The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A debate we had to have > Comments

A debate we had to have : Comments

By Hetty Johnston, published 6/6/2008

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

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. 17
  10. All
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."
Posted by Candide, Friday, 6 June 2008 10:33:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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...
Posted by Lev, Friday, 6 June 2008 10:56:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Lev, Friday, 6 June 2008 10:56:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Alison Croggon, Friday, 6 June 2008 11:32:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 6 June 2008 11:38:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 6 June 2008 11:39:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. 17
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy