Friday, June 18, 2004
There is something different between voting down a child porn law for some moronic reason that someone actually believes in, and actually supporting child porn. "Artistic merit" my ass. "Supports child pornography" double my ass.One of the rare times in my life that I'm going to agree with Andrew Coyne on a social issue. As he puts it:
Essential point: where the state should draw the line is not between possession and distribution, or whether the material has artistic merit, but whether any verifiable harm resulted from its production or consumption ie, whether actual children were involved.There is, after all, a difference between reading Lolita* and looking at a picture of, um... ...well you know what I mean: I'm not going to spell it out in graphic detail.
I must point out that I expected some sort of this statement to be coming, although not as crass. During the debate, Harper (quite honourably) noted that he would consider employing the Nonwithstanding Clause against child pornography, if it comes to that. It would only seem reasonable to point out the less rigourous positions of the other parties on this.
But again, the other parties are not supporting child porn.
Because I was sorta expecting it, the Holly Jones connection didn't come up right away in my mind (plus I lived in Vancouver when it happened, so it's not quite as mentally etched in my brain). But to say these things now is, yah, twice as bad as saying it at another time.(A personal note on Lolita: I never did finish the book, despite several attempts. There is something incredibly boring about a narcissist describing himself. I did manage to watch the last film version of it, starring Jeremy Irons, and found the second half just way too bizarre to compel me to finish the novel.)