Sylvia Else: "Actually, they didn't."

I hope you are right in your reading of this particular case, Sylvia.

However, your "Bull in a China shop" comment is misplaced. You say the police may of overstepped the mark in this case, but it is a nuanced argument. It should not be a nuanced argument. It should be very clear. They should of been so far over the line disciplinary actions was called for.

We allow movies showing kids speeding, taking drugs, murdering, and so on. We even show these things in advertisements as a prevention measure. Yet, we don't in this case. Again we allow sound judgement and sound laws to be twisted by a "save the children" argument. Images showing this sort of thing are absolutely repulsive, but why ban them? If anything putting them on display makes it obvious just how repulsed we all are by it.

So the problem here is not with the police. The problem is the law itself. The police overstepping the mark by a small amount should not cause ridicule to be poured on them or the law.

But that is not the worst of it. I'd wager you could not point to any incident and say "without these laws, this harm would not of occurred". But I can point to at least two cases, and say "these laws caused this harm to occur". It is the very definition of unsound law. The pollies who passed it should be crucified.

rstuart

I don't see it as nuanced. To me it is clear. The intent of the legislation is to prevent the production of material for dissemination to people who get their jollies from seeing children being hurt, molested, tortured, sexually assaulted, etc. It isn't to prevent the publication of material that some people might think portrays conduct that is unwise, but which which is not sexual and isn't distressing or wilfully harming the child, even if it is clearly dangerous.

The police might be incapable (and I suspect there's a degree of wilful blindness involved) of seeing the difference, but the courts will. Assuming it even gets that far. It's entirely possible the DPP will cause the charges to be dropped.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else,

You're spot on. All police involved with Child Pornography investigations must be required to undergo training with the Office of Film & Literature Classification Board prior to undertaking any child pornography investigation.

The Bill Henson exhibition should have never been raided, and I hope that the Police and Hetty Johnson are sued over that incident. (Although Bill Henson got plenty of publicity from it).

Sadly, I know plenty of Gibo's. We had someone just like him in my church recently. Just like Gibo he had crazy ideas about how we should all live and soon found hardly anyone in the church wanted to talk to him. He then left to go to another church and repeated the process. These people are very rarely in the one church for more than 6 months. Is that what it's like for you Gibo, going from one church to the next because all the other believers in the church you attend are lukewarm? Do people in your church avoid you?

Gibo you might be interested to know that my faith was week when I joined the nudist movement. I went there because I was disillusioned in my faith, and needed some social activity in my life to replace church as I was not attending church at the time. I chose the nudist movement because I thought there wouldn't be any Christians there. Wrong, there were quite a number and they encouraged me to get my life back in order with God, (and they also showed me that being a nudist was not a sin). Now I'm able to do the same thing with others in the movement that need encouragement. There's a very high percentage of Born Again Christians in the nudist club I attend, over 10% in fact. We are mostly from traditionally fundamentalist churches such as AOG, Baptist, Church of Christ and other Pentecostals. Some of them are deacons in the church and we have one pastor. Don't ask me to give any names as that is against nudist protocal.

I cant tell who youre with Steel Mann but it seems like either The Skeptics or the Athiests or those for 'gay christians' or some other group but your talk is all wrong for a born again christian.
I suspect youre a mole for some group pulling christian legs for a laugh.

That's a pretty frank admission, Boaz.

>>You can be pretty sure I'd say that the impetus from this level of scrutiny of subject matter..(Illingworth's action) is not coming from the 'bible basher' segment..or evangelicals.. I'm happy to be proven wrong here... if such is the case, but this smacks of the tyranical, PC 'human rights' advocates attitude where they (like the pharisees of Jesus day) try to codify every aspect of human behavior. When it turns around and bites them in the ideological bum, they scream foul!<<

If I read this correctly - and please put me straight if I am wrong - you are saying that you approve of the action against Illingworth.

You then make it clear that you believe such action to stem from "tyranical, PC 'human rights' advocates attitude where they (like the pharisees of Jesus day) try to codify every aspect of human behavior"

Fitting the logic together, this declares that the modus operandi of "bible bashers, or evangelicals" is to tyrannically codify every aspect of human behaviour.

We always knew this, of course. It is just that it is so refreshing hearing it from you..

Sylvia,
You said

"The real problem we have is that police behave like a bull in a china shop at the remotest suggestion of something that falls into the child pornography area, and rush in with warrants and charges before wiser minds have a chance to prevail. Witness the Bill Henson child pornography charges that were subsequently dropped because they were without basis".

If that is the case why oh why have they not laid charges in relation to FGM. Do you not agree that it is child abuse. Since about 94-95 all states made FGM illegal. Hospitals have ample evidence with admissions of little girls in emergency wards. It is possible that medicos have to notify Health Dept. of FGM.

What is required is simply fair and reasonable application of the law