London Metropolitan Police loose the plot.

[gareth harper]

There is a movement afoot to "normalize" pedophilia. This has its roots in the work Kinsey did in the 50's and 60's. One of the more recent works came from a feminist writer named Judith Levine. Her book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex, I am ashamed to say, was published by the University of Minnesota Press. The forward to the book was written by Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Clinton Administration Surgeon General. She actually went on television to defend the book. After a few minutes of embarrassing to watch dialog the interviewer asked her if she had actually read the book. She admitted she had not......

Lawmakers don't seem to understand that a free society depends upon citizens exercising their free will in ways that contribute to the strengthening of society and regard for each other.

"The problem with normal is it always gets worse."
- Bruce Coburn, songwriter

"If laws prevented crime, we'd be the best behaved society in the history of civilization." - UNK

It certainly does seems embarrassing to write the forward to a book you have not read!
Anyway I wonder if you yourself have read this book? I can't say I've read it myself, and having had a wee search about it on the internet I don't suppose I'll bother, there doesn't seem to be anything that controversial in it, at least from this side of the pond.

 

[bjorke]

There is a movement afoot to "normalize" pedophilia. This has its roots in the work Kinsey did in the 50's and 60's. One of the more recent works came from a feminist writer named Judith Levine. Her book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex, I am ashamed to say, was published by the University of Minnesota Press. The forward to the book was written by Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Clinton Administration Surgeon General. She actually went on television to defend the book. After a few minutes of embarrassing to watch dialog the interviewer asked her if she had actually read the book. She admitted she had not.

*yawn* yeah, I remember this on Rush Limbaugh in years gone by too

If you're going to randomly introduce a character assasination into this dialogue, mind actually citing some references?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0816640068/104-0997542-9741556?v=glance is the Amazon page for Levine's book. The reviews are 80% five-star, detailed and thoughtful, and one three-sentence zero-star review that doesn't speak a whit about the contents of the book, instead chosing to accuse Levine of being addled as a juvenile victim of sexual abuse -- in other words, attack the messenger.

Tell me, have you read this book, or are you just randomly slandering people because APUG gives you a soapbox?

KB

---


Back OT: in the UK one hears "paedophile" while in the US one hears "terrorist" but the results are the same. In both cases, the threat is REAL, but about as real as your chances of picking up this year's Super Lotto jackpot (in fact, often less than even that). Said phantoms are used to frame public policy debate in Big Brother terms, where the populace needs to stay quiet and submissive becasue we need to be protected. "Stop whimpering, this oppression is GOOD for you"

 

[Flotsam]

If only we could get rid of the photographers, we could forget about pedophilia and terrorism forever.

And if we banned Blue cars, nobody would ever be run down by a Blue car again.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

In the UK one hears "paedophile" while in the US one hears "terrorist" but the results are the same. In both cases, the threat is REAL, but about as real as your chances of picking up this year's Super Lotto jackpot (in fact, often less than even that). Said phantoms are used to frame public policy debate in Big Brother terms, where the populace needs to stay quiet and submissive becasue we need to be protected. "Stop whimpering, this oppression is GOOD for you"

I would be the first to agree that there is hysteria about paedophilia at the moment, but that does not mean there is no basis in fact. I am 56 years old - I and many others of my generation grew up witnessing what by today's standards would be unbelievable levels of violence directed by adults at children but which were considered normal at the time. Not a day goes by but institutions such as the Catholic Church, managers of children's homes, etc. are dragged before the courts and forced to pay thousands of $ compensation for revolting acts of sexual and other physical abuse committed 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Given a straight choice, I would much rather have the present climate of over-caution than the situation of the past, with children as a kind of free-fire zone for perverts and sadists.

 

[Ian Leake]

The British are a great people, but sometimes they are dumb as rocks. All it takes is one headline from a hysterical Murdoch paper and the witch hunts will start.

I seem to remember that in the last round of Murdoch-inspired hysteria about paedophiles, a paediatrician was targeted by vigilantes who couldn't tell the difference. Draw your own conclusions on how hysteria about paedophiles taking photos of children will effect photographers.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I seem to remember that in the last round of Murdoch-inspired hysteria about paedophiles, a paediatrician was targeted by vigilantes who couldn't tell the difference. Draw your own conclusions on how hysteria about paedophiles taking photos of children will effect photographers.

Reactions may on occasion be excessive, but it is also a fact that there has been an explosion in child pornography in recent years, primarily on the Internet, and that relatively innocent pictures of children are routinely used as window-dressing for outlets (such as websites) offering the most revolting filth. When I returned to professional photography around 10 years ago, aiming to concentrate on art images, I surveyed the photography scene and rapidly decided I would photograph people at all only if they were friends or paid models and that I would not photograph children at all (unless for a commission or children of friends). At the time, this decision was based on considerations of model releases rather than child porn hysteria, but I have not regretted this decision for a second. It would be nice if we lived in a society where everyone trusted everyone else and never exploited them, but we don't, and I am more than willing to give up any putative "right" to photograph children in public (images which I could in any case never sell) if it helps protect these or other children from abuse. It may be hard for some people to understand this, but things have moved on and this is the world we live in today.

 

[Ian Leake]

I am more than willing to give up any putative "right" to photograph children in public (images which I could in any case never sell) if it helps protect these or other children from abuse.

My concern is not so much photographers who are taking photos of children (something I have zero interest in doing), rather photographers who are taking photos in public places where children happen to be.

 

[Nicole]

IMO instead of creating such panic in the community, ban the mobile phone cameras.

 

[arigram]

I held it inside me for a couple days, but this is a pissed off post!
And why I am pissed off?
Because the hypocricy doesn't lie with a politician and his laws it lies with the people who accept them. The hypocritical ones are the parents and the people who accept such oppressive laws "for the children".
We all know pretty well that "for our security and well being" the worst crimes have been commited.
What have those people done to make the world a better place? Is accepting fascism and tyranny the only thing they have done for the better of the children? Have those people done anything about the hungry ones, the diseased ones, about the poison they feed their own children? Don't they know that a tree less in the planet is a tree less their children will see? Do they think it is healthy to close them in inside a tiny appartment in a chaotic city and leave them in front of the television for all their childhood while they pursue their little jobs?
We have all created this world we live in. If its more dangerous its OUR fault. What have we done for it?
Is it just genetic instict and personal egotistical reasons people produce children? Don't they know what kind of world they bring them in? Or do they think that putting a paper bag over their head will "protect" them?
Protect them from whom, from what? From our own faults and mistakes?
If you want a better world for your children, start thinking first.
Where does the problem lies?
Do laws stop murder, rape and thievery? Will a law stop a child molester? One that follows a blind instictual perversion? How do you know who is one?
Do you think that putting more restrictions and laws will help? Or will you be making the life of everybody, including your children worse and worse and worse?
I will quit now because I can't make sense even of my own rumblings...

I do have a nice analogy though.

You are a farmer. You have a few squares of land. You plant , things grow, but you don't tend to it. You forget about it. Maybe you let someone else tend to it. You notice weed growing. And the only thing you do is find the worst chemicals around and spray the whole field. The weeds might die, they might not. They might grow stronger.
The point is in the end that you will eat the poisoned tomatos.

 

[Ed Sukach]

According to a psychologist where I work, the crime of incest is so common in the United States, that it is STATISTICALLY NORMAL!! Please do not misinterpret what I just wrote...incest is not being suggested as anything less than an abuse and a crime, but rather that it is so commonly practiced that it becomes "normal" in its' frequency.

This is a gross misapplication of the term "Statistically Normal". It is NOT the same as "Normal - therefore socially acceptable." NOTHING like it.

If a Statistician states that data is "statistically normal" it can only be interpreted that the data is normally distributed - that is, the DATA conforms to one of several possible distributions... usually (but not always) the "Normal Distribution". The are many tests to determine the validity of data obtained from a sample...Chi-Squared, Kolmogerov-Smirnov, Anderson-Darling (we used that one a LOT!). The confidence that the sample is truly representative of the population is directly proportional to the conformity to the expected distribution.
One could determine an incidence of "Child Abuse" where the number of children affected per year, was 0.0000001% of the total child population... data obtained from a sample that is statistically normal. One could also reduce data to obtain an inference that there was an incidence of Child Abuse of 90%, and that sample could be equally normally distributed.

One thing bothers me here ... the "lumping" of categories. Sexual "Abuse" (molestation would be a more specific category) is combined with a number of others, including "neglect". Sexual Abuse could be far different from simple "neglect".

Interesting... A fried of mine has a video tape of his (then) two (three?) year old daughter, who, in a moment of exuberance, escaped the watchful eye of her mother, and decided to run down the middle of her suburban street naked and free. With no immediate danger, her father hesitated for a moment, and video taped the incident. Child abuse? Neglect? Child pornography?

 

[Ed Sukach]

Bumper Sticker:

"Stop Child Pornography - Ban Cameras!!"

 

[Quinten]

being sarcastic:

The power of FEAR. Once people are afraid you can control them.

One pedofile in the national news taking pictures of children and all photographers are the enemy. Now you can do all to stop them and all is tolarated since they are all the enemy.
One plane in a building and the rest of the world are terrorists.

Never underestimate the power of fear, it's commonly used in politics all over the world, the scarry thing is that the people in politics don't really use it as a tool but are usually fueled by fear themselves so they use it without really understanding the source.

Once fear is an argument all objective discussion ends, Fear is the most powerfull argument and you never need to mention it out load, while actually it is no argument at all. But people in fear usually can't look at the whole picture anymore, they focus on it and loose objectivety. That's why these rules and warning sighns arrise.. it goes on and on till it becomes a cartoon in itselves and people start to see.

Don't worry fear is the enemy, the only thing one should be afraid of is being afraid.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

:
The power of FEAR. Once people are afraid you can control them.

One pedofile in the national news taking pictures of children and all photographers are the enemy. Now you can do all to stop them and all is tolarated since they are all the enemy.
One plane in a building and the rest of the world are terrorists.

Gross exaggeration and shaky logic. People are afraid (whether they have good reason or not), I have no need to photograph their children, I have no use for any pictures that might result, I have no wish to cause any kind of offense, so I don't photograph children in public. Where is the element of "control" here, except the self-control which I exercise on the basis of my cultural sensitivity? People are in no way hostile to photographers per se - like many others, I find that people spontaneously strike up conversations and show interest when I am working with an LF camera in public.

As regards terrorists, it is inevitable that as the result of 9/11 security levels at the world's airports will remain high for the foreseeable future, maybe forever. Is this wrong?

Finally, on the matter of intrusion. Because of my work, I have been subject to security-services clearances for large parts of my professional life. I am entirely unable to understand anyone who gets worked up about CCTV cameras in public places!

 

[Andy K]

I am entirely unable to understand anyone who gets worked up about CCTV cameras in public places!

I would rather see a copper on every street corner, than a CCTV camera. A copper is a deterrent, a camera only serves to (maybe) catch the culprit, after the crime was committed. In the first instance you are safe(r), in the second, regardless of whether the culprit is caught, you are bloodied, bruised and minus wallet, phone etc.

As for fear, Governments have used fear (of the other) as a tool to get what they want for centuries. In recent decades, fear of communism was used to get public acceptance of massive spending on nuclear arms etc. When the Soviet communist bloc collapsed, there was a fear vacuum. This has now been filled with the fear of Al Qaeda, fear of Islam, of terrorism in general etc. This is now being used to bring in some extremely draconian population control methods.

Fear is a tool, and Governments do use it.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I was stopped photographing the Ghurkin in London about 6 months ago. I was standing there with a 5x4 on a tripod, cable release in hand when approached by mr and mrs bobby. I nearly wet myself when asked, "may we ask what you are doing." I (politely) replied with a tone wholly in keeping with the stupidity of the question, especially as there was no attempt at friendliness on their part, but rather a very serious deadpan approach. The muppets then said that they wanted to see some ID (I of course was not obliged to be carrying it thank goodness). I did however have my driving license so showed it, reluctantly. I was then told that they needed to do a 'radio check'. I smiled quizically again, the patronising whatsits. Why could they not admit they were doing a 'P' check or whatever the police call it - checking me out in case I was the first bald, anaemically white blond blue eyed member of Al Qaeda.

What annoyed me was the following:

They made no attempt at being friendly.
They demanded to see ID yet I had not committed and offence.
The idiocy was astounding. The same building is available for view on a thousands websites from a thousand angles, many of which relate to tourism and are available on government related websites. Yet off they went and quizzed a load of Spanish teenage toursists after me.......the mind boggles.

I have spent a lot of time professionally dealing with security issues and alongside others who continue to do so. Much of what I see happening in Britain will do little if anything to improve security and everything to further strengthen the sense that we humble citizens have become accountable to the state not the state to us, the electorate. Recent intitiatives will in fact strengthen the governments already iron grip of the supposedly impartial civil service and vastly weaken the individuals ability ro resist politically motivated actions of the state. I have worked in enough areas related to immigration, homeland security and foreign affairs to have seen astounding gaps in our protection which when repeatedly flagged up, are completely ignored despite the issues being painted in glorious technicolour. Often the reason has been 'lack of resources' (too much money being spent on political correctness brainwashing) or just plain political correctness (not wanting to stir up sensitive issues and risk them exploding into the public domain). Therefore the sort of pathetic rubbish unfolding in the house of commons relating to ID cards and detention without trial etc just makes me want to cry and stick my head in the sand, pretending it is not happening.

The great shame is that our security/immigration services are full of professional people who feel a great sense of duty and responsibilliity in their professions, now disillusioned and demotivated (or politically tainted). They have without exception been reduced to impotent social workers and politically influenced (and therefore correct) stooges whilst personal liberty has been continually assaulted in the name of security. Common sense and its implimentation would be far more effective than any of the ridiculously faddish initiatives we are seeing right now. There have been times I have had moments of intense private anger at the downright idiocy of what I have witnessed. Now I have the double insult of seeing how keen the goverment is to waste money on more hastily thought out inneffectual initiatives whilst denying us all our deserved liberty. There is a wholly unsavoury and worrying dimension to what is happening and this comes from a former crown servant who had enough.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Considering the cameras they are targeting, I have no problem. As a mother, in today's chaotic world, and the ever viglient stance we have to take to protect our children form the current rash of insanity, I can understand the need for something to help protect. Gone are the days when children could wander around without their parents in attendance. I can now hear the rush to villify me because I in essence am going against those that think that the right to take pictures should be all emcompassing, anywhere, anytime, of any subject, So be it.

Again, no question of individuals love of their children. I too am a father. However I would like an explanation as to what the ban will solve. Awareness on the part of parents is one thing, but curtailing the liberty of the masses is another. What is the supposed progression after a 'snap' is taken of a fully clad child?

Is it supposed to be used to target the child for abduction?
Is the paedaphile supposed to go home and get pleasure in the photo...perhaps resulting in fantasy that might mean that child is likely to be targeted again and perhaps more unpleasantly?

My gut feeling is that nothing here has been thought out. Paedaphiles use cameras therefore curtail their use. I would imagine that is as far as it has gotten. So many of these arguments follow emotional lines of 'come-on, we must do something". A bit like when a nutter attacked someome people with a machete and we had calls to restrict their sale. Then it was calls to restrict the sale of baseball bats because of another horrid attack. Will this extent to cricket bats, stumps, table legs, wood from timber merchants, metal poles, fire pokers etc etc? Sorry, but this is plain silly. As soon as you ban one 'tool' they will simply find another. Too many day to day thiings could be dangerous. It will end with so many things becoming illegal that normal life becomes unpleasant (or already has for some). Look at it from this point of view. Over the last 50 years we have been messing with the fabric of society through well meaning social engineering whilst serially banning things uused by criminals. Crime gets worse all the while. Banning (normal day to day) things does not work. The underlying causes are the problem, but that is far harder to tackle than banning things (like hooded tops for teenagers!!!!!! You can only laugh). Politicians just cant wait for the public to ask for hooded tops to be banned for teenagers in public, as it is sooooOOOO easy for them to oblige. Such calls from the public lets them off the hook and so they love to fuel such sentiments.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I would rather see a copper on every street corner, than a CCTV camera. A copper is a deterrent, a camera only serves to (maybe) catch the culprit, after the crime was committed. In the first instance you are safe(r), in the second, regardless of whether the culprit is caught, you are bloodied, bruised and minus wallet, phone etc."

I agree with this sentiment. Neighborhood policing is by far the best deterrent to crime. Unfortunately, most local governments see the cctv as a far less costly option compared to a real law enforcement officer.

I suppose castration of convicted pedophiles and rapists would not prove a deterrent.

 

[jjstafford]

According to a psychologist where I work, the crime of incest is so common in the United States, that it is STATISTICALLY NORMAL!!

Either you were not given the context of that statement, or the psychologist is criminally ignorant. I suspect the former.

 

[gareth harper]

"The great shame is that our security/immigration services are full of professional people who feel a great sense of duty and responsibilliity in their professions, now disillusioned and demotivated (or politically tainted). "


My experience of the immigration service is, that on the whole, they are complete incompetent arses. Perhaps it's also party that they are working a system that doesn't work and often involves cruelty as a deterrent. But then these are also people who happily comply with locking up children for months on end. Can you carry out immoral duties professionally, I wonder.

Nor can I understand how anybody can be held in custody, for any length of time without being charged, or for that matter being told why. But these are completely different topics.

Meanwhile I still can't figure out how it is I am abusing a child by taking their photograph in public.

 

[pentaxuser]

Exactly Andy. In most cases of child abuse, whether it's sexual or otherwise, the child knows the abuser, and that person is usually a family member.

And the incident Bentley Boyd refers to really did happen. Nor was it that long ago that that dirty rag the News of the World was publishing numerous photographs of pedophiles, many innocent people got beat up as a result.

We've also had here in Scotland the completely ridiculous situation where people have been banned from filming or photographing children at Christmas nativety plays, including the parents of the children. In order to film or photograph at some of these school events you need written permission of every parent of every child in the play.

Meanwhile can somebody please tell me what harm I am doing to a fully clothed child by taking their picture in public. Nor do I imagine there is much, if any at all, demand from pedophiles for such pictures.

This is absolute madness, and dangerous madness at that.
Hopefully AP will have more detail on this next week and with luck it will be get it nipped in the bud.

Well AP had a go at this some months ago and it would appear that it has made very little difference to the "authorities" attitude. There is a groundswell of public opinion that's still growing that taking pictures in which children playing are featured even incidentally is at best suspicious activity.

Which politicians can afford to inject common sense into this debate without being branded as being "do-gooders" whose approach allows paedophiles to flourish?

The tabloid press fan these flames. Their stock in trade is the freedom to take pictures often intrusively yet they are happy to help kill photographic freedom. Once every parent is sure that any street photographer is a menace to kids then we'd better all concentrate on landscape if we want to avoid confrontation. In the event of violence against the photographer by a parent or concerned member of the public I fear the police's attitude based on police officer comment in AP would appear to be that the photographer may have deserved what he got and would be presumed guilty until he could prove himself innocent.

Parents who are watching their children will instinctively recognise suspicious behaviour patterns in a paedophile with a camera as our parents would have been able to, but they need to trust their instincts and not react with "a shoot first and ask questions later" attitude flamed by irrational fear.

If we continue down this road then people like Les McClean will be taking a real chance were he to use shots like the one that is on his front cover of his "Creative B&W Photography" book and several inside taken in Belfast.

Unless those three children's parents were just out of shot and he had made sure he had approached them first, then in the future he'd better walk away quickly or even more quickly if the kids approach him asking for their photo to be taken.

I'll be interested to see what AP can do to bring about a serious debate amongst those in power who "set the agenda". I hope this will happen but I won't hold my breath.

Pentaxuser

 

[Tach]

People are in no way hostile to photographers per se - like many others, I find that people spontaneously strike up conversations and show interest when I am working with an LF camera in public.

That's because you fit their mental image/archetype of an excentric, inoffensive hobbyst/professor/scientist. Go out with a small, silver P&S type camera, and report on the experiences.

As regards terrorists, it is inevitable that as the result of 9/11 security levels at the world's airports will remain high for the foreseeable future, maybe forever. Is this wrong?

I belive you are confusing security with intrusive regulations pour le galerie.

Finally, on the matter of intrusion. Because of my work, I have been subject to security-services clearances for large parts of my professional life. I am entirely unable to understand anyone who gets worked up about CCTV cameras in public places!

Stockholm syndrome?

 

[TPPhotog]

Stockholm syndrome?

For that David would have had to have been under emotional and physical distress with the threat of harm hanging over him. None of which applies in this case so I suggest you re-read your introduction to psychology book

 

[Tach]

Losing his job if he does not comply? Works for me...

 

[TPPhotog]

Losing his job if he does not comply? Works for me...

Good job your not a shrink or we would all be in trouble

 

[bjorke]

Everyone who thinks photography bans will solve any sort of criminal problem are free to experiment with their own cameras and see if, after ten years or so, crime has stopped.