and the fact that they person's photographed are adolescents. A "sexual context" means what it says; it does not mean nudity (naturist magazines are not sexual) or lighting ("sexual lighting"? Well, there's goes the Crompton catalogue..) or the subjects themselves and no, not even in combination. Note what the Classification board has stated: "image of breast nudity ... creates a viewing impact that is mild and justified by context .. and is not sexualised to any degree". NOT SEXUALISED TO ANY DEGREE. This should be illustrative in your concerns of the potential of "pedophile artists". Not only do the artistic expressions actually have to contain sexual content but the intent must be shown.

cont...

Finally, I am also extremely surprised at your conclusion that "we simply can not legitimise the sexual portrayal of children in the name of art or anything else". As you point out this includes the legal exceptions of portrayals "for a genuine child protection, scientific, medical, legal, artistic or other public benefit purpose and the defendants conduct was reasonable for that purpose". I want you to ponder on this for the moment. You wish to destroy of the sexual portrayal of 'children' even when their use if for child protection. For medical and scientific purposes, and even in law. How do you suppose legal enforcement agents would be able to carry out their job if your will is asserted over the existing law? Are we to selectively edit medical textbooks on account of your desires? How do you expect child protection legal cases to be successful?

Regrettably, I am left with the conclusion that under your leadership Bravehearts is unable to distinguish between child and minor, is ignorant of the basic sociological correlations in child sexual assault, and concentrates on legal attacks of non-sexual nudes of artistic merit rather than real sexual assault. As a survivor, I urge you to resign as Executive Director and pass the reigns to a person who is more knowledgeable and competent in such matters. Do it for the kids.

I'm hoping now that the Classification Board has made its very sensible judgment that these images are "mild" - at most "moderately" offensive - and do not show their subjects as sexualised "in any way whatsoever", a little bit of sanity will prevail in this debate. And perhaps the prosecution of some real paedophiles might throw this whole farce into sharp relief. I just wanted to address the issue that Hetty Johnston says is the major one at hand: "It is a contest between those defending the historical rights and freedoms of the arts and those defending today’s rights and freedoms of our young."

This is absolutely a false opposition. There is no conflict: in fact, the rights of artists and the rights of young people more often run together, since artists so often articulate issues that are not permitted a public voice. I can't think of a single artist I know who would countenance the sexual abuse of children. In Henson's case, the privacy of the adolescents involved have been far more invaded by the wide public condemnation and the accusations that they have been involved in pornography, and I expect that they have been greatly distressed by the calls for their parents to be prosecuted. I haven't seen a great deal of respect for these particular young people in Hetty Johnston's arguments, and she certainly doesn't seem to have listened to those models who have spoken out in defence of Henson.

Ironically enough, as a class of people, artists are far more likely to listen to and observe the rights of children than most others.

And the suggestion that paedophiles might use "art" to defend their crimes is laughable. Where child sexual abuse is concerned, the law is very clear.

i think it is wonderful that hetty wrote this. it is such a poor and dishonest summary of the law, then ignored to raise the starkest of moral straw men. she couldn't have made a bigger fool of herself if she tried.

Ah yes. Now that the charges have been dropped, hopefully this over-reaction will die down. I'm glad common sense has prevailed.

This, rather more lighthearted article, serves as something of a reality check.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23811449-23375,00.html

St Hetty: << Did Bill Henson do this work with the genuine intention of acting for the public benefit, for genuine artistic purposes? Or did he do the work to achieve economic gain and notoriety by taking nude photos of children to satisfy his own purpose, despite the public benefit and the law. >>

Given that Bill Henson has been producing and exhibiting similar artistic images to those that Ms Johnston complains about for decades, I think that it's very clear that his purposes are overwhelmingly artistic. That he and his models are paid, and that he has an international reputation, are in no way inconsistent with the artistic nature of his work.

I would like to know if Hetty Johnston's hysterical complaint was genuinely for the public interest, or is it a vehicle by which she seeks to continue her career of self-aggrandisement - in this case, clearly to the detriment of the interests of the adolescent models she claims to be protecting?

Both Hetty Johnson and CJ Morgan are wrong to put the emphasis on intention or purpose (judgments about which will always be problematic anyway).

What matters is the effect. And this goes to some key questions such as:

Has the child given informed consent?
Was payment adequate and properly agreed?
Has the child foregone a right to personal privacy by possible future disclosure of identity or are safeguards adequate?

At the end of the day, Henson may be able to provide adequate answers to all such questions - and I for one would expect he could. But I see nothing wrong in raising these questions from time to time to keep us in the art world honest.

Hysteria - or allegations of hysteria, on both sides - are not very helpful.

Most people won't take her seriously any more. I certainly don't. She's harmed the image of the organisation and showed that she is not only incorrect, but she is violently opposed to free speech and expression to the degree that she wants to imprison innocent people. She manipulated the police into an embarrassing situation, though I think they were eager to exert their power anyway against innocent Australian citizens.

Intent to do some bad act goes to the doer's guilt, whereas the effect of the action goes to society's morals, etc. It is legitimate to look at both aspects.

So, while Henson may have been completely pure in his thoughts on the matter, that doesn't mean a green light will not be given to some rotters in society when they see naked children portrayed in public.

Hence, the fair solution to this problem is: don't prosecute Henson, but remove the exhibit from the gallery. Then publicise this fact so that society is reminded what of its standards are.

Good on you Hetty. Ignore the pedophilia enablers above.

Good old Hetty.

On the one hand labelling a perfectly innocent (not just my judgement: now a legal one) photograph as porn.

On the other happy to receive funding from the porn industry

http://www.abcscience.net.au/news/stories/2005/03/30/1333989.htm

I hereby nominate her for a Gold Boazie.

Nice one, Pericles :)

Also from ABC News, but just in:

<< No Case Against Henson: Prosecutors

Photographer Bill Henson will not face charges over photographs of a naked 13-year-old girl that sparked a political furore. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/06/2267360.htm

Could the wowsers and hysterics get down from their soapboxes now?

Hello Hetty,

I'm utterly disillusioned with the discovery that you've accepted money from the porn industry in an attempt to promote your own political ambitions.

The connection between porn and abuse is a well studied phenomenon. An overwhelming percentage of porn 'actresses' were victims of child sexual abuse, and the subsequent hyper-sexualisation led them porn. It then follows that their involvement in porn is nothing more than a continuation of the original abuse.

Your unsophisticated and clumsy effort following the the Henson furore is further evidence to me that you are nothing more than a populist self-serving person, whose obvious interest is child sexual abuse is secondary to your own ambition.

You've tainting Bravehearts, and I think You must now do the right thing and step down before you further damage and discredit those genuinely interested in the prevention of child sexual abuse.

I heard the police have dropped charges on henson on advise of nsw public prosecutor...now all we need is the public release of official report of who made the decision and why, and if it complies with good administration practices...eg at Australian government solicitors good decisions site http://www.ags.gov.au/publications/issues/gooddecisions.htm

so what we need is the information looked at, eg if child in question assessed by suitable counselor and their report examined by proper expert authorities for stress, trauma and forced behaviour, before, while and after painting etc and if patents obtained money, influenced child since etc, and how it was determined when a matter is 'art' and when 'pornography etc and if anyone is going to 'review' the decision or should a group of concerned public take a court challenge etc...

After getting all this information...then we the 'informed public' can individually decide if we agree or not...and if majority disagree then how to get the decision 'overturned'...I know...this is proper democracy and we are no where near it at the moment...but at least we can push in the right direction cant we...

Sam
Ps~child in vulnerable, limited in terms of acting in their own interests, and ease with which they can become permanently traumatized psychologically...naked pictures of a child is a no no...no matter the reason or how reasonable it may 'appear'...

It is amazing that this person was attempting to live off the breast of the taxpayers contributions.

"About 20 per cent of the population were sexually assaulted in some way before their 18th birthday, boys and girls, rich and poor, from the city, the country and the outback. Child sexual assault is not discriminatory.

Most offences (85 per cent or more) will be perpetrated by someone the child and family know and trust. Our research and our own statistics tell us that less than 30 per cent of offenders actually live in the home with the child but are more likely to be relatives, friends, neighbours, baby sitters or other adults who have won the trust of the child’s parent(s) in order to gain access to the child. It is an insidious crime."
Big Deal- theft and murder have been crimes since time immemorial but that has not stopped that happening even this very day so what will two hundred pages of laws passed by our "representatives" make much difference in promoting "child protection".

I heard the police have dropped charges on henson on advise of nsw public prosecutor...now all we need is the public release of official report of who made the decision and why, and if it complies with good administration practices...eg at Australian government solicitors good decisions site http://www.ags.gov.au/publications/issues/gooddecisions.htm

so what we need is the information looked at, eg if child in question assessed by suitable counselor and their report examined by proper expert authorities for stress, trauma and forced behaviour, before, while and after painting etc and if patents obtained money, influenced child since etc, and how it was determined when a matter is 'art' and when 'pornography etc and if anyone is going to 'review' the decision or should a group of concerned public take a court challenge etc...

After getting all this information...then we the 'informed public' can individually decide if we agree or not...and if majority disagree then how to get the decision 'overturned'...I know...this is proper democracy and we are no where near it at the moment...but at least we can push in the right direction cant we...

Sam
Ps~child IS vulnerable, limited in terms of acting in their own interests, and ease with which they can become permanently traumatized psychologically...naked pictures of a child is a no no...no matter the reason or how reasonable it may 'appear'...

Seems to me that Hetty Johnson makes a number of arguments that are worth debating.

(1) "These child models can not give “consent” under the law. That the parent(s) made the decision to “consent” for them or even with them, is a moot point."
If an activitity is legal (as police, OFLC etc have found) clearly the parent CAN give consent. It is not up to Hetty Johnson to decide for them.

(2) "Under the law as it stands, photos taken of children in a “sexual context” are classed as child pornography, are illegal and with some exceptions, are actionable by law."
The wallopers have spoken on this issue. Case closed.

(3) "Did he do the work to achieve economic gain and notoriety by taking nude photos of children to satisfy his own purpose, despite the public benefit and the law?"
There may be an element of truth here in relation to public benefit, but the law is clearly not at issue (despite Hetty's beliefs).

(4) "That money was paid for the use of these children in the taking of these naked photos, which are then to be sold, makes it a case of sexual commercial exploitation."
Well, obviously not, at least according to the OFLC and state and fed police.

(5) "We do not believe that any adult should be free to usurp child protection laws for their own personal satisfaction - be it artistic, monetary or sexual."
So, no more kids on TV, in advertisements, performing on stage (for money), under-18 sports teams (if anybody is paid) etc etc.

(6) "The artistic pursuit of personal emotion, curiosity or expression cannot be sanctioned where this pursuit violates existing human rights and betrays the same laws by which the rest of society lives."
I'm sorry, but does anyone find this a trifle paranoid?

(7) "What of the pedophiles who are watching this with great interest?"
While the Henson bandwagon has rolled on, we have seen the arrest of dozens over child-porn (and sexual assault charges) in the last few days. Has Hetty taken her eye off the ball.

It seems the whole thing was a set up by 2 GB and Hetty couldn't be bothered at first.

What gets me though is that Hetty and Bravehearts were utterly silent when children were being brutalised with batons and tear gas in Woomera.

Some thoughts on exploitation (commercial and otherwise). You might want to rate the following in terms of their exploitativeness:

(1) Photographing a child model naked, with informed consent from model and parent.

(2) Displaying that image in a gallery

(3) Using that image on the invitations for the exhibition, which are mass-mailed to hundreds (thousands?) of people.

(4) Publishing the image on the web.

(5) Beating up a prurient moral panic over the image.

(6) Endlessly publishing and republishing the image, on TV news and in high-circulation newspapers (presumably within reach of the model's friends and acquaintances), sometimes censored, sometimes not.

(7) Calling the image obscene and suggesting the photographer and parents should be sent to gaol (for the "protection" of children).

(8) Trying to make political capital out of the affair.

The last thing anyone seems concerned about is the welfare of the child model, despite all this talk about child welfare and protection. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

As the parent of an 11-year old girl, I would not agree to her posing nude until she turned 18 (when it became her choice). But, it is obviously legal for her to do so and other parents could make a different decision. It is legal for me to feed my daughter piles of junk food, get her ears pierced and allow her to watch M or MA films. I don't do these things because I don't think they would be good for her, but some other parents think differently. I might disapprove, but it's their choice, not mine

There appears to be some confusion about what things mean

Some here seem to think

Nudity = sexuality

An image of a nude child = the object for a predatory adult.

Nudity has been depicted in many images since man first daubed mud on the walls of caves.

From the article ““As a society, we simply can not legitimise the sexual portrayal of children in the name of art or anything else.”

The Italian Renaissance saw the infant Jesus depicted nude just as

the rape of the Sabine women has been depicted numerous times.

All of these depictions are classical / naturalistic and largely “asexual”.

If you wanted a “sexualized” image of a young girl, you would achieve more by covering her genitals and chest with some black slinky fabric and give her a pair of black stockings, than showing an image of her naked.

Sexuality is not an synonym for nudity and

Nudity is not a synonym for sexuality,

Except for those of limited comprehension.

Marilyn Shepherd “What gets me though is that Hetty and Bravehearts were utterly silent when children were being brutalised with batons and tear gas in Woomera.”

I know the person who was at one time the general manager of Baxter, you should meet him. A very compassionate person who had the difficult task of dealing with the angry, self-righteous, bullying flotsam and jetsam who tried to circumvent Australia’s right to regulate residents and ended up in places like Woomera.

He used to stand out at the front when they needed to don riot gear and draw batons to stop the rioting and lead his staff into the fray. He is one of my sort of people, doing what needed to be done.

From the spittle spraying rant of your posts, I am not sure I would want to be near you when eating (risk of an involuntary exchange of bodily fluids) but I do know, I enjoy dining out with the ex-Baxter manager.

Well, the good news is that the police have smashed another child porn ring and arrested dozens of paedophiles, with dozens more put on notice that their time is coming. And at least one of them committed suicide with hopefully more to follow. (A nice solution to the problem of the death penalty, if you ask me).

These police, whose names we don't know and who'll never get their share of praise and credit, have done the real work of investigating and stopping paedophiles while Hetty Johnston has been chasing...the limelight.

“The Henson debate is a debate we had to have, not just here in Australia but internationally. It is a healthy sign of a society that is evolving in its understanding of the rights of children to be protected and free from sexual exploitation.”

Yes Hetty. I’ve got no problem with that.

“The definition of “intent” then comes into play. This is always going to be a matter of opinion of course. Did Bill Henson do this work with the genuine intention of acting for the public benefit, for genuine artistic purposes? Or did he do the work to achieve economic gain and notoriety by taking nude photos of children to satisfy his own purpose, despite the public benefit and the law. We, of course, believe the latter.”

Why do you believe the latter? Sure, Henson took the photos for his own purposes…his own genuinely artistic purposes and for his own financial gain and reputation. But why would you assume that he would have produced them if he had thought that they ran counter to public benefit or the law?

As you said, intent is hard to be sure about and is a matter of opinion. So…why would you think the worst? What is your basis for this?

Anyway, the DPP thinks otherwise. And thank goodness for that.

Public agitants are so stooopud.

Ya just cannot buy this sort of publicity.

It also goes to the knee-jerk unprofessional truth about these people. The police hierarchy should have clarified this with the prosecutor FIRST. They either already knew it wouldnt fly and thus acting out of political motives (the looming 'war on porn' and the usual whiping up of the gullible into a paranoid frenzy of fear and loathing) or they're just incompetent, in that they went this far, without first ensuring that their case would hold up. They cant even get the case to trial.

Hah. 'The debate we had to have.' Well that just about sums up the current state of affairs. Just talk about problems, make a bit of a tokenist public spectacle, then we can all get it off our chest and feeeeeel oh so much better about doing nothing.

This game is getting so transparent. Its actually becoming very amusing.

Trade215:

“The police hierarchy should have clarified this with the prosecutor FIRST.”

Absolutely!

Why couldn’t an opinion have been sought from the DPP or a magistrate, quickly, without the disruption of the exhibition, let alone the confiscation of artworks?

Was it just extraordinary incompetence?

Was it a belief within the police force that they can act with impunity, without having to know or care about the full context of their actions or whether they are in fact acting against illegal activity or just against the possibility of illegal activity?

Was it connected to the war on porn? Would it have happened if there hadn’t been a major sting operation underway to net hundreds of people who have accessed child porn on the internet?

What ever the case, the police action was entirely vile, and grossly unacceptable.

"Could the wowsers and hysterics get down from their soapboxes now?"
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 6 June 2008 4:12:40 PM

Well there you go.
It really doesn't do to disagree with the elite and liberated does it?

This is a discussion forum.
I have a right to disagree with you if I wish. And I do.

That has subjected myself and others to accusations of seeing adolescent bodies as dirty;-and somewhat paradoxically;-condoning pornography!

It is noticeable that those who opposed Hensonart, are largely missing from this thread.
Is it really because the charges against the man have been dropped? Do you really believe that the dropping of criminal charges would alter my view? How naivé.

Or, could it be that those who have opposed this so-called art have been subjected to some fairly strong denigration, and are reluctant to continue to be categorized as they have done?

Ginx, i think the raiding of the galleries, all to the drumbeat of a crusading media, can fairly be characterised as wowserish and hysterical. you are free to argue against it. but those are descriptive terms, not merely derogatory.

i agree that the absence here of supporters of hetty, or her article, is peculiar. (not that i find much to support). is it because people are being shouted down? possibly. but a lot of yelling goes on in OLO, and i don't see that it diminishes the responding.

Perhaps the point is that Hetty's article trumpets "the debate we had to have", but her actions weren't about debate: they were about promoting a police action doomed to absurdity. perhaps her creation of a prosecutorial farce has distracted everyone from whatever debate we had to have.

CJ's post was gloating, but why shouldn't it be? for anybody who looked at the law, it was always completely obvious that henson couldn't be found guilty. it was simply a question of time, and how many people could look how foolish before it happened.

If you want to argue something, argue it. but as far as i can see, CJ has described the whole episode, and its promoters, pithily and perfectly.

BB, I have read your posts on this matter, and as such find your response to me entirely predictable.

I have nothing further to add to what I have said in my previous post.

"I'm hoping now that the Classification Board has made its very sensible judgment that these images are "mild" - at most "moderately" offensive - and do not show their subjects as sexualised "in any way whatsoever", a little bit of sanity will prevail in this debate. "

The 'mild' Henson material has been classified as child pornography elsewhere, and that makes Henson what there?.

I didn't see you give Rudd much scope for free speech. The sign-ons to your letter were a pack of hypocrtites. In my opinion it is only a matter of time before the police in a more enlightened jurisdiction come to terms Mr. Henson.

Bill Henson's full-frontal nudes kept out the back
NEWS.com.au, Australia - Jun 6, 2008
By Kara Lawrence and Michelle Cazzulino FULL-frontal photos by Bill Henson of a 12-year-old boy displaying his genitalia were kept from public display by a ...
Henson saved full frontal nude photos from public view Scopical
Henson's photographs also contained naked boys LIVENEWS.com.au
all 449 news articles »

So a rich pedophile with an interest in little boys gets to go out back for a gawk at the secret stash? What did the classification board give for those?

I think you will find that Henson has his geography seriously restricted from this point on, he can hardly exhibit in countries which have branded his 'mild' material child pornography can he?

ginx, that's fine. that's your choice.

i'm sorry to be predictable, and thus boring. (i guess at least i'm consistent). it is probably true that i've said the little i have to say on this issue once (at least) too often.

"Perhaps the point is that Hetty's article trumpets "the debate we had to have", but her actions weren't about debate: they were about promoting a police action doomed to absurdity"

There is a get-together about Henson next week, I'm invited, international elements were already looking into Henson. Did you really think that stuff was legal in places like London? If you did you are a complete idiot. Henson has had his wings clipped, he has few friends left in the USA or Europe.

I mean who exactly is going to support somebody who keeps a stash of pictures of little boys genitalia out the back for his special customers? Henson has one future, more police raids, fewer friends.

UNHRC, there is nothing wrong or sinister about the naked person of any age, including their genitalia. If you feel a naked child is attractive to you, then you are a pedophile.

What a vile mind you have, UNCRC. Many people have been pointing out how odd it was that the public fuss concentrated on the female body, when anyone who'd seen his work knew he photographed male nudes as well. And now you're using your own ignorance to bash him again?

You say: I didn't see you give Rudd much scope for free speech. The sign-ons to your letter were a pack of hypocrtites (sic).

Here's a quote from the letter itself:

"The public debate prompted by the Henson exhibition is welcome and important. We need to discuss the ethics of art and the issues that it raises. That is one of the things art is for: it is valuable because it gives rise to such debate and difference, because it raises difficult, sometimes unanswerable, questions about who we are, as individuals and as members of society. However, this on-going discussion, which is crucial to the healthy functioning of our democracy, cannot take place in a court of law.

"We invite the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, and the NSW Premier, Mr Iemma, to rethink their public comments about Mr Henson’s work. We understand that they were made in the context of deep community concern about the sexual exploitation of children. We understand and respect also that they have every right to their personal opinions. However, as political leaders they are influential in forming public opinion, and we believe their words should be well considered.

...

"We wish to make absolutely clear that none of us endorses, in any way, the abuse of children."

Which bit of this is so hard to understand?

The text is esily checkable, in the Age for instance. Which bit of this doesn't allow Rudd (or anyone else) his opinion?

And you're mightily misled if you think I have anything to do with the OCFL. Or the police. As the past week has shown, the laws in our country seem to be quite good at protecting children from paedophiles, and they also protect freedom of expression. Long may it remain so.

Ginx: << This is a discussion forum.
I have a right to disagree with you if I wish. And I do. >>

Of course Ginx has the right to hold whatever opinions she likes, and to express them. However, I have to say that her comments on this topic, over several threads, are among the more hysterical I've read here. No reasoned argument, just impassioned assertion with lots of capitalisation.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue, if that's possible.

<< It is noticeable that those who opposed Hensonart, are largely missing from this thread. >>

I imagine that the more reasonable wowsers are probably a little bit embarrassed at having so easily led into what is obviously a 'moral panic', which has now been exposed for what it was: i.e. a disgraceful episode in moralistic philistinism, promoted by Sydney talkback radio shock jocks, a notoriously far right columnist and an egomaniacal social crusader.

I'm at a loss as to why anybody would continue to flog this dead horse in the light of legal exoneration of Henson's art, unless they are obviously pathological wowsers like UNCRC, or otherwise psychologically disturbed by images of naked children.

What this whole brouhaha has brought home to me is just how many sexually repressed people there are in our society. I include among them not only those who are unreasonably still offended by Henson's art, but also those who actually get off sexually by viewing images.

We probably do need to debate the underlying issues more comprehensively, but certainly not in the terms that St Hetty and her supporters have in mind.

Having been very busy and then quite ill, I have not bothered with OLO lately, and am surprised at the level of emotion and hysteria that is still being expressed across the many threads regarding Henson.

As others have pointed out (myself included) it was highly improbable that the charges made against Henson would hold. With the news that a REAL paedophile ring has been broken and appropriate charges made, surely those who were against Henson's work have gained a little more perspective.

A point I made on Vanilla's thread, which I believe is pertinent, but appears to have been missed in the point scoring, was the issue of child actors, specifically in adult drama or any work with adult meaning. As an example, I gave Jodie Foster in Taxi.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1831&page=0#37670

At the time a furore arose regarding the possible future implications her role in the film would have on her future psychology, similar to concerns raised over the Henson models. Clearly parental permission is required for child actors and while there is the vexed issue of the "stage mother" or father, the likes of Jodie and many other young actors, while not necessarily continuing as professional actors having reached adulthood, emerged as unscathed as the rest of us (to whatever degree that may be).

What the Henson debacle has revealed (disrobed?):

1. Questionable motives by Hetty Johnston
2. Over zealous policing
3. Confusion over sex versus nudity
4. Patronisation and underestimation of children by adults as to their cognitive and decision making abilities. Children require love and guidance not dictates.

And that (in line with point 4 above), these same people would dictate to us what we as a community should and shouldn't see, hear and read.

Perhaps time for some reflection on what evils truly threaten our children, rather that the Chicken Little episode of Henson's Art.

I reckon that we all ought to be believing that the whole reason this issue is being debated at the moment, is because the nature of our social fabric is changing into a pattern of eliminating being too permissive in respect of what children are being exposed to.

In that, whatever the immediate outcome is about Hensen, its children who will be on the winning streak, because it is their safety that is paramount in our considerations, within which we are sustaining these sorts of public debates.

My own opinion is that Hensen's work ought not be shown, but I am also of the belief that is it wrong to point to it as directly pornographic and immediately abusive to the child in the photograph: otherwise we fall into participating in accomodating the illmindedness in the society, that it underlying why we all need cover up what childhood innocence looks like. When I see such photos, I look with an eye that is looking for a way to see the photos as not sexual, otherwise I offend myself by using an offensive eye in veiwing a child. However, what a great victory it is that Hensen's international integrity is so dented now. Even if only because of the impossibility of truly obtaining consent from a minor to display such photos. (how could he have managed to describe to a child that there was the possibility that dirty old men would look at her and think rude thoughts about her for the rest of their lives, and would she consent that that also)(p.s. bravo the dirty old man who topped himself this week: what an excellent role model he is to all such fears in any person)

Clearly, there is a fine line between artistic (and freedom) of expression and child pornography that we are all trying to give definitive substance to.

Some of us take the hard line in that no nude study of children by adults (and for adult artistic audiences) is acceptable.

Others assert that such artistic expression brings many ideas about children, adolescence and human nudity to our attention and this is a good thing.

I guess Henson has in many ways achieved his objectives, or perhaps he didn't have any at all? What were his phenomenological intentions?

Art, no matter what it is, is created for the eyes and senses of audiences and by nature is left open to interpretation by many.

If Henson is blind to these broader and phenomenological and ontological arguments about child pornography then he deserves to be chided.

But if he is not blind, if he understands these arguments and wants his 'art' to bring these and other arguments to the fore, then surely his intentions are much worthy.

I have not seen any evidence of this being the case.

The naive artist, or even stupidly defiant, claiming artistic freedom and expression, does not wash with me.

We are all accountable for our public comments, be they words or art and well intentioned or not.

Artists should not be given amnesty simply on the basis of being artists - any more than amnesty for judges or politicians.

This does not mean I agree with state imposed censorship. Framed properly and cognisant of the broader sociological and cultural tensions Henson may well have drawn support from his detractors.

That he has not, speaks volumes. He should not rely on the intellectual calbre of others to defend what is inherently his own work.

Sorry to hear you've been ill, Fractelle, I hope that you are now fully recovered.

>>With the news that a REAL paedophile ring has been broken and appropriate charges made, surely those who were against Henson's work have gained a little more perspective<<

Another observation on this genuine, and welcomed, police action, is this.

I wonder how many of Henson's photographs turned up on the computers belonging to those paedophiles?

My guess would be somewhere close to or less than zero.

"The 'mild' Henson material has been classified as child pornography elsewhere, and that makes Henson what there?."

And if my understanding of doings in foreign parts is correct women have been stoned to death in parts of the world for not covering themselves completely when in public or for talking to strange men.

Does that somehow make women in our society guilty of the crimes they could be punished for in those foreign parts?

I think not.

R0bert

Yes, for many, “it’s all artistic”, until a picture of your own child turns up in the evidence gathered from police raids.

Rainier: << We are all accountable for our public comments, be they words or art and well intentioned or not.

Artists should not be given amnesty simply on the basis of being artists - any more than amnesty for judges or politicians. >>

I'm not sure what Rainier's trying to get at here. Henson hasn't broken any laws so he doesn't need an amnesty.

<< Yes, for many, “it’s all artistic”, until a picture of your own child turns up in the evidence gathered from police raids. >>

Again, what does this have to do with Henson? His models all had their parents' permission. Also, as Pericles suggests, it seems unlikely that Henson's artworks would be of much interest to a paedophile who collects actual child pornography.

While there's no evidence to suggest that any of those who've been charged in the recent investigations into child pornography also were in possession of copies of Henson's images, I'd think that the international focus brought to bear on them by St Hetty and the accompanying mass media brouhaha would be likely bring them to the attention of creeps like those ensared by the Centurion investigation.

It fascinates me that otherwise intelligent and rational people still seem to have bees in their bonnets about this particular issue, when we are confronted daily by true issues of obscenity - which of course 'moral panics' like this one ultimately function to obscure.

It seems that the people of Bravehearts live with their heads in a bucket of excreta. That's all they can see. They think that everyone is a pedophile (except them of course) They may deal with an occasional child that has been sexually abused. I agree that a bad thing & the person that committed the atrocity should be put away never to be released. Statistically though, only .0003% of Australians are possibly pedophiles. THE REST OF US ARE NOT! The mere photo of a child, naked or not, is not pornographic. It does not lead to pornography.
Those people that are inclined sexually towards children have mental problems. The list of people involved in this crime involves the most trusted people. Religious ministers of all persuasions, Politicians of all parties. Lawyers & Judges, School teachers of both sexes, Scout leaders, Gymanastic, Swimming & little Athletics coaches, etc. The list goes on. Strangely very few ordinary Mums & Dads. Yet it's the ordinary Mums & Dads seemingly cop the accusation.
What does that involve. I can't take a photo of my Grandaughter at her Gymnastics Competition because I MIGHT be a Pedophile. I can't sit next to a child on a Plane. I MIGHT be a pedophile. I can't pick my Grand kids up from school. I MIGHT be a pedophile. The list goes on. Why? Because of the fear generated by people who live with their heads in a bucket of S#!t & who see all the world as being covered in S#!t.
Well, The world isn't. I'm not. In fact most of us aren't. So get your heads out of your bucket of s#!t, wash off & look around. We're all clean except for the exceptional .0003%.
You lost this one accept it.

I wasn't going to comment here having said all I wanted to say in Vanilla's thread, but it can be real hard for me to keep quiet!

Fractelle, excellent post.

I hadn't heard of Henson before. Now I have. I watched the ABC report and did a bit of my own research on his work.

His works are beautiful. The works on the girl AND boy.

Much too much focus is being put on the young girl by the media, which I find disgusting. Boys are vulnerable to peadophiles. Why the wowsers on this forum are not upset about him posing nude I find most curious and glaringly inconsistent.

As a mother of boys and a girl, all past the age of the two models, I was very moved. My sons are now grown, muscular men. My daughter a young woman. It all went so quickly. That transition from child to adult. And if I had had the chance of somebody with the eye and ability of Henson photograph my children at that point, yes I would have and I would cherish them.

For a parent it is at that time the realization comes that soon your time as the most significant person in your child's life will be over.

Child abuse, sexual and otherwise, is the most shameful aspect of any community. How can this happen and what is our collective responsibility?

Comparing openly created artwork with the horrendous fact of child pornography, might make some feel self satisfied that something that could be used evilly has been exposed, but the fact is that is has not. There is no comparison. This is true for works on children and adults.

Peadophiles do not go to art galleries to act on their urges. They are in the most mundane day to day positions in the lives of our children. They are grandfathers, fathers, step-fathers, teachers and others with significant roles in our children's lives.

Lev, your post was humbling to us who have no personal experience. You honour us in sharing with us your opinion.

Of course we should not allow anyone freedom of expression that might cause harm to children, particularly given that the subjects cannot knowingly consent to partaking nor can anyone reasonably consent on their behalf. Sadly though, the current debate on Bill Henson's 'art' yet again perpetuates the myth that child abuse lurks in the domain of the other. The fact is that the vast majority of child abuse occurs in the context of the family home, by first order family members. Moreover, the emphasis on child sexual abuse belies the reality that physical and emotional abuse is no less harmful. Many advocates against child abuse come from a strident Christian fundamentalist bent, with the misplaced belief that safety resides within the traditional family. Alas, it is within closed settings, most especially the traditional family, in which child abuse flourishes. The solutions to this most sinister of social problems will not be easy, but a good start might be to ban parents from hitting their children, as well as developing evidence-based community education programs on the impact that physical, emotional and sexual abuse has on children.

"Of course Ginx has the right to hold whatever opinions she likes, and to express them. However, I have to say that her comments on this topic, over several threads, are among the more hysterical I've read here. No reasoned argument, just impassioned assertion with lots of capitalisation.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue, if that's possible.

<< It is noticeable that those who opposed Hensonart, are largely missing from this thread. >>

I imagine that the more reasonable wowsers are probably a little bit embarrassed at having so easily led into what is obviously a 'moral panic',....."(CJM)
________

Which is exactly what I said.

Now its my turn!

You of course CJ are so smugly assured of your own position that you talk ABOUT me, (ooohhhh! capitals!!).

I am (of course, what else?), 'hysterical/no reasoned argument/impassioned assertion..etc.,
And your 'wowsers' are now sub-categorised into 'reasonable', and those that are not impressed by your condescension;= 'unreasonable wowsers'??

And all because they have the brass necked temerity to disagree with you!

_______________

I have had reason this week to...-shall we say 'interview' a repugnant and sexually rapacious so-called human-being, who has invoked a defence of his behaviour as 'loving and artistic;-he referred to Henson.

This was inevitable. I am not alone in expecting this to happen. And it will continue. Now we will debate in that place..well you know what we will now debate! It will extend this matter whilst a young victim slowly goes to pieces.

Is that Hensons fault? YES! It is the inevitable rationale that will spawn from Henson type art.

NOW;- you liberated souls can wax lyrical about freedom of speech/expression etc., and prattle on about how wrong I am.

ME?,-I will be somewhere else dealing with the realities of such 'freedom of expression'

It is with some intrigue I have read on this site that those Henson supporters are arguing that their views have been vindicated by the finding of the DPP's office. Yet I believe the DPP's reason for not pursuing and taking it to its logical conclusion was that there appeared little success in getting a conviction. Nothing else. Which simply means that the laws need to be looked at in more detail and changed if necessary to widen the scope of what actually constitutes child abuse, in this case particularly using a minor for one's own nefarious purpose. I imagine, and hope, this is what will now happen and that Bravehearts will concentrate on looking at the laws. Much of child abuse involves, and starts with, the desire to see children's bodies, disguised of course under a number of other 'rational' reasons. My full support to you and your very worthwhile group and my best wishes to the damaged children you are helping, Ms Johnston.

I wasn't going to comment here either, having explained my views JUST A TAD on other threads. But I wanted to thank Lev for his excellent, intelligent and moving post, and also Yvonne for another great post.

The hope is that Australia is becoming a more mature place.

I had forgotten Lev's post, being 'out of the loop' for a few days, but having been reminded, wish to add my thanks for such an open and honest post. It cannot have been easy to write, as it was so painful to read.

Thank you Lev.

This was indeed a debate we had to have, perhaps, now we can move on and prosecute the real paedophiles in our midst. And they aren't lurking in art galleries, chances are we are in contact with one everyday.

Ginx: << I am (of course, what else?), 'hysterical/no reasoned argument/impassioned assertion..etc., >>

Ginx, I was referring to your comments on this issue, not to you personally. There is a difference.

<< I have had reason this week to...-shall we say 'interview' a repugnant and sexually rapacious so-called human-being, who has invoked a defence of his behaviour as 'loving and artistic;-he referred to Henson. >>

Do you really think that this creep would have even heard of Henson if it wasn't for the ridiculous controversy whipped up in the past couple of weeks by the wowsers and hysterics?

Clearly, Ginx has particular issues that prevent her from discussing this sorry affair in reasonable terms:

<< I feel absolutely no need to qualify why I find this 'art' offensive. >>

<< DAMN IT ALL!..I wish I could be more frank about my anger at such a suggestion, but I cannot. >>

<< I have a very good reason to be angry about this whole affair >>

So Ginx is very angry about this issue and has a very good reason for being so, but she has no need to explain why this might be the case, or what her reasons are.

All well and good, but hardly grounds for abusing people who disagree with her position and her hysterical way of putting it. Perhaps Ginx's hysterically-put opinions on this issue would get a better reception if she would actually provide something resembling an argument, rather than simply bluster and abuse.

I've been thinking about the fact that Hetty has been identified as the person who made the complaint about the photographs.

Is the privacy of persons who make complainst to the police protected?

If so how did Hetty's involvement become known?

The options seem to be
- The privacy of those who lodge a complaint is not protected.
- Someone in the police breached Hetty's privacy
- Hetty has revealed her involvement to try and exploit the issue because she thinks it's a debate we had to have.

If Hetty has inadvertantly had her role exposed and her comments on the issue are an attempt to defend the issue then fair enough. We need to find out why her role was not kept private. People should be able to make a complaint about an activity which they believe breaches the law without having their identity exposed.

If Hetty has tried to exploit the issue to further her cause then it's a whole different issue.

R0bert

Unlike most others here, I was enheartened to see Hetty had accepted donations from the porn industry. I am hoping that means Hetty's main concern was with children whose photographs were taken - not the photographs themselves. Unfortunately for Hetty, arguing that Henson's photography had harmed the children was drawing a pretty long bow. She's been rebuked for making that argument here, and rightly so. Nevertheless, Hetty was on the right track. The harm it causes to children who have been forced by people they trust to do things they find disgusting or frightening is them only reason to ban these pictures.

The other line being argued here is the pictures are OK because they aren't pornographic - or vice-versa. That line of reasoning is not only wrong, its dangerous. Right now 1,800 people in Australia are being pursued because they view some pictures that are considered child porn. The vast majority are guilty of nothing more than viewing pictures, and never will be. Yet they will be vilified. In this time of chronic skills shortages they will be forced out of their professions, their marriages suffer to detriment of their children, and they will be jailed at vast expense to the rest of us. Some have already sought refuge in suicide.

Yet, the reality is our children will be safer because they viewed this porn. Yes, I know this is outrageously counter intuitive, or at least it was to me. I put it right up their with the figures showing that giving young males defencive driving courses makes them worse drivers. But there it is. Not everything turns out as you expect. For background reading on the issue look up Wikipedia's entry on porn, or read this (longish) paper:

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

I now categorise people who oppose porn in two categories. The majority just seem to accept the "politically correct" assumption that porn is bad without taking the time to look it up. The remainder are far more interested in pushing their world view onto the rest of us, regardless of who they hurt or the damage they do.

ME?,-I will be somewhere else dealing with the realities of such 'freedom of expression'

Ginx. Please find the time to spend with normal people. You will be surprised to find that the victems you spend all you time with are few & far between. The rest of the children, the vast majority, are not & never will be victems of these insidious people.
The people who commit these crimes are mentally ill. Please deal with them. The rest of us are not & never will be perpetrators of child sexual abuse.
Nude Art involving people of all ages, from babies through to the aged & infirmed has been around for thousands of years, has not & never will lead to this type of mental illness.
It is the restrictive mind, fraught with the fear induced by religious dogma, that has caused this mental illness.
Thousands of Australian children & millions world wide that have grown up in a nudist enviroment have never been subjected to sexual assault. Why? Because the people in a nudist enviroment don't see the nude body as a sexual object.
Ask yourself the Questions. Why do I associate nudity with sex? Where does my abhorance of the nude REALLY come from? If you answer these questions you will find the real answer to stopping sexual assaults.
Also, for those still fraught with fear, read Lev again. This time take the time to injest what she has said.

As I'm not Hetty Johnson I don't exatly know what her motivation was, but IMO the only thing she's guilty of is exaggerating her position. But I ask: who else in public life uses this technique to get heard? Just about every politician I'd suggest - I can think of Bob Brown as a prime example of her equal on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum.

I'd suggest that the value of a Hetty Johnson is to act as a strong voice for those moderate people in society who want nothing to do with any kind of immoral behaviour but do not have the power or position to protect themselves from it. Of course she is not going to get the message exactly right or in a way that satisfies everyone.

If everyone in society had the same attitude as many of the posters here, there wouldn't be any problem in showing nude teenagers in public. However, the people you need to be wary of are generally in the shadows of society. Once you go public, any control society has disappears. So, the real problem is the green light that society implicitly gives by allowing these kind of nude exhibits in public. The question is: do we really want and need such exhibits? After the artist has got his fill of showing off his works, what has been the cost to, and effect on, society? Who's going to fix any damage? Henson certainly won't.

RobP,

Agreed.

CJ, yes he may not have broken any laws, but this does not mean that we should not rely on social and moral decency to inform what we think is acceptable or not.

If this sense of social and moral decency does not exist, if the fundamental tenants of understanding this decency were not available to Henson then we have all failed.

I believe they were and he yet chose to flout these in pursuing his ego driven art.

Yes he may have got permission from parents but is this the only measure of decency we must rely on to protect the interests of all children? What constitute the informed consent of the children?

The fact of the matter is that millions of children are sexually, economically, and spiritually exploited worldwide.

Was Henson trying to raise awareness of this?

I don't thnk so.

These posts have confirmed how every person justifies their own perversions. Peter Hollingsworth must feel agrieved that the same people who called for his head( for political reasons) now defend the right of artist to strip young boys and girls, display their genitals and call it art. Those charged and shamed for taking photographs of clothed people on beaches and filming up womens skirts at tennis matches must be wondering what is wrong with their 'art'. The latte left are completely blinded to their own hypocrisy. They honestly believe they are beyond corruption. If John Howard perves at a women he is a deviant. If Mr Rudd perves at a stripper he is admiring art.

Runner's typically idiotic comment actually raises what may be a salient point: in the torrent of sanctimonious objections to Henson's images I've seen, from those who identify as Christian at OLO and elsewhere, they seem to share an appalling ignorance of art.

How else could you write something as pricelessly stupid as this:

<< If John Howard perves at a women he is a deviant. If Mr Rudd perves at a stripper he is admiring art. >>

For a start, if John Howard "perved" at a woman it'd be a case of mistaken identity (of JH!), while when Rudd "perved" at a stripper it was an act of hypocrisy. In neither case is "art" anywhere to be found.

Are there any Christians out there who will defend Bill Henson's art?

CJ Morgan writes

'from those who identify as Christian at OLO and elsewhere, they seem to share an appalling ignorance of art.'

If refusing to perve at naked 12 year old naked girls and boys is 'an appalling ignorance of art' I would rather stay ignorant.

I wonder if runner has ever seen the sculpture of David? There used to be a copy on display in Surfers Paradise.

If so did runner "perve" at it, turn away embarrased, or look and appreciate what an incredible sculpture it is?

I've not see the original but have see the copy along with a variety of other art portraying naked human beings of all ages and for the most part it was not "perve" material but there was some mighty fine portrayals of human beings in it.

Perhaps if I was looking at the painting portrayed in the Sirens film I might take the opportinity to perve but for the most part that's not what arts about.

I'd not want to "perve" at a naked 13 year old either but I might appreciate a piece of art that said something about that stage of a humans development. Sometimes I'm ignorant but where thats the case it's something I seek to overcome, not a life preference.

R0bert

If this is the "debate we had to have", then why no comments from Hetty. Sounds more like "the broadcast we had to endure".

Go and find some genuine paedophiles to hassle and leave artists alone. I feel sad for those that can't tell the difference.

Runner “These posts have confirmed how every person justifies their own perversions”

I am wondering what perversion runner is justifying,

From her post, I could suggest dogmatic intolerance;

Maybe blind stupidity;

Likely bother the above,

And super-sized with a helping of chronic bigot.

Unsupported blind criticism, is runner’s perversion. She alone has a view and anyone who disagrees with it is denounced as a pervert.

“display their genitals and call it art.”

Tell me runner, what you think of the paintings of Botticelli and Caravaggio or the sculpture of Persius by Cellini ? I have seen the original ones. Likewise I have viewed the laser copy of David in Surfers Paradise and the original in Florence.

Share with us your views on Florentine and Italian renaissance art and how the display of 16th and 17th century Italian genitalia differs from contemporary “wedding tackle”.

“If refusing to perve at naked 12 year old naked girls and boys is 'an appalling ignorance of art' I would rather stay ignorant.”

Have no doubt, we are all marking you down as a having achieved your wish in that respect.

Sams “I feel sad for those that can't tell the difference.”

Those who cannot tell the difference are adequately represented here, replete with ignorance and bigotry aplenty.

Col Rouge

You conveniently ignore that our own liberal Prime Minister called this child porn 'revolting'. Your self righteous rants about my ignorance does not justify taking photos of nude boys and girls despite your ranting and raving. This debate was never about 16th and 17th century paintings. You have turned it into this. This debate is about taking nude photographs of 12 and 13 year old children and calling it art today. I take it you along with CJ would be happy for your 12 year old to be photographed nude and displayed in bedrooms throughout our land.

Col, So you travelled the world searching out artworks of genitalia?

How peculiar and what a waste of good money!

Perhaps you should stayed home and just looked in the mirror instead?

I have a question for the naysayers about where the harm is in the following situation.

Weirdo Paedophile takes pictures of swimsuit clad kids at the beach. Parent doesn't know, child doesn't know, weirdo's get off on it in private and swap pics. I don't see any victim.

Same with advertising of children's underwear in store catalogs.

Same if people view Henson's photos.

Convince me of the harm. I want to believe:-)

And if it was your child ?

This is a truly bizarre discussion.

I'm in almost complete agreement with Col Rouge, while I disagree completely with Rainier. Anybody who has read our various comments at OLO over a period of time will know that the reverse situation is almost invariably the case.

Look, it doesn't matter whose kids they are. If any kind of child abuse is being committed, it has to be apprehended and prevented in the future. The debate for me turns entirely upon the question of whether the adolescent models in Bill Henson's images have been abused. I am of the very clear opinion that, while the models were in no way abused in the production of Bill Henson's artworks, some of them most certainly have been by their mass exposure pursuant to the spurious claims made by Hetty Johnston et al.

I also agree with Usual Suspect. Despite the projections of angst by some, nobody is actually harmed in any way in the scenario he describes. To ascribe harm being inflicted on anybody by thoughts that malevolent people have about them is a regression into primitive thought, I would suggest.

I'm quite certain that many people have nasty, malicious, violent and perverse thoughts about each other. However, I'm not aware that such thoughts in themselves constitute harming people. If they did, then we're into hocus pocus, curses and spells territory.

While I am aware of some among us who do think in that essentially primitive way, I hope that most of us are past that, generally speaking.

Oops.

I meant to say "I'm quite certain that many people have nasty, malicious, violent and perverse thoughts about others."

Just going back to a post by RObert concerning Hetty Johnson.

"People should be able to make a complaint about an activity which they believe breaches the law without having their identity exposed."

I'm at odds with this, as it is bound to be abused.

So If I decide that I don't like someone or something, I can make a complaint & the police would arrest the person or seize the thing based on anonymous persons complaint? And I don't even have to front up to court to wittness for the complaint. Somethings very wrong here.

This certainly ties up a lot of police manpower with fliverous complaints made by serial complainers or people with an agenda doesn't it?

hi to all the forgotten australians

live is hard these days

i ask you all this question

would you potray your child for exploitation like this

and don't Bull sh't tell the truth

as i know i wouldn't allow my child to be displayed for some sick'o to get off on ,

and don't say their wouldn't be any out their

i wounder if any of those pedophiles that have been caught by the police the other day have ever been in the art gallerys

its wrong in my opinion and and its a total reverse of our child protection laws

do we have child protection laws anymore ??

from a forgotten australian that was raped and abused while in state care

we will no longer be forgotten

and i have read all the post in here just shows who like the nude children

are you's in it for the art or porn , or both just asking

huffnpuff

O.k., here is my take on this situation.

I love kids of all ages and have raised a couple of my own. The photos are artistic in their intention and appear to be a genuine attempt to capture the natural beauty of their subjects. That said, somehow, I cannot accept it as right for these images to be displayed in a public gallery.

There is nothing wrong with nudity in pre-adolescent kids - most people will encounter it regularly on beaches in summer and hardly give it a thought. When it is captured on film and displayed on a gallery wall it is no longer appropriate and I believe that the exhibition is inappropriate and should be closed.

However, much as I disapprove of the photographs I must also take a hard swipe at Hetty Johnston and our Prime Minister. I fear people like them much more than I do paedophiles or pornographers.

The Hetties of this world, given the power, would probably want to impose their particular set of values on everyone and we would end up like Singapore or some of those socially backward Islamic cultures with all media censored down to bland pap.

Mr Rudd simply did what politicians do best: sniffed the wind, saw an appetising news grab and hopped on board the bandwaggon. "Revolting" Kevin? Get real. Inappropriate, yes, "thoughtless", yes again. "Revolting"? no way in the world. No child, clothed or otherwise, deserves to have his or her image described in such a way.

There is a real danger here. Mr Rudd, like most socialists has a strong puritanical streak and a strong desire to regulate and control everything. Before the election he spoke of "holding internet service providors responsible" for internet content coming into this country,ie censorship of this traditionally free medium. Give him something like this ill-advised exhibition as a lever and he may well attempt to do just that.

This is the real problem with this exhibition and why it is so ill-advised; it gives ammunition to the Hetties and the Rudds in their quest for more censorship.

Hufnpuff, Ian sorry for what happened to you.

"from a forgotten australian that was raped and abused while in state care. We will no longer be forgotten."

No one will forget & I hope the people that did this to you have received their just deserved.

But you must remember that 99.9% of us were not abused. I know --- .1% is .1% too many. Then again about 250 people die on the roads every year, thats 250 too many. Do we stop driving our cars?

You have a "personal agenda" so you cannot look at this debate with an open mind.

Runner “our own liberal Prime Minister called this child porn 'revolting'.”

Krudd is no authority on anything and the last time I looked, was a socialist swill humper, not a liberal.

That said, I do not rely on the artistic critique of anyone else to form my view.

“Your self righteous rants about my ignorance does not justify taking photos of nude boys and girls despite your ranting and raving.”

Tell me which part of my criticism of your statement “These posts have confirmed how every person justifies their own perversions.” Is self righteous?

Anyone who uses the terms you use and then complains about the self-righteousness of others is bringing a double dose of hypocrisy into the debate.

“They honestly believe they are beyond corruption. If John Howard perves at a women he is a deviant. If Mr Rudd perves at a stripper he is admiring art.”

I do not know where you get the idea I voted for Krudd and his swill-humpers. I have favoured the right since before I threw my lot in with Margaret Thatcher back in the 1970’s.

Rainier “Col, So you travelled the world searching out artworks of genitalia?
How peculiar and what a waste of good money!
Perhaps you should stayed home and just looked in the mirror instead?”

Ah rainier, you are here to prove, once again that man can exist as a miniature of the real thing, a venerable bonsai of humanity.

To the arts, personally, I prefer Canaletto for pure finesse but Cellini’s “Perseus and Medusa” is just exquisite. However, in a contemporary vein, Hepworth “grabs me” more than Henry Moore and Lichenstein more than Oldberg. Maybe we could have an at length discussion of the merits and shortcomings of each of these artists whose works grace the galleries of the world one day.

After you have acquired an education, of course.

As for looking at myself in the mirror, oh these days I look and see only my father looking back at me. I wonder if you can say the same?

Agreement from CJ - unique :-)

"Despite the projections of angst by some, nobody is actually harmed in ANY way in the scenario he describes. To ascribe harm being inflicted on anybody by thoughts that malevolent people have about them is a regression into primitive thought, I would suggest." (my capitals)

I don't agree with this statement, CJ Morgan. While it's difficult to exactly pinpoint who the victims are of broad changes in community thinking, I think it's completely wrong to say there are none. If overall community standards go down, there must be some casualties somewhere - plain common sense tells you that. You'll never actually hear from a lot of the victims because they are silent on the matter as they are blocked and know they will get no sympathy or help if they try to rectify the injustice. Eventually they get an outlet that is often far removed from their original complaint/experience.

An analogy is when there is a fire in a building and only one window is open. No matter where the fire is, it will express smoke out of that one open window. That doesn't mean the fire is in the room the window is in, it could be anywhere in the building.

Another thing: thoughts are real and have a real effect. Not straight away but they tend to brew over time and attract similar thoughts. These build and then eventually precipitate out as real actions, both good and bad.

BTW, just because primitives were primitive, does not mean that there was not some merit in their thinking. They were tuned into some things that the average Westerner has completely tuned out of.

Jayb

Your concern for Huffnpuff is ill-informed and insensitive, I'm afraid.

The people who raped and abused children in institutions remain - almost all of them - free of any criminal charges to this day. The latest enquiry, the Mullighan Inquiry in SA, demonstrates the breadth and depth of the depravities imposed on hundreds of vulnerable children under the "care" of the State. (http://www.service.sa.gov.au/ContentPages/sagovt/mullighaninquiry.aspx)

The overwhelming majority of people who were raped and abused across Australia have not been able to gain redress; and governments around Australia do their worst to make it hard to seek redress.

It's crass of you to assert that "...99.9% of us were not abused... " (even if that statistic is right - which I doubt). Cold comfort to victims to know that others were not sexually exploited. Even more insensitive is your argument that "...about 250 people die on the roads every year, thats 250 too many. Do we stop driving our cars?"

The analogy is absurd. We spend millions on trying to prevent road accidents and we wouldn't tell the victims or their families that they should not be involved in campaigns to prevent road trauma, would we?

Your conclusion to Huffnpuff: "You have a "personal agenda" so you cannot look at this debate with an open mind" is as weird as me saying to you: "You weren't raped as a child so butt out of this debate on child sexual exploitation".

At the end of the day, there's a big difference between an open mind and an empty mind.

Col Rouge,

You caught me by surprise when you implied runner was female. Runner for the most part doesn't reval must about himself in his posts, but I had always assumed that anybody who spends most of their time throwing insults at all and sundry would be male. It turns out that is the case:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=493#9676

Col Rouge

I never suggested you voted for Mr Rudd as many of your previous posts would indicate otherwise. CJ Morgan's blindness due to his hatred of Howard has been obvious. He is the master of double standards.

You have written in past posts your enjoyment of a little porn (albeit adults). At what age does staring at nude boys and girls arouse you? Is it art at the age of 13 but then porn at the age of 16?

It is obvious that porn appeals to the depraved part of human nature. That is exactly why 12 year old girls should not be photographed nude. It is child abuse at best. For even our socialist Prime Minister it is revolting. Why? Because even he knows that their is no excuse to display child porn and call it art. Unfortunately so many of our judges and people in high places in this country are so sexually depraved that they would not act on this abuse. If it was a catholic priest who took this photo he would be in gaol (and should be)

Alison, you're a hypocrite, you's censor your way out of anything, the same classification board, gave a free pass to a naked boy and a girl in a tub, Moet bottles, in a heap, so being being cleared by them is a bit like a reference from Larry Flynt.

"And the suggestion that paedophiles might use "art" to defend their crimes is laughable. Where child sexual abuse is concerned, the law is very clear."

Pedophiles are habitually involved in manipulation of child images and they very frequently argue that it is art. And that it is only laughable if one is Alison Croggon.

I don't think child pornography is funny at all.

Bill Henson's material is classified as child pornography in London, Australia needs to get some laws in place so people like Bill Henson can be prosecuted instead of the 'free pass' system one has for abusive images at the moment.

Homosexual intercourse is classified as illegal and criminal in Singapore and Iran, UNCRC. Do you think the UK is a 'free pass' system?

"Your conclusion to Huffnpuff: "You have a "personal agenda" so you cannot look at this debate with an open mind" is as weird as me saying to you: "You weren't raped as a child so butt out of this debate on child sexual exploitation".

At the end of the day, there's a big difference between an open mind and an empty mind."
Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 11:30:51 AM

ABSOLUTELY Spikey! I was stunned by this comment. I am even more stunned that huffnpuff's comment on this topic here and elsewhere have been largely ignored.

I've been wondering how you felt about this huffnpuff. Thank-you for posting.

Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 9 June 2008 10:18:02 AM
_____________

I feel no need to put anything further than the post I'm responding to. You astonish me! I am amazed at the manner in which you have deliberately referred to me in the third person, and still maintain it's not personal!!
CJ, I don't like the way you have diminished and denigrated anyone who did not support Hensonart;-and I told you so.
That DID lead to personal attacks form two of you, and now JB has joined in!

Other than to defend myself and indicate what my motivation was, I wasn't very keen to attack you. it's quite simple. With the exception of this matter I believe I have agreed 100% with your point of view. It therefore doesn't make me comfortable to have a shot at you personally.

I will defend myself though,-and that is what I have done.
Given that you appear to be a fairly smart cookie;-I'm gobsmacked that you have also criticized me for not elaborating on my motivation.

I cannot. And frankly, I believed that someone like you would have understood why. (That is meant sincerely).

I too am leaving OLO, directly AND indirectly because of this matter. I guess I will return in the fullness of time. OLO is a damn good forum. BUT; I AM distressed by the fallout, no question. I need to be back on my own forum, which is far gentler, and does not have the cut and thrust that we all need from time to time,..that OLO has.

Before I go however I will start one more thread that is buzzing in my head at the moment. I am composing it off forum in between current commitments.
________________________________________________

Posted by Jayb, Monday, 9 June 2008 12:00:42 PM
__________

I have absolutely nothing to say to you in reference to this post.
Specifically because of your response to huffnpuff.

Hi To All The Forgotten Australians

Victims of institutional abuse while under control of the state in their state run institutions , orphanges ,girls homes, boys homes, state ward homes, remand centres, state run church homes, church homes , foster homes , out of home care , the list can go on ,

im gladd that a lot of you agree with me of what ive wrote

no doubt we all have our own opinion about those such photo's henson took

so the law says it is ok for him to do this

so where is the use of any law for the purpose of protecting our children

you are not allowed to take a photo at school of your child playing sport

and as for the comment about the beach you see more

well that is not true as everyone wears swimmers

unless you are at a nudist beach.

just like i said not one of you replyed to my question

would you allow your child to have their photo taken no one has said

yes or no

so their must be a lot of heads rattling as to how to answer that question

why isn't bill henson putting his own comment in on this debate

as all his friends are speaking for him , or those in the same industrie as he ,

or people who have no respect for our young chidren

i honestly think that by having a thing like this take place

has now allowed and let the gate way open for the pedophiles out in our society to use this as a legal loop hole for their crimes

so in other words the law says its ok to do this

so therefore every jo blow can take explicit photo's of children what a F_cking joke the law is

don't we have child protection laws for such things as this

disgrace disgace on those who potray our children as sex objects as this is my opinion

from a real victim of the forgotten australians

we will no longer be forgotten

regards huffnpuff

runner, you state that "it is obvious that porn appeals to the depraved part of human nature".

Child porn, yes, I'd agree. Not standard porn.

Do you honestly regard sex as depraved?

I tend to think it's a healthy part of human nature. Heck, I rather enjoy it in fact and why should I be afraid to admit that? Why on earth should I consider it depraved?

So if you don't regard sex as depraved, is it a) just sex outside marriage you regard as depraved, or is it sex that is filmed?

Are you okay with married couples taping their own sex lives and watching it? Is it only others watching it? Is it just the unmarried? Is it just the idea of it on tape, or depicted?

How does a depiction differ from the act, aside from being a mere image of the reality? Is it the act of viewing porn?

Or is all this talk of discussing the 'depraved' too unsettling for you?

And you've been asked repeatedly - do you regard michaelangelo's David as 'depraved' as well? Is it porn?

It's clear you don't just regard child pornography as bad, it's all pornography - so I'm intrigued as to your basis for this. Even Ms Johnston doesn't regard adult porn as being evil (she states as such in the ABC article, and I for one regard Ms Johnston's stand on the Henson exhibit as wrong, but not hypocritical, because adult and child porn are different issues - though I don't regard the henson exhibit as pornographic).

I ask you yet again - consider the more complex issues here, rather than the kneejerk reaction. Do you regard michaelangelo's david as porn, or depraved?

Rstuart “You caught me by surprise when you implied runner was female.”

Re your point, thankyou, I stand corrected. :-)

Runner I implied no dispersion when I previously presumed you to be female.

Maybe it is just that runner's posts always seem to carry the tone of a frustrated and bitter old woman.

Runner “At what age does staring at nude boys and girls arouse you? Is it art at the age of 13 but then porn at the age of 16?”

Personally, I appreciate and enjoy the female (mainly in her curvaceous form) and would say Dolly Parton’s cleavage ranks prominently among the places I would like to set my head to rest (I can at least dream), far from the ironing board flat chest of a prepubescent 13 year old girl or boy (at any age).

You see, some of us have the intellectual capacity to see the difference between art and porn.

Personally I enjoy both, for different reasons, although prefer "erotica" more than "graphic displays of humping" and the only time I ever had a problem in confusing the two was when I attended my very first life drawing class at the tender age of 17.

I recall it as a moment in time when, with hormones running in overdrive, the purity of my artistic endeavours were simply overwhelmed upon seeing a comely 30 year old lady enter the room disrobe and reclined naked, before me.
Ah what memories return, she was the first of many (naked ladies in my life) but those are tales which i will regale you with another day (too much for a mere 350 word limit) :-)

Firstly, thank you to all the kind remarks concerning my initial post on this thread. I must remark that these were tolerable (but by no means excusable) to some rather more extreme acts of physical violence I was subject to. I understand that this was not necessarily the case with others.

huffnpuff,

Apparently like myself you've had some experiences as a state ward in a religious-run institution. However evidently we have different points of views of the Henson issue.

When I see Henson's photographs I see adolescent nudes with artistic merit. I agree with the OFLC which stated that the images are not sexualised in any degree. I do worry about those who do seem them as sexualised.

In answer to your question, would I allow a child of mine to have such photos taken? My answer - as was the answer of the parent's of those in the photos in question - would be 'yes'. Other people would answer 'no'. Some people would be comfortable about it, others would not.

Under no circumstances would they be without the consent of the guardians and the subjects in question. That simply wouldn't be right. I think that's where the line lies with taking photos of sporting activities.

UNCRC

You have claimed that Henson's photographs would be illegal in London (I can only presume that you mean the UK). Are you sure, and can you prove that? I raise this issue because in the past movies have been distributed in the UK with nude and topless adolescents (for example, various films of Brooke Shields).

runner,

At some stage I think you should realise that nudity in itself is not a sexual context. In order for anything to be considered pornographic it requires a sexual context. Are you seriously asserting that this was present in the Henson images? If you do, why do you think that others share this perversion of yours?

'I am amazed at the manner in which you have deliberately referred to me in the third person, and still maintain it's not personal'

Amazed? That's vintage CJ. Perhaps you need counselling too, you did disagree with him after all:-)

TRTL You ask

Do you honestly regard sex as depraved? No. Where did I ever suggest all human sex as depraved? Something created by God only becomes corrupted and depraved when used for reasons other than intended. Paedophile and homosexuality are prime examples of this.

Sex outside of marriage is a major cause of the breakdown of the family unit. For many that means little. For the thousands of children growing up without natural mums or dads it means a lot. The Designer of sex gives the best and most sensible directions for its use.

You ask 'Are you okay with married couples taping their own sex lives and watching it? ' I have not thought about it enough to answer.

Your comparison of a nude of David and taking photos of nude 12 year old girls is dishonest at best. I have not seen the painting of King David but would no doubt find it distasteful. This however is a completely different issue to a 12 year old girl being photographed nude and then put on show for every pervert to stare at. It is simply child abuse and child porn. Would you along with CJ allow your 12 year old daughter to strip for this artist?

runner,

Just when I thought you couldn't surprise me you come out and admit that you have not seen the "painting" of David.

Well feast your eyes upon it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Michelangelo%29

Yes, runner, it's not a painting. It's a sculpture. In full three-dimensional, lifelike adolescent nudity. Oh my!

It an even more more effete style, Donatello also did a sculpture. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Donatello%29). And so did Verrocchio, albeit with slightly more clothes on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Verrocchio%29)

Obviously they were influenced by the Biblical lines which show where David's desires lay as perfectly and unambigiously expressed in Samuel I 20:30 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/20.html#30) and other sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan#Erotic_interpretation). Although I believe it is my duty to point out to you that you're not saved (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/rev/14.html#1)

I am perplexed by your consistent claim that homosexuality is a perversion of nature. If this is so there could you explain why there is so much of it in nature? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals). On another note, having been shown the empirical veracity of evolution (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg) do you still deny its validity? I've noticed that you avoid this in the past. Will you avoid it again?

I will also remind reader that as much as runner apparently opposes sex outside his narrow point of view, he's quite happy to encourage the physical abuse of children as long as it "is applied with love". Because the Bible told him so (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7099&page=0#108321). He ignores the "secular pervert science" that informs reasoning people that beating children is a bad thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment). I notice you ran away from that one last time as well!

Seriously, what does it take for you to get a bit of intellectual humility and acknowledge that you might not be right all the time?

Lev, to have "intellectual humility" presupposes that there is an actual intellect, but from my exposure to runner's babblings over quite some time now I'm not convinced that there is much of evidence of one.

However, he is frequently capable of providing priceless amusement, as with this gem:

<< I have not seen the painting of King David but would no doubt find it distasteful. >>

That should have been a line in "The Life of Brian" :D

runner, I concluded that perhaps you regard sex as depraved because you stated that 'porn appeals to the depraved part of human nature.'

Porn, appeals to the sexual urges the vast majority of us share. So, I assumed that when you said it appeals to the depraved part of human nature, you were referring to sexuality as depraved.

As such, my questions were to probe what it is you consider depraved, hence the question of pornography within marriage. If a married, decent couple decided to photograph their own sex life and keep it to themselves, would it be sinful?

Porn is simply sex, as an image. Unlike other nude images, it is designed to elicit a sexual response.

I ask about the sculpture of David, because it is among the most famous artworks in history. Aside perhaps from the Mona Lisa or Sistine Chapel, I can't think of any other artwork that's more famous, and more highly regarded among otherwise conservative people, despite the fact that it is, indeed, nude.

(In fact, there was a Simpsons episode devoted to satirising this idea - when the sculpture of David was brought to town, a cohort of disapproving locals with slogans like 'Won't somebody Puh-leese think of the children!' descended upon them).

That such a finely sculpted form was so smoothly chiselled from a lump of stone without a mark, I think, is the ultimate expression of the human body. I don't think it was sexual.

As I see it runner, we all have bodies. We can regard them as shameful and descend down the path of veils and burkhas, or we can live and let live. I really don't see what is so bad about adult bodies that has people so very steamed up.

Nobody's being hurt.

It comes back to the sexualised and non-sexualised imagery, and whether nudity is assumed to be sexual - which is why perhaps you should consider the image of michaelangelo's David, and see whether you really do regard it as depraved. Then, perhaps discussing the intricacies of the issue is a little easier.

Ginx: << I too am leaving OLO, directly AND indirectly because of this matter. I guess I will return in the fullness of time >>

Ginx - I'm truly sorry that this issue affects you so deeply, and that I've apparently offended you. I too have been quite "astonished" at your approach to the Henson controversy. It probably wouldn't hurt you to have a 'hiatus' in which you can reflect on why it is that you are unable to discuss this issue.

OK, you're probably in some kind of professional situation where privilege applies, but I don't accept that you can't attempt to explain in general and anonymous terms why it is you that you wish, apparently viscerally and mindlessly, to ban what I and many other intelligent, moral and reasonable people regard as legitimate art.

I can only guess as to what kinds of casework might lead an otherwise brilliantly discursive person to have such an apparently closed mind about this stuff, but I've no doubt it's serious sh!t.

Do come back whenever you like :)

P.S. [not addressed to Ginx in particular] Please note that this post was addressed to Ginx entirely in the second person. I meant no offence in posting to her otherwise - rather, I regard these as public discussions and therefore everybody else who reads this thread is involved.

Ginx, I'd missed the point where you said you are leaving.
Best wishes as you take a break.

These issues can be difficult. It's often amazing who we find ourselves agreeing with and who we disagree with (at other times all too predictable).

It's not helped that there are good people on both sides as well as some of a different disposition. I've been caught at times forgetting to differentiate between those with genuine concerns and those who will use any lever to control others lives or those with some serious issues.

We all at times get caught up in the intensity of the debate and forget what we know of someone we might be disagreeing with on a particular issue.

On a lighter note if you've found it tough imagine how tough it's been for Col and CJ finding themselves agreeing on an issue :) - I hope both survice the experience.

Best wishes and hope to see you back soon.

R0bert

Lev

You really are a dishonest creature. What nudes of the 16th and 17th century and my view (along with Mr Beatties who smacked his kids) of child discipline has to do with photographing nude 12 year old girls is beyond me except to highlight that my world view is biblical while yours is secular. You are a constant defender of the the pervert industry and the best you can do is to call my character into question while defending a warped photographer. Well I have good news for you. I have no righteousness or goodness of my own. Without Christ my views would be just as if not more warped than yours. Thankfully the Sinless One became sin so I could view things through God's eyes rather than that of those who are so caught up in their lusts that they can't admit that child porn is wrong even if a few 'elite; label it art.

"Thankfully the Sinless One became sin so I could view things through God's eyes rather than that of those who are so caught up in their lusts that they can't admit that child porn is wrong even if a few 'elite; label it art."

Thankfully we as a populace support secular governments, that (in theory) use their judgement on a case-by-case basis, based on rational thought, rather than dogmatically applying the foggy-minded prejudices of an archaic superstition.

You can find this in plenty of places around the web:
"Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own
father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his
flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your
master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that
is present in humanity because a rib woman was convinced
by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree" .. enough said?

Dear Ms. Johnston: Instead of accusing Bill Henson, how about focussing on exploiters of children and young people such as big business, advertising and fashion? Children are targeted as consumers at a younger and younger age, models who may be of age but look younger are used in a sexually exploitative manner. But I guess all those industries make us too much money to attack? Artists are a much easier target. Oh and please, please could you learn to use the apostrophe?

runner,

Let me tell you the difference between a Biblical view and a secular view. A Biblical view assumes that everything that is written in whatever holy book is perfect, eternal and does not need verification. The secular view assumes that all knowledge is imperfect, changing and that all propositions require verification. That's why there's sophisticated religious people who call themselves "secular Christians", or "secular Muslims" or whatever. They have faith (albeit not knowledge) in the eternal realm outside of space and time. But within it, they will will use secular reasoning.

What does this do with renaissance nudes, Henson's photography and the beating of children? Quite a lot really. In the first two cases, according to all the empirical evidence available NO HARM IS DONE. However the same can not be said about corporeal punishment, the physical abuse of children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in an official policy statement rejects corporeal punishment, the Canadian Pediatrics Society "strongly discourages" it as it leads to negative outcomes and the England's Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and Royal College of Psychiatrists state it is "wrong and impractical ... it is never appropriate to hit or beat children". UNESCO and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child also call for the prohibition on corporal punishment. Apart from immediate compliance corporal punishment has negative effects on all other child behaviour - *including* the ability to determine right from wrong.

The physical abuse of children, even when 'applied with love' and even when sanctioned by some holy book is an utter wickedness. Any who engage in should be removed from the community into psychiatric care. Yes, and that includes you and the appropriately-named Mr. Beattie. There is something seriously wrong with a person's mind if they think it's OK to beat a child.

the topic has drifted in many directions...but real street facts is what is little reported nor may know...

from what I have observed...child being offered for sex on the streets of an asian country...there is some common presentation...the child is with an adult, both well dressed, the adult always been female creating first impression child with mother...child been around six to eight...child looks very comfortable in situation...

male is selected on street seems to be impression of having money...so most westerners...child gets and hold the males attention with friendly smile, progresses to subtle adult sexual signals...and usually wearing coat\jacket slid of shoulder in provocative way...all in public...observing them without being noticed is difficult, the women very cluey...and disappear quickly...

what troubles me is that the child seems comfortable and happy to comply to adult female...like what she needs to do to be cared for...

while the blitz on pedophiles viewing photographs is on full scale...street child sex seems very poorly addressed...and for child who has to perform sexual acts is much worse on scale to me to having photo taken...

I think if the governments wont act then the common people must...taking video of this trade and producing that to police and ensure prosecution follows...with full execution of law...will end this terrible street trade...

Sam
Ps~I dont have a problem with prostitution, as long as its legal and all parties properly protected...its age old business...women who offer sex for gain will always exist with men willing to pay...never a child...in this day and age even having to discuss the existence of this speaks very poorly for humanity itself...

"Ginx -......It probably wouldn't hurt you to have a 'hiatus' in which you can reflect on why it is that you are unable to discuss this issue...........

..........viscerally and mindlessly, to ban what>>>I and many other intelligent, moral and reasonable people<<<regard as legitimate art....

.....otherwise brilliantly discursive person to have such an apparently closed mind....

Do come back whenever you like :)"
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 12 June 2008 12:06:37 AM
______________

I'm awaiting approval of the thread that was buzzing around in my head.

Meanwhile;..........seriously. Has anyone ever mentioned on OLO that you post in exactly the same way as BOZO? Sans biblical references of course. But it's the same!

Strewth! Disagreeing with you results in smooth condescension flowing like a tap!

Vintage BOZO!

Thanks for the permission to return 'whenever I like'. Of course I don't need your permission, and as I once said to your alter ego I do not structure my posts to meet with your approval. That much is glaringly apparent to both of you by now, I reckon.
__________________

R0bert mate, you are very kind. We have opposing views on many things including this topic, so your words have more impact with me than someone who was wholly supportive.

I have got on and off!, with most people on OLO, and I am perfectly at peace with that. I do not follow any doctrine and will never tow any 'party' line. I am perversely chuffed that I have been offside with the Right/Left/Religious/Atheist.
I won't be missed and Brownie's Honour;-that suits me.

It kinda makes your post a bit spec though. I remember when Ludwig said something nice (thanks again Ludders!), a whiley ago. It was the most moving thing to me, because it came from someone I had locked horns with.......as well!

My thread, if approved says something that was really flashing in my face. I'll hang around for the beginning of it, but then I'm away.
My current preoccupation is going to necessitate some travel so I'll concentrate on that.

Thank-you again kiddo!

Lev

Your reasoning that it is okay to take nude shots of 12 year old kids but not okay to give a tantrum throwing 4 year old a whack is exactly why we have so many problems in society today. Since corporal punishment has gone from our schools violence has increased at an alarming rate. It must irk you to see so many well balanced young people who have had mums and dads who loved their kids enough to give them a smack when needed. Your portrayal of these mums and dads as beasts is unbelievable coming from someone who constantly defends the pervert industry. Next thing you will be quoting statistics showing how little harm is done to children by porn. You seem an expert at playing on words. A smack is not child abuse while taking photographs of nude children is. The United nations is a joke to any sensible thinking people on earth. You say 'The physical abuse of children, even when 'applied with love' and even when sanctioned by some holy book is an utter wickedness.' For someone who claims not to believe in absolutes you certainly contradict yourself. You obviously believe in the absolutes you make up in your own mind. You are irrational.

"It must irk you to see so many well balanced young people who have had mums and dads who loved their kids enough to give them a smack when needed."

Try to stay on topic. I must say though that it more than "irks" me to see people that don't have the cognitive tools to think of alternatives to forcing their children to comply through fear, humiliation and violence. Go and look at some peer-reviewed studies of outcomes and then come back when you have a clue. Those of us that don't beat our children, and have friends that don't beat their children (many now youths), *know* you are wrong and have been harming your children out of ignorance.

runner: << Thankfully the Sinless One became sin so I could view things through God's eyes rather than that of those who are so caught up in their lusts that they can't admit that child porn is wrong even if a few 'elite; label it art. >>

Fortunately, this isn't a view that's shared universally among Christians - or rather, there are intelligent Christians out there who can distinguish between art and child pornography [ see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1890 , or Graham Young's blog posts on the subject at 'Ambit Gambit', for example ].

One therefore can only draw the conclusion that runner's prudish and hysterical ravings on this issue are fed by something other than his belief in Jesus. Now, I wonder what that might be?

Sams

You write
'Try to stay on topic.' I suggest you read before writing. It was Lev who linked corporal punishment to this topic not me. I was responding to his/her idiotic statements where a deserved smack was called 'utter wickedness'. You obviously agree with this idiotic statement. Do you also defend taking photographs of nude 12 year old girls. Are you to a defender of the pervert industry. The ridiculous bias studies you refer to in relation to children being disciplined are typical of the nonsensical government funded crap that governments write papers on knowing what answers they want. Wake up to the simple reality that violence has increased dramatically due to undisciplined kids. Any honest study will reveal this.

CJ writes
'One therefore can only draw the conclusion that runner's prudish and hysterical ravings on this issue are fed by something other than his belief in Jesus. Now, I wonder what that might be?'
I can only expect this kind of comment from someone who admits he would allow his daughter to be used in child porn *as long as she at 12 consents). Coming from a person with any decent morals I would be offended but not from you.

runner,

You claim that since the decline of corporeal punishment, school violence has increased at an alarming rate. Yet the researched data I have seen indicates school violence is actually declining (De Voe et al, 2003, CDCP 2004, Coggersell and Kingery 2001) and is dramatically lower in those areas where the government prohibits corporeal punishment.

You have given no response against the the widespread and massive peer reviewed studies which strongly correlate corporeal punishment with immediate physical harm and future pathologies. You have ignored the advise of numerous nation-wide professional pederatic associations.

Do you seriously expect anybody to think that your claims are right and these studies and professional associations are wrong? You constantly engage in utterly unfounded assertions and demonstrate an total inability to ever admit error. Nobody here, or anywhere else, will respect a person who ceaselessly engages in such behaviour. If you make an assertion. If the data uncovered shows your hypothesis to be wrong, swallow the ill-founded pride, and admit that the claim was wrong.

Biblical justification is insufficient. Would you sell your daughter (Exodus 21: 8) or do you murder 'witches' (Exodus 22:18)? Do you stone women to death who have "a familiar spirit" (Lev 20:27)? And so forth. The Bible is just a historical document, written by fallible human beings who often sought political power and thus often offers seriously erroneous attempt to provide some moral guidance. It is not the infallible, eternal word of the sky daddy, and it certainly isn't up to you to determine how to interpret it and apply it rules to others.

Just stop beating kids runner. It's not the right thing to do and soon it will be banned here like it has in other civilised nations in the world. It has been proven time and time again that it harms them, whereas your wild claims about Henson's photographs or the sculpture's of David do not come with any empirical backing.

On another topic, perhaps next month I shall take the opportunity to explain to you the difference between moral absolutism, moral relativism and moral universalism.

runner wrote: "Any honest study will reveal this."

Methinks your definition of an "honest study" is a study that agrees with your point of view. What about this (non-government) research that draws on: "the findings from 84 international studies on corporal punishment, involving nearly 40,000 subjects":

http://www.wavetrust.org/Preventing_Violence/Effects_of_Smacking.htm

Still not honest enough?