Dear Houellebecq,

Thanks for bringing up the connection between paedophilia and terrorism.

What brings these in common is that governments need to constantly find arch-enemies, to locate the Satan(s) outside in order to divert public attention from the real enemy - themselves!

Traditionally, the problem was solved by having wars with other countries, but the government of a country like Australia that is not in war with any other country and where even the forces of nature are not harsh enough to declare war on, must simply find other outlets in order to justify its existence.

My understanding is that if someone even discusses murdering someone else, even in the privacy of their own car (for example being heard on a listening device), they can be charged with conspiracy to murder?

Why is that any different to charging a disgusting person checking out kiddy porn?
The average person doesn't go onto these dreadful sites unless it turns them on.
How do the authorities KNOW this sicko hasn't actually followed through on their 'fantasies'?

At least if they are charged for looking at illegal child pornography sites the police can keep a closer eye on them, and they will know they are being watched.
That alone may stop them from abusing children...

I've often wondered if the release from the use of image based porn reduces the incidence of physical abuse amongst those with limited self control.

Not much chance with those who just don't care but I assume that like most things there is a spectrum, that in the case of paedophiles there are some who don't want to hurt kids or who don't want to face the legal penalties of doing so but who still struggle with yearnings which they can't get rid of.

Given we don't appear to have cures for them are there options which don't involve harm to children or demanding complete abstinence?
At the moment the only legal solution appear to be complete abstinence and we should be asking ourselves how well does work for most addicts.

I wonder if there has been any serious research done to determine if the impact of the use of child porn on rates of physical abuse of kids.

I'm reminded of the case of a man jailed "after sexually explicit pictures of children characters from The Simpsons were found on his computer"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors

On the other hand there is the slippery slope argument when it comes to any "acceptable" forms of paedophilia.

There are the significant issues involved if children can be identified from the images.

There is clearly an issue with sourcing of any images in that any real image involving physical abuse of children involves physical abuse of children.

The question I'm asking might boil down to something like this - is there a chance that we are letting our revulsion for paedophiles get in the way of reducing the harm to actual children?

R0ber

Someone high up somewhere is protecting paedophiles who so far have never been charged. Anyone got any ideas? Anyone else who has suffered at their hands? All reporting hits a brick wall and falls into a black hole.

Funny how my questions managed to bring the conversation to an abrupt halt.

There are all sorts of child protection agencies. Yet we hear more and more about child sexual assault, kids are shut inside with their computers instead of playing outdoors, because its just not safe out there.

Law needs to be changed. Chemical castration doesn't seem to do it. Maybe we should go back to the barbaric custom of castration. One for the first offence, etc.
The trouble is they're not afraid enough of the consequences. They think such activity is normal, probably because many of them were themselves victims, and learned to like it. It ruins lives, causes severe personality disorders, post traumatic stress that can last a lifetime.

Just about the only times paedophiles are charged is if the victim complains or the AFP is tipped off by Interpol.

What we'll end up with eventually is social chaos, the country ripe for takeover.