I can't comprehend child abuse, and I've never had any interest in pornography; so-called "adult" products and themes seem to me to be anything but adult. That said, as regards makers and viewers of child pornography, the only difference is perhaps the degree of volition; just as most people will on occasion get angry at others, but few will murder them as a consequence, the child abuser and creator of pornography appear to have a stronger volition than the viewer.

But the strength of volition, the willingness to act on a desire, is surely not unrelated to the standards and boundaries of the surrounding society. In my own case 30-odd years ago, I found it easy to be celibate for long periods in India, where there is an intrinsic grasp of the underlying spiritual aspect of life, and hard not to be sexually promiscuous in the West (mainly England), where self-indulgence and sex were promoted in society.

So I agree that the apparent laxity of McKay's attitude and of the ABC compound the problem and should be of concern, and that "our" ABC should take corrective action. I do find the ABC biased, in what you might call a "soft, trendy"-left way, perhaps this instance is part of that.

It should not come as a surprise to hear Hugh Mackay make such a comment given what he wrote in his book, "Right and Wrong: how to decide for yourself."

On page 129 he states: "A person's sexual preferences, whether derived from a genetic disposition or from cultural conditioning, are as authentic for that individual as anyone else's are for them."

This would seem to give an endorsement not only to the downloader of child porn but also to the producer of child porn and to those who practice bestiality, incest, etc.

The overriding theme of Mackay's book is, "what is morally right is the thing we must decide for ourselves." p.46. He is an absolute moral relativist.

Suzy

I agree with your article against any acceptance of child pornography.

There are some practical difficulties that you could also address.

Firstly, make your complaint to the ABC, and perhaps to the Communications Minister, that may get some action.

Then look around you.

It is illegal for a person to take a photograph of a child (ie someone under 16) in a state of undress or in a situation where the person is acting in a sexual manner, for want of better words.

However it is not illegal for a female 'child' under 16 to be on a beach topless. It is illegal for her to be photographed, but not illegal for her to display herself.

On the internet we have examples in blogs of girls under 16 taking photos of themselves displaying their underwear, or more, or acting in other sexually provocative ways. Anyone else would be liable to prosecution for this as child pornography, and in fact even looking at this stuff is technically an offense, but have we ever heard of these girls being prosecuted for displaying themselves on their blogs, or on U-tube or the like?

Perhaps, as the age of consent in most states is 16, it should be illegal for anyone under that age to act in public, or even 'private' with an adult, in a sexually provocative manner.

You even have to ask whether the retailing of sexually provocative clothing for under 16s (padded bras and g-strings for the under 12s - blink!?) is a form of grooming, which if done in any other circumstance is an offence under the law. If a man was to give a young girl lingerie and tell her how sexually attractive she is we would all be disgusted, but that is what clothing wholesalers and retailers are doing all the time.

Will the law address these anomalies?

I doubt it, because as the the article says with its title: "Shifty values: our laws are matters of opinion".

MacKay has an unscientific view of causation. Any viewer/consumer of child pornography is causing the same, by virtue of creating a market for it, whether at the time of viewing or not.

Criminal law needs to match science, as far as determining who the "perpetrators" of child pornography/harm to children are.

Viewing child porn is a criminal choice, not free choice, as it denies freedom of choice to all the child victims used to make cp, past, present and future.

The reason people publish is to make money. The publications that make the most money are the ones that bring the reader/viewer back repeatedly. Addictive publications like porn, violence and sport excite the viewer. If you argue that viewing a publication stimulates the production of more of that genre, and assuming this argument is correct, then that must apply across the board, but where does morality come in and where should the law intervene in publishing? If viewing child sex publications is vile and illegal, isn't viewing murder equally vile? However, viewing murder publications is not illegal.
There is a real problem here. On the one hand the publication of nude children is abhorant but the publication of people being murdered is OK. The manufacture of products and publication of products that kill children is fine, but children used for sexual gratification is not fine. The publication of childrens body parts that have been blown to bits is OK but it is not OK to publish children in their underwear. and if you are caught with these publications you will be sent to prison and vilified for the rest of your life. But, if you slaughter children in a war zone you might end up getting an award for bravery.
Surely we don't wish to harm our children unless we are violently insane? But isn't there a level of hysteria involved in the child porn debate that shows an unbalanced view? We need a lot more discussion about what constitutes erotica, what constitutes violence and what is valid and acceptable in terms of publishing. The camera has opened up whole worlds of experience that we are reeling from and we need more understanding. The persecution of lonely addicted men viewing (child)porn in private is not a solution in preventing cruelty to children. It just makes some people feel something is being done about it. Cruelty in all its forms diminishes us and cruelty has become our greatest addiction and solution for everything.