"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)