The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
Bill Henson? Porn Culture? Get real
|
Is your daughter no longer interested in tea parties with her dolls but rather into pole dancing in er-tic lingerie? Is her hero no longer Play School’s Big Ted but Paris Hilton? Does she surf the net every day after school – an innocent babe in the woods filled with p-rn sites and p-edophiles? Welcome to the great moral panic of our age — kids and s-x. Our children are evidently being brainwashed by slick marketers into becoming too s-xy too early or, conversely, they are wide-eyed innocents who are constantly under threat of abuse. And it’s all come into sharp focus this week by L’Affaire Henson which has opened a new front in a campaign by modern-day often secular moralisers who think they have earned the right to tell you and me what we can see in the media. It’s been taken up with something between gusto and zealotry in Crikey this week by Clive Hamilton and Julie Gale. Look – it’s not like there’s not an ethical debate to be had about Henson – one that clearly Australian politicians have shown themselves to be far too immature to contribute to (Malcolm Turnbull being the clear exception). But why do we have to suffer the hand-wringing sermons from self-appointed moral guardians? It started in a way with The Australian’s Phillip Adams who a decade ago coined the hyperbolic term “corporate paedophilia” to describe how slick marketing gurus program our naïve kids into becoming Big Mac craving, slack-jawed strippers. The phrase became the title of an Australia Institute (then run by Hamilton) report on how supposedly greedy corporations were making a dollar on the back of allegedly s-xual images of children in clothing catalogues. These were the early symptoms of a kind of hysteria that’s now been let loose in Australian society. It screams that all children – perhaps right up to their 18th birthday — are completely innocent and need that innocence zealously protected. Anyone who claims otherwise, or who like Henson creates a work of art that explores the difficult area where children shift uneasily from childhood to adulthood with an emerging s-xuality, must have an ulterior p-edophilic motive. That is nonsense, and in this current climate of moral panic, the need for some plain talking and common sense is imperative. Yes, we need to protect children from abuse. But does anyone seriously think that p-edophiles are turned on by a Henson photograph or – as the Australia Institute laughably suggested – from a David Jones catalogue? The facts are that p-edophiles have a sick fixation with children looking like children – not like adults. And, horrifically, the vast majority of s-xual abuse of children takes place inside families. Every study of child s-xual assault tells us that about 95% of all cases involve a person who knew the child and stood in a position of trust – parent, uncle, scoutmaster, priest. The victims do not provoke this horror by wearing lip gloss or skimpy shorts – they cannot provoke anything. They are children. Your six-year-old son or daughter should be allowed to run around stark naked if they wish without any fear of any grown-up molesting them or even thinking about it. Children cannot provoke child abuse. And anyway, child abusers don’t care what their victims are wearing. Some are probably turned on by kids in crisp white cricket gear. Shall we ban cricket? And before populist politicians and their boosters like Gale start their entirely predictable tut-tutting about a lost golden age of childhood innocence, they ought to read a little history. For most of human history children have been sent to work as soon as they were able. In the 19th Century the age of consent was 12. London was awash with childhood slavery and pr-stitution. Australian cities and towns were teeming with runaways and neglected children. Gale and her organisation – Kids Free 2B Kids – are just the latest in a long line of people to throw their hands in the air and exclaim that “the kids are out of control!” and that if your daughter is watching Hi-5 today then tomorrow she’ll be giving bl-w jobs in back alleys to support her crack cocaine addiction. Gale and Hamilton might be pleasantly surprised to hear that a few years ago a country was so alarmed about these issues they banned all TV and advertising. No Bill Henson either. No culture unless it conformed to very narrow moral parameters. Phew! The only trouble was, the country was Afghanistan under the Taliban. Not by all accounts a fun time for women and kids. Me, I’ll take freedom over repression any day. I say that standing up for Bill Henson and rejecting the notion that the media is responsible for somehow infecting Australian society with s-x is really standing up for Western liberty against both stultifying and bureaucratic interference and its crazy mate from down the pub, extreme theocratic oppression. So ban TV if you want. Close down the art galleries. Police Bondi Beach for bikinis that are too skimpy. But if you think that will save one child from one act of s-xual assault, you are painfully deluded. Duncan Fine is a father of two boys, has worked for Hi-5 and is the co-author of Why TV Is Good For Kids (Pan Macmillan). |
|
|
8 Comments
Earth to Duncan Fine! He must be out there somewhere in a parallel universe trying to find more of the moral panic-merchants that he keeps on putting in his articles. Certainly, there’s noone I know here on earth, and who is concerned about the new sexualised childhood, who holds the views that Duncan ascribes to them. Duncan , if you want to be taken seriously, try answering real concerns, and stop huffing at strawmen!
That’s the sad fact of it all, no child is going to be saved from this prosecution. Indeed if Ms Johnston was to have her way one child would be totally destroyed. She want the model’s parents prosecuted and the girls involvement in an photo shoot to be forever characterised as a life scarring involvement in child porn. Well whatever it takes Ms Johnston to further your politcal career.
All these adults feeling righteous. I agree with Fine (and I have two daughters - the horror of it, must be a bad father). There is so many horrible things happening to children and no one is doing a thing. You know there are children throughout Australia being crushed by poverty and all the hideousness that goes with it. Don’t see many off to the western suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne to stop it. I do see people getting into trouble taking photos of their kids learning to swim at the local pool. I guess we call that a moral victory.
As for Henson, it just isn’t porn. Google porn and you’ll see the difference.
Duncan I note that you have two sons, not daughters. Perhaps if you had a daughter or three (as in my case) you wouldn’t be so loud in your condemnation of those who seek to protect the rights of female children. Large corporations will do anything they can get away with to market to children. I know because I have worked in the advertising industry and seen campaigns pitched to 12 and 13 year-olds placed in magazines that are bought by their older (18-24 year old sisters). That’s called understanding aspiration. That’s exactly what Phillip Adams was describing. We have a responsibility to let children be children. And so does the arts community. There are infinitely many subjects that Bill Henson could choose to focus his talents on. Why has he persisted for so long in focussing on naked children. As a parent of three girls there is no way I would feel comfortable allowing any of them at 13 to pose naked in front of a photographer. Despite protestations that the girl felt comfortable etc there is no difference between that and saying that a girl of 13 feels comfortable posing in a sexualised, heavily-made up pose for a fashion photographer. The simple truth is that at that age they are too young to be even asked to decide. Artists are not above the rules that we live by. Bill Henson has pushed the boundaries and understandably, others are pushing back.
If you are in Sydney you are invited to attend a public forum on this topic which has been organised by Watch On Censorship and the National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA) at the Museum of Contemporary Art, 140 George Street, The Rocks, next Thursday 12 June from 6 - 8pm. ‘Art Censorship: The Bigger Picture’ will feature a panel of speakers including Hetty Johnston, Clive Hamilton, Ian Howard and Julian Burnside (plus one other speaker TBA from the gallery sector.) The evening will be MC’d by Margaret Pomeranz and the discussion will be chared by David Marr. All welcome at this free event. More information on the NAVA website at http://www.visualarts.net.au.
Why should we be harangued by amoral journos about the artistic merits of Henson? It is evident that his photographs of nudes exhibit sexual themes (see the front page of The Australian of 26 May 2008). These themes are evident in his photographs of nude under-age girls, and there is little doubt that they attract and encourage paedophiles. Artists can do whatever they like if they live on a deserted island, but not if they live in a respectable community.
I dont disagree with most of what Duncan F wrote, but want to add one insight into the sad workings of a ped’s mind. I was a police officer a few years back. To cut a long and sickening story short, we arrested a man suspected of kiddie fiddling. A strip search at the watchouse revealed about a dozen small, stamp sized, pictures of boys in underwear and togs cut from a retail catalogue. Where were they? Stuck, (with cum), to the inside of his underpants. I accept that the concept of someone being aroused by pictures of kids modelling in catalogues, does seem far fetched to most of us. It’s just that since that day, I have realised that they DO get off on perverse material such as this. Sad, so sad, but true.
Anyone who’s (apparently) proud contribution to this word is working with “Hi-5” and a book “Why TV Is Good For Kids” isn’t living in the real world. Or perhaps he works for the agency that created the “nag” research….
I know the Henson issue is pretty much over now , and considered as a bit of a beat up with no bad after-effects for freedom of art .
A significant aspect of it that didn’t get any mention anywhere that I’m aware of is : The choice of the controversial photograph of the naked young girl, as being the vehicle for promotion of his entire show.
Whether Mr Henson was aware of this choice of photograph for promoting the show , or whether his publicist or someone else was responsible for the choice, it is an important consideration for future debate.
This of course gives a negative and dubious speculative context to the affair, .ie whether or not promoting the photograph of the naked young girl, as a means to promote the show, has fallen within the bounds of sexual exploitation of a minor.
Mr Henson freely stated that included in the reasons he chose to photographn and exibit the young girl was; that he finds the period between childhood and adulthood of interest to himself, and thinks others would find it interesting aswell.
His motives of course are not accused in this comment , but the promotion of his show by using the photograph of naked girl , does allow certain members of the community to see the photograph in question as bait when promoted as the attract to a photographic art exibition.
Mr Hensons Photographic and artistic skill is so highly regarded that his “up until view time” subject matter is largely irrelevant to those who seek to admire his coming shows .
It is astounding to many people that he apparently; let the ‘kitten “out of the bag, so to speak on this occassion.
I for one love the surprise of his un-announced usually brilliant photographic genius.
Photographic reality, within the gross Universe of all Art; perhaps needs to be considered more carefully than than just equivalent contentl in the abstract umbrella of all Art, The perjorative reality of cost here for what ever party it lands on is hinted at by the fact that the photograph in question could just as easily have made it into an illegal pornograhic publication or website; and probably has.