TPP

Not taking issue with the necessary discretion of judges however I am not convinced that anyone who is deemed mature enough to vote should be allowed much leeway for committing a serious crime. (This is something that should be taken into account by the Greens who are proposing a much younger voting age.)

If an 18yr old is old enough to vote s/he is old enough to understand that minors should be left well alone.

'Consensual' sex between minors is a different matter entirely.

Talking generally, I believe that the proponents of 'rape is rape' - who do not see any shades of grey - are barking up the wrong tree.

"Ultimately it is the general public that does not accept pedophilia in any form no matter the grey areas."

Ah but Pelican it IS accepted to some extent by the general public, within the grey areas. That's why there are grey areas!

Henson's 'art' was accepted by a large portion of the general public (with a larger portion not giving a brass razoo either way about his work and therefore not in the slightest bit concerned about it possibly being pedophilic). Only a small minority was offended or in any way bothered by it.

Any sexualisation of minors could fall within this grey zone. What about your everyday K-Mart catalogue and the like that shows young girls dressed all manner of stuff in order to advertise clothing? No sexualisation indended (?). But it can still come across that way.

And what about the printing of Henson's photo of a nude underaged girl in a major newspaper with pubes displayed? Blatantly ilegal surely! That was sexual and pedophilic to just the same extent as it being shown in Henson's exhibition, but put on view to many thousands of people who would never have gone to his exhibition! What the crazy crap gives?

It was totally unnecessary to print that photo 'unmodestly', in contrast to many other papers that printed it with blacked out areas variously over the breasts and/or pubes....and face as well! But who objected? Just about no one apparently.

I have NO problem with Henson's photo or with it being shown in an exhibition. But I have a huge problem with it being shown 'immodestly' in a newspaper. This view just seems so natural to me, and yet it is apparently only shared by a tiny fraction of people who are in any concerned about law, morals, pedophilia, etc.

So yes, there is widespread mainstream acceptance of stuff that I would consider dodgy....and I certainly don't consider myself to be a prude!

The Australian had this AFP account of the matter this morning http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,,26140226-10388,00.html. I think that Polanski's conduct was pretty abominable. You'll notice he also has a history of dating much younger women.

It's not that relevant that the victim thinks he should be forgiven. While she is one party to the matter, the public also has an interest. And that interest is best served by people like Polanski being subject to the due process of the law.

The essence of our belief in the justness of our legal system is that applies to all equally, whether they are millionaires, paupers, or famous movie directors. Imagine a justice system that depended on the success in life of convicted people to determine whether they were guilty or not. What if Polanski's career had been a flop? Would it be OK to extradite him then?

One of the things that was most striking about the case of Marcus Einfeld was that he was dealt with more harshly than others in his situation might have been because much more should have been expected of him. That's how the justice system ought to operate. To those whom much has been given more will be expected, not less.

Tricky Cornflower… but if they are old enough to abort, take a pill to avoid aforementioned aborting then society has already agreed it happens and the Dr’s don’t ask who the father is and don’t mandatory report. On a side note: 15 year olds can get an abortion without fuss (they pay here, NZ was free) in Aussie but cannot get the Rod in without parental consent given for this minor surgery.

A male at18 years old is about the perfect age to be attracted to a 15 year old female – and of course they can be forced to vote, hardly requires intelligence, might as well make the 9 year olds do it.
I imagine a judge would be more looking at a “peer” group when making a decision about youths having intercourse.

Rape is very different so I guess that is why we have the label “pedophile” in one situation and “rapist” in another. When it is adult/child sex (not peer group) I guess the only thing separating the two lables is the level of violence opposed to grooming along with power and control/influence?

Oh then the statutory rape thing – does Aussie have that label as well?

My gawd it’s a minefield.

GY:”And that interest is best served by people like Polanski being subject to the due process of the law.”

This process changes for those who are wealthy and have better lawyers, fame, a tragic past…?

Ludwig
I agree in part with your statement but my meaning was more the grey areas in terms of the media's reporting of 'support' for Polanski in terms of Graham's opening post. And the support for Polanski from some sections of the film industry. Although it has to be acknowledged that many other celebrities have not come out in defence of Polanski.

There are clearly grey areas on censorship when it comes to Henson but most people would not place Henson in the pedophile category even if they disagreed with his sexualised portrayal of underage children.

For some reason the artistic temperament and pushing the boundaries is okay for some on this issue when it comes to Art - others not so.

I tend to agree with Graham's comment about expectations for high profile people including the trust and authority bestowed on those in authority like priests, teachers, doctors and politicians. We generally do expect more because they are in a position to cause more harm by their actions.

In some cases like Einfeld, he was treated harshly in the media because of his position than a general Joe Blow down the street who might similarly behave like a hypocritical nong. That is the price of exposure and position should one betray that trust.

GY

Spot on.

There is also the other problem that there could well be other sexual crimes he has committed against minors but the victims would never come forward in the knowledge that he is 'untouchable' by authorities.

Isn't that the real power and menace of the powerful, that they are in effect above the law and they can have the law do their bidding?

In Australia we have even had senior politicians who have molested children (or consorted with criminals or were responsible for fraud etc etc) and got away with it for years despite the efforts of victims and whistleblowers. Usually it was only luck (for the good) and their arrogance that finally brought them undone. The rich and influential can get away with many things, but not always in that great country America it seems.

We should be applauding the US, not being suckered in by spin merchants to suspend our critical faculties and judgement to excuse this sorry crime against a child.