Back to AKP's opinion articlesThey say "the camera never lies". So how come, according to the scaremongers, digital cameras and camcorders are now turning innocent photos of kids having fun into sickening paedophile porn?
The paedophile moral panic has led to the situation where in a large number of schools (including, we understand, Clowne Junior School), parents are no longer allowed to use their camcorders to film kids in plays (like the Nativity play). Locally, at least one person has been slagged off for allegedly taking "pervy pictures" of kids he was looking after at a disco. Now, if the kids were "lap dancing", the accuser may have had a point, but I don't think that was the case somehow!
The fear of paedophilia, like that of terrorism, is such that one only has to say the word for everyone to get in a panic. Civil liberties have been curtailed, innocent people harrassed and beaten, and even the welfare of kids compromised, all in the name of "protecting kids from paedos". Yet true paedophiles are rare, and abuse of kids by strangers is rarer still. The vast majority of child abuse is not sexual, also the vast majority - sexual or otherwise - happens within the family unit.
Yet there are still many people who are worried that after seeing a kid, fully clothed or otherwise, people with paedophilic tendencies may harbour sick thoughts. Well, if they're so worried about sick thoughts, they'd better not let me watch The Parliament Channel after I've been watching Rambo :-)
Seriously, though, the whole idea that cracking down on photos of kids goes hand-in-hand with combatting child sexual abuse is extremely flawed. Many kids like having their photo taken, as it makes them feel important to their parents or friends. Where do we draw the line at what is pornographic or obscene? We have already seen parents quizzed by Police for naked or topless photos of their own kids, so what is acceptable and what is not? Is it perverted to take photos of your 10 year old daughter playing on the beach in a bikini? Or your 14 year old son playing football for the school team? Or your 17 year old daughter getting married in her wedding dress? Possibly, the only person who can answer that question is the person actually being photographed!
There is a controversial argument that the clamp-down on child pornography, in general, may be doing more harm than good. Some argue that while real paedophiles have access to porn, their urges are satisfied without the need to commit real abuse. Although I don't like the idea of child pornography and would not look at it myself, I do see some reasoning behind the argument; in countries such as Holland and Sweden, which have liberal laws regarding adult porn, incidences of rape are much lower than in the UK. At the same time, the hysterical cry that "every downloaded image (of child pornography) represents an abused child" is factually incorrect, as the same image may be viewed many times by many different perverts. This is especially the case with pseudo-images, in which no actual child abuse has taken place in their creation (possibly even no children at all were involved!) A move away from the idea that people should be prosecuted because something is "disgusting", and towards the idea that people should be prosecuted for the actual harm done to a child, would benefit everyone greatly - especially those we allege to be protecting.
Meanwhile there is a stench of hypocrisy about the whole thing. While we're getting paranoid about a few sad geeks with digital cameras, the state and big business are merrily watching us in most shops and town centres, on CCTV. In fact, some shops refuse to allow in kids wearing hoods or baseball caps because their faces can't be seen by the CCTV cameras! (According to the Sexual Offences Act, one of the definitions of "paedophile grooming" is encouraging a kid to undress; by forcing kids to remove hoods and caps, are these shops not committing an offence under the Act?)
The members of the public who act as "wannabee super heroes" over people who they suspect (generally with little or no reason) to be paedophiles, are often no less hypocritical. Ever notice that those who are the quickest to scream "paedo" are often the biggest supporters of corporal punishment ???
Maybe you're still worried your kid will be molested by a paedophile who jumps out of the lens of a camera. In which case, to protect our kids from these monsters, maybe we should send all the kids to Australia (no, that practice was stopped in 1967). Or make them all wear the Burqa (unlikely, in these Islamophobic times!). Or lock them all indoors (Jack Straw and David Blunkett's favourite option, perhaps?)
Or maybe we should get that Pentium 5 off our shoulders, start using our brains instead of believing everything we read or hear, and get some priorities!
Since this article was first published, the situation has gone from bad to worse. According to the online forum at ephotozine, cameras are now effectively banned from Trafalgar Square because it is feared that paedophiles may be taking photos of kids paddling in the fountains there. Locally, a man has had so much gyp for camcording kids (with parental permission) - including threats of violence - that he ended up giving his camcorder away. Even the local council and pigs seem to be taking an interest in clamping down on our freedom to take photos - which has severe implications when it comes to photographing newsworthy events. Especially, perhaps, events which the Establishment don't want everyone to know about (eg political demonstrations)... it's as if the Establishment have something to hide!
However, there does seem to be a loop-hole in the Establishment's rules which allows you to video record kids with impunity. You have be a TV company, send the kids to an American teen gulag, have them subject to appalling treatment, then show your recordings on national television. Read Brat Camp - my letter to the Worksop Guardian
This article prompted a reply from the US, which details a gross miscarriage of justice. His computer was hijacked by a hacker or virus, leading to involuntary downloading of child pornography. Read more here
Online Poll- under what circumstances should photographing or video recording children in a public place be allowed:
Poll: Camcorders, digital cameras and kids
Links(no links to real kiddie porn, sorry to disappoint any sick perverts out there ...)
A bit of satirical comic relief