genderberg.com

By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News ServiceJune 1, 2009 9:23 PM

OTTAWA — The federal government should wipe the words “child pornography” from the Criminal Code and replace them with a crime that more clearly describes the harm inflicted on society’s most vulnerable members, said a new report from Canada’s watchdog for crime victims.

The report, to be released Tuesday, proposed that the government instead make it illegal to possess or distribute "child sexual abuse images, videos or writings."

"The term 'pornography' is commonly understood to be associated with depictions of sexual activity between consenting individuals," said the report, provided in advance to Canwest News Service.

"Children cannot consent to sexual relations. For this reason, use of the term 'child pornography' mischaracterizes sexual representations where children are involved."

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime cited statistics indicating there are more than five million unique sexual abuse images on the Internet and 58 per cent of the victims are under age six. More than 80 per cent of the images involve penetration and 20 per cent show torture and bondage.

The report also contained Statistics Canada figures citing a 900 per cent increase in charges laid between 1998 and 2003 for production or distribution of child pornography.

"There is a still a lot of public perception that when you talk about child pornography or kiddie porn, these are children who are naked frolicking on the beach or in their bathtubs," said Steve Sullivan, the federal victims' ombudsman.

"I don't think the public has a sense of what law enforcement is seeing on a daily basis."

Sullivan said there is a growing consensus in law enforcement circles that "child pornography" is an outdated term, considering that the crime is growing more violent and the child victims are younger than ever.

The ombudsman's office notes that if a woman is raped and her attacker makes a video of it, nobody "would dare suggest" that the video was adult pornography. Rather, the attacker would be considered a rapist, not a pornographer.

The report, entitled Even Image, Every Child, also reiterates a call for the federal government to force Internet service providers to turn over customer names and addresses to the police in criminal investigations.

The recommendation has been under consideration by the government for years — and not only in child pornography investigations.

The former Liberal government introduced a bill that died when Parliament was suspended for the 2006 general election and the Conservatives have been promising an initiative of their own, but they have put it on hold pending further study of the privacy implications.

The government should also set up a national network of "child advocacy centres" where abused kids can tell their stories to police and receive the care and counselling they need under one roof, said the report.

The United States now has 900 child advocacy centres and a handful exist in Canada, including the Children's Justice Centre in Regina and the Zebra Child Protection Centre in Edmonton.
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
http://www.vancouversun.com/ news/Child+porn+doesn+reflect+violence+crime+Report/1652711/story.html

The ombudsman's office notes that if a woman is raped and her attacker makes a video of it, nobody "would dare suggest" that the video was adult pornography. Rather, the attacker would be considered a rapist, not a pornographer.

They've got that the wrong way round. Pornographers get away with rape all the time because they've got a camera and a contract, and with those you can do anything you like to a woman. In fact you don't even have to be a professional, just make a film of the rape you commit and suddenly your victim is a lying sl*t, not a rape victim. There is so much rape on film it's unbelievable.

Have they not even heard of Deep Throat?

Child and adult pornography have a lot more in common than people want to believe.

delphyne wrote:

The ombudsman's office notes that if a woman is raped and her attacker makes a video of it, nobody "would dare suggest" that the video was adult pornography. Rather, the attacker would be considered a rapist, not a pornographer.

They've got that the wrong way round. Pornographers get away with rape all the time because they've got a camera and a contract, and with those you can do anything you like to a woman. In fact you don't even have to be a professional, just make a film of the rape you commit and suddenly your victim is a lying sl*t, not a rape victim. There is so much rape on film it's unbelievable.

Have they not even heard of Deep Throat?

Child and adult pornography have a lot more in common than people want to believe.

I know, eh? A lot of folks, both for and against rape porn, would call it adult pornography. Yes, it seems as if, for the last 15 years or so, that videotape of a rape has counted against the victim, and pointed in the direction of acquittal. Especially if she appears to consent to any sexual activity and/or signed a release.

That was exactly my reaction. The very fact that a woman is stigmatized as a "porn actress" means you can't be accused of raping her, no matter how egregiously or often you rape her. What will it take for people to get that???