Thursday, 7 October 2010

That's The Trouble With Hysteria

Update below.

There a sources aplenty running the with the nuts and bolts of Gamble's resignation, so I thought I might take a sideways look at things.

I recently posted a comment that I found at The Register. The poster, Anonymous Coward, had much to say on the subject of Mister Gamble but closed with this paragraph.

His legacy, such as it is, makes for pretty grim reading. Possibly the most offensive of them (and there really are so very many of them) is his championing of the 'cartoon pr0n' laws which have now become statute in England & Wales. It was CEOP who crowded round the Parliamentary consultation leading up to the law, urging Ministers to not only introduce this wretched law, but to attach fiercely punitive punishments to it - even going so far as to suggest (in all seriousness) that courts should treat 'cartoon pr0n' with the same level of severity as that of real, actual photographic CP. Just how delusional does one have to become to advocate such madness? The sky was the limit for Big Jim - who could stop him?

The Coalition, it seems. Bravo.

Which in turn brought this response from a reader here at GQW.

You commenter seems to have a problem with Gamble's desire to pursue people who have cartoon child porn on their computers.

In that discussion, I'd support Gamble rather than your commenter.

Gamble was no doubt self-serving, but some of the cheers surrounding his departure are coming from dubious quarters.

To which I duly replied. But my reply focussed more on Jim Gamble than the issue I am trying to address today. And rather than import that reply, I shall leave it in situ. (unavailable) But might be better for being read before moving on.

The first thing we have to do is establish just what we are talking about here. Cartoon child porn, or virtual/computer generated child porn is, and let us leave all the emotion out of this, the hysteria if you will, let us leave all that aside. Because not to do so is to put yourself exactly where the Jim Gambles of this world want you, emotional, irrational, and if not entirely hysterical, at least distracted enough to be susceptible to manipulation.

What better example of such emotional, irrational hysteria than the hasty, irresponsible signing of the American Patriot Act by both Houses of Congress. Signed without even being read, rights and freedoms that men had died for, signed away on a wave of hysteria by the very same men who were charged with protecting those rights and freedoms, and done so with such haste that it staggers the imagination.

If we are going to address a situation, let's try to so with a little less emotion.

And that's rich isn't it, especially coming from me. I had a bit of a wake up call yesterday. For reasons that matter not I was reading something that I had written previously, and on a subject that I really feel passionate about. But the emotion displayed in my writing of then and now is marked, and something I am trying to rectify even as I write.

So back to establishing what's what. Virtual child pornography is not child pornography, it is for all intents and purposes, a drawing, nothing more nothing less, and I have to say, is no business of the CEOP.

For a country that runs Saudi Arabia a close second on matters of sexual repression, let us see what they have to say on the subject. This from law professor Susan Brenner.

The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not prevent U.S. law from criminalizing real child pornography, even though it qualifies as speech under the First Amendment, because its creation involves the victimization of children, both physically and emotionally.

Real child pornography is essentially a product and a record of a crime, or crimes, against children. The Court also held that the First Amendment does prevent U.S. law from criminalizing virtual child pornography because it is speech and because no real person is “harmed” in its creation; unlike real child pornography, virtual child pornography is fantasy, not recorded reality.source

Thank God for the first amendment, what's left of it anyway.

virtual child pornography is fantasy, not recorded reality

Yet if our aforementioned commenter is to be believed, and I see no reason why he should not, Jim Gamble would like to attach fiercely punitive punishments to it and that courts should treat 'cartoon pr0n' with the same level of severity as that of real, actual photographic CP

Which to me suggests that the proposer might be better suited to running water than to running a national agency with the powers that it has, and still wanting more must be said. And that kiddywinks is a prospect so frightening it can barely be imagined. Jim Gamble in charge of an omnipotent, autonomous organisation and answerable to no one.

As I said in my own comment, where does it stop? It obviously doesn't stop at virtual porn, what next,art? and who is to be the judge of what is, or is not, pornographic, Jim Gamble?

And to put this into true perspective; why only yesterday the good faerie came to see me and left me not sixpence, well he's the good faerie not the tooth faerie, not sixpence but a little gem and perfect compliment to this post.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind - I presume that JG and his minions had never come across (no pun intended) Balthus' "The Guitar Lesson". They'd have wet themselves, poor dears.

I shall leave it to yourselves to Google The Guitar Lesson, and my dearest thanks to Vimes for supplying such a relevant and timely example.

I should also like to leave you this. Fortunately** I need not say an awful lot about it, it rather speaks for itself, but I shall indulge myself with a few highlights, the blue highlight however is for a different reason, which hopefully will become clear before the night is out.

In actual fact I shan't bother with the highlights, they are self evident.

Well Done Theresa May

.........But there is a more sinister reason why one organisation can not be cloak and dagger about child pornography and why it needs to be open and honest and answerable to the public as well as to Governments, MP’s, and even sex offenders themselves.

When you read this statement made by Professor Allyson MacVean in an article to the BBC and re-read it and re-read it again, then think it is rather a sinister statement and it is a statement that could have repercussions on other groups of offenders.

Take a minute read this statement:

Prof Allyson MacVean, director of the John Grieve Centre for Policing and Community Safety at London’s Metropolitan University, said police should be able to search sex offenders’ homes and computers.

“Internet addresses are so easy to make up and it doesn’t give any sense of who the person is or where their location is,” she told the BBC.

She said this was why the police needed access to sex offenders’ computers without needing to apply for a warrant.

Now add that to a secret organisation being run on the lines of MI5 and MI6 and Customs and Revenue and only answerable to Parliament and what do you have, an organisation that not only can clean the streets but an organisation that is open for corruption and political point scoring. Unfortunately even sex offenders have human rights, and even the sex offenders register has people on it that clearly should not be. Take for instance the young lad, in love with an under-age girl, cautioned or convicted of under-age sex, even though he is a minor himself, that alone warrants him to be a sex offender, but does that warrant him to be a serious sex offender and for the rest of his life denied his basic human rights?..........

......The public of course, having been instilled with the fear of sex offenders will back everything without questioning, but there are far more sinister connotations for an organisation that is allowed to basically run free without the scrutiny of the public or other professional bodies.

Control the world by controlling one group of people that every parent fears, paedophiles, and even worse, how long will it be before they could start cross-referencing minor crimes with searches using the justification that any kind of criminal behaviour breeds other criminal acts. In fact, I can just see some tame scientist coming up with some report saying that most offenders of any sort are likely to be viewers of child pornography. More, and with no small thanks, Headlines Today.

**Time is of the essence tonight, I would have liked to say a few words about the, Well Done Theresa May article, but alas, and I also would like to dig out a few relative links to give the piece more meaning, after posting this.

In regard to the blue highlight: Consensual Teen Sex And Lives Forever Ruined and Genarlow Wilson's sad saga, introduction here and how the story played out here. Genarlow Wilson is a black. Tag Genarlow Wilson

Both these young men fell victim to over-zealous prosecutors and squeamish sexual attitudes. To be put on the sex offenders register in the US is to be condemned to living under a bridge, such are the restrictions imposed on offenders. The law not only punishes the offender but their families alike.

In the case of Genarlow Wilson, a seventeen year old who received a consensual blow job from a fifteen year old girl. Justice in the eyes of the state of Georgia, was to sentence Wilson to ten years in the slammer for his moment of pleasure.

Whilst I'm on the subject of over-zealous prosecutors, have a read about Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse players. I don't know which is the more outrageous, his motives or his jail sentence.

I think rather than bring you each individual story, most highlighting the perils of having zealots in charge of policy, it may be easier and quicker if I asked you to click the Sex-Prudery button.

Who* - Who is to be the judge?

When I first started this silly blogging lark, and being as green as grass, I purchased, yes I know, I purchased a pro-account with Photobucket to keep all my pics in. That association was doomed to fail. Having taken time and trouble to upload everything, it was then after a day or two I received notice that certain images were deemed unacceptable.

See if out of these two pics, you can managed to guess which of the two was unacceptable to Photobucket? I am not trying to shock or be contentious by my choice of pics, these are examples. The real pornography, that of violence to women, seemingly not a problem, breasts? oh no! no breasts.

Update: A victim speaks, sans hysteria. The Truth About Paedophilia