We didn't do anything to stop it, but with a new millennium we have another chance to improve if we own up to the term "community standard."

At a local grocer this week I did a double take at GQ Magazine on the front row of the magazine rack.  A topless woman clad only in cascading hair adorned the GQ cover, it sat about eye level to the height of  a six year old.  I pointed it out to the woman stocking the shelves, suggesting it wasn't appropriate for a store frequented by families.  "Community standard" was set into motion and the magazine was moved out of view.

Community standard is a legal phrase that helps define what type of morality is acceptable in Canada, it only comes to light if people voice it, and it will surely be relied on as nine judges begin to determine the future of child pornography in our country.

Justice Mary Southin who helped push this case to the Supreme Court, legalized possession of child porn in B.C. when she wrote,  "Perhaps the views Canadians have about child pornography may change over time, perhaps to the point where it becomes acceptable."

I thought it was obvious that child porn would never be acceptable in Canada, but this is a case where judges may never know unless you tell them.  It's time to write to the nine individuals who'll be deciding the future of community standards in our land but first, a reminder of the facts.

Next week, your tax dollars will help Robert Sharpe argue to legalize his pornographic preferences of nude children displaying their genitals and anal regions. A retired city planner,  Sharpe had in his possession a collection of short stories he'd written called "Kiddie Kink."  He also had more than 6,000 photos of nude children, some under the age of six, who were explicitly depicted in sexual acts with adults.

Vancouver police busted him, but both lower courts in B.C. ruled such action violated Sharpe's rights to freedom of expression.  As reported in this paper earlier this week,  Sharpe believes "the law is used to attack lifestyles and to punish people for their lifestyles."

What Sharpe is not admitting to the public is that lifestyles like his harm innocent children.  The fact that chiefs of police associations are among those arguing against Sharpe at the Supreme Court is proof that our culture reaps the pain of such preferences.

"...every image, by it's very existence, implies the sexual exploitation of children who are totally scarred for life by such experiences.  If this judgment is upheld, I will simply retire," said Sgt. Keith Daniels, a child pornography specialist with Ottawa-Carlton Police.  In Toronto, the police detective in charge of stopping child porn in our province says he could keep 50 officers "extremely busy" on this beat.

Queens University's psychology professor Dr. W. Marshall found half of the rapists he studied used "consenting sex" pornography to arouse themselves before seeking out a victim to rape.  York University research also documented criminal effects that pornography usage results in.

The child pornography consequences are yet to be collected on our newest deviance, but evidence is growing of  rapid consumption rates through an internet wired world.

In an increasingly individualistic world, we are losing a collective sense of what is right and what is wrong.  Community standard is silent while individuals like Sharpe rewrite what the future will look like.

If you think it's time to find your voice on this subject there are nine judges who will be pouring over legal documents and public opinion on the concerns of  freedom of expression vs. child pornography.  They are  Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Justice John Major,  Justice Louis Le Bel, Justice Clair L'Heureux-Dube', Justice Frank Iacobucci, Justice Charles Gonthier, Justice Ian Binnie, Justice Michel Bastarache, and Justice Louise Arbour.  Their address is:

Freedom of expression without balancing responsibility of care makes for a nightmare world.