Criminalising thoughts

Mr A

Nope. I think you're right.

Austin Barry

"Concocting a computer generated image is effectively the same thing as imagining such an image in one's mind." Surely not, it has a concrete existence accessible to third parties.

Jordan Brown

Having got the thoughtcrime of "looking at 'extreme' porn" through the Lords recently, this is the obvious next step.
There should be some constitutional tests that bills must pass. For example: if you cannot point to a 'victim' who has been materially harmed by an 'action' then that 'action' cannot be prohibited.

Tim

There are 3 points to make about photos of child abuse.

(1) There can't be photos unless there is real-life abuse to photograph. Demand for photos equates to demand for real-life abuse.

(2) The circulation of the photos is a continuation of the original abuse.

(3) Those who see the photos may be encouraged to commit further abuse.

Points (1) and (2) don't apply to drawings or computer generated images (unless derived from photos of real-life abuse). Point (3) might apply to the dissemination of drawings or computer-based images, but would not apply to their mere possession.

My conclusion, like yours, is that these proposals go uncomfortably close to prohibiting thought crime.

Peter

I agree with you. I once had a 4 hour interview in a Police station about a DVD I bought from Amazon.com about whether a university-going cartoon girl having sex was child porn. It should be noted that the source of the DVD (the US) has very strict cartoon-porn laws alraedy. That had no effect on the police in my interview. They even tried to claim that simply owning a Region 1 DVD was illegal!

With this new law I would have to prove that the girl in the image was over 18. This is yet another law where the burden of proof will be on the defendant and not the prosecution. I have no idea how you prove what was in someone else's mind in another country when they drew an image!

Mr L

I agree with what both Stephen and Tim said, but we're forgetting one crucial factor here. Although it's possible that by viewing computer-generated or drawn images of child sexual abuse it might be encouraging Paedophiles to act on their urges, it could also be doing the opposite. By viewing the Non-photographic forms of child sexual abuse, Paedophiles are being provided with a type of release. A way of stemming their sexual urges without hurting or affecting anyone. If this passes, we could be looking at a rise in Paedophiles acting on their urges, not the other way round.

In an ideal society, no one would be attracted to children, and to most people, these images are sick. But with the media's brash portrayal of Paedophiles, we often forget that Paedophilia is still a fetish. Unfortunately this fetish can sometimes lead to some horrific results. But it is important to seperate the Paedophile who acts on their urges and the Paedophile who doesn't. Those who act on their urges, and put their sexual activities before the well being of a child, deserve everything the law can throw at them. But for those who don't act on their urges, and instead live with this burden all of their lives, the burden will certainly get a lot heavier after this law is passed.

Herbert Thornton

Stephen writes - "...the law does not legislate - ought not to, anyway - against thoughts which have no bearing on actions".

I entirely agree. Stephen says that he has reservations about Hate Crimes, but it seems to me that similar questions arise whether you are considering Hate Crime or Child Abuse Crime. The devil is in the question - in either case - of how you decide whether or not the thoughts in question do indeed have bearing on actions.

It is not at all comforting to reflect that Canada, has, under various Federal and Provincial "Human Rights" statutes, simply by-passed this question of whether thoughts actually have bearing on actions by prohibiting the publication of certain kinds of material that - in the words of the statutes - is "likely" to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.

That form of legislative language completely dispenses with the need to show that the material has actually caused anybody to feel hatred. People can be - and have been - convicted merely because the members of Human Rights Tribunals apply their own subjective feelings about what is "likely". What this amounts to is that (in Canada) your thoughts on many topics - especially some very important political topics - are treated as criminal if a Human Rights Tribunal THINKS they should be treated as criminal. That, it seems to me, is a 'Thought Crime' in more than one sense of the expression is it not?

One of the latest cases under this legislation is a complaint against Maclean's Magazine and the writer Mark Steyn, arising out of Mark Steyn's new book "America Alone". A Human Rights Tribunal is scheduled to hold a hearing of the complaint next Monday - June 2nd in Vancouver.

Greg

I'm from the US, so the 1st amendment takes care of that one here. Like you said it is disturbing to think about someone doing that, but the 'art' if you will is protected as freedom of speech. Has anyone ever thought that these perverts getting off to drawings of kids might be the only thing holding them back from raping one? Same reason why I think prostitution should be legalized and regulated everywhere. Oh and one more thing, is it just because you're from the UK that it seems like your spelling is so bad? *Pedophile* *Criminalization* *Proposed*. Is this one of those colour/color cases that always annoy me?