Dont' bring manga into Canada

[Martinus]

The law in Canada is complex, and not entirely satisfactory - but as I said there are no easy answers to this stuff.

I guess I find the arbitrariness of it concerning.  All they need to do to turn you, Barrister Boy, into a paedophile criminal is declare some piece of Media you have, such as a set of GRRM books, child pornography.  I would never think sitting alone and writing stories for your own private use to be a crime.  I mean laws like that could be used to destroy completely innocent people if you interpret them broadly enough.  I guess you just have to trust on good people to make sure bad laws do not turn into tyranny.

Indeed. There is an extremely robust body of case law from the European Court of Human Rights and European constitutional courts, striking various criminal laws as unconstitutional on account of such laws being ambiguous and thus not allowing a clear distinction between a prohibited and a permitted activity.

BB's arguments are nothing more than a testament to the moral panic surrounding this issue.

[Barrister]

So, the practice in canadian law is to regard anything that turns paedos on as child pornography as long as it isn't text. Is that correct?

  Uh, no.  How did you get that from what I said?

For visual representation, anything that depicts those under the age of 18 engaged in explicit sexual activity, or the dominant characteristic is the depiction of a sexual organ or anal region, is prohibited.

For written material, anything whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 is prohibited.

Excepting of course the various defences.

[Barrister]

BB's arguments are nothing more than a testament to the moral panic surrounding this issue.

Why don't you go back and read my posts and we can have a discussion about child porn?   

[Slargos]

While in many ways, it's good to see those charged with enforcing the law standing up for the law as written (otherwise, taken to an extreme, why even have written laws--just let them enforce their own individual views), but when not acting in an official capacity, it does take a lot of the wind out of their arguments when their position boils down to, "Activity A should be against the law because the law says that activity A is illegal".  A bit of circular reasoning there.

Well, my point is that either the job attracts the kind of people who think that way, or you eventually start thinking that way as a result of the job. Every cop I've ever discussed this kind of subject with has reasoned the same way. It is illegal, and any question as to why is irrelevant.

I expect that if you are the kind of person who will easily consider the gray areas, you may perhaps not become that efficient at your job whether you're a police officer or a prosecutor.

[Barrister]

While in many ways, it's good to see those charged with enforcing the law standing up for the law as written (otherwise, taken to an extreme, why even have written laws--just let them enforce their own individual views), but when not acting in an official capacity, it does take a lot of the wind out of their arguments when their position boils down to, "Activity A should be against the law because the law says that activity A is illegal".  A bit of circular reasoning there.

Well, my point is that either the job attracts the kind of people who think that way, or you eventually start thinking that way as a result of the job. Every cop I've ever discussed this kind of subject with has reasoned the same way. It is illegal, and any question as to why is irrelevant.

I expect that if you are the kind of person who will easily consider the gray areas, you may perhaps not become that efficient at your job whether you're a police officer or a prosecutor.

No, instead I think it's that prosecutor's and cops just get really, really tired of people trying to argue their charges.

If you think (to pick the obvious example) that marijuana should be legal - that's great.  Go write a letter to the editor, join a political party, protest at the capital.   But don't start arguing what the law "should be" when you're in court.  It is not the time or place for those kind of political discussions.  Don't argue how speeding laws are unjust to the cop who is writing you a speeding ticket.

I'm perfectly able to discuss what the law "should be" - in the right arena.

[Slargos]

While in many ways, it's good to see those charged with enforcing the law standing up for the law as written (otherwise, taken to an extreme, why even have written laws--just let them enforce their own individual views), but when not acting in an official capacity, it does take a lot of the wind out of their arguments when their position boils down to, "Activity A should be against the law because the law says that activity A is illegal".  A bit of circular reasoning there.

Well, my point is that either the job attracts the kind of people who think that way, or you eventually start thinking that way as a result of the job. Every cop I've ever discussed this kind of subject with has reasoned the same way. It is illegal, and any question as to why is irrelevant.

I expect that if you are the kind of person who will easily consider the gray areas, you may perhaps not become that efficient at your job whether you're a police officer or a prosecutor.

No, instead I think it's that prosecutor's and cops just get really, really tired of people trying to argue their charges.

If you think (to pick the obvious example) that marijuana should be legal - that's great.  Go write a letter to the editor, join a political party, protest at the capital.   But don't start arguing what the law "should be" when you're in court.  It is not the time or place for those kind of political discussions.  Don't argue how speeding laws are unjust to the cop who is writing you a speeding ticket.

I'm perfectly able to discuss what the law "should be" - in the right arena.

So it's a work-related injury, rather than a defect that makes you particularly suitable for the job. 

[crazy canuck]

For all you who are really interested in Canadian Child pornography laws and not just trolling BB here is the link to one of the leading cases involving an accused writing about underage sex.

http://scc.lexum.org/en/2001/2001scc2/2001scc2.html

As BB said the law is complex.

Here are a few snippets from the head note dealing with some of the issues Viking et al have raised.

An objective approach must be applied to the terms "dominant characteristic" and "for a sexual purpose".  The question is whether a reasonable viewer, looking at the depiction objectively and in context, would see its "dominant characteristic" as the depiction of the child's sexual organ or anal region in a manner that is reasonably perceived as intended to cause sexual stimulation to some viewers.  Innocent photographs of a baby in the bath and other representations of non-sexual nudity are not covered by the offence.  As for written material or visual representations that advocate or counsel sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years that would be an offence under the Criminal Code, the requirement that the material "advocates" or "counsels" signifies that, when viewed objectively, the material must be seen as actively inducing or encouraging the described offences with children.

Parliament has created a number of defences in ss. 163.1(6) and (7) of the Code which should be liberally construed as they further the values protected by the guarantee of free expression.  These defences may be raised by the accused by pointing to facts capable of supporting the defence, at which point the Crown must disprove the defence beyond a reasonable doubt.  The defence of "artistic merit" provided for in s. 163.1(6) must be established objectively and should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art.  Section 163.1(6) creates a further defence for material that serves an "educational, scientific or medical purpose".  This refers to the purpose the material, viewed objectively, may serve, not the purpose for which the possessor actually holds it.  Finally, Parliament has made available a "public good" defence.  As with the medical, educational or scientific purpose defences, the defence of public good should be liberally construed.

[Valmy]

I would never troll BB in these matters.

Seriously.

I know it is extremely important to him and actually I always enjoy debating people who are earnest on Languish.

Anyway thanks for the links.

[Slargos]

The Canadian law is not really in dispute though, I thought that much was clear. The question was whether it's reasonable that a cartoon depiction falls under the same law as a photographic depiction.

[Barrister]

The Canadian law is not really in dispute though, I thought that much was clear. The question was whether it's reasonable that a cartoon depiction falls under the same law as a photographic depiction.

Well no, Canadian law here isn't clear at all.  I have no idea which way this case will go.

If you try and distinguish between photos, and cartoons, however things are going to get tricky.  What is "real" is hard to tell in this era of advanced computer graphics and Photoshop.  For example, you can take a live picture and "cartoonify" it - but there is still a depiction of a live person.  You can take a picture and alter it so the subject looks older, younger, taller, shorter, etc.

Not to mention that a good artist can draw/paint an almost photo-realistic image using only some basic paints and inks.

In this case the law then doesn't try and distinguish between types of visual images, and puts them all together, and only attempts to distinguish based on the content, not the specific medium.

And R v Sharpe, which CC linked to, is *the* case on the issue.

[The Brain]

I like the idea that the Crown can decide that anyone is a child pornographer. I trust that the good people in power make sure that they know it when they see it and I would gladly live in Canada.

[Slargos]

The Canadian law is not really in dispute though, I thought that much was clear. The question was whether it's reasonable that a cartoon depiction falls under the same law as a photographic depiction.

Well no, Canadian law here isn't clear at all.  I have no idea which way this case will go.

If you try and distinguish between photos, and cartoons, however things are going to get tricky.  What is "real" is hard to tell in this era of advanced computer graphics and Photoshop.  For example, you can take a live picture and "cartoonify" it - but there is still a depiction of a live person.  You can take a picture and alter it so the subject looks older, younger, taller, shorter, etc.

Not to mention that a good artist can draw/paint an almost photo-realistic image using only some basic paints and inks.

In this case the law then doesn't try and distinguish between types of visual images, and puts them all together, and only attempts to distinguish based on the content, not the specific medium.

And R v Sharpe, which CC linked to, is *the* case on the issue.

What I meant was, and perhaps here lies the meat of the apparently great divide: The Law, while perhaps not crystal clear, is not really interesting to debate here. What the exact interpretation of the law is, is for Canadian courts to decide and whatever bitching and moaning by laypersons is 100% irrelevant since Interpretation is a matter for the legal body. What is interesting to discuss is whether cartoons depicting children in sexual situations should be criminalized or not.

If you're going to argue from the basis of this particular law while your detractors argue from the basis of what the law should be then naturally it's going to be hard to reach any sort of consensus, or even understand eachother. 

[Syt]

I just looked up the Austrian law on the issue.

Texts are exempt.

Pictures are trickier - anything sexual with persons under 14 is verboten. Anything from 14-18 depends on context - e.g. as part of a sex ed video would probably be fine, as part of an otherwise non-pornographic movie *could* be fine, depending on the context. The law also extends to "realistic depictions", which is kind of fuzzy. I've seen mangas like Elfen Lied (Wiki article) on sale, though.

Also, sexual pictures/videos with people 14-18 are ok if they were created with everyone's consent, they're for private use, and there's no or very little likelyhood of distribution (think guy and girl exchanging nude pix or filming themselves - of course in days of the internet this is fuzzier than in days of polaroids).

[Barrister]

My one and only child porn prosecution:

21 year old pothead is dating 16 year old girl.  This is of course perfectly legal.

Pothead takes nude pictures of 16 year old.  This is not legal, but when taken between consenting people and kept private are pretty much never prosecuted.

Until pothead breaks up with 16 year old.  Pothead gets the bright idea to print out a bunch of nude pictures of his ex-girlfriend, writes words like "slut" and "bitch" on them, and tapes them to lampposts in their home town.   He also gives a bunch of these photos to the girl's dad.

So of course he gets charged with distributing child porn.

[The Brain]

The pothead charge should have been sufficient. Surely they go straight to execution?