Top StoriesMay’s sharp fall in jobless numbers added to the greenness of the ‘recovery’ (or less bad) thesis; overnight June’s unemployment figures were so awful that they could have stunted at least, the wavering shoots.
Faris: Henson and school principal should be investigated
|
Bill Henson makes a lot of money photographing n-ked or semi-n-ked pre-pubescent children. This is called Art by the Left glitterati. Most decent Australians would call it P-rnography. It is a matter of debate as to which side of the line we place Henson. We now discover that Sue Knight, the (then) principal of St Kilda Park Primary School, invited Henson to look around the school and select young models about 15 months ago. It is reported that a new book (by David Marr and excerpted in The Age over the weekend) states that Henson walked around the playground at lunchtime, accompanied by the principal. This is not good enough. Nowhere near it. I ask this: By whose authority did Henson trawl for subjects/victims? As he was accompanied by Knight then she obviously approved. Were the parents of the children at the school given the facts? Did the parents consent? Did the school Council approve? Primary-school children are not of an age to legally consent to their bodies being used by Henson in this way. It may be that even their parents (no matter how progressive or artistic they may be) do not have the legal right to use their children’s bodies for n-de modelling. I must say that I cannot think of a greater dereliction of duty and breach of trust towards innocent young children than that committed by Knight as principal of the primary school. Let me go a step further. If Henson’s work in portraying n-de young children is p-rnography, then perhaps a jury of his peers should try the issue. But it gets worse. Not only should the police be investigating Henson, but principal Knight’s conduct should also be investigated. Knight must have known the purpose of the visit was:
Section 67A of the Victorian Crimes Act defines child p-rnography as including a photograph of a minor “depicted in an indecent s-xual manner or context”. Henson’s photographs fall within this definition. Section 68 makes it a criminal offence if a person “makes or produces child p-rnography”. The penalty is 10 years jail. Section 69 provides that a person who invites or causes a minor to be “in any way concerned” or procures a minor for the purpose of making or producing child p-rnography commits an offence which carries five years jail. On the facts provided so far in the media, it is open for both Henson and Knight to be charged. As I said, let a jury of their peers decide. If they are convicted then they can go to jail, Art or no Art. |
|
|
31 Comments
Would you hire a lawyer who pays as little attention to facts and tthe law as Peter Faris? First the facts: the boy at St Kilda Park Primary was photographed with the consent of his parents. He was not photographed at the school. He was not photographed naked. The chairman of the council of the school has strongly backed the principal.
Now the law: in the course of the last couple of months, Henson’s photographs have been examined by the national Classification Board, by the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, and by the AFP. All cleared them. In the opinion of those who assess community standards for the purposes of deciding what adult Australians can read, see and hear, they are not remotely pornographic. Faris doesnt like them. Lots of people dont like them. That’s no reason to call in the cops. Lets all of us get a grip.
My Conflict of Interest co-host Peter Faris makes one of an assumption here. He says, “Section 67A of the Victorian Crimes Act defines child p-rnography as including a photograph of a minor “depicted in an indecent s-xual manner or context”. Henson’s photographs fall within this definition.”
Do they really? Then if ,so should the depiction of any other under age child or teenager by artists from time immemorial also fall into this category?
How many of Henson’s pictures has Peter seen and studied? By what standard does he adjudge them to fall within the definition of child pornography?
Nick Cowdrey, no shrinking violet as NSW DPP, obviously formed a different view to Peter earlier this year in deciding not to proceed against Henson and the Ros Oxley gallery after the morals squad of the NSW police jumped to attention when vigilante campaigner Hetty Johnson shrieked.
Peter’s a fine lawyer, but on this one I prefer the more considered view of Cowdrey.
The SMH article today quotes the Victorian legislation as requiring Henson to have a parent of the child present at all time when the child is naked and posing. That’s interesting, because David Marr referred to Henson as accessing “N” via her older sister, not via her parents. The investigators should be asking: was one of N’s parents present when she posed for Henson? If not, what options does the law have to discourage this creep?
Is there any way to configure my crikey subscription so that I don’t get articles written by this Faris twit?
Yes, it’s interesting that Faris appeals for a trial by peers and then sees fit to conclude, sans trial of any description, that Henson’s photos are child pornography - just like that. If it were that simple I imagine one of the bodies David Marr lists above might have, you know, noticed.
This issue was exhaustively investigated earlier in the year and it was determined that Sections 67A, 68 and 69 of the Victorian Crimes Act could not apply to something as tenuous as this.
Personally I like my laws to actually protect people. A man walking around a school yard, accompanied by a school official, who approaches no one directly is doing no harm to anyone. And Peter Faris wants have the Headmaster fired and if possible incarcerated?
I also like to give children a lot more credit than Peter Faris seems to want to.
Regards
Peter Gillespie
“This is called Art by the Left glitterati. Most decent Australians would call it P-rnography.”
Blah blah blah. Once again we’re served up pointless and daft ‘culture war’ twaddle by people who should damn well know better. We’re all supposed to believe there is some gigantic moral and ethical chasm between some ill-defined and nebulous “Left glitterati” and the equally ill-defined and nebulous “moral majority” of “decent Australians”?
If you’re going to paint a group of people as child molesters and pornographers (with no evidence) Faris, you better at the very least define your terms, otherwise people may assume you are a blustering blowhard with nothing worthwhile to say, and we certainly wouldn’t want that!
Peter, Peter, settle down, you’ll bust your boiler.
Part 2
In response to Marr:
4. The NSW police regard Henson’s photographs as pornographic. So do the Victorian police I have spoken to. So do many people in the community (as Marr i8s about to find out). The NSW DPP does not and refused to prosecute. In my opinion, the NSW DPP was wrong and, in any case, he is not the public arbiter of these issues nor does his view carry much weight in considering the Victorian legislation.
5. Interestingly, Mar concedes that “lots of people don’t like” Henson’s photographs of naked pre-pubescent children. I wonder why? My guess is that those people consider them to be pornographic.
6. In the end, the issue I have raised is whether or not a photographer of naked pre-pubescent children should be permitted to trawl a government primary schoolyard for models. Marr says yes. I say no. In the end, it is a matter of community values. I predict that in the next few days we will see an overwhelming backlash against the views and values of Marr and Henson. Let us wait and see.
Part 1
In response to Marr:
1. On the issue of consent, the best “fact” that Marr can produce is that the boy was photographed with the consent of his parents. Marr gets it wrong. The question I raised is whether the parents of the children of the school had first (1) been informed of Henson’s trawling before it happened and (2) consented to that trawling. Obviously not or Marr would have presented it as a fact.
2. I suggested that the children were to be photographed nude or semi-nude. As I understand it, this particular boy was semi-nude. Again, Marr gets what I said wrong. There can be no doubt that the intention of Henson was that the children, boys and girls, were to be viewed as potential models for nude photographs if Henson could get the parents to agree.
3. Whether something is pornographic is a matter of judgment. Opinions differ. I think that (at the very least) Henson’s portraits of young girls are pornographic. Presumably Marr and the other screamers at Crikey will permit me to have and express an opinion. After all, Marr no doubt sees this as a censorship/free speech issue. On that argument, I am entitled to express my view. Marr should strongly support my right to do so.
“Presumably Marr and the other screamers at Crikey will permit me to have and express an opinion. After all, Marr no doubt sees this as a censorship/free speech issue. On that argument, I am entitled to express my view. Marr should strongly support my right to do so.”
Nice persecution complex. Who here among the ‘screamers’ have the power and authority to deny your right to express your opinion on this website? As far as I know that power rests with the editors of Crikey, and even they do not have the power to silence you entirely. You’re being paranoid.
Questioning the validity of your arguments and opinions is not the same as calling for you to be silenced. A QC should be aware of this distinction.
Bloody hell Pete, stop embarassing yourself. You sound like some sort of anachronistic “Angry of Mayfair” type. I mean what’s with all this “I reckon …” and “Who I spoke with …” and “in my judgement” twaddle. Ya reckon I beak would buy that kind of argument? I mean if you are that confident launch an action or lobby your friends at Victoria police to take action. Either way put up or shut up.
Very interesting reading Faris’s “maverick” redneck comments after watching the Palin debate video. Much rather have someone who thinks children are beautiful enough to inspire art than to be locked away and told what to think by patriarchal maniacs like this.
Two and a half years ago, channel 10 sent around a television producer to an inner Melbourne primary school to ‘trawl’ through the playground looking for young children to film & be interviewed for a humourous segment on the Rove television show. I understand they obtained permission from the school and following this, permission was obtained from the parents. Some children were filmed & subsequently broadcast on national television.
I fail to see the difference between this event and the event recently described by David Marr. I see both events as part of modern schools responsibly engaging with broader cultural activities that occur beyond the classrooms.
Are we sure Bill Henson was planning to photograph young people n-ked? I think we should try to contain the frenzy around this issue - if for no other reason than the risk that more harm than good will be done to children otherwise. Remember that there is more than one way to put children at risk - over heated media/public exposure is one of them.
Never mind the Porn vs Art debate, this article goes from:
“Henson walked around the playground at lunchtime, accompanied by the principal” to
“trawl for subjects/victims” to
“their bodies being used by Henson in this way.” in 81 words flat !
This is a disappointingly prejudicial opinion from a distinguished lawyer. Mr Faris should remember that any child, and the parents of any child, approached by Mr Henson to participate in his photography were approached politely, clearly informed about the nature of the project and had complete freedom to say “No.” Further, the notion that Mr Henson’s actions constitute an offence are predicated on a determination that the final product is offensive. Henson’s work is not offensive and therefore his approaching minors to co-operate in its production is not at offence.
Faris QC claims that there will be a serious backlash in the next few days against the views of Marr and Henson. I suspect that most people will not give a damn one way or the other. Faris QC’s certainty that he, and only he and his like minded friends, have the “insight” to be able to warn us of this threat to civilisation is unconvincing. If he really wanted to take some action he could do some pro bono work to cleanse the nation of such terrible filth. Meanwhile I suspect those typos were down to a vigorous spot of fingerpointing whilst trying to type and foam at the same time.
There are procedures for visitors at schools. If these procedures were followed by all parties, and no laws were broken the only thing left is moral outrage, which is not enough for prosecution. If procedure or the law was broken by any party, only then can the guilty parties be punished in whatever way.
This is a procedural matter, not one of moral outrage. At the moment however, it would seem that some people have already declared Hensen guilty (of a variety of things) based on nothing more than their own gut feeling and moral outrage. European witch trials had better standards than this.
Greg, I love your work but come on, Cowdery would struggle to prosecute someone who, in the words of Blackadder, was found standing over a corpse with a dripping knife shouting “I’m glad I killed the bastard”.
But geez Peter Faris, anyone else you want to lock up while you’re at it? How about a passing teacher who saw Henson but didn’t make a citizen’s arrest? If Henson asked permission to visit the school, then he’s behaved entirely appropriately in acting upon whatever conditions and instructions laid down by the principal. It’s the latter who has erred in not obtaining parental permission up front. And as other commenters have pointed out, the issue of child pornography has been considered in detail in another jurisdiction.
There’s one thing to realize about Peter Faris, namely, despite his awesome legal skills, he does come from the lower middle-class. As does Kevin Rudd. Only a truly middle-class mind could regard art-lovers and artists as “Art by the Left Glitterati”. Tossing that little effort into the usual “Most decent Australians would call it pornography!” Did he invoke the “innocent little children” line?” Almost certainly, but I can’t be bothered going back to it. Another one could be “naked little prepubescent- girl” and so on ad nauseum. Someone please refresh my mind. Was the prepubescent girl leering seductively at the camera lens? Was she engaging in oral sex? Was she saying “Come and get it?” None of these things? In which case he is reading filth where none exists.
The fact he was trawling schools with an adoring teacher in tow is the only part that worries me. The teacher can’t have been that bright. As usual, Henson is doing what he does best, promoting himself. And bumping up the price of his work in a falling market for images the size of his work. Perhaps he is shifting to a bigger studio?
I imagine that, and despite the amount of money he would have, Faris probably has…oh let me see?? Old Australian maps on his walls.? Perhaps with reproductions of famous religious paintings; a crucifix or two? And one quite good painting of a cat.
You’re all News Corp dupes. They last thing motivating that Big Media organisation is protection of children. Did you see their full page adverts of grog this footy week, a legal drug to be sure. What about as Chris Seage says their brothel pages of adverts. What are the implications for children in these regular offerings. You just cut got screwed by the vexatious News Corp mind f*ck. Hope you enjoyed it.
Peter Faris: God you take yourself seriously: you even have to add the Q.C after your name, just for answering a comment. My step-father had a double-PHD in Science and in Medicine (not an ordinary bachelor of medicine) but wasn’t into boasting about it.
You suggest Henson should be tried by a jury of his peers. OK, I qualify on that score. Google me if you doubt it. What would you do to me if I found him innocent? Throw me in the stocks? Rack me?
Honestly, I just renewed my Crikey subscription then I have to read this offensive twaddle, I really would have thought twice had I known you would be running something like this. Faris is the same dill who reckons taking the children away (again) is the answer to problems in indigenous communities. It’s time that you (Crikey) actually address the concerns your readers have about the articles you run by Peter Faris. It’s fair enough to run a diversity of views but he represents a radical and nasty far right strain and I wonder whether it is appropriate for a generally balanced and moderate publication such as Crikey. How about a note from the editor explaining your rationale for publishing this article and others like the other gem I mention: Political correctness is killing the Aboriginal people (12/12/2007).
Peter Knight: You are perfectly correct of course. It’s just that he is so grotesquely far right-wing he makes jack-booted thugs who found the principles of the Nazi party to be a little too principled. He is so full of self-loathing he has morphed it into loathing of the entire human race.Did he, perhaps, have a terrible childhood?
‘night
Cheers
V.
For your information Keane and Faris-40 children were blasted to pieces by a US bomb in Afghanistan this week yet not one single report appears in our daily press. This is in a war you no doubt agree with Faris.
I also visited the NSW Art Gallery last week and there are several paintings that depict nude children in the arms of nude adults-I suppose we are to assume these adults are their mothers but who knows ?-we have no proof they or the models were.. As far as I know it’s illegal to also depict children in sexual poses in art form as well. Why aren’t you demanding the covering up of these paintings or their emoval or destruction.
Throw in the reports of abuse received by Docs in NSW that numbered 200,000 last year which they don’t have the time or recourses to follow up but you lot want precious recourses used to chase some artist and headmaster.
You are both a pair of blithering idiots and philistines but worse- hypocrits to boot.
I can’t help but feel that those who have decided that all nudity is porn must have been people who hate wandering around art galleries and, if forced to do this by a spouse or on a family outing, pretend the nudity is porn so as to entertain themselves. “Corr, check out the jugs on the Venus de Milo!”
Does anyone else feel like it would be appropriate for the editor to provide some sort of rationale for why Crikey continues to present the views of Faris?
No doubt Peter Faris will think I’m calling for censorship but I’m not… I just think that Crikey should be a place where reasonable views are are given space from both sides of politics. Peter Faris does not qualify as a reasoned or reasonable commentator. The fact that he’s a QC demonstrably means nothing, this guy is way out there. Come on Crikey chip in, why do you print him…??
Peter Knight has insight into problems of his…….. ‘solution’.
Peter Faris is controversial (much of it intentional). It is good stuff to debate.
I congratulate Crikey for publishing both he and Barns.
Peter Faris writes:
Section 67A of the Victorian Crimes Act defines child p-rnography as including a photograph of a minor “depicted in an indecent s-xual manner or context”. Henson’s photographs fall within this definition.
If Faris is such an expert as to what constitutes indecent s-xual manner and conduct, then perhaps he should be investigated!
It’s only fair; crikey!
Neil Sullivan
Peter Faris: Perhaps you would care to list some artists whose work you deem to be satisfactory? No, no, no, no, Peter, not religious painters-they were always depicting naked children-Not Michaelanglo, Peter, he was a well known lefty.
JamesK: Of course Crikey are happy to have Peter Faris writing for them, and for the most impeccable of reasons. Namely, the publicity. However, JamesK don’t forget all lawyers and their ilk are maintainers of dissent. Which is OK as far as it goes. But can lead to the destruction of nations.