Dont' bring manga into Canada

[HVC]

What the hell kind of porn are you watch, marti?

You faux-prude. Don't tell me you've never jerked off to a vid of a 50 year old man in diapers nursing from a hideously ugly woman.

ok once. but i was really drunk

[Martinus]

I'm not sure what "infantilist porn" is - porn involving characters who are of age, but dressed and acting younger?

That's the problem with you square prosecutor types - you do not know the subject well enough yet you seem to have opinions on it that have rather far reaching consequences.

Infantilist porn is porn where at least one of the participants dresses up as a child or a baby (I guess it's to child porn what furry porn is to bestiality porn). I suspect there isn't much overlap between consumers of that porn/fetish and pedophiles but who knows - in any case if you go after depictions of child sex in text, why not go after a badly disguised adult pretending to be a baby?

So I need to watch a lot of porn in order to prosecute child porn cases?

And do you really need all the ad hom insults Marti?

I think I've heard of that particular kink.  I think it has a lot more to do with submission and power - kind of just a particular twist on S&M - rather than an attraction to infants.  Plus I'm, unaware of anyone progressing from that kind of porn to child sexual abuse.

I didn't say you need to watch all that porn - I don't. But you have to at least know it exists.

[Barrister]

I didn't say you need to watch all that porn - I don't. But you have to at least know it exists.

Not really.

Child porn in particular here in Alberta all gets handled by our Specialized Prosecutions unit.  In Yukon those cases were handled by a single experienced prosecutor (and it's not as if we got very many of them).

Being a Canadian prosecutor I do have some special knowledge of this area that I can try to share with Languish, but this is not my particular area of expertise.

[Slargos]

I didn't say you need to watch all that porn - I don't. But you have to at least know it exists.

Not really.

Child porn in particular here in Alberta all gets handled by our Specialized Prosecutions unit.  In Yukon those cases were handled by a single experienced prosecutor (and it's not as if we got very many of them).

Being a Canadian prosecutor I do have some special knowledge of this area that I can try to share with Languish, but this is not my particular area of expertise.

You can't come to Languish and make statements outside your area of expertise, you pretentious schmuck! It cheapens the forum.

Really... what's this place coming to?

[Camerus]

I'm still not sure why a drawing or a text depicting underage sex is worthy of criminal prosecution, while depictions of every other crime are not, including acts of supreme violence. 

Well, that's not entirely true, I know why - the hysteria around this particular issue shuts off the rationality valve in most people's minds (to the extent it was even there in the first place).  But I can't think of a compelling and convincing reason.  The evidence surrounding the "gateway" argument is certainly not compelling enough to warrant locking people away and ruining their entire lives.

Is there any civilized country other than Canada that prosecutes this?

[Barrister]

I'm still not sure why a drawing or a text depicting underage sex is worthy of criminal prosecution, while depictions of every other crime are not, including acts of supreme violence. 

Well, that's not entirely true, I know why - the hysteria around this particular issue shuts off the rationality valve in most people's minds (to the extent it was even there in the first place).  But I can't think of a compelling and convincing reason.  The evidence surrounding the "gateway" argument is certainly not compelling enough to warrant locking people away and ruining their entire lives.

Is there any civilized country other than Canada that prosecutes this?

It took me 2 secodns to find that Australia does.  I'm sure so do many other countries.

What research have you done to come to the immediate conclusions that "the gateway argument is certainly not compelling enough"?

[Camerus]

I'm still not sure why a drawing or a text depicting underage sex is worthy of criminal prosecution, while depictions of every other crime are not, including acts of supreme violence. 

Well, that's not entirely true, I know why - the hysteria around this particular issue shuts off the rationality valve in most people's minds (to the extent it was even there in the first place).  But I can't think of a compelling and convincing reason.  The evidence surrounding the "gateway" argument is certainly not compelling enough to warrant locking people away and ruining their entire lives.

Is there any civilized country other than Canada that prosecutes this?

What research have you done to come to the immediate conclusions that "the gateway argument is certainly not compelling enough"?

Well, for one, the studies you linked to earlier in this thread provided contradictory results.  From those results, while it seems such a link *may* exist, it doesn't seem conclusive enough to warrant convicting someone based on the gateway argument. Some studies have reached the opposite conclusion. 

Secondly, my above claim notwithstanding, the onus really isn't on me to prove that there *isn't* a causal link and that people shouldn't be arrested.  Rather, it must be the state that proves that a strong enough link exists to warrant arresting, sentencing and giving someone a large social stigma for the rest of their life.  And so, absent such convincing evidence for what is a very controversial claim with such far-reaching implications (and which is also not a crime in many western countries), I am not simply willing to take the Crown's word on it. 

And beyond the gateway argument, there don't seem to be many other reasonable arguments left.

[The Brain]

I've been thinking about BDSM cartoons vs child porn cartoons. I can't think of any obvious big differences between them. Maybe I'm missing something?

BDSM (the activity, no the comics) has consenting adults.  Child sexual abuse has no consent.

But the activity associated with child porn cartoons isn't always the same as the activity depicted. Just like BDSM. Many BDSM porn cartoons depict non-consensual rape and torture. Only a subset of those who use BDSM cartoons actually enjoy and in some cases engage in non-consensual rape and torture. Many people's activities associated with BDSM cartoons involve situations different from those depicted, ie consensual situations. To these people the cartoon is simply a fantasy, a fantasy that they find arousing as a fantasy but are not at all interested in making a reality because they are not aroused by the reality. If we look at child porn cartoons I don't see a significant difference. Age play among consenting adults where one part plays the part of a child is fairly common. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many people who like this use child porn cartoons. And I have no reason to doubt that many of them have no interest in having sex with an actual child, just like I have zero interest in torturing a woman who doesn't consent. If this is so only a subset of those who use child porn cartoons actually want to have sex with a child.

I don't see the big difference between the two things. They are both used by adults to fuel real life consensual encounters of adults. They are also AFAIK used by sadistic rapists and child molesters, respectively.

[Barrister]

I'm still not sure why a drawing or a text depicting underage sex is worthy of criminal prosecution, while depictions of every other crime are not, including acts of supreme violence. 

Well, that's not entirely true, I know why - the hysteria around this particular issue shuts off the rationality valve in most people's minds (to the extent it was even there in the first place).  But I can't think of a compelling and convincing reason.  The evidence surrounding the "gateway" argument is certainly not compelling enough to warrant locking people away and ruining their entire lives.

Is there any civilized country other than Canada that prosecutes this?

What research have you done to come to the immediate conclusions that "the gateway argument is certainly not compelling enough"?

Well, for one, the studies you linked to earlier in this thread provided contradictory results.  From those results, while it seems such a link *may* exist, it doesn't seem conclusive enough to warrant convicting someone based on the gateway argument. Some studies have reached the opposite conclusion. 

Secondly, my above claim notwithstanding, the onus really isn't on me to prove that there *isn't* a causal link and that people shouldn't be arrested.  Rather, it must be the state that proves that a strong enough link exists to warrant arresting, sentencing and giving someone a large social stigma for the rest of their life.  And so, absent such convincing evidence for what is a very controversial claim with such far-reaching implications (and which is also not a crime in many western countries), I am not simply willing to take the Crown's word on it. 

And beyond the gateway argument, there don't seem to be many other reasonable arguments left.

You are aware that our child porn laws were given extensive scuriny by the Supreme court of Canada, wnd with a very narrow exception, were held to pass constitutional muster?

From the headnote of R v Sharpe:

In adopting s. 163.1(4), Parliament was pursuing the pressing and substantial objective of criminalizing the possession of child pornography that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children.  The means chosen by Parliament are rationally connected to this objective.  Parliament is not required to adduce scientific proof based on concrete evidence that the possession of child pornography causes harm to children.  Rather, a reasoned apprehension of harm will suffice.  Applying this test, the evidence establishes several connections between the possession of child pornography and harm to children: (1) child pornography promotes cognitive distortions; (2) it fuels fantasies that incite offenders to offend; (3) it is used for grooming and seducing victims; and (4) children are abused in the production of child pornography involving real children. Criminalizing possession may reduce the market for child pornography and the abuse of children it often involves.  With respect to minimal impairment, when properly interpreted, the law catches much less material unrelated to harm to children than has been suggested.  However, the law does capture the possession of two categories of material that one would not normally think of as "child pornography" and that raise little or no risk of harm to children: (1) written materials or visual representations created and held by the accused alone, exclusively for personal use; and (2) visual recordings created by or depicting the accused that do not depict unlawful sexual activity and are held by the accused exclusively for private use.  The bulk of the material falling within these two classes engages important values underlying the s. 2(b) guarantee while posing no reasoned risk of harm to children.  In its main impact, s. 163.1(4) is proportionate and constitutional.  Nonetheless, the law's application to materials in the two problematic classes, while peripheral to its objective, poses significant problems at the final stage of the proportionality analysis.  In these applications the restriction imposed by s. 163.1(4) regulates expression where it borders on thought.  The cost of prohibiting such materials to the right of free expression outweighs any tenuous benefit it might confer in preventing harm to children.  To this extent, the law cannot be considered proportionate in its effects, and the infringement of s. 2(b) contemplated by the legislation is not demonstrably justifiable under s. 1.

There is no such requirement for scientific proof before passign legislation.

The entire judgement is found here:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc2/2001scc2.html



What irks me is not that you might come to a different conclusion - its a democracy, and different people have different views.  But that you would make such sweeping declarations on a topic that has received a lot of careful and considered thought...

[Ideologue]

And beyond the gateway argument, there don't seem to be many other reasonable arguments left.

Beeb expressed the notion that if we permit people to create artistic works depicting sex with minors, people will see the depicted activity as "less bad."  This rationale would apply to a far broader range of material, including politically protected speech.  I don't understand how you could honestly limit this reasoning to materials determined obscene (by other metrics).  Is this what the SCC calls a "cognitive distortion"?

Something else I'm curious about is the actual content of the comic.  Like, were the "victims" (lol) actually 10 years old?  16 years old?  17 and 364 days?  Stated to be 18 but not intended to be?  Unstated entirely?  If either of the latter two options, is a Canadian judge empowered to determine the age of a complete fiction, even in the face of an author's stated intent, or deliberate ambiguity?

[Camerus]

There is no such requirement for scientific proof before passign legislation.

The entire judgement is found here:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc2/2001scc2.html

What irks me is not that you might come to a different conclusion - its a democracy, and different people have different views.  But that you would make such sweeping declarations on a topic that has received a lot of careful and considered thought...

Well, you'll find no argument from me that it's always necessary to have overwhelming scientific proof before passing a law.  Such a claim would not be in the public interest and would make changing and making laws a nightmare.

Nor am I arrogant enough to simply dismiss the laws of parliament or the decisions of the Supreme Court out of hand.  Obviously, something that was held to pass the muster by the Supreme Court of a lawful society warrants careful consideration to say the least.

But the alternative is probably worse.  Taking the approach of, "well, it's been decided by our MP's and the Supreme Court so it's probably not worth it for little old me to question their reasoning" isn't really compatible with a democracy or a just society either.

So in essence, when we look at the gateway argument, which lacks conclusive evidence, we're just left with the circular argument that "it's the law because our wise lawmakers have deemed it so." 

Now, a part of me would like to see people with writings or drawings of children of an obvious sexual nature have the book thrown at them, just on the "ick" factor alone.  So if we did find good reason to believe that such people really do pose a danger to actual children, I would be quite happy in that sense.  But as it stands, the law is not a sound one IMO.  However, I am more than willing to change my mind about it given further evidence or explanation.   

[Iormlund]

I don't get it. The way I read that opinion is that the court is actually agreeing with us that banning text or other material that does not involve victims is not justified. Yet apparently they didn't struck that down. What the fuck? Why can't lawyers write in English?

[dps]

I don't get it. The way I read that opinion is that the court is actually agreeing with us that banning text or other material that does not involve victims is not justified. Yet apparently they didn't struck that down. What the fuck? Why can't lawyers write in English?

No, they were agreeing that writings or drawings that would otherwise be covered by the statute weren't if they were kept solely by the person that wrote or drew them for their own personal use.

[ulmont]

Is there any civilized country other than Canada that prosecutes this?

It took me 2 secodns to find that Australia does.  I'm sure so do many other countries.

The US, too.

In an obscenity first, a U.S. comic book collector has pleaded guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex abuse and bestiality.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

[Ideologue]

Is there any civilized country other than Canada that prosecutes this?

It took me 2 secodns to find that Australia does.  I'm sure so do many other countries.

The US, too.

In an obscenity first, a U.S. comic book collector has pleaded guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex abuse and bestiality.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

However, he pled guilty.  It would've been more interesting to see what would have happened had he fought it.

The lawyer declined to describe the details. "If they can imagine it, they drew it," he says. "Use your imagination. It was there."

I'd better not.  Thought crime is death these days.

Another reason not to have laws like this is the chilling effect on acceptable speech.  I'm reasonably confident that the Claudius duology does not comprise a pornographic text, but there's a lot of prurient interest material in there.  The BBC show even moreso, insofar as the actress portraying Messalina is mad hot.  The point is that the BBC series was essential for a well-read teenager who also didn't have regular access to pornography.  Incidentally, the character Messalina?  Conceivably under 18.  But, anyway, more importantly, Tiberius.

What if some jackass decides Robert Graves was peddling kiddie smut?  More importantly, what if the next Robert Graves says, "Fuck, I'd better not put in the part where Tiberius sodomizes children."

Incidentally, there's a restaurant called "Little Minnows" in Minnesota.  Heh.