Strong views on a weak foundation

(From the Facebook Group ‘Taking, displaying or viewing photos of naked children is exploitation.’)

Dear friends

Thank you for supporting our group, which is sending a clear message that taking, displaying or viewing photos of naked children is exploitation. I can assure you that those who need to hear this message are watching.

Supporters of material which exploits children under the guise of art are finding that sitting atop their strongly-held views is a dangerous place to be: especially when they are based on a weak foundation of confused and often insulting arguments.

On our discussion boards, the supporters of Henson said (my responses in brackets):

1.If you don’t like the photos, don’t look at them. (We don’t look at them, neither should anyone)

2.How can you possibly decide that she isn’t able to give consent when you’ve never met her? (How will meeting the child change anything? It’s too late for her and besides, an image on the internet takes on a life of its own)

3.I wonder at the reasons why people are so offended by this persons work. Is it because they themselves are finding that they are sexually aroused by such imagery? (This was a low point of the discussion and this person was asked repeatedly to explain themselves)

4.I’m sure if you picked up any fashion magazine you would find many examples of young girls being sexualised, surely in that form it would be easier for paedophiles to access, so why not focus on that? (Many members of this group would share the concern so let’s do something about it rather than give in to exploitation in all its forms.)

5.This makes me feel that art may be something that shouldn’t be shared with the general public. (And remove any opportunity for any artist to be accountable for their behaviour toward the most vulnerable?)

6.Parents were involved in the decision-making, the children consented, the photos were taken under controlled and professional conditions. The test is passed. (Many other crimes against children use this to argue their defence in court too)

7.Bill Henson is one of our most internationally renowned artists, creating work that is critically lauded for its beauty and significance. (This is irrelevant. The past, no matter how good, is no defence for what you did today)

8.This group is pretty much telling everyone they are exploiting their own child for taking all of those naked/semi-nude shots of them as babies and smaller kids. (No, it isn’t).

9.No one cared 10 yrs ago so why care now? (Henson’s first known photographs of naked children in sexualised pose appeared in the last month. We care now because children matter)

10.You can’t use religious beliefs to justify any rule or law. (People absolutely can use belief to justify laws. Based on religion or otherwise, people’s beliefs are relevant however the only people referring to religious belief are the Henson supporters)

11.Consent is a general term for giving for acceptance. You can give consent at the age of 3 if you are giving consent for another kid to play with your Legos. (Playing with Lego is still legal in Australia)

12.I think pornography is not necessarily about WHAT is depicted, but HOW. For this reason, I tend to be much more concerned about images frequently seen in children’s magazines and even department store catalogues, where very young children are photographed in adult poses, with adult-type underwear or bathers, with adult hairstyles and makeup.

Point 11 gets the prize for funniest defence of the indefensible. Point number 12 is the closest any of them got to getting their hands dirty and actually grapple with the big questions.

However NONE of them dared to attempt to answer the question as to how it can be OK for an artist (whether well respected or not…) to take and display sexualised photos of naked children, whereas it is not OK for anyone else (including respected professionals in law, medicine, politics, religion, education etc). In short, that question was too hard. After exhausting their cheap rhetorical euphemisms art, context�, consent�, beauty and definitions of nakedness the only remaining tactic was to attack.

And that’s when they forfeited the contest.

Thank you for your support, this campaign is not over until the real issues are fully exposed and this insanity is stopped after all, it is up to the proponents of this filth to explain themselves, not those who have acted in accord with mainstream, sensible people in the community who are interested in the welfare of children.

Stay with us, we can do this.

Michael Ferguson

PS As we have many new members, I ask again: PLEASE, if you haven’t already, I urge you to invite all your Facebook friends to join this group. We need to spread the campaign further.

Related Articles:

• Greece: can you believe this/them?
• Syria February 2012: Two Perspectives
• EGYPT: THE GROSS INSECURITY OF THE DHIMMI
• Female Circumcision in the Maldives, the Islamic Movement and Islamophobia
• Australia Day message

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.