Politics

Tutorial 6: Are Canada’s Child Pornography Laws Unconstitutional?

Side: No, Canadian’s have the right of freedom of expression, By Sean Fruittrell

Overview: In 1999, the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a provision of the Criminal Code that made the possession of child pornography a crime. John Robin Sharpe had been charged with this offense and looked to overturn the charge by having the law declared unconstitutional. After being looked over by all parties in the legal proceedings, they agreed that the provision violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protecting freedom of expression. However, within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where the parties disagreed was a section containing the limits on rights and freedoms, which considered the limits on what was seen as reasonable. Justice Shaw decided that the provision was not considered a reasonable limit.

Yes, Canadian Child Pornography Laws are Unconstitutional.

- The evidence collected from John Robin Sharpe indicated there were two seizures of materials, First was a computer disk entitled “Sam Paloc’s Flogging, Fun and Fortitude- A Collection of Kiddiekink Classics” found by Canada Customs. The other seizure was at Mr. Sharpe’s home after being searched: photos, books, stories, and manuscripts of nude boys all violating section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.

- Slightly more than one third of Child rapist, have admitted to being incited by sexual materials specific to this study.

- Studies reported that exposure to pornography inhibited aggression, while in subsequent studies; it has been found that although mild erotic stimuli inhibited aggression, highly erotic stimuli in fact increased reported aggression in a laboratory setting. (It should also be noted the pornography was considered highly erotic.)

- Sexually explicit pornography involving children poses a danger to children because of its use by pedophiles in the seduction process. (i.e. Luring children into a car with candy.)

- Children are abused in the filming and videotaping of pornography. Many times in violent and grotesque ways.

- Pornography involving children can be a factor in augmenting or reinforcing a pedophile’s cognitive distortions.

- It is appropriate in the present case to consider the balance between deleterious effects and the salutary effects of the prohibition of simple possession of child pornography.

No, Canadian Child Pornography Laws aren’t Constitutional.

- Some study shows that watching child pornography sedated pedophiles from committing crimes involving pornography with children.

- It has also been noted that pornography can lower aggression.

- One of the most fundamental rights possessed by Canadians is freedom of expression. It makes possible liberty, creativity, and our democracy. It gives not only the “good” and popular expression protection but, it protects the unpopular or even offensive expressions as well.

- Privacy, while not expressly protected in the Charter, is an important value in the idea of freedom of expression.

- Prohibiting the possession of child pornography restricts the rights protected by section 2(b) and section 7. Thus, material defined as “child pornography” may attenuate it’s constitutional worth, it does not negate it, since the guarantee of free expression extends even to offensive speech.

- This case brings us to a critical question: does the law impair the rights of free expression only minimally?

Glossary:

1. Pornography: films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal

2. Attenuate: make or become weaker, to reduce the size, strength, or density of something, or to become thinner, weaker, or less dense

3. Pedophile: an adult who has sexual desire for children or who has committed the crime of sex with a child

4. Incite: to stir up feelings in or provoke action by somebody

5. Stimuli: 1. incentive, something that encourages an activity or a process to begin, increase, or develop. 2. something arousing interest, an agent or factor that provokes interest, enthusiasm, or excitement

6. Cognitive Disorders: A lack of ability to understand reasoning, intuition, or perception

7. Deleterious: with a harmful or damaging effect on somebody or something

8. Salutary: of value or benefit to somebody or something

9. Sedate: subdued, and lacking any sense of hurry or urgency

Guiding Questions:

1. Do you believe Child Pornography should be considered a criminal activity?

2. What effects if any do you think Child Pornography has on sex offenders?

3. Do you believe just because something like Child Pornography is kept private, that you should ignore it, because of Freedom of expression?

4. Considering the good effects that Child Pornography produces, are they worth their weight to balance the bad effects?

5. Do you believe Pornography has any effect on Pedophile activities?

6. If so why? Are they good or bad effects?

Answers:

1. Yes, I believe Child Pornography should be considered a criminal activity because I find it disgusting that people would abuse a child for sexual enjoyment. Alongside with the fact that in the future, the child will look back at what had happened to them at a young age and I believe it would definitely effect their outcome.

2. I believe that Child Pornography gives sex offenders more ideas to fuel their fantasies. While it was mentioned that Child Pornography can sometimes lower chances for sex offenders to commit acts of sexual offence, I believe that videos are more likely to give the offenders ideas rather than lessen their likeliness to commit sexual crimes.

3. No, just because something is kept hidden is no reason to allow something that harms individuals to exist. If that was the case you could say that drugs grown in a basement are ok because they are kept out of plain sight.

4. No, Child Pornography in my eyes just incites more ideas for perversion and abuse rather than stopping offenders from committing sexual acts.

5. Yes, they have the ability to do numerous things. In a pedophile’s case I’d believe they would be more likely to commit various acts in new ways after watching videos and other such materials of that nature because if they have already committed that sort of crime and aren’t remorseful of it, then they are just looking for more ways to feed their sick fantasies.

6. I feel this way because whether or not there are good effects, they are far outnumbered by the bad, and with less ideas of Child Pornography around, it would make fantasies less common and therefore less sex offenders would have a means to come up with new ideas on how the lure children, and commit various sexually offensive acts.