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.