Before any sexual act can go public, it has to be nurtured in a private world of fantasy.  Plant a thought; reap a result for good or for bad.  The bedrooms of citizens like Mr. Sharpe are encroaching into our state and we have moved closer to letting it happen.

In the 65 pages that nine of our brightest minds spent deliberating over the past year, the Supreme Court justices clearly outline the link child pornography has to distorted sexual behaviour and harm to children.   Three of the nine judges said, “The benefits of the prohibition of the possession of child pornography far outweigh any deleterious effect on the right to free expression.”  The six-judge majority negated the views of Justices Bastarache, L’Heureux-Dube, and Gonthier and the loss of their caution is a loss to us all.

The only reassuring angle I find on that news is that legal critics and the likes of the Attorney General of Ontario and Justice Minister Anne McLellan plan to spend the week examining the ruling to anticipate what it could construe.  They’ll likely begin by going over the two pages of exceptions that paedophiles and their lawyers will explore on this ruling.  Exceptions that “open the door to paedophiles” said Victims of Violence, exceptions so broad “you can drive a truck through them” said the intervening group of Focus on the Family.

After Ms. McLellan’s press conference (where she called the ruling a “astounding victory for children”), confused reporters were throwing out questions like, “well, if masturbation’s not illegal, what’s to stop a consenting ten year old masturbating boy from standing beside Mr. Sharpe and letting his picture be taken?  Or what if it’s a full naked exposure, (no real dominant depiction of a sexual organ, Para. 128:2) and what if the kid consented to having that picture taken naked?  What if Mr. Sharpe just goes on to argue these are only for his own personal use?”

Just a few of the many ugly questions that need to be put up against the reality of what’s on the street side of this ruling.  Reality like last week’s seizure of a 19-year-old’s computer images that allegedly have prepubescent children engaging in intercourse and oral sex.  Or the CD’s taken last week from a 20-year-old arrested for producing child-porn images for made-to-order pornography discs.

There are so many cases of child pornography, police appear to say don’t worry about these exemptions on the Supreme Court ruling, anyone who has a private collection worth examining has already spread the poison, we can still prosecute what we need to.  That proliferation is proof that imagination fuels reality and the cautious safeguards that Parliament intended when it introduced the porn law in 1993 should stay.

I once went to the offices of Project P, the Ontario police child porn unit, to find out just how bad this scourge was.  The memory I can’t shake is one of standing beside the colour printer that police said ran 24/7 putting out pictures of Canadian child porn.  Next to the printer was a collection of mailbag photographs pinned up – unsolicited photos from Canadians who were writing to Project P to say, “I think I was used in child pornography.  If you see my face in your investigations.....”

These are Canadians that, according to the forensic psychiatrist that testified at the Sharpe case,  “have a higher risk of depression, relationship difficulties, problems trusting people, sexual problems, substance abuse and suicidal behaviour.”  In real relationship, I’ve only met one Canadian who was used in the production of child pornography.  His arms are marked with the scars of suicide attempts and he was disgusted with the exemptions allowed by the Supreme Court.

The most ironic thing of this all is that the man who started this fight for free expression won’t even open his apartment door to face the upheaval.   Having lost his battle at the Supreme Court, he is now invoking a defence from the divine with the blasphemous conclusion of  “if God didn’t mean children to have sex, then why does puberty happen so early?  Did God goof?” 

All I can hope is that Mr. Sharpe will read the Bible’s intentions for sex.  Perhaps he will discover Jesus’ words on protection of children in Matthew 18 and better understand the consequences of sinful behaviour.

For common sense, for caution, for the future let us side with the opinion that Parliament originally intended with our child porn law and that three justices concurred with.  The risk of allowing private, self created child porn collections outweighs any benefit, in fact, the dissenting judges are accurate in saying the original ban on possession would create “an incentive to destroy those pornographic materials that exist.”

Nation building means that we let those who are examining this ruling know that we will support them as they put cautions on freedom of expression.