Well...I'm sure most of us have now heard of Bill Henson being allowed by a school principle to 'prowl' a primary school yard in search of 'models'.

According to a report the Principle accompanied Henson on his wanderings.

I can't help but feel more than a tad uncomfortable about this.
Surely at best is is unwise to provide such an opportunity given the almost hysterical media coverage of this mans work.

Surely parents who were belatedly informed "The Artist Bill Henson was allowed to peruse your children with a view to finding more models for his art" would have the right to be outraged by such a thing?

It matters not whether Mr Henson has the purest of motives..(in his view) but it matters very much how parents perceive his work, and that they be given a very serious 'say' in him being allowed to examine THEIR children at their school.

I wonder of those who previously supported the Henson work, will have the same level of support for this little exercise, and whether they can understand the feelings of many parents?

One it tempted to say that this is just the obvious outcome of not taking a harsh line over the whole idea of naked children in art.
Is this not the next logical step? and what would be the next logical step after that? hmmm how about the way children are posed..with whom..what..etc...

Henson seems to regard himself as an oracle.

"Nothing kills the thing we love quite so perfectly as our assumption that we always know what's best, what is right for someone else,"

err..what does he 'love'?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24000566-2,00.html

"Art saves us from moralism" he says (and opens the gate of the primary school?)

Once you win the battle over presense...then surely the next battle is portrayal?

Polycarp

No doubt the defenders of this man will maintain his right to look over the young boys and girls for suitable models. It was not long back that we had a bloke charged for photographing adult topless woman on beaches. This bloke must feel pretty aggrieved knowing that Henson gets away with photographing nude kids. The Principle of this school must be very naive (or deviant) to allow this man to go on his recruiting drive.

Yes bro...it will be most interesting to see the 'position statements' of some of our spiritual adversaries here :)

It will be especially interesting given that a 'religious fundy' (me) raised the issue itself.

blessings mate... Matt 5:13-16 is our calling.. salt and light.

While we contend in the framework of Jude 3-4.. we glory in the truth of Jude 24-25 right ? :)

Another aspect of the whole event is the possible witchcraft connection.

If youve been a committed christian for a few years and done some study you will be aware of witchcraft and that there are those in the art world who recruit for covens.

Its abominable that any artist is allowed to wander around school yards measuring up children for anything rmeotely connected to sex or nudity.

Its abominable that state governments and police do not keep active files on warlocks and witches to know where they are and what they are doing... and, like in Victoria, decriminalise witchcraft so the covens can virtually do what they want.

I believe some of the annual missing persons numbers can be attributed to witches.
Some years ago I heard a local Pastor speak of statistics that showed that after pagan and witchcraft festivals in the US and the UK police were finding an increasing in the numbers of missing persons from those areas.

Gibo said: "Another aspect of the whole event is the possible witchcraft connection."

OMG That's great. Here I was just sitting here rolling my eyes at the two at the top and along comes Good old Gibo. Never lets me down. Well done.

Yeah, here we go again - this time it's the frootloop fundies leading the pack. Should be entertaining, if nothing else.

One point from Porky's title though - how can one be a "high priest" of art? Don't tell me the religionists are now trying to reduce art to the level of religion, as they do with atheism, environmentalism etc.

I would like to see all outside influences eliminated except those contributing to the child's education. Chaplains who are pushing a particular religion have no place in the public schools. Recruiters for professional sports or the military also have no place.

My younger son was a talented athlete. He made the all-stars and then decided that he wasn't particularly interested in team sports. His coach kept calling me wanting me to push my son to get back on the team. I told him that Seth wasn't interested, and it was his decision. That didn't stop the man. He talked of Seth's potential as a professional athlete. It didn't matter that Seth wasn't interested. Seth is now a biochemist engaged in research, and his sport is for his pleasure.

Henson left it for the parents to get in touch. He put no pressure on anyone.

As far as I am concerned I prefer Henson to the military, sports establishment and the beasts of pray.

StG, I found it all rather dissapointed. Gibo missed out on flying saucers, asian invasions etc. Crap-Ploy's not managed to sneak Islam in yet and runners not managed to blame it all on evolution.

The title showed promise with the High Priest bit but then that was not followed through with.

Yes they are carrying on with the mission of making the christain faith look really bad but could do better.

Personally I'd rather have Bill Henson doing an escorted walk through a school than any of this crowd turning up unsupervised to conduct an RE class or run a christain kids club. I'd rather not have any of them using school grounds during school hours to do their thing but the poison so evident in this crowd of fundies is far worse than anything Henson can do.

R0bert

I was blessed to be amongst charismatics in my christian youth and they tought much about evil spirits and those who get manipulated by them.
I learned all about witchcraft and those who use chanting and clairvoyance to open doors to contact with spirits.
We learned about some of the artie craftie folk and their tastes.
Not just artie craftie folk but many others who serve darkness.

Some politicians, magistrates, even police have been known to be involved in witchcraft or to protect witches and warlocks.
Christian bookshops are full of stuff on witchcraft, as is the net.

What most people have yet to appreciate is that the fallen spirit realm is a very, very real world and it has been given power over those who go looking for New Age beliefs and eastern religions... those who bong on and those who get plastered with alcohol and porn.

All are door openners into the dark world of satan and his trash.

Quite so david f.

Kids are subjected to all sorts of rubbish from individuals and organisations who view schools as the perfect place to start building their little empires. Reading programmes sponsored by fast food outlets, odd groups promoting their religious views under the false pretence of social activities, weirdos with American accents preaching abstinence, government authorities promoting Simpson's donkey, recruiters for everything from tap dancing squads to the armed forces.

Schools are not so much educational institutions as resource pools for the weird, the needy and the greedy. Oh, and the perfect location for a good, old fashioned moral panic.

From Henson's speech: "Nothing kills the thing we love quite so perfectly as our assumption that we always know what's best, what is right for someone else, whether it's another person or another culture," Henson told an audience of about 500 people."

It is interesting that Henson makes ingenuous statements like this without any reference to the difference between children and adults. He probably does not see himself as an oracle polycarp but he certainly displays some artistic arrogance (in the idea that artistic freedom overrides all other freedoms and rights including those of children). There is a big difference in photographing adult Pacific Islanders in the nude with their permission than doing the same in regard to sexually explicit photos of underage children. He still doesn't really get it. He thinks he's got it but he hasn't.

Henson's mistake is his failure to address the real issue and by lumping all his detractors in the 'relgious nutter' category he obviously absolves himself of the need to.

In relation to the recent school visits, the Principal certainly failed in a duty of care by allowing Henson to scout for models in this way and without parental knowledge.

Henson, for all we know, may not have any intention to use these models inappropriately but given his history it does seem an odd decision and reeks a bit of artistic populism.

As with most Henson threads, this one will probably descend once again into insults and innuendos.

To add to earlier comments: I feel just as strongly about religious indoctrination in schools and visits by pastors/priests etc as echoed by Davidf above.

I know this is not going to be a popular
stance, but, I too am more than slightly
uneasy about this entire Henson business.

Why is he going after under age children, again,
as models for his photography?

It would seem that he's "been there, done that,"
to death. Although he got heaps of publicity
out of it the last time, didn't he? Now his name
is known by just about everybody in this country.
Previously, it was probably known to only a select
few.

I'm convinced that it is because of the controversy
the subjects produce
that brings in not only the fame, but the mega bucks.
I don't somehow
believe that Henson's doing it purely for "art's sake."

And it is therefore taking advantage of his subjects,
for his self promotion, that adds to the considerable
unease that I feel regarding this photographer.

Talented, yes, I don't doubt it.
But,I'd like to say to him, move on -
and select another subject matter.

For "Art's sake!" Not your own!

Pelican I understand your POV.

While I am not as concerned by Henson as much as I am by the constant contact by religious chaplains, perhaps the best solution is to simply ban the "bloomin' lot". Then no-one can complain. Keep schools for their intended purpose to enable children to grow into and find their way in the adult world.

Without tales of the supernatural or the intrusion of artists.

;-)

Robert sums up the loony (depraved) left. He would rather have a promoter of child porn sussing out the kids than he would a Chaplain.

CJ writes

'Don't tell me the religionists are now trying to reduce art to the level of religion, as they do with atheism, environmentalism etc.'

The exploitive child porn promoters do a good enough job with reducing art to the gutter. Even Ms Gillard has been forced to look into this. Many sick minds seem attracted to this rubbish.

The idea that Henson should stop photographing child models because he's already done it demonstrates a complete lack of familiarity with his body of work. So does the idea that he's a publicity seeker. Henson slaved away in relative obscurity for ten years, then with growing fame for twenty years. I don't believe he did all that in the hope that someone someday would call for his work to be banned and therefore create a controversy. If he had done, why did he never comment on that controversy, but rather shy away from it?

And Foxy, do you really think he's doing it for the "megabucks"? For a start, he already commanded megabucks — Malcolm Turnbull is a serious collector, you know, as is the Tate Modern and MOMA. Is there any evidence that he's attracting significantly higher prices since the Roslyn Oxley incident?

I think it's highly inappropriate for Henson to be allowed into a school to scope for models. I also agree with those who say it's inappropriate for religious people to enter schools to harvest souls, or for modelling agencies to pluck out the pretty girls for modelling shoots. Schools are for learning. Plus, there are parents who, for whatever reason, might be extremely affronted by the idea that he's considering their children as artist models. This whole debate spins on the idea of consent, after all. This massive error of judgment belongs to the school principal, however, more than Henson, though Henson should take some of the blame.

Some people love Bill Henson's work. Others hate it. But it seems that everyone has opinions on his motives, and to me, many of these opinions do not seem informed by Henson's career, work, or public statements. I agree with those of you who suggest that Henson, a reclusive man who seems to live in one of his own photographs, has removed himself from the realities of they everyday world. Perhaps there is some "artistic arrogance" (although not in the Polixeni Papapetrou and hubby camp) in someone who has been very successful for a long time

cont...

But popularism? I cannot see it in Henson's work. I certainly can't see, as Foxy suggests, that his motives are financial or that he's after notoriety rather than having a deep artistic investment in the aesthetic he's developed over the last couple of decades. Henson has travelled in a singular direction — through poverty, through great success and now through cultural disdain. Do you have any evidence for believing his motives are not artistic, or is it just your opinion?

I'd be happy to hear arguments for it. But, at this stage, I counter that everything he's said and produced indicate he is a brilliant artist who is saturated in the art world, unmoved by popular opinion and consequently rather unable to see what the fuss is about. As an artist, he is accountable to the same laws as every other Australian — no more, no less. So far, he hasn't broken any.

I highly recommend reading Henson's speech at the NG — the link is at the bottom of this page: http://www.bananasinpyjamas.com/news/opinion/speeches/

A list of his exhibitions, dating from 1975, here: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23741573-5001021,00.html

CJ: "Don't tell me the religionists are now trying to reduce art to the level of religion, as they do with atheism, environmentalism etc."

Excellent point. It's already giving me flashbacks to the horror of the "what evidence would make you turn" thread.

It's highly inappropriate that he be allowed into schools to look for potential nude child models, assuming that's the real reason he was there. That's NOT the place to look.

Was prior permission gained from parents in order to allow this?

If permission was not granted, I'm close to certain that the person at the school who allowed it, and also the artist, could be successfully legally restrained from doing this in the future. I also wouldn't be surprised if laws have been broken.

This is providing the reports are factually true, and that the purpose of the visit was to suss out potential nude child models. But as we know, or some of us know, what we read 'aint necessarily so.

I tell ya what though, if it's 100% factually true, and happened at my child's school, my wife would phone me immediately, I'd leave work immediately, and we'd both be on the principal's doorstep ASAP to give her an earbashing and then immediately we'd be at the police station to see if a complaint and charges can be laid.

Well...I'm sure most of us have now heard of the Australian Defense Force being allowed by a school principle to 'prowl' a primary school yard in search of 'soldiers'.

The Principle accompanied the Australian Defense Force speaker on his wanderings.

I can't help but feel more than a tad uncomfortable about this.

Perhaps Fractelle's idea is a good one- to just ban the lot, including chaplains.

More than anything, this represents an appalling lapse of judgment on the part of all concerned. The original subject - is Henson's art in fact child pornography in a latte/chardonnay disguise - can no longer be the issue. As Boaz indicated in his opener to this thread, we are now in the territory of perverts who 'prowl' a primary school yard in search of 'models'. His quotes, by the way.

Which has effectively closed the discussion.

Any defence of Henson is now tainted with imagery - however inaccurate - of his lurking outside schools, perving on small girls.

I don't know whose idea it was that this represents acceptable behaviour - perhaps they thought that conducting the research in the company of the (female) school head was sufficient to protect themselves from innuendo.

At best, it was stupidly naive. Given the reaction to the exhibition a couple of months ago, recklessly so.

At worst, it was a deliberate attempt to raise an arrogant two fingers to the artist's critics, assuming an artist's total exemption from the need to consider public response to his actions.

A shabby tale, all round.

JW, Bill Henson does not only photograph nudes.

For a start, half his work is landscapes, sans people. When he photographs children and adolescents, they are usually clothed, but sometimes naked or half naked.

I'm not attaching any opinion to that statement, but just trying to correct what appears to be a factual misunderstanding among some posters.

What is also obscured by the resuscitated moral panic is that Henson attended the school at the invitation of the principal, prior to the recent brouhaha. If there was an error of judgement, I'd suggest it was on the part of the principal, although who was to know last year that Australia would be in the grip of a moral panic this year?

I agree with those who suggest that there is more to be concerned about in the activities of the thousands of school chaplains, RE instructors etc who operate in schools largely unsupervised.

V, if you read my post "accurately", you'll find that my comments are based on whether or not the purpose of the visit was to suss out potential nude child models. If it "was" then my comments are appropriate and responsible. I pointed out not all news reports are accurate, and I pointed out the visit by the artist may not have been accurately reported. I did NOT say he ONLY paints nude children..... virtually ANYONE knows that. Come on now!

Dear Veronika,

I've taken your comments on board.
And am willing to give Henson the
benefit of the doubt re- my earlier
"mega bucks," and self promotion
argument.

I don't really know what motivates
Henson. I was merely making assumptions,
and as you pointed out, possibly wrong
ones.

However, having said that,
I do agree with Pericles and other posters
who have stated that, Henson's "prowling" school
yards, looking for child models,( considering the
previous controversy), was either extreme
arrogance or naivety, or both.

The man should have known better, as should
the School Principal.

I, as a parent, would
not be happy with the situation.

Foxy, thanks for that.

I entirely agree that the whole exercise of going into the school was extremely stupid. I'd be upset too, if I were a parent, even though I like Henson's work. God knows what got into them.

With all their supposedly squeamishness regarding sex and other matters the Victorians apparently made no fuss about a similar situation.

Lewis Carroll, a mathematics professor and author of "Alice in Wonderland" and other works, took many pictures of young girls in the nude in the early days of photography. He was a bachelor possibly not through choice but because a professor in his institution was not allowed to marry. Can you imagine the current fuss if a middle aged or elderly pedagogue had the same pastime?

Since I'm not prepared to wade through the emotive rubbish that passes for reportage these days, can someone please clear up whether this 'prowling' and 'preying' at a school incident happened before or after the last round of hysteria?

My impression is that David Marr described it in a book he wrote about the original scandal. If that's the case, the chances of a school principal escorting Henson anywhere have been between Buckleys and none for quite some time. In turn, if that's the case, Henson is not the object of concern here at all and, more bizarre, Gibo was right to raise the issue of witches and those who hunt them.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/brumby-to-probe-hensons-school-visit-20081004-4txt.html

"The inquiry will focus on whether any protocols regarding child protection were broken during a tour of St Kilda Park Primary last year." - "Four months ago, police in NSW seized his work from a Sydney gallery and threatened to charge him and the gallery over allegedly indecent images of children"

http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/oct/06/aap-probe-into-henson-school-visit-starts/

"Mr Henson ignited a national debate earlier this year when his nude photographs of a young girl were removed from an exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Paddington, in Sydney's east.

The furore over his visit to the school erupted on the weekend when a new book by journalist David Marr revealed the artist had been asked into St Kilda Park Primary last year and spotted two children he thought would be good models for his work."

R0bert

It's worth remembering that the visit to the school was prior to the exhibition which caused the kafuffle.

I don't care whether Henson does or does not make money out of his work, I just feel icky about a man 'perusing' my child without my permission with a view to using them (even with my later permission) for possibly nude art.

After all... we send our children to school to learn ABC 123 not how to pose without clothes on for some controversial artist. It seems like a major breach of trust for the principle to accomodate Henson like this.

I happen to agree with Fractelle to a degree and whoever said that chaplains or priests or evangelists should not be allowed into secular schools to 'save' the lost so to speak. In my childrens local primary school, one of our own congregation members worked as a chaplain, but this was NOT an evangelistic fishing exercise, it was providing caring comfort to many children from disfunctional families.

Chaplains can certainly answer questions raised by children, but they cannot use such times opportunistically against the rules. If they do, then they are as guilty as any teacher who preaches party politics in a social studies class..but not more guilty :)

A few other sidelights to this bear examination.

1/ As per Robert.. a BOOK is now being promoted..and this publicity can do nothing but help it's sales.

2/ Ratings of Media outlets are also helped by this controversy.

3/ None of which change the 'creepy' aspect of a man prowling your childs primary school looking for potential models.

So.. clearly a freeding frenzy has begun as those who see benefit in the controversy itself begin to utilize it for commercial gain.

4/ It might be worthwhile for some of us doing an ad hoc survey about who things the actual acts in question ..
-visiting the school.
-Principle allowing/inviting him.

are anything other than 'creepy'.

This morning I asked a female service station attendant (age range 20-30) when buying a globe for my headlight.. and she said CREEEPY!
But the principle says

"I've done nothing wrong"

Which raises the issue of MIUAUG again.. some members of the community feel that such a thing is fine..and others don't. So...in the end.. who decides? Well..presumably the interpretation of the law and democracy.

But his underlines the fact that if given their free run, some members of the community will happily allow 'artists' to prowl our schoolgrounds looking for nude models among our children and think nothing of it.

This says to me that those who have a high moral standard and a sense of child protection need not apologise in the slightest for IMPOSING their views by law on the rest.

People who read these forums should know by now my lifestyle choices and my view of Henson's work.

Before passing judgement, let's hear the full story. Gibo, your claims of witchcraft cannot be supported as these cannot be proven.

I accept that a lot of parents out there would not want their children to be photographed nude, but remember, these are not your children. The majority of Henson's work involving children has them fully clothed. Most nude models in photography come from backgrounds with an acceptance of nudity. The girl in Henson's photo that was the subject of the controversy in May is now an adult and still speaks in support of Henson.

Acceptance of nudity leads to a drop in sexual related crimes. Nudity does not have to be sexual, and visual depictions of nudity do not have to be porn. We think that because sex is done nude, nude must be sex. Not true. One of the theories that we have such hang ups about nudity in the English speaking world is because the word "nude" rhymes with "rude". Such attitudes to nudity do not exist in Continental Europe. Peadophillia is almost unheard of within the nudist movement. Teenagers from nudist families are less likely to be involved in sexual experimentation than those teenagers raised in the church.

Porky: << In my childrens local primary school, one of our own congregation members worked as a chaplain... >>

Personally, I'd find it rather "creepy" if a member of Porky's sect was employed as a chaplain at my kid's school. Imagine someone with a worldview as outlandish as Porky's being allowed unfettered access to vulnerable children.

Unlike the parents of the potential artistic subjects at the centre of this latest beat-up, we don't have any say at all about who is employed under the Howard-inspired ideological crusade that foisted godbothering "chaplains" on to secular state schools.

Steel says,
"Peadophillia is almost unheard of within the nudist movement. Teenagers from nudist families are less likely to be involved in sexual experimentation than those teenagers raised in the church."

Where are the statistics for such a claim?

Could it be because in nudist families develpoed testosterone boys have full sex with adult females and adult men with multiple adult females? These types of encounters are not concidered abnormal in these types of families, whereas in Churches teenagers are raised to value chastity and the giving of onself to only one. When this value is violated then is considered abnormal.

Persons committed to their values will accept as normal those values and not consider conflicting with what they consider as normal behaviour. The same goes for Henson, He sees no moral conflict in his mind, however others do. Not my daughter thank you!

"Could it be because in nudist families develpoed testosterone boys have full sex with adult females and adult men with multiple adult females?" - Philo.

Philo,

I must have been at nudist clubs with my eyes closed to miss that.

When I compare the nudist movement to the church, I speak from a point of authority. I'm involved in both. Nudists generally have more pure sexual morals than those who are not involved in the nudist movement. I've never heard of a teenage girl falling pregnant as a result of her families involvment in the nudist movement. I have known it to happen in the church.

I'm well aware that many Christians would not support my stand, but most Christians have never been to a nudist beach or nudist club and have not seen for themselves first hand what the nudist movement is about. If Christians really did know what happens at nudist clubs, they would not oppose them so much. (Believe me, sexually there's very little to get excited about). It has nothing to do with sex. Sex is something completely different, and that is why I do not consider Henson's work to be porn.

How predictable that the Principal of the school was a female at a 'liberal' Saint Kilda school. No guesses where her political allegiance would fall. I must admit I am surprised that Ms Gillard is showing some common sense. Full marks to her.

Steel Mann.

I said possible witchcraft connection.
Remember "the Glen Innes, New South Wales" story I told?
Members of the local conmmunity...counsellors, tourist folk, local artists etc got together and brought about the construction of a Stonehenge style rings of stones above the town called "THE STANDING RING OF STONES.

They then established a Celtic Festival to give glory to a long dead, God-displaced civilisation that was up to its neck in dark magic.

Come 2005 and local police were finding sacrificed chickens up at the STANDING STONES and were, through their relationship with the local pro-Occult council/tourist group, keeping a very tight lid on it.

The news got out just the same thanks to two christian ladies, myself and a brave local editor...the latter who would have suffered heaps from the "witchcraft power mob".

Having been connected to a Tourist Association in QLD many years ago I know who attends the meetings and what their agendas are.
Many are potters, weavers, artists... and photographers.

That town, that I lived in, had much occult and witchcraft in it because the artie-crafties had a strong connection with witchcraft.

For me to suggest that this "High Priest of child porn" would have an occult/witchracft connection would not be incorrect.

He would either have a direct connection to witchcraft himself or one through his associations with his friends in the "art/ art photo" world.

If police were more caring about the women and the children of Australia they would keep massive files on warlocks and witches and not simply let it all get swept under the carpet.
Because the occult folk willingly serve satan and his fallen spirits we must never take our eyes of them.
The demon world is extremely active around the artie crafties. It so often shows in the work they project.

A walk through the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney can a walk through a very dark world of, amongst other things, sexual immorality and drug and alcohol enduced visions.

Steel,
Why do you attend nudist camps?

All activites done at nudist camps are done appropiately clothed outside nudist camps. Do you keep nude photos of other persons at the camp?

Have you asked these persons if you can use these photos to display and show to friends? Have you or your friends ever been sexualy arroused by the photgraphs?

Gibo: << Many are potters, weavers, artists... and photographers.

That town, that I lived in, had much occult and witchcraft in it because the artie-crafties had a strong connection with witchcraft.

For me to suggest that this "High Priest of child porn" would have an occult/witchracft connection would not be incorrect. >>

Yep, it's a witch hunt for sure. Fortunately, at OLO at least, it seems to be being conducted by the village idiots.

Gibo "A walk through the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney can a walk through a very dark world of, amongst other things, sexual immorality and drug and alcohol enduced visions."

then do not go.

Simple.

If you cannot handle someone elses sense of self expression, you are at liberty to ignore it.

However, you are not at liberty to deny them the right of personal expression or the freedoms that invokes.

Doubtless if I wandered through the museum of contemporary art,
I would view what is displayed differently to you.

On some things we might agree.

On some thing you find offensive I might find stimulating and

some things I find crass, you might be OK about.

Paul Klee wrote about the five states of a piece of art....

1 The idea in the mind of the artist
2 The execution of that idea
3 The product, the piece of art
4 The viewers impression of that piece of art
5 The viewers intrepetation / response to that impression

Some how I do not think anyone is qualified to declare what should be allowed to happen in 1, 2 and 3 based on 5.

Back in the days of theological autocrisy, the Church defined what could and would be allowed to be executed as "art" they also used to castrate boys to preserve their singing voices.

I think a return to either would be exactly what it would be, a leap backward of around 200 to 500 years.

Bringing back the inquisition, just to ensure artistic compliance also lays along that path.

Philo,

I rarely attend nudist clubs these days. About twice a year. The main reason I now go is to catch up with old friends. I enjoy swimming naked because I don't have to have an uncomfortable wet piece of fabric around my waist. As far as photographs are concerned, It is illegal to photograph anyone in NSW undressed or in a state of undress without their permission (in the case of a minor, without their parent's permission). That rule still applies at nudist venues, and most nudist clubs ban cameras. I do not get sexually aroused by what I see. If I befreind a family at a nudist club and want photos of the family (and their children), I wait until we are all dressed than take a family photo if the parents agree. I spend a lot of time with my nudist friends at clothed venues as well.

By the way Philo, to avoid confusion please address me as Steel Mann, not Steel as there is another poster named Steel on this forum.

Gibo,

I'm glad that despite our differences of opinion we can approach this matter with some maturity and not have the mud slinging we did before. Yes, I've been to the Museum of Contemporaty Art and seen displays by Nan Golden, who to borrow from your post, "sexual immorality and drug and alcohol enduced visions" would be a good way of descibing her work. I've also seen works by Robert Mapplethorpe, and to borrow Kevin Rudd's expression, I find these photos revolting.
That's how art is, some we like some we don't. As far as witchcraft is concerned, as long as they keep to the law, I don't see any reason for police involvement.

Steel Mann I've dabbled in nudism myself, in the past, but I'm not sure about your claim that nudists are less likely to be sexual offenders. I was a nudist for a few years and there were several incidents that took place at the 2 establishments I attended.

Can you post links to the statistics related to sexual offences committed by nudists please?

In hindsight, it was probably a dumb thing for Henson to do. At the very least, an artist should obtain the permission of the parents BEFORE looking at a child, irrespective of whether the modeling is totally nude or fully clothed.

CJ.... chaplains do not.. repeat NOT have "unfettered access" to children. But children DO have unfettered access to a chaplain... unless they are forbidden by their parents.

Their presense is announced or... the times when they are present are made known..and IF a child wishes to seek help/counse/advice/a friend/ a pair of ears... they may choose to avail themselves of the Chaplains time.

Let's ask a different question.. to WHOM would a child go at school for someone to caringly listen to them other than a Chaplain? Sure they can goto a teacher but teachers are busy anyway and I rather doubt they want to get involved in all the problems that disfunctional families create and send to school.....

A chaplain is there to listen more than speak.

CREEEEEPY is how every person I've asked about Hensons visit describes it.
-Service station attendant
-Tech support person at Webhosting company
-Checkout lady at Safeways. x 2

:) yep..it's 4

Don't know the margin for error here but time will tell.

samsung,

I can't give statistics, I'm only speaking from my personal experience. I am aware of children being propositioned at nudist clubs, but given the fact that nudist children are quite comfortable with their bodies, they're not usually ashamed to speak out against these actions, and the offender can be dealt with. Prior to laws being enforced in NSW about nude photography, I observed a man photographing naked children at a nudist beach in NSW. I knew who this person was and made a complaint to the police about him as he had been banned from a nudist club I was associated with, due to suggestive comments he made to a young girl (who promptly reported the matter to her mother). If a paedophile comes to a nudist club where children are present, he will be a lot more visable than what a paedophile would be in a clothed environment.

This is my fourth post today on this thread, so I won't be back until tomorrow.

Polycarp wrote:

"Let's ask a different question.. to WHOM would a child go at school for someone to caringly listen to them other than a Chaplain? Sure they can goto a teacher but teachers are busy anyway and I rather doubt they want to get involved in all the problems that disfunctional families create and send to school....."

A child should go to whoever he or she would feel comfortable with. The public school system is for all Children. A child with Lutheran, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim or other parents who were not Protestant fundamentalists would probably not go to a Protestant fundamentalist chaplain. Other children would probably not go to a Jewish chaplain. A trained counselor who is not identified as clergy would be much better. Chaplains are limited by identification with a particular faith. They should all be replaced by trained counselors who are not clergy.

>>Don't know the margin for error here but time will tell.<<

The margin of error on a face to face poll of 4 people would be about 99.7.

I'm with Gibo. This is obviously a case of sorcery. Decent people everywhere should be calling for the public scrutiny of potters', weavers', artists', photographers', school principals' and primary school children's naked bodies for spare nipples and oddly shaped birth marks. Every crack and crevice of them. Preferably at large venues with big screens so the pure can see everything.

Steel Mann,
Sorry for not identifying you.
You say you only take photograps of clothed people because it is illegal. Then why support Henson as he illegally photographs nude children? A double standard indeed!

Does Henson violate the law of human social dignity and decency? Is his motives rather suspect?

David f is correct that it would be infinitely preferable if schools had qualified counsellors available to students, as opposed to well-meaning amateur godbotherers with ulterior motives - such as those chaplains supplied by the Scripture Union, which regards the chaplaincy program as an opportunity for evangelism.

Porky: << CREEEEEPY is how every person I've asked about Hensons visit describes it. >>

I imagine that "CREEEEEEPY" is the sort of thing that might come to mind when accosted by a slathering godbotherer wanting to rave on about Bill Henson.

Philo: << why support Henson as he illegally photographs nude children? >>

Henson has done nothing illegal. Why do some religious nutters persist in telling outright lies in order to foment hysteria?

CJ says:

<<such as those chaplains supplied by the Scripture Union, which regards the chaplaincy program as an opportunity for evangelism.>>

While I enthusiastically welcome any genuine opportunity for evangelism, to do take issue with this view of SU. I would not want to deny any child the opportunity to know Christ and His love, but to flagrantly break clearly spelt out rules in a school environment would not be something I wish to associate myself or my Church with.

The other point worthy of highlighting is:

<<"Henson has done nothing illegal">>

Well.. in regard to the school visit.... no, but his nude photo's ...perhaps. That is something to be determined by the law. As it stands it appears the interpreters of the law say "Ok" but a different judge, a different social climate... a different outcome based on the same laws might well result.

But more importantly, is the fact that the quote above from CJ is a clear indication of where his mob would take us along the highway to hell of MIUAUG... there are no signposts to direct us away from whatever inclination strikes the fancy of those driving the bus.....except those they prefer to ignore... "I am the Light of the world"

Tragically... many people prefer darkness to light, and seek to re-define the light of Christ as some kind of oppressive human system.
Worse.. some using the name of Christ have done that very thing.
May He liberate us from such thinking, both inside and outside the realm of 'The Church'.

Philo,

You need to re-read my post.
I did not say it was illegal to photograph nude. It is legal to photograph nude (or semi nude)people provided you have their permission. That's why a couple of years ago someone was fined on Bondi Beach for photographing topless bathers. It's not even illegal to photograph nude children, if you have the permission of the parents. I do not photograph nude people because that is my decision, and most nudist clubs do not allow cameras. That is their policy not the law. Just because I don't photograph nudes doesn't mean that other people can't provided they follow the correct procedure, (as Bill Henson has done). Incidentally, some nudists are opposed to Bill Henson and similar photographers as the nude photography is not done in the context of a nudist situation.

Bill Henson has not broken any laws. NSW Police should have been aware that these photos did not break the law and when they visited the Roslyn9 Gallery, they should have left after viewing the photos. All police involved in child pornography investigation should be required to undertake training with the Office of Film and Literature Classification so they know how to correctly identify this material. Customs Officers have this training when inspecting DVD's and other material imported for personal use.

I uphold the rights of nudist parents to raise their children their way, just as I uphold the rights of parents to raise their children according to their religious beliefs.

By the way, how many people here knew of Bill Henson prior to this media witch-hunt? I had never heard of him before.

Polycrap,

There is a COMMANDMENT against bearing false witness.

Henson has done nothing illegal, and you had best admit that properly

That Bill Hensen has done nothing illegal is questionable and is the reason his art works were removed from the public gallery.

He had, in the eyes of the law acted illegaly by displayning nude photographs of prepubescent girls for every dick, harry and paedophile to admire.

Pure art and sculpture are mental pictures created from and by an artist mind and hand, a photgraph is an actual image of a person. A sculpture can be like a person, but a photograph is an actual image depiction of a person and is not itself a creation from the imagination of the artist. But the immagination of the artist is focused not in the art but in the actual image of the person, that is why he seeks children as models.

There are questionable motives behind his purpose and to display it in public may border on peadophilia. Let the public decide on what is acceptable for display as photography. It is socially abnormal in the eyes of the majority of this society to display nude photographs of prepubescent children. Otherwise the laws on photography regarding children would be repealed.

In the eyes of Hansen he is challenging the social norm to get his point across. His purpose is not art but a political statement that children must be allowed the freedom to parade in public undressed, as supported by Steel Mann in his nudist camps.

Polycarp wrote: Tragically... many people prefer darkness to light, and seek to re-define the light of Christ as some kind of oppressive human system.
Worse.. some using the name of Christ have done that very thing.

Dear Polycarp,

One need not redefine the words of Jesus to justify oppressive human systems.

According to the New Testament Jesus said "No one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6). This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another.

Another vicious saying is:

MARK 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire
that never shall be quenched:

I question Jesus and the New Testament as espousing a God of love. In the above Jesus holds out the promise of eternal torture.

Three books by Christians:

The Closing of the Western Mind by Charles Freeman:

The adoption of Christianity by Rome destroyed the spirit of free enquiry in the Classical World. The adoption of Christianity ushered in the Dark Ages.

Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll:

How the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire changed Christianity to a religion of war.

The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386 by Richard Fletcher:

Ireland is the only country becoming Christian peacefully. It apparently was legitimate to kill people for the sin of not being Christian.

The Bible will continue to be a source of hate and discord until it is regarded the way we now regard the legends telling of the pagan Gods.

The history of the Manichean religion comforts me. It lasted from the third to the eighteenth century and existed from Spain to China. Most people have never heard of it, and nobody as far as I know believes in it any more.

Eventually Christianity will also disappear. The Bible will exist as a source of legends and stories but as nothing else

The same goes for you too philo, stop bearing false witness.

In the "eyes of the law", Henson has done nothing wrong, the photographs were removed by police following a complaint by a moralist crusader. No charges have been laid.

It's hard to tell whether Philo is being ignorant, obtuse or deliberately dishonest. Bill Henson has contravened no laws, neither in selecting his subjects, photographing them nor displaying the images. That his art upsets the sensibilities of various prudes, wowsers and child abuse hysterics doesn't mean that it;s in any way illegal.

Also, Philo's ignorant diatribe about photographic art and the base motivations he projects upon the artist demonstrate that he is as ignorant of art as he is of the law.

'Eventually Christianity will also disappear. The Bible will exist as a source of legends and stories but as nothing else'

Dream on Davidf. I don't know your motives for misrepresenting Christ's teachings but your arrogance is self evident. You can question God's right to send you to hell all you like. The equation is simple. Enter the heaven he created and made available by repenting of your sins and turning to Christ or go to hell with the devil and his followers. To try and dictate to the Creator of the Universe what is right and wrong in your warped morality is like an ant trying to tell an elephant what to so. I hope you wake up to yourself.

Runner wrote: "I don't know your motives for misrepresenting Christ's teachings but your arrogance is self evident."

Dear Runner,

Where was I arrogant? What did I misrepresent? I just don't accept a vicious religion that will condemn a person for using one's mind to question.

If I have misrepresented anything please specify it rather than calling me names. Eventually Christianity like all the works of man will disappear. It is arrogant to assume otherwise.

Davidf

To question the love of a God who sent His Son to die for a rotter like you and me is nothing short of arrogance.

You wrote:
'Another vicious saying is:

MARK 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire
that never shall be quenched:

I question Jesus and the New Testament as espousing a God of love. In the above Jesus holds out the promise of eternal torture.'

It would be far less loving if you were not warned of the consequences of your own choice and actions. Telling a kid not to run on a freeway is commonsense. You can choose to turn to a loving God who went through agony for you or you can choose to follow the god of this age and end in hell. Hopefully you will wake up to yourself.

Equating the God of Israel with pagan gods shows your total ignorance. IN actual fact the earth worshipers have more in common with pagan gods. They murder their unborn, promote sexual immorality, champion homosexuality and make up consistent lies about God (just like you have done),

Dear David F

You said/argued:

a) "According to the New Testament Jesus said "No one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6).

then

b) "This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another.">>

a) I support it 100%.. it is a fact.

My point of departure in your total statement was b)

I don't see how this could be, there is no reasonable argument for drawing that conclusion, in fact the opposite is true. There is every reason NOT to embrace such an idea.

In order to explain this, we must focus on what it means to "come to the Father" and who better to explain this than our Lord Himself?

"For God so loved the world.......that He gave His only Son.....

that....

whoever BELIEVES in Him...will not perish, but have everlasting life" John 3:16

Now..you and I both know, that you cannot for love or money or even torture of the most brutal kind, bring about genuine 'belief' in another individual toward a set of ideas. We also both know that the closest we could ever come is to force a person to mouth words of belief.... under threat of death.

But would that make them a believer?

Would that be a fulfilment of Christs command?

Your assertion flies in the face of the totality of Christ's ministry and teaching... it really does. Does it not occur to you that if Jesus wanted to force people to believe in Him he would not have given His life on the cross..nor would He have rebuked Peter for applying the sword of education to the ear of one of the High Priests slaves when Jesus was arrested. Nor would Jesus have healed the wounded slave.

What you really mean is. "Some people, wrongly, have claimed alliegance to Christianity, and have perpetrated awful, unChristian,unGodly acts in their treatment of others"

We cannot dismiss Christ because of some paedophile Priests. But we CAN dismiss those priests in the light of the Lords life and teaching.

Dear Runner,

You called me a liar, but you have not specified any lie I have told. You apparently argue by calling names liked 'rotter', 'liar', "arrogant' and 'immoral' rather than present a cogent argument.

Jesus is not the God of Israel. Jews are monotheists. The God of Israel does not have children, "only begotten son", or otherwise. The pagan gods like Zeus had children with mortals - not the God of Israel. Jews believe in taking responsibility for their own sins. The idea of an entity taking on someone else's sins is a primitive Christian idea. I don't equate the God of Israel with a pagan God. I equate the Christian God with a pagan God.

However, the fact you have different beliefs from me does not make you an immoral person and does not give me the right to call you names. We live in a country with freedom of religion. I am grateful for that. You have the freedom to believe whatever nonsense you choose.

David F.

You dont talk from a place of Real Knowledge.
You talk from a place of theory.
Once you have invited Jesus the Son into your life that, of course, will change and The Holy Bible as Truth will become clear to you.

In the end "all who call upon the Name of The Lord will be saved"...Romans 10:13.

The time is fast coming when world events will bring many here to call on the Name of The Lord... to save them from those events.

Gibo, Polycarp & Runner,

I think you'e wasting you're time arguing with david f. He's made up his mind and he sticking to what believes (or doesn't believe). You're no more likely to change him than he is to change you (or me).

Dear Steel Mann,

I appreciate your accurate assessment.

Dear Polycarp,

I appreciate your polite manner.

However, I wish you wouldn’t tell me what I mean. You wrote:

“What you really mean is. "Some people, wrongly, have claimed alliegance to Christianity, and have perpetrated awful, unChristian,unGodly acts in their treatment of others

We cannot dismiss Christ because of some paedophile Priests."

The paedophiles are only a recent Christian outrage. Christianity has a bloody history – conversion by violence, the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Holocaust inspired by the words of Martin Luther and other Christian bigots, the Wars of the Reformation etc. The paedophile priests are a trivial footnote.

My complaint is not about unChristian acts but about Christian acts.

In the classical world many people had abandoned the belief in the many gods of that time. They had dismissed the superstition.

When the Roman Empire became officially Christian people were not free to abandon the new superstition. Those recognising the nonsense of it were persecuted.

The Jewish tribal myths of Genesis became articles of belief. I see no reason to believe in the miracles in the Jewish Bible or in the New Testament. The circumstances of Jesus’ life have too much in common with pagan deities such as Osiris, Mithra and Apollo not to come to the conclusion that he was a mythical figure adopted by early Christians to make their new religion acceptable to the gentiles of the classical world.

The two groups of early followers of Jesus were the predominantly Jewish followers of James and the followers of Paul who had a much larger gentile admixture. The followers of James were mostly wiped out in the failed revolt of 70 CE so a greater opening to the gentiles became necessary for the new sect. So the Paulists adopted many of the pagan myths and put it on the Christ figure. This appealed to the gullible then and also now,

We are born, live and die. It is nonsense to assume that religious belief will give us eternal life. Christianity fostered by the Jesus myth has been a disaster

Dear David F

I didn't mean to impose my own meaning on your words... I was trying to dig behind them.. let me put it another way.

The things you observed... are in my view better explained by.. (then read the rest of my previous post)

I still feel you are not seeing the real Jesus. You are looking at history and not being adequately discriminatory between clearly unChristian actions and Christian. The means of determining which is which are clear in the teaching and life of Christ as recorded in the NT.

It is crucial to recognize that all the supposed Christian behavior which you observe throughout history is only confirmed or denied by a comparison between the behavior and the foundation.

It is not reasonable to say "Look at that Christian man committing adultery.. clearly Christianity is a no good belief system" when you can read that Jesus said "If any man so much as LOOKS at a woman with lust in his heart he has already committed adultery with her"

In other words.. the standard of behavior laid down by our Lord is a very high one.

But we are kinda sidetracking here :) the thread is about Mr Henson.
I read in the paper today that some people suggested the correct approach to his visit would have been for the principle to approach the school council which includes parental representation and then.. after (if) obtaining their agreement, a newletter would be sent out, seeking the views of parents. At that point the feedback could be assessed and a decision made.
I totally agree.

The parade of innocent children before the eyes of Bill Henson was no different than what a paedophile would do. Searching for attractive children to his eyes who are sensual, subservient and able to be manipulated.

Even Bill Henson’s defenders have admitted his photography of naked children is disturbing. Art Centre critic Robert Nelson admits ‘I find the pictures a bit creepy’.
“In an interview with Arts Presenter Leo Schofield, Schofield described his photographs as being of ‘high eroticism’. Bill Henson did not disagree.

Philo.. you hit the nail on the head.

Arts Presenter says High Eroticism

Henson did not disagree.

It's like a huge banner in the sky "MIUAUG" results in 'this'.

If Henson did not take issue with that statement.. which is highly damaging to his motivation... it rather says it all.

My feeling is that if you do something controversial, you are obliged to defend it from the criticism it attracts.

Philo: << The parade of innocent children before the eyes of Bill Henson was no different than what a paedophile would do. >>

Yeah right, Philo. Paedophiles are invited all the time by school principals into school grounds.

Interesting that Philo still refuses to acknowledge the falsehood of his claim that Bill Henson's artworks are "illegal". No surprise, however, that OLO's most mendacious Christian reckons he "hit the nail on the head".

Fortunately, not all Christians here are liars - just some of the frootloops.

Dear Polycarp,

I agree on the correct approach to Henson.

You wrote: “I still feel you are not seeing the real Jesus.”

I find the above most objectionable.

I do not expect you to change your beliefs. You are an adult who has given thought as to how you see the world. Please accept that I have done the same and stop your missionising unless it is requested.

There is no real Jesus to see. It is primitive superstition to imagine a humanoid god.

I wrote previously. “The circumstances of Jesus’ life have too much in common with pagan deities such as Osiris, Mithra and Apollo not to come to the conclusion that he was a mythical figure adopted by early Christians to make their new religion acceptable to the gentiles of the classical world.”

I can’t see the real Jesus any more than I can see the real Apollo or Odin. Jesus, Apollo and Odin are all myth. Aborigines have the myth of the Rainbow Serpent, and Christians have the Jesus myth.

You have pointed another unreasonable saying in the New Testament. You said Jesus said "If any man so much as LOOKS at a woman with lust in his heart he has already committed adultery with her". That is garbage! I have looked at many women with lust in my heart. As long as I don’t do anything about it I have done nothing wrong. That is a recipe for neurotic guilt. That’s also a recipe for crime. If thinking about doing something is as bad as doing one might as well do it if one has thought about doing it.

Most people have enough common sense to know the difference between doing something and thinking about doing it. That is one of the many stupid statements in the Bible.

If one does something wrong try to make up for it. If one has merely thought about doing something but has not done it forget about it.

The New Testament has impossible miracles and unreasonable requirements of thought control. The Bible should be regarded skeptically.

davidf writes 'The Bible should be regarded skeptically.' and yet he accepts the dogmas of evolution which is more faith based than science based.

'The New Testament has impossible miracles'

Obviously they would not be miracles if they were possible.

The fact that you and every other normal male has looked at a woman with lust in their eyes (other than their wife) clearly demonstrates the truth of our wicked hearts. It amazes me how men who have cheated on wives and vice versa still claim that they have a good heart. The clear point Jesus was making was that all human hearts need to be cleansed. Obviously Bill Henson does not agree because he and his supporters think that they are immune from lust. They feel they can photograph and portray children naked and in provocative positions and remain pure. In their blinded eyes and hearts they think it is only the paedophile priests who lust.

runner: << They feel they can photograph and portray children naked and in provocative positions and remain pure >>

That's actually a very interesting comment, that I believe goes to the essence of why it is that some of our loopier Christian fundies are so ridiculously condemnatory of Henson's art. They believe that it's normal for people to experience lust just by seeing naked bodies or depictions of them, regardless of the how young the nude person is.

Then they project their own warped sexuality on to everybody else, and demand censorship because of their own desires and fantasies. We've seen it here at OLO before in some of Porky's obsessive rants about Mohammed's purported child bride, and now runner's let it slip that he suffers the same lust for naked children.

Wouldn't it be better for all concerned if these oversexed fundies learned to restrain themselves, rather than demand that the images that apparently excite and tempt them be banned?

Dear Runner,

I wrote: 'The New Testament has impossible miracles'

You wrote: "Obviously they would not be miracles if they were possible."

Your logic is correct. Since miracles are impossible, it is unreasonable to believe in them. If one believes that God is perfect and has created a world that can operate naturally then belief in miracles is a denial of God. Miracles are an indication that natural laws are not sufficient, and God must suspend the natural laws of matter.

Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that miracles are only stories related by humans. An all-powerful and all-knowing God has no need of miracles since all his purposes can be accomplished by natural laws.

One must look at the Bible as one must look at another book written by humans.

CJ Morgan,
When you cannot give a reasoned position you resort to ridiculous statements.

There was no reason for Henson to visit a school, he could have visited any public venue and spoken to accompanying parents. That he would take opportunity to seek children not in the presence of parents speaks volumes as to his twisted mind. That he has access to seek out children without first consulting parents identifies him as suspect at least bordering on peadophilia. This is the way non family peadophiles seek out children - usually unnatended children at school gates or sports venues.

CJ Morgan

Here we go. You are going to tell me that you have never looked at a woman other than your wife with lust in your eyes. If I did not know better I could say you were naive but dishonest is more to the point. Why do you think most advertisements display semi naked women? Just to sell to what you label Christian fundamentalist. It sure would be a small market. Defend the right for selected artist to prowl around schools looking to photograph children nude all you like. The problem is that the vast majority of parents totally disagree with your self righteous purer than thou assessment. As someone who is happy to defend the porn industry I doubt whether you have much credibility on this subject.

Runner?
..."never looked at a woman other than your wife..."
I always thought CJ was a female?
I really did and wrote accordingly.

Cripes, it's the "resurrection" of the Three Stooges.

Moe/Philo blusters on - apparently oblivious to the actual facts of the case - undoubtedly in an effort to deflect attention from his earlier "porkies".

Larry/runner: << You are going to tell me that you have never looked at a woman other than your wife with lust in your eyes. >>

Now that's truly funny.

The point is, old chap, that my occasional lustful looks - to which I will cheerfully confess - are directed towards women rather than little girls, who tend to evoke paternal responses from me.

And then Curly/Gibo: << I always thought CJ was a female?
I really did and wrote accordingly. >>

I nearly knocked over my Lagavulin when I read that. I hadn't realised that I was being raved at as a female. How fascinating.

You fundies truly are clowns, and I bet David Marr is laughing all the way the bank - although the MSM seem to have dropped the story after the initial promotional splash.

I imagine that Shemp will be along shortly.

Runner wrote:

"davidf writes 'The Bible should be regarded skeptically.' and yet he accepts the dogmas of evolution which is more faith based than science based."

Evolution is fact. The fossil record shows that species have disappeared and other species have appeared. That is evolution.

Darwin did not invent evolution. He offered a mechanism, natural selection, to explain the fact that species have disappeared and other species have appeared.

Evolution is demonstrated in experiments with fruit flies, bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics and other ways. Evolution is basic to understanding the life sciences.

It's esthetically more pleasing to think that all life evolved from primitive self-replicating organisms so all life is related than to accept the biblical account that all species were created separately.

Philo

Here he is. The man who said quote= Those awful cruel Muslims,
Followed by
His newphew who is now working for God used to send Animals Alive off on death ships of torture.

Umm Philo your twisted way of thnking is beyond the pale.

Fromm ALL accounts the priniciple of that school has a very high standard so stop trying to destroy another decent person. She was there. We were not.

CJ Morgan,
Oh so your a girl. Well that would explain a lot:) Guys I think you will find CJ is a male married to a person from another country= possibly Asian. ( I am trying to recall what I read a long time ago)

btw Morgan your wrong about Mohamed. ( Not that I am holding todays Muslims accountable but he had 22 women
The first 16 women were wives. 17 and 18 were slaves or concubines.
The last 4 women were neither slaves or wifes but devout muslim women who gave themselves.

Zaynab his 3nd wife was origanilly his adopted sons wife. The fact that mohamed took her for himself has been problematic to many people Muslims included.
Aesha was only eight or nine years old when he took her to his bed. She was his second wife I think.

In Islam 8 and 9 year olds can marry an adult. This is shunned in the Western World of course.

Finally Mary, the Coptic Christian, reffused to marry Mohamed because she would not renounce Chist and imbrace Islam.
She chose to remain a slave.

History cant be rewritten to aviod confronting the fact Muhammed had unnatural desires for little girls.
Why do you always make comments on topic your clearly know nothing of.

Its very annoying. Its because your so illinformed that you call us Racists.

Getting back to Henson I imagine the publicity has paid off.
Any Pr is good in that line of biz.
'Fact'

btw morgan
Jus reading the emails that were circulated.

When It suites me I am going to open a thread on muslm leaders of Australia.
A sort of whos who in the Zoo.
It should make fasinating reading. I am just going to inform Ikabel Patel first as well as some others.

I am going to invite the different Muslim leaders and muslim people to make comments also.We have six yearsof knowledge.

Considering most of the media cant report honestlty most times and- the Government never do because they are so far removed from the real world and tied up with their own egos and agendas= I think its well over due.
The thing Australians need to know is- Can we trust the Muslim Leaders in Australia?

Do they respect us?

What are they like to work with?

Can they seperate Australian laws from the Allah Laws?

runner wrote:

"The fact that you and every other normal male has looked at a woman with lust in their eyes (other than their wife) clearly demonstrates the truth of our wicked hearts."

Dear runner,

Lust is not wicked. It is a normal human emotion. To refer to a 'wicked heart' because a person feels normal stirrings of desire just means that the person has been indoctrinated by a sick and evil religion that promotes guilt. I notice you just referred to normal males. Normal females feel lust, too. It is part of our nature for carrying on the species.

If Jesus said "If any man so much as LOOKS at a woman with lust in his heart he has already committed adultery with her". then he was promoting a perverse religion. If we can believe the NT account he felt lust toward nobody. Jesus was abnormal.

david f

Lust is a very fundamental part of human nature; I so wish you were at least 40 years younger, because, for me, intelligence is a major aphrodisiac. Sure, appearance is important, but for online lustiness one is left with the essential intelligence of a person upon which to form an opinion.

The antithesis of sin; (what a shameful little world religious fundies inhabit) I always enjoy the bright light of knowledge and wisdom that you project on this frequently clouded world at OLO.

Fond regards

PS

CJ - you are always in my heart as well - I am a generous flirt. Your gender is quite irrelevant :-)

Fractelle wonderful post on your part, quite lyrical

” for me, intelligence is a major aphrodisiac. “

Oh what I could reply to that would certainly see me “sin-binned” for a month

“CJ - you are always in my heart as well - I am a generous flirt. Your gender is quite irrelevant “

I suspect CJ is haunted by hearing he has an ”irrelevant gender”, especially during moments of intimacy.

Keep up the good work..

PALE&IF: << btw Morgan... >>

Well I was expecting Shemp, and Phyllis Diller shows up instead. I thought you weren't talking to me any more? (Oh for it to be true).

Fractelle: << CJ - you are always in my heart as well - I am a generous flirt. Your gender is quite irrelevant :-) >>

The feeling's mutual of course, m'dear. Thanks!

Gollum: << I suspect CJ is haunted by hearing he has an ”irrelevant gender”, especially during moments of intimacy. >>

Hardly, old bean (counter). Perhaps you ought to take a "walk on the wild side"?

Col - you flatter yourself, believe me you REALLY flatter yourself...

CJ - I love a man who can take a joke. Yes, like 99.99% of women, humour is indeed a turn on.

errr we seem to have drifted off here a bit into a flirtateous twilight zone :)
Fraccy..please control yourself *frown*....

I think we have exhausted the threads topic.. I don't think anyone would disagree with the following:

1/ Head master should have consulted the school council
2/ School should have sent a newsletter to parents (assuming council approved)
3/ Subject to feedback a reasonable decision would be made.

We cannot assume with certainty that Henson was only looking for potential nude model children, but it's probably a safe assumption that he might have had that in mind for some.

In the mean time, have fun flirting with Fractelle and now I anticipate a bit of 'male display' competition to show how intelligent we all are. At this stage though looks like CJ is leading the pack :)

Frac "E=MCsquared" :)

Good Morning Fractelle,

I agree with you completely...

A sense of humour is vital in a man.

Do you know why do women close their eyes
while making love?

So they won't laugh.

Dear Polycarp,

I agree with you.

I think this thread has run its course.

Shemp/Porky: << We cannot assume with certainty that Henson was only looking for potential nude model children, but it's probably a safe assumption that he might have had that in mind for some. >>

Shemp finally turns up, but he's obviously in a bit of a sour mood, frowning and imputing dark motives on the basis of nothing other than his own repressed desires. Poor chap.

Foxy: << Do you know why do women close their eyes
while making love?

So they won't laugh. >>

And there I was thinking that it's because I'm ugly.

CJ
I think that it may be something like not being able to keep your eyes open while sneezing - normal human reflex :P

Polly,

A few things you forgot:

1) Henson sought permission from the principal. A school principal has authority to allow many visitors to schools such as scouts for football, dance, basketball, singing and so on.
2) This visit occurred back in 2007 way before the "outrage" over his nude photos.
3) Requiring children of indigenous appearance for his film "Australia", Baz Luhrmann attended primary & secondary schools for child actors. Some of these children appeared in the film semi-NAKED.
4) You forgot to mention your 'manhandling' of your adolescent daughter.

Cheers

I find this whole moral panic absolutely astounding. The reproductions I have seen of Bill Henson's work with children do not seem to me remotely pornographic. Introspective, vulnerable, uncertain are adjectives I would use, but pornographic, never.

Also, why is photography singled out for condemnation. Why not painting and sculpture? Renaissance art, for example, abounds in depictions of naked children (both with and without wings). Representations of the Christ child frequently show Him completely naked. If the moral zealots get their way will all cherubs require the addition of strategically placed fig leaves or perhaps full burquas?

Don't worry Orpheus..we can tackle them all if you like. They all have a case to answer.

Moral panic is hardly how I'd describe it but if left to run it's course we might.

Nothing happens in this area OVERNIGHT.. it happens in small digestable increments.

But if you add them all up.. they constitute one heck of a meal.

Dear CJ,

You ugly?

No way!

You have a brilliant mind, a sense of humour,
you're tolerant, rational, plus knowledgeable
about sixties music - you're the stuff of
our fantasies...and I adore you to bits!

But Foxy, after reading Fractelle's and your posts, my head has become very large - and my face is blushing furiously.

Thanks so much. Have a great weekend!

But Foxy.. if I may quote Gibo

"Once deciding that CJ was a woman, I saw nothing in his posts to suggest he is a man" :)

hmmmmm.. I'll resist the temptation here *grin*

Jealousy's a curse isn't it, Porky?

BTW - where did poor old Gibo write the words you attribute to him? You don't appear to be able to be honest even when you're just having a snark.

Apologies Porky - I've just read Gibo's idiotic request for a "gender box" so he can rant at people in what he sees as a manner appropriate for their gender.

Of course, it just means that my writing is obviously gender-neutral, as it should be. You should try it some time.

A Real Man is one who is confident enough in his sense
of self that he is not at all threatened by those who
attempt to slur him in such a childish manner.

He is also one who can be honest with himself and others
that he is not always a real man; putting up a front
will do nothing but inhibit communication, personal growth
and intimacy from developing in a relationship.

...And doesn't need to rant on about himself all the time.

Fractelle wrote:

"...And doesn't need to rant on about himself all the time."

Due to an inflated sense of self most do not choose to live in low rant districts.

fractelle "A Real Man is one who"

and a Real Woman....

Is one who knows her place,

(beside her man)

Davidf

Your modesty is most becoming and indicative of the values I admire in all people (male and female).

Col - YAWN

david f - heh, but it is fun to go 'slumming' in high rant districts on occasion (perverse though it may be).

Fractelle: << Col - YAWN >>

Careful - that's the response that Col takes for assent in intimate encounters. It comes just after the foreplay, which consists of "are you awake, love?".

Hi 5 2 Col :) always the stirrer.

CJ.. puh-lease.. you almost gave me a heart attack.. weakened by a bad cold this week I'd almost think you tried to harm me.... "Apologies" to me :) I never thought I'd see that..the shock was ALmost too much.

Speaking of ailments.. I did dumb thing this morning. While collecting money for a Church camp.. I noticed a friend in his late 30s with a bandaide on his nose.. I asked him about it and he said it was for the removal of skin cancer.. yikes! and then he recounted how he's had a heart operation (10 yrs ago) a stroke and a heart operation...now skin cancer.. I was rather touched and said "boy.. you need a hug" (you know..the joking mode type) anyway.. he came over and ...u guessed it :) a huggggg and now he probably has my cold to boot.. poor blighter.

Porky: << CJ.. puh-lease.. you almost gave me a heart attack.. weakened by a bad cold this week I'd almost think you tried to harm me.... "Apologies" to me :) I never thought I'd see that..the shock was ALmost too much. >>

Settle down, old chap. You're far more at risk of a heart attack from your Macca's diet.

Apologising is no big deal - it's what "real men" do when they're in error. You should try it sometime.

CJ Morgan, Sunday, 12 October 2008 3:32:07 PM

Your comment on that date was unwelcome.

You often post crude comments and very few male posters follow in that direction.

Aology?
CJ coming from you thats a joke.

Fractelle,on Sunday, 12 October 2008 8:38:30 AM told you a few facts of life but of course that wont mean a thing.

Foxy

I think its clear that being crude is ok with you. Otherwise you wouldnt encourage this empty headed twit.

Whats sad is people then tend to judge all ladies alike - (even when they are not.

Fractelle, has certainly shown us how a real men raise their children.

PLs dont encourage him Foxy its anything 'but' amusing.

I am the first to crack a joke but crude comments and a sign of illbreeding.

You can be a poor man but still have manners and respect.

Same with women.

Sad some dont know the difference . Thats possibly why Hensons yet again being attacked.

Whats in the minds of 'some' isnt always whats in the others persons.

I think this is very much a case of=

The man I see =
is the man I be

Or women

Dear CJ ... one of the reasons I seldom make formal apologies to you is that I'm never wrong :) hahah de haha.. thought you'd love that.

No.. of course I have my moments of error, like Pericles (I think) I was wrong on an occasion about 5 yrs ago 0_^)but you have this rather frustrating characteristic of leaping on any hint of admission of error like a pack of Hyena's on a newborn Gazelle calf and then running with it, throwing it every which way until finally tearing it apart.

One example is your newly manufactured myth of my "Macca's diet"... see how you transformed a meeting of convenience at a well known local landmark after a medical appointment into a DIET.... talk about playing fast and loose with truth and telling 'porkies'....

In fact you have on one occasion gone through numerous posts of mine simply looking for anything which could be construed as 'error' in order to attack my overall credibility. You've not concerned yourself with the fact that I've actually admitted an error and moved on..nope...you drag it up, swing it around, place it on billboards for the next decade.. which of course made me wonder about your treatment of captive flies during your youth :)

Here is your method.

1/ Declare something 'wrong' (even when it is simply disagreement)
2/ Challenge the person to apologise (for the issue which you either misunderstood or misrepresented)
3/ Pester them for the next 10 yrs about this.

Now.. if I adopted your style I'd be reminding you of your factual error here for the same period :)

I prefer to just move on with 'issues'.

Now let's see, Porky. Last month you posted this:

<< But let's not forget.. we are in Afghanistan because of it being used as a haven for terrorist training camps which were used against us on our own soil. >>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2092#44433

To which I responded:

<< What act of terrorism "on our own soil" was it exactly that caused the Australian government to send troops to Afghanistan? >>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2092#44440

But of course you never responded, instead deserting the thread as usual when your lie was exposed. If it had been a simple mistake, you could have just corrected your error and moved on - but you chose not to.

I put it to you that your falsehood was deliberate, and designed specifically to foster Islamophobia. Likewise, your deliberate distortion of the case of the homophobic Swedish pastor who was found not guilty on appeal, and in your current distortion in another thread of the ultimate result of the prosecution of the two Islamophobic Christian pastors in Melbourne.

The reason that I persist in reminding of you of cases such as these (and there are many more) is in the hope that you'll eventually realise that your pattern of habitual mendacity does your odious cause no favours.

PALE&IF - I do wish you'd stick to your word and not post to me. This is a forum where adults interact. If you don't like adult humour please feel free to visit any of the thousands of children's sites that exist for people of your mental age, or better still, do something that actually improves the lives of animals.

CJ

To paraphrase a gender specific saying:

I believe we have truly 'separated the adults from the children' on this thread.

And I include Henson as one the those whose maturity goes over the heads of the demonstrably childish.

The naive childish minds believe that it is OK to display nude children in static poses in public places for pedophiles to admire. They see no social responsibility for the protection of children from predators. Perhaps they themselves have no children to protect, or do not see a need to protect children from abuse.

Is Bill Henson happily married and have daughters? If so why did he not photograph his own daughters? Is it because he has no emotional attachment to the children he photographs and treats them merely as photographic models he can use and discard without responsibility?

I just wish that the Council of Nicaea had never happened, then we wouldn't have a son of god nor a holy spirit nor a virgin birth; then Joseph, Mary and Jesus could have been one little happy family. Just a quick thought: can someone investigate the possibility of having two christian martyrs named Polycarp? (two centuries apart that is).

One has to ask since you are calling henson a high priest,

does that mean he is sitting next to labor,unions and kevin rudd

due to the heiner affair

sillyfilly wrote: Just a quick thought: can someone investigate the possibility of having two christian martyrs named Polycarp? (two centuries apart that is).

The name, Polycarp, was inspired by the miracle of the loaves and the fishes. Polycarp (many fish) It also is in anticipation of Christians returning to the faith of Jesus and becoming Jews. The ceremony can use the old jazz standard.

The Imitation of Christ

Six feet two, eyes of blue
Jesus Christ, he was a Jew
Has anybody seen my lord?

Big hooked nose, There he goes
Preaching so that everyone knows
Has anybody seen my lord?

Speared by a Roman
In the abdomen
Blood gushing out

Rose from the dead
So it is said
People believe without a doubt

Jesus died, still a Jew
He's a Jew so why aren't you?
Has anybody seen my lord?

When another flood comes the ark can be filled with many carp in anticipation of making gefillte fish. We can also store our cars for after the flood and have a mutistory polycarp ark.

Well David it looks like when they have lost the debate they resort to foolish talk, in am endeavour to brush their embarrasment away. They can no longer defend their immoral position so this subject is finished.

david f: << When another flood comes the ark can be filled with many carp in anticipation of making gefillte fish. We can also store our cars for after the flood and have a mutistory polycarp ark. >>

Hilarious - keep them coming!

Philo - before you go, don't you want to correct your false claim that Henson acted illegally, or are you another fundy bulldust-artist like Porky?

Well you should have asked the question was it constitutional.

Then you would have to find a constitutional government to say he acted illegaly.

If you can find one then you had better prove it, with facts not fiction.

CJ.. you provided a classic example of why:

a) Apologising to you has little value
b) That you expect apologies for things you declare 'lies' when you just don't understand what's going on.

You tend to HOP to some kind of very tightly defined (mis)understanding of something....then.. you SKIP into using that as a straw man, then you JUMP into accusing another party of 'lying' or deliberately fabricating falsehoods.

Let me demonstrate your folly.. (this becomes boring that's why I just let it go and leave rather than continually correct you :)

I said: "used against us"

You interpreted this as meaning "A specific terrorist act"
which in your mind appears to only mean some kind of jihadist guy fawkes event.

Then..having manufactured your straw man.. proceed to attack it vigorously with all your might. "your falsehood was deliberate"

Notice what happened? (besides your brain snapping:) you firstly decided that I mean't "a terrorist act" and then.. you accuse me of deliberately running with a known falsehood.

Who's falsehood? not mine that's for sure.

NAUGHTY BOY.. you need some detention for that

"used against us" could mean many things. Planning, conspiring.. overt actions.. all come under the heading of 'used against us'.
Even passing on of critical information to others more willing to carry out such attacks is 'used against us'.

Shane Kent will be retried on this matter (trips to Afghanistan where he is alleged to have undertaken explosives training)

Izhar ul-Haque is to stand trial for undergoing terror training with Lashkar e Toiba (Pakistan).

So... my case for 'used against us' is made well and truly, the only debatable issue is to what extent and in what form.

But back to Henson :) oh wait..no space.

Bill Henson has violated the law of social decency and responsibility to children by his photoes, and by his perousal of girls in the school yard a place unnatended by parents.

CJ how many girls have you raised or had custody of? Myself two daughters, two step daughters and four foster daughters. No responsible parent exposes the privacy of their daughters for all the world to perouse.

You jokers raise prevarication to an art form.

Porky, you said originally

<< we are in Afghanistan because of it being used as a haven for terrorist training camps which were used against us on our own soil >>

Now you say

<< "used against us" could mean many things. Planning, conspiring.. overt actions.. all come under the heading of 'used against us'.
Even passing on of critical information to others more willing to carry out such attacks is 'used against us'. >>

Even if we very generously allow for the slim possibility that you meant one of this things, you conveniently ignore the fact that you claimed that this is the reason that "we are in Afghanistan". You clearly meant that Australian troops were sent to Afghanistan because of prior terrorist activities "on our own soil" that originated there.

That you prevaricate now, rather than explain yourself when originally challenged, only reinforces the lie. I believe that is known as "bearing false witness" in Christian circles.

Speaking of which, Philo is inclined to some prevarication of his own - to claim that something is illegal just because it violates his personal "law of social decency and responsibility to children" is pure bulldust. Philo leapt into the witch hunt by claiming that Henson had acted "illegally", which is plainly untrue in the usual sense of the word. To claim that he really meant the contravention of his idiosyncratic moral code (or to claim that his personal morality is "law" for everybody else) is to perpetuate the lie in much the same way that Porky does.

What is it with you fundies - why would you expect anybody to believe you when you appear incapable of telling the truth?

Bill Henson has a great reputation of being a trustworthy, respectable and very talented, disciplined artist and in a way I am glad that he hasn’t been put off by the past bullying of the media et al.
He has produced so many beautiful photographs of children, used dramatic splashes of light and deep shadows, appropriately draped over yet to develop bodies. He never has exploited any child or hidden his motives. There is no record of abuse, his record is as clean and his attention as focused as his camera lens.

The children he uses for his art seem to come from families that have an interest in art and appreciate and understand art, and who don’t think that there are sexual overtones in Henson’s work.

Looking at Henson's record, it’s unlikely that his artistic mind would have turned to pulp as soon as he set foot into the school.
I wonder if only filthy minds find dirty motives behind every piece of nudity or semi nudity they come across; if only filthy minds find gloomy nooks in shadings and shadows no matter how tastefully presented.

The media has a reputation of dramatising, exaggerating, scare-mongering, blowing things out of proportion and deceiving at times.

Now whom would I rather believe about Henson’s motives and purity of mind, the media or Henson and his models?

Anyway, this probably will be the last thing I said on this matter, I’m far more worried about what goes on behind closed doors of churches, cults, some foster homes (ala Jesus camps) than I am about a talented artist who openly discusses and exposes what he does with his child models.

Dear Celivia
Henson trustworthy?
hmmmm

If I was interested in finding child models for publically displayed photographs which could include nude postures...I'd be making jolly sure that for reasons of decency and trustworthiness that parents were informed BEFORE even asking for or accepting an invitation to a primary school to check them out.

Personally.. if 100 parents were informed of this plan before hand, I reckon there would be enough of them who would howl and yell NOOOOOOO that Henson would set foot within coeee of the place if he had any integrity.

SPEAKING of which.. Pooooooor "Stan" (The straw man) again gets a beating from SS grupenfuher CJ Morgan who persists in limiting the definition of terms to ONLY that which allows him to beat the stuffing out of poor Stan.
Sorry CJ.. you just don't want to be seen to be the dill you are making yourself there...so you dig your heels in and bleat 'false witness' etc to assuage your desperate craving for a 'Christians are bad' fix :)

People trained in explosives technology in Afghanistan who come back here and either DO something themselves with that knowledge or pass the knowledge onto others is... dare I say it, "used against us on our own soil"

Then there is the alliance aspect, where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained in Afghanistan, then took out the Pentagon, Twin towers and tried for the White house. Errr those events include "US" due to our alliance with the USA.
Grow up lil fella..

CJ Morgan,

I will continue to point out that crude comments from small mindedmen have no place on OLO
Just as celiva has rightfully pointed out what goes on behind closed doors of churches, cults, some foster homes (ala Jesus camps) than I am about a talented artist who openly discusses and exposes what he does with his child models.

So Porky actually meant that terrorist attacks in America took place on "our soil"? Riiiiggghht. One wonders why he didn't just say that's what he meant at the time, instead of being seen as a pathological liar.

Who would buy a used car from such a man, let alone take him seriously about anything else?

PALE&IF - of course you're free to post whatever garbled drivel you like. However, you've said numerous times that you don't address comments to me - I just wish you'd stick to your word.

Celevia “Now whom would I rather believe about Henson’s motives and purity of mind, the media or Henson and his models?”

You are more familiar than Henson’s work but I would believe the same as you :-)

CJ Moron, you are giving Morons a bad name

In a store in Norway I saw boxes of nappies for sale. On the cover of the box was a picture of a naked baby girl lying on her back with legs spread. That is a natural posture for a baby needing a change. However, such a picture would be unlikely to be shown on a similar product in Australia.

Norway seems to have a healthier attitude toward sex.

Gollum: << CJ Moron [dribble] >>

Still smarting, old chap?

I think you're a shining example for other whingeing Poms, bean counters and other assorted wingnuts. Keep up the good work!

david f,

I hope the nappy the baby girl was lying on was the new one she was to wear, not the old one to be discarded.

From what I've heard most of Europe has a healthier attitude to nudity. The English speaking world's dislike of nudity comes from Victorian England.

Now I read that the journalist, David Marr realises that he's actually the one that's done damage to the children in Henson's photographs.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24493582-2,00.html

I've been trying to say that all the time. Who here had heard of Bill Henson before all this? I hadn't.

Hi Polycarp,
Don’t forget that the principal of the school also has a great reputation and was respected by parents. Would parents need to give consent for every visitor that enters the school or would it be sufficient to leave the judgment of visitors up to the principal?

From Canberra Times: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/parents-back-henson-over-school-scouting/1326276.aspx
"Parents of children at the primary school where photographer Bill Henson scouted the playground for models have supported the artist and the principal's decision to allow him into the school. St Kilda Park Primary School council president David Myer said the school backed former principal Sue Knight who escorted Mr Henson around the school last year."
As a parent I’d prefer to rely on the principal’s reputation and judgment.

Artists can also approach people, including children, in the street.
In fact, when I was about 15, I was approached by a photographer in a city’s major shopping street and asked if I was interested in visiting his studio to pose as a paid model, but that I would have to have my parents’ consent first.

I was very interested as the pay was far much better than my weekend job at a jeans shop and the work seemed interesting. When I came home, all excited about the offer, my mother contacted the artist and found out that some of the photos would be (semi) nude and wouldn’t give her consent.

I remember being very angry with that and contacted the photographer myself to say that I wanted to pose without my mother’s consent, but he insisted I needed parental consent. No amount of tantrumming was going to change my mother’s mind or the artist’s.

Funnily enough when I was 16 she had no problem with me modeling lingerie for a fashion house because she thought that was a decent job. When I questioned her, she reasoned that the intent of the fashion house was to sell lingerie, but that the artist was out to sell ‘me’.
I didn’t agree because it is ART that a legitimate artist sells, not the souls or bodies of their models

Philo,
If Bill Henson acted illegally, then why isn’t he in jail? You can’t make such judgments or you’d be no better than cunning old fury.
From Alice in Wonderland:
”I am the judge, I am the jury,” said cunning old fury.
”I’ll try the whole cause and condemn you to death.”

Dear Celivia...

Henson is not in Jail because AT THE TIME what he did was only morally reprehensible, not illegal.

IT IS NOW ILLEGAL so officially and lawfully "Henson would be a is a sleaze and a criminal" if he does the exact same thing today.

The laws in NSW have just been tightened to include child nudity.
The artistic defense is now INVALID.. and hip hip hoooooray I say.. I don't care how much these bent artistic types whine and moan.. the law is the law and they will get a full dose of it if they do the wrong thing.
This has 63% support from the community at the time of writing based on a Sky TV poll.

Hi Polycarp,

“…what he did was only morally reprehensible…”
That’s only a matter of the opinion, I strongly disagree because there was nothing sexual about his photographs. Not in my mind, and not in the mind of the artist, the child models or their parents.

That talented artists have been chosen to be the scapegoat means they are punished because of others’ filthy thoughts.
Pointing fingers at artists or restricting their freedom of expression won’t reduce child pornography and paedophilia but it will reinforce the idea that children’s bodies are sexual and therefore must always be kept out of sight.

At least artists *were* able to show people that we can innocently look at (semi) naked children in a natural way, in a way that doesn’t involve sexuality.
Now that possibility is gone- this law installs into our minds that it is always wrong to look at young bodies, that art is no excuse.
It's like saying that there is no line between art and pornography.
I find that quite sad.

All this law does is restrict the freedom of artistic expression and art appreciation. While this kind of art will cease to exist, child pornography will not.

Child protection was the aim for tightening these laws.
Well, think about child protection,there were no victims of artists like Henson or even Anne Geddes.
Therefore, I’d have preferred my tax money, which was spent on unnecessarily tightening these laws, instead be spend on fixing the dysfunctional family court, which creates far more danger to children and far more victims than genuine artists ever could.

I've strained my brain for something positive to say about this law. Perhaps it's positive that this law exists because it solves the problem that it can be difficult for some to draw a distinct line between art and pornography.
Now people don't have to think about that anymore, it's a no-brainer: all child nudity is declared child pornography.

Oh and another positive point is that it's a very politically correct law.
And don't we all just love political correctness?

It's not illegal yet, Porky. How typical for you to pass something off as fact when it isn't.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24551643-5007133,00.html

If the legislation is eventually passed, it will be straight-out populist opportunism from a desperate government on its last legs, a reaction to the confected moral panic brought on by the strange alliance of wowsers and child abuse hysterics who responded so willingly to the media dog whistles of a few months back.

Little wonder that Porky so gloatingly approves. It will be a sad day for NSW when political desperation results in the reintroduction of prudish censorship. What's next, I wonder?

Well said, CJ,
That's a relief!
The article you linked to clarifies the facts.
I admit that I jumped to conclusions after Polycarp's post and believed that the legislation was a sure thing.

You may have caused the next name-change, CJ.

>>It's not illegal yet, Porky. How typical for you to pass something off as fact when it isn't.<<

This is eerily reminiscent of the Swedish Pastor incident, is it not?

>>Given that in Sweden, a pastor WAS JAILED for preaching in his own Church on Romans 1 and using some colorful language in his sermon.<<

The similarities are intriguing. Both were threads that Boaz himself started, and both contain blatant inventions, designed purely from his own imagination to further his argument.

There ought to be a prize for spotting his next incarnation, because we sure as eggs aren't going to get a retraction, or an apology.

We might well get a red herring, of course.

That would be fun.

Indeed, Pericles.

Another day, another lie from Porkycrap. What else is new?

Well... on looking at the story, I have to admit... it isn't law yet.

I gained the impression from the news broadcast (didn't look at a written version) that it was pretty much a done deal.

I freely admit I was wrong "It is not yet illegal" in the strict sense.
Legislation will be put forward.. and debated...

So..there you go.. I apologise for jumping the gun on that one.

I'll seek to listen more closely next time.

Let me rephrase it. "It is morally reprehensible in the eyes of many people and they are working hard to change the legislation to reflect that outrage and cover child nudity in relation to art"

Yep...I think that's pretty much the situation now.

P.s.. a 'lie' is when you know the truth and deliberately misrepresent it, a muff up is when you think you are telling the facts but on insifficient information.
In this case..I was wrong.

Retraction and apology accepted. It wasn't that hard, was it?

As far as the Swedish homophobe goes, you continued to claim that he'd been convicted even after your error had been pointed out to you. Shortly after that, you changed your alias and disappeared from that discussion.

Tip: If you were to check your facts before basing a gloating rant on misinformation and then disappearing from the discussion, then you'd be much less likely to be labelled a liar.

What you repeatedly do is not a "muff up", it's called going off half-cocked. By sticking to your half-cocked guns, you turn it into a lie.

PC: "IT IS NOW ILLEGAL so officially and lawfully "Henson would be a is a sleaze and a criminal" if he does the exact same thing today."

As the legislators took pains to point out, Bill Henson's art will still not be illegal even if the new laws are passed. It doesn't qualify because it's not sexual. Read the newspaper.

Hi CJ... granted it is not hard to retract WHEN someone uses the correct terminology which is...

"it's called going off half-cocked." Hooooo bladi ray....now THAT is something I can respond to positively.

Hi Veronika.. the point made in what I heard was that nudity also would be included.

"The council is concerned that material which would otherwise constitute child pornography and be such as to cause offence to reasonable persons, should then be defensible on the potentially controversial and uncertain ground that the defendant was acting for a genuine artistic purpose," he said. (Justice Wood)

The key words here I think are "reasonable persons" where it is more the opinion of the beholder than the artist which decides the case.

Poly: Then you're reading inaccurate sources.

See: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/new-sexcrime-laws/2008/10/26/1224955838300.html

"The child nudity so controversial in Henson's work would not be affected by such a reform, [NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos] said.

Mr Henson ignited a national debate earlier this year when his nude photographs of a young girl were removed by police from an exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Paddington, in Sydney's east.

However, the police investigation collapsed and the artist was never charged.

"The important thing to remember is that artistic purpose defence did not give rise in that particular case," he said.

"In the DPP's (Director of Public Prosecutions) decision in relation to the Henson matter, nudity did not constitute something that would cause offence in a reasonable person."

As you'll remember, both ACMA and the Classification Board rated Henson's nudes as suitable for general release.

Using the "reasonable persons" test, we can deduce that Australians find nudity natural and beautiful, and know porn when they see it.

Hmm. Just read the above and worry it is not clear enough.

Henson had no need to use the artistic defence because his work was deemed NOT to be pornographic by the DPP. (And ACMA, the Classification Board and every other organisation that counted.) He therefore won't be affected by the new laws.

Porky: << The key words here I think are "reasonable persons" where it is more the opinion of the beholder than the artist which decides the case. >>

Veronika: << Using the "reasonable persons" test, we can deduce that Australians find nudity natural and beautiful, and know porn when they see it. >>

I don't think that any regular reader of this forum could confuse Porky with the legal concept of a "reasonable person". By any standards, I think many of his ideas and values would be considered extreme by ordinary "reasonable persons".

Once again, Poly disappears when the argument becomes irrefutable.