Project Or(e) Inquisition?

[blanc]

tkl I'm too short of time to read the whole thread but refer to your comments in 2nd post to effect that those downloading child porn do not harm kids. this is so so so wrongheaded and ill informed.
one, every child porn site represents a child abused, for the money got from the sale of the material, and paying for this material guarantees a continued supply of it, its a business, now a bigger earner than illegal drug running
two, the victims themselves, feel re-abused and incapable of healing knowing the material representing them is circulating and that men are getting off on it
three many, increasing numbers of these sites, are what could quickly be described as interactive, the punter being invited to pay for setting up the abuse of his dreams with a child he selects
four, many abusers go on from merely downloading to actual physical abuse, indeed many sites require that to become part of the 'club' the punter uploads fresh images

as to comments about age differences in sexual relationships, a child is a child is a child. children are protected from financial deals by legislation preventing them from being held to contractual obligations if for example targeted by loan sharks, are protected from their lack of experience and judgement by being held incapable of being judged for criminal offences on the same basis as adults, are deemed needing protection of an adult in medical matters, are not considered able to participate in elections because of lack of judgement, and are not considered able to give informed consent for sexual encounters. how difficult is that?

[antiaristo]

First, the sex-with-kids thing serves the same purposes as did man sex with man, until 1967.
(Lesbianism has never been illegal in England)

This statement deserves to be unpacked. But I think i know what you're getting at.


Actually, there is a whole lot hiding in your little sentence. I would be very happy if you elaborated.

Yeah, you're right.

"Buggery" is a common law offence, and has always been illegal in England. But comparatively few have ever been prosecuted for "buggery".

This is the law that caught Oscar Wilde.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_L ... t_Act_1885

Take a look at the wiki article, and focus in particular on the legislative process.

That's part I.
I will continue with part II on your request.

[theeKultleeder]

antiaristo,

I thought you were getting at black mail and so forth. I just wanted to make sure you aren't conflating consensual homosexuality with pedophilia.

[theeKultleeder]

tkl I'm too short of time to read the whole thread but refer to your comments in 2nd post to effect that those downloading child porn do not harm kids. this is so so so wrongheaded and ill informed.
one, every child porn site represents a child abused, for the money got from the sale of the material, and paying for this material guarantees a continued supply of it, its a business, now a bigger earner than illegal drug running

No, you see, I agree with you, but going after the consumers will not stop the producers. This hasn't worked in the "war on drugs," as I tried to point out in my crack-cocaine analogy.

two, the victims themselves, feel re-abused and incapable of healing knowing the material representing them is circulating and that men are getting off on it

Okay. What about the porno law enforcement uses for sting operations?

three many, increasing numbers of these sites, are what could quickly be described as interactive, the punter being invited to pay for setting up the abuse of his dreams with a child he selects

Like a legal commercial adult site? I find it ridiculous that they are wasting time on collecting credit card numbers when this is going on.

Are you sure that some of these sites aren't sting operations?

four, many abusers go on from merely downloading to actual physical abuse, indeed many sites require that to become part of the 'club' the punter uploads fresh images

Many? That is an ambiguous word. My gut says that most people don't move from porno to abuse, like most people don't move from video games to murder. (it is a poor analogy, I know, bit I think it illustrates how I see it) My mind is open to evidence from statistics and studies and so forth on this.

as to comments about age differences in sexual relationships, a child is a child is a child.

This type of thinking is not helpful. You have used it before in "a memory is a memory is a memory." It is clear that the real world is not so monolithic in its qualities. Besides, I wasn't making any point there, I was only trying to get Stephen to be a little more articulate.

[antiaristo]

antiaristo,

I thought you were getting at black mail and so forth. I just wanted to make sure you aren't conflating consensual homosexuality with pedophilia.

I take it you did not read this?

As a result of the vagueness of the term "gross indecency," this law allowed juries, judges and lawyers to prosecute virtually any male homosexual behaviour. Compared to older sodomy laws that prescribed death or life imprisonment, the law was lenient, possibly due to the wide range of acts covered. Dubbed the "blackmailer's charter," it was famously invoked to convict Oscar Wilde in 1895. Wilde was given the most severe sentence possible under the act, which the judge described as "totally inadequate for a case such as this"[1]. The law was repealed in part by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 when homosexuality was finally decriminalized in England and Wales, with remaining provisions being deleted later.

[theeKultleeder]

I didn't bother, no. But I did get what you were saying, right? And now you get what I'm saying...

[blanc]

anti, agree with your point that acceptance of homosexuality has resulted in paedophile abuse being the new blackmail/enforcement/bribery. the questions about op ore and the validity of the card numbers hang in the shadow of the squashed story about investigation of someone close to downing street, and the lack of additional funding. someone wanted op ore to die.

tkl; yes, I am sure that the types of abusive sites I am referring to are not sting ops, why, indeed, do you think that criminal sites have demanded an entry ticket of fresh abuse? I don't know the US law well, but police in the uk have to act within the law themselves.
the downloader to abuser trajectory is dealt with in some of the material you asked me to refer you to when this topic area appeared in another thread.
the analogy with drug crime is imperfect. downloaders who pay to see children abused are not innocent consumers, nor do they even fit with the blurry victim/dealer profile at the bottom of the illegal drug trade. I'm doing you the favour of assuming that you have read little about what paedophile pornography encompasses, otherwise your defense of those who pay for it to take place for their amusement would render all discussion pointless. Under UK law it is an offence of rape for a person to encourage the rape of someone by another person - I have only read on one conviction on this law, of a woman present at the gang rape of another woman, but I see no difference between the act of encouraging rape or any of the other abusive offences which paedophile pornography encompasses, up to and including murder, by paying for it to happen, and this case, other than that the downloaders are even more despicable by reason of the youth of the victims.
I don't think collecting credit card numbers can be said to be a waste of time. If you meant, why aren't they going after the pornographers with real time abuse sites, then I think you will find answers to this question by reading reports of police operations in press, the sites are routed through various and different countries, and are not static. An officer from interpol unit dealing with this area told me it is very unusual for the images seized to show any identifiable detail of abuser or scene.
I think there is much more that could be done, like listening to survivors of extreme abuse and investigating thoroughly those cases, for example, but any efforts to get prosecutions of the criminals are better than none.

[theeKultleeder]

I'm doing you the favour of assuming that you have read little about what paedophile pornography encompasses, otherwise your defense of those who pay for it to take place for their amusement would render all discussion pointless.

That's not my argument at all. I'm not defending the consumption of child porn, not at all. See? See the wild and potentially dangerous presumptions that come from even talking about this area of human behavior?

That's practically the point of my posting the OP.

I still stand by my argument: focusing on downloaders will not do much for children - going after the uploaders will. The movie and music industry has taken a similar tactic in combating illegal downloads of 'intellectual property.'

"Pay for it to take place..." I assume you are referring to those who directly pay a producer to procure a victim and film abuse, right? Because it is an overly broad statement otherwise.

[antiaristo]

hi blanc. Seasons Greetings.

Just for emphasis, my point was more about 1885 than 1967.

The biggest problem the Empress had was that her officers kept on "going native". You know - taking the needs of the wogs into account.

She needed a lever, to force compliance.

Some genius came up with the idea to tack something this far reaching onto the back end of a totally unrelated bill. First mentioned August 6, passed August 14.

(Her Majesty's) attorney general said "this is a good thing. Make it stronger." He had been put into office in wholly exceptional circumstances just two months beforehand.

The Speaker said "nothing to do with me, guv." And looked the other way.

And all this in an institution pretty much dominated by fagging practicing ex public schoolboys. Eton alone boasts nineteen British prime ministers.

The modern equivalent?
I have two daughters. Anybody that destroys a childhood deserves what's coming to him.

But honest to God. Are you really not aware of how much jail-baiting is going on out there?

[theeKultleeder]

I have two daughters. Anybody that destroys a childhood deserves what's coming to him.

But honest to God. Are you really not aware of how much jail-baiting is going on out there?

Just jumping in.

This stuff is hard to articulate. I feel something is wrong when victims' advocates appear so hateful and hell-bent. Years ago I read a novel by child protection advocate Andrew Vachss. It was actually a Batman story in which the hero was going after child victimizers. The internal dialogue of Batman in that story was so ugly and disturbing I didn't finish reading it.

Here is what the man says about his own fictional character:

If you look at Burke closely, you'll see the prototypical abused child: hypervigilant, distrustful. He's so committed to his family of choice — not his DNA-biological family, which tortured him, or the state which raised him, but the family that he chose — that homicide is a natural consequence of injuring any of that family. He's not a hit man. But he shares the same religion I do, which is revenge.

– "Andrew Vachss," Horror Online, April 1

If you feel that way I feel sorry for you. It's just not healthy, for the community or the individual feeling that hatred, even when facing child abusers.

Why sink down to that same bestial level?

[Et in Arcadia ego]

I feel something is wrong when victims' advocates appear so hateful and hell-bent.

Have at least one child of your own and see if your flippancy towards sexual predators of children endures.

[antiaristo]

.

tKl,
Are you intimating that kiddie-fiddling is OK?

I ask because you have positioned me at a far extreme. That's a rhetorical device, used when trying to "win" an argument.

Are you trying to "champion" kiddie-fiddlers, while all the while denying any such thing?

[chlamor]

I have two daughters. Anybody that destroys a childhood deserves what's coming to him.

But honest to God. Are you really not aware of how much jail-baiting is going on out there?

Just jumping in.

This stuff is hard to articulate. I feel something is wrong when victims' advocates appear so hateful and hell-bent. Years ago I read a novel by child protection advocate Andrew Vachss. It was actually a Batman story in which the hero was going after child victimizers. The internal dialogue of Batman in that story was so ugly and disturbing I didn't finish reading it.

Here is what the man says about his own fictional character:

If you look at Burke closely, you'll see the prototypical abused child: hypervigilant, distrustful. He's so committed to his family of choice — not his DNA-biological family, which tortured him, or the state which raised him, but the family that he chose — that homicide is a natural consequence of injuring any of that family. He's not a hit man. But he shares the same religion I do, which is revenge.

– "Andrew Vachss," Horror Online, April 1

If you feel that way I feel sorry for you. It's just not healthy, for the community or the individual feeling that hatred, even when facing child abusers.

Why sink down to that same bestial level?

Sounds like denying human emotions and instincts.

Here let me help. If I happened in on someone who was abusing any of my young children I'd crush his/her skull with the nearest baseball bat. No hesitation, no remorse.

To say that I would "hate" that person is too clinical and wouldn't touch upon the depths of hostility I would have for such an individual.

[theeKultleeder]

.

tKl,
Are you intimating that kiddie-fiddling is OK?

I ask because you have positioned me at a far extreme. That's a rhetorical device, used when trying to "win" an argument.

Are you trying to "champion" kiddie-fiddlers, while all the while denying any such thing?

No.

[Et in Arcadia ego]

.

tKl,
Are you intimating that kiddie-fiddling is OK?

Good; I'm not the only person who's gotten that impression..