Comments on: Forget Henson, politicians are partial to playground trawling too

By: Ric Howard

Ric Howard — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Since when did McDonalds or politicians want to exploit children for the purposes of making pornography for paedophiles. Greg Barns you need to wake up. You cannot compare apples with oranges, particularly on such a sensitive issue. One man’s art is another man’s porn, but when it comes to children none of it is legal, none of it is ethical and none of it is moral. I’m sure Henson has a booming international market for his images…I wonder why?

By: steve martin

steve martin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

You are joking aren’t you Greg!
Since when has politicians behavior been the arbiter of what’s OK. Show me a politician who is never hypocritical and you are showing me an ex-politician

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Also, Ric Howard’s reference to “making pornography for paedophiles” seems to imply that kiddy porn is all about kids involved in non-sexual poses in moody lighting, which I suspect may not actually be correct, or alternatively Ric is confirming that this is indeed what paedophiles find pornographic, which simply prompts the obvious question about how he knows this.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Under the Kevin Rudd doctrine of “Just let kids be kids”, no kids would be used as models in public promotional material. Kevin Rudd is a much worse offender than Bronwyn Pike though. He parades his kids in front of the nation’s media as part of his ‘happy family’ image projection, but Bronwyn’s use of kids is more anonymous. Similarly, the Opposition’s banging on about the impact of Rudd’s family on the operations at The Lodge (see Senate Estimates from earlier this year) is equally dodgy.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“It is not possible to take charming and innocent photographs of n-ked children it is possible to take charming and innocent photographs of clothed children” writes Brian David Page.
That’s right Brian, all nudity is automatically pornographic. That’s why porn mags feature naked models standing around in moody lighting looking serious. Never any sexy lingerie or lounging on beds with legs spread, it’s always black and white moody lighting stuff. Coz that’s what sexy means. Corr, check out the jugs on the Venus de Milo.
Mate, just coz you get your jollies in art galleries doesn’t mean everyone shares your automatic sense of being titillated by a bit of skin.

By: darryl calderwood

darryl calderwood — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

No Greg, I think you are missing something here….polititians of all persuasions are prone to leaping into the kiddies sandpits for the photo grab for that evenings TV news, and they probably feel that they have the right to do so… after all they are supplying the taxpayers funding to ensure that the little tackers can go on and become useful citizens … and in all of the photographs and tv shots that I have seen, the kids all seem to have their clothes on!
However in Henson’s case, and considering all of the controversy surrounding him, you really have to wonder why he is apparently trawling around schools to see if he can spot any pre-pubescent kids who may be suitable for his own professional artistic gratification…..?

By: Tara Leishman

Tara Leishman — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Greg Barns still doesn’t get it.
Politicians may well pose with children in schools and malls, and their photos appear in the press and the public know it for what it is…
But, here is the difference! All those kids have their fu*king clothes on!!
And it isn’t called ART

By: Greg Barns

Greg Barns — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I do get it. What I get is that it is perfectly ok for artists to seek the permission of parents to allow their kids to be photographed or painted naked, clothed or even half clothed. But for politicians to cynically use school kids as a vote buying prop ,and then complain about an artist simply wandering through a school with the permission of the principal and with no intent in mind of any sinister nature, is simply opportunist.

By: maree whitton

maree whitton — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

For crying out laud Greg Barns, we all know why politicians have their photos taken with children, but we all don’t know why Bill Hanson wants to take childrens’ photos.

By: Michael Wilbur-Ham

Michael Wilbur-Ham — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I think Greg has missed the point of what Henson was doing.

He was looking for potential models, to then ask the parents for their consent to take a photo at a later time.

Or course the Minister should also have the consent of the kid's parents for any publicity photos.

But to be consistent, she should be condemned for looking at kids to decide if she even wants to ask any parents for consent.

By: Dr Gauld

Dr Gauld — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

When I taught throughout 1983 at Hughenden High School, Bob Katter would interrupt my Classes, uninvited of course, without having completed ‘Working with Children Check’ forms.

By: Brian David Page

Brian David Page — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I find Greg Barnes to be the last person that one would ask for an opinion regarding Henson and his child photographs. Greg Barnes is a person who believes that it is ok to watch child pornography provided it is in the comfort and seclusion of your bedroom.

So Crikey why do you allow this person to be published in your e-news? He may have expert opinions on other matters but in matters of child pornography Greg Barnes opinion cannot be trusted.

Crikey do ask Mr Barnes what he thinks of Henson's series Untitled 83-84 ??? when you have his response go and see Henson's series Untitled 83-84 for yourself. AND THEN do the right thing by your readers, get rid of Greg Barnes or at least preclude him from giving his views on anything to do with children and sex. And really, does he think we are stupid when he makes a comparison between politicians being photographed with a group of children who are fully dressed and photographs of nude 12 year olds. Greg Barnes you really do think very little of the reading public don't you?
If you still think it is ok to for Henson to photograph nude children, read again what one of your Criky readers has to say about it.. and I quote " Henson series 83-84 ... includes a picture of a young woman lying n-ked, her legs open (the photograph is shot from between them) and her g-nitalia focal. She is smeared in what has been described as menstrual fluid, but might be any blood. Her face is hidden in shadow. In fact, she looks dead -- like the victim of a s-x crime, her youth nauseatingly apparent. It feels wrong even to describe it."unquote

It is not possible to take charming and innocent photographs of n-ked children it is possible to take charming and innocent photographs of clothed children. Photos of clothed children don't make money do they Mr Henson ? You are an exploiter of children and a polluter of minds, pretending to be an artist and because the world is full of philistines you get away with being called an artist.