Let’s have a chat about child pornography. Why not? We have never had any evidence that kids watch this space, so we are safe.
Quebec Justice Marc-Andre Blanchard this month ruled that Canada’s child pornography laws are overbroad and violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of child pornographers. According to the National Post, Marc-Andre:
… agreed with (the defence) argument that the law as written is too wide, and violates the author’s rights to freedom of expression and of security.
The judge notes the law was widened in 2005 to include not just material that advocates for or encourages pedophilia, but any description of sexual acts with children, as long as the description is a dominant characteristic of the work of fiction and is done with a sexual purpose.
Blanchard concludes the changes effectively rendered illegal an overly wide swath of literature, unduly limiting freedom of expression, and that the prosecution failed to make the case such works of literature pose a risk to children.
Marc-Andre, you are an idiot. You are a bad man. Your understanding of child pornography is either totally lacking or you have a conflict of interests.
In the first place, there is a legal principle encapsuled in the Latin phrase per se, or “on its face.” For example, we do not need to produce a corpse to argue that the atomic bomb on Hiroshima killed people. It is obvious on its face. It is a mass-death incident per se.
Child pornography hurts children, per se. It excites the prurient interests of deviants, supercharges their endocrine systems and makes them take steps to relieve the pressure. And, yes, I used the verboten characterization, “deviant.”
This is not rocket science, Marc-Andre. It is not even any kind of science. Any three-year-old (now, don’t get excited) knows the difference between right and wrong, and society expects EVERY judge to, minimally, remember it.
We are sick of sick justices, Marc-Andre. Sick, sick, sick. Do you even know anything of the foundations of free expression? Likely the best treatise on the necessity of free expression was John Milton’s Areopagitica. It’s a tough read, but you should try it. It’s not even Latin, but good-old English.
Interestingly, Milton is best known for his epic-length poetic dissertation on the fall of man, Paradise Lost. I don’t recommend Marc-Andre to read that. It requires thought. However, I have read it, in depth. It deals with Satan and his use of rationalization to bring about the damnation of humanity.
Other brilliant thinkers have enshrined the freedom of expression in the laws of both the United States and Canada. Tom Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and other British subjects, in fact, used the idea of freedom of expression and freedom of thought as the foundation of an argument that mankind should be free to live and think as we see fit.
Now, here’s the test question for Marc-Andre. Fair warning: it’s a trap. “Do you think,” Marc-Andre, “that even one of those men, for even one microsecond, thought that you would come along and declare child porn to be “protected speech” in a time and place where you can be jailed for saying “watermelon” or “marriage?”
The People of the free world are wondering whether it is now an attribute that our judges think with their endocrine systems (gonads, adrenal glands, etc.) instead of their brains. Seriously.
Take, for example, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (deceased) Ruth Bader Ginsburg. According to current news, Ginsburg’s daughter said Ginsburg did not retire under former president Obama because she was sure Hillary Clinton would be the next president, and she wanted her replacement to be nominated by the first woman president. Just think about that. Talk about bad judgment! And from a Supreme Court Justice!! She not only had bad judgement, she bet the liberal farm on a horse race. And she lost.
This actually baffles the brain. Apparently, Ginsburg was attempting an extra-judicial plot to manipulate the political process of the United States, and to taint the character of the Supreme Court in a conspiracy with the then-presidency. The proper protocol if she wanted a liberal judge to succeed her would have been to resign under Obama and let him nominate a new justice. But, no. Ginsburg The Impartial wanted the next justice to have boobs and to be nominated by a president that had boobs. So much for rationality and precedent. No wonder she never spoke of it while she was living.
These are not the erratic musings of an errant scribe. This is serious stuff. The landscape appears littered with emotional wrecks in black robes, somberly, if not soberly, intoning what “counts” as moral and ethical actions in society, and they clearly don’t have a clue about morality, ethics, sobriety, wisdom and training in the roots and meanings of the Law. The emperor has no clothes. We are genuflecting to a Law that is no Law. It is, just as they have been saying, an “opinion,” and a foolish one, at that. And remember, thanks to diversity of opinion, it is legal for Canadian judges to smoke dope.
In the eyes of Milton and before, the Law was immutable, unmovable and absolute. There were penalties for wrong thinking. Even back in WWII, people took duty and responsibility seriously.
So, Marc-Andre, here is another test question: If there is to be a penalty for objectifying and abusing children through pornography, should there not also be a greater, more severe, penalty for facilitating it? There is for pimps.
If so, I have a nominee for a test case. If you can’t guess, he is wearing a black robe.