Post by The Todal Post by GB
However, what if my steak is made out of Quorn? Then, I'm not eating
meat. However, if the kiddie porn is computer-generated or hand-drawn,
it's still illegal in this country. I don't understand that.
I do understand the logic of criminalising pseudo-photographs as well
as real photographs. The hope, based on rather naive and old fashioned
psychology, is that photographs feed a habit and may be an incitement
to more extreme criminality.
Actually, no, the justification was given by the junior minister Maria
Eagle when the Coroners & Justice Bill was being debated in March 2009:
"Maria Eagle: The Government take very seriously all matters relating to
the sexual abuse of children. Any material that might appear to derive
from or encourage such activity is something that all Members of this
House should disapprove. All hon. Members know that the UK has an
absolute prohibition on the production, distribution and possession of
indecent photographs of children. We have recently extended the law to
cover tracings and derivatives of such photographs. However, the
possession of images that have no connection with photographs is not
covered by the current criminal law, which is the gap that we are
seeking to close with this provision. The police have reported finding
increasing numbers of such images alongside indecent photographs of
children. More of those images are also being found on the internet and
are often blatantly advertised as legal child pornography. I remind hon.
Members that child pornography is illegal in this country and if there
are loopholes, we need to close them. Police and child welfare groups
have expressed concerns that such images could be used for the purposes
to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend referred, and lead to
escalation and real harm. Just because we cannot prove real harm to
specific children at this minute, we should not allow such loopholes —
effectively, created by developments in technology — to continue to
make a mockery of the law that is intended to protect our children.
These images are at the highest, most explicit and disgusting,
unpleasant end of any spectrum that might be considered to be the end
result of a doodle. They are highly detailed, explicit drawings,
cartoons and computer-generated images that look real and depict
horrific scenes of child sexual abuse, as my right hon. Friend the
Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East made clear in his remarks.
This is not about generally cracking down on artistic doodles or on art,
but about cracking down on a loophole that the police and others who
deal with child protection are increasingly drawing to the attention of
policy makers and Government. We should be taking that seriously."