“Actually, I don't have any problem with the media publishing the images, since they aren't pornographic.”

CJ, not pornographic but clearly outside of acceptable material for a newspaper to print…surely. Especially straight after the confiscation of exactly the same images by police, which very strongly suggests that for anyone else to reproduce them in full in the public arena would be illegal.

How can the police possibly see fit to take such harsh action against Henson’s exhibition and then sit on their hands regarding other avenues of exhibition of the confiscated stuff?

It is utterly hopeless selective, duplicitous and quite frankly, spasmodic policing!!

Some more hard questions about policing;

How on earth could the police deem the photos to be so bad that they had to be confiscated…and then not see fit to charge the artist and gallery at the same time? Surely, the exhibition could only be shut down if it was clearly in breach of the law. And surely that situation would HAD to have led to charges being laid forthwith. How can you have one without the other??

How could the police possibly have let Henson and the different galleries that have shown his work go unchallenged for a couple of decades, thus leading them all to think that they were acting entirely within the law…and then just move in without warning and close them down?

Henson and the galleries would always have been very sensitive to what is lawfully acceptable. They had been led to believe that all was above board. They would also have expected that if anything was risqué to the point of incurring a complaint, that a sensible debate would have ensued… without heavy-handed police action….indeed, without any police action.

continued

How can one police officer make a decision to take this sort of action, when he presumably didn’t have a clue about the greater context; of the nature of Henson’s art that had previously been displayed and deemed acceptable, or of the efforts of galleries and artists to express themselves while being mindful of the law? etc, etc.

How can such an action be taken based entirely on one complaint? Would it have happened if it the complaint had come from an unknown member of the public rather than from a well-known public campaigner (Hetty Johnson)?

The police moved the goal posts without warning!

This is a VERY serious matter. We just CANNOT allow that sort of thing to happen. We all MUST be able to know where we stand with the law, as best we can, and not live in fear of suddenly and without warning being busted for long-accepted practices.

I think a lot of it is because the police management have been given a LOT of 'encouragement' by politicians over the last few years to exert their power in a much more harsh manner, especially against normal citizens.

I think it can be perfectly encapsulated in the "guilty until proven innocent", phrase that shows the change of emphasis.

Three incidents come to mind quickly:

-Haneef, where the police not only made the initial errors, but they spent about $3-7 million pursuing the man *after* the case was thrown out.

-APEC, which showed their insecurity when the US president came to visit. Their demands and measures were almost comical in their massive scope... ironically they ruined themselves when the Chaser team revealed what a circus it all was.

-Henson, as Ludwig has said.

I also think they often believe their own propaganda. I've seen some statements that show they are way too idealistic and pretensious. You also have to wonder about the punitive, unnecessary measures they use against normal population all the time that amount to some kind of citizen tax and that they are showing off to the politicians as much as they are catching criminals (since their constantly expanding budgets teach them that the more 'crime' their is, the more support/funding they will get). So they play the media and probably over allocate on events to make it look dangerous.

SO no charges no crime , well yes we look so very bad in the world and if I am not wrong those who opposed this art are near silent on the latest international crimes against children.
Teachers to scout masters police and more involved in true pedophilia and we spend our time looking for crime in an are gallery?

I have little time to spare for OLO at the moment, but have logged on ONLY to respond to this:

".....and if I am not wrong those who opposed this art are near silent on the latest international crimes against children.
Teachers to scout masters police and more involved in true pedophilia and we spend our time looking for crime in an are gallery?"
Posted by Belly, Friday, 6 June 2008 6:41:29 AM

'Near silent'? Don't you EVER BLOODY EVER, suggest that my opposition to Henson's version of 'art' is a silent apathy on the current situation.

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

What a damn stupid thing to say. The asinine codswallop that opposition to Henson meant that one viewed the bodies of our children as somehow dirty;-and by definition cannot recognise the 'true' abuse of children!! YOU are making a connection there;- I will too; but in a different way.

YOU PRAT!! Man if I was standing close to you now;I would throw a punch,-so help me.

HOW DARE YOU.

God! if only you knew.

Yes Belly,

I have to take issue with your statement as well.

Firstly, it is the worst kind of cultural cringe to even bring up how this might be viewed in the rest of the world. Besides being achingly self conscious, I wonder who (which country/s)it is you imagine are fit to judge us in such a manner? I really thought the cultural cringe was dead, and the days when the left pined for a more "sophisticated" (read European) society were over. It seems not.

Secondly, the fact that 100 perverts have been arrested for possessing child pornography only highlights the need for us to be more careful in the approach to the exploitation of children.

A peek at the secret and evolving world of a child sexuality might satisfy the art lover looking for ever more confronting subjects, however we need to balance this with the more important responsibility of protecting children.

In my opinion this art does not tell us anything we do not already know, it is voyeurism and perhaps nostalgia, but either way, neither is enough to make me and many other people believe that the art is more important to protect than the child.