Would Sketched Stick Figures Depicted Having Sex and Labelled Billy Aged 6 and Freda Aged 9 Be Child Abuse Imagery?

Apparently so if Brown and his loony counterparts get to pass another crummy law in the name of child protection.

Mark Lawsonwrites in the guardian on this lunacy, the latest plan to close a loophole and criminalise images of children. Criminalise images of imaginary children that is, well not imaginary, that's already illegal so get off Photo shop now you dirty pervert. This is to criminalise sketches of children being abused. No I am not kidding, my jaw hit the floor too, so close your mouth and read on.

Mr Lawson, a man I respect greatly, really seems to lack the courage (perhaps it is the editor) to call a "spade a spade" in his article. In fact he raises the spectre of other myths in order to add gravitas to his argument. "Snuff films", to be exact, oh and by the way they do not exist. Difficult then to see how he can use that to illuminate the differentiation between what society has predefined as acceptable and that which is not. This sloppy approach blunts his otherwise excellent point that this legislation is bad, plain wrong, horrendous and an affront to freedom of speech and expression, and I just wish he had said so with more vehemence.

Further on he raise the question of Nan Goldin, the darling of the Heroin drenched nightscape and NYC post punk new wave. Never one of my favourites but her image of a carefree childhood, "Klara and Edda belly-dancing", resulted in all sorts of kerfuffle over whether or not they were child abuse imagery. They are blatantly not, just beautifully evocative of innocence and childhood freedom. Those who see it otherwise should learn to look with better eyes.

I fail to see how references to already controversial subjects aid in his argument at all. It simply is not enough to argue, as Mark does, that this is wrong for logical reasons; when the "nutters" (and that is what they are) he aims at have such an absolutist doctrine that logicality has little or nothing to do with it.

Absolutism cannot be fought with logic, I wish it could but the kind of zealot's that now litter the child protection landscape make this a fight against extremists. Extremists who in regards to any other subject would be rightly be scorned, laughed at and hopefully prosecuted for disturbing the peace or incitement to hatred. Make no mistake, that is what we have here, the constant stoking of the public mind with nonsense designed to scare them, and in turn encourage them to further scare their children who they frantically, and quite rightly would like to protect. The offshoot of this is a dissemination of distrust and hate against individuals in communities, particularly men, again!

So which Zealot can we thank for this latest "nugget of nuttery" stand and take a bow, Justice Minister Maria Eagle Mp.

Now this women has voted very strongly against a transparent Parliament, voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban, voted strongly for introducing ID cards, for Labour's anti-terrorism laws,for the Iraq war and against an investigation into the Iraq war. Control freak alert! A pro secret state, pro war Gordon Brown apparatchik as far as I am concerned.

Obviously the word "pencil" is so close to the word "penile" that she believes something must be done. These perverted sketchers deserve a long stretch in prison to cure them of their horrendous proclivities.

Mark Lawson is kind enough to state that she is not mad just wrong. Well I beg to differ Mr Lawson, she is both wrong and mad, blindly aiding and abetting the decline of a country with a proud and inspiring history replete with enlightening examples of free expression and speech. This is very much at risk as this case illustrates.

Gloriously the good folk over at They Work For You have kindly pointed out that "Maria's speeches are understandable to an average 17–18 year old, going by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score." I do wonder if the converse is possible, that she is unable to communicate at any level higher than that to begin with.

This legislative abortion will follow on from others that have begun the inexorable slide into censorious hell that Britain is becoming and you do not have to look far for examples of this in action. It all started with the best of intentions, but as is oft said, history is littered with the devastation that the best of intentions can cause. Censorship is not and never will be an either or. Once you give them an inch these nutters will take a mile, and that is what they have done.

Child abuse imagery, (I call it that specifically because child porn gives it a legitimacy that it little deserves) is abhorrent and disgusting. However, the ideology and rhetoric that surrounds it is equally so. To state that every time someone looks at a child abuse image the child is re-abused is nonsense of the first order, every time someone looks at the beating of Rodney King, is Rodney beaten again? The problem with the incredibly broad definition we have given to a child means that pictures of Sam Fox from her early career are now classed as child abuse imagery.

Another case in point is currently being fought out in Australia over artist Bill Henson's work. Unhappily for the Australian people they are far further behind in the child protection industries witch hunt to be able to see the wood for the trees yet and it is a shame that they cannot look at us and the USA for examples of how not to do it so they can help themselves before it is to late.

Any image of a 16-18 year old, whether naked or having a bit of rumpy pumpy with the girlfriend or boyfriend that they then photograph and show to others, opens them up to prosecution and labels them child abuse image makers and distributors alongside the usual possession charges. It has happened already, probably at the behest of a righteous cause mentality copper, but happen it has. Are we aghast at this? No, vindicated, the emperor does have clothes on after all, we insist that he does. Come on people, we are not talking 12 year olds here, but fully fledged sixteen year old strumpets and their hulking male counterparts. As a nice aside, if they are married its ok, as long as they do not show anyone!.

How did this bad law ever get through the scrutiny of parliament and the lords? Fear, and plain and simple cowardice on the part of people who should lead, but instead readily and gladly capitulated to the slavering press, child protection industry propaganda and the howls of an often misinformed and frenzied public. This has led to the arrest of young people and children, the ones we are supposed to protect in the first place.

We gave them the right to do this, our apathy against the zealotry of the sex haters and censorial nutters provided an invitation to push for whatever they wanted and this was just the start.

Not content with imagery, the child abuse industry shows its cannibal teeth and its absolute hate of sex by setting on pre pubescent children for practising normal childhood activities like "Doctors and Nurses" and pursuing randy 14 year olds experimenting with all and sundry (Hoovers, cucumbers, hairbrushes along with friends, neighbours and strangers).

This was followed by the introduction of the law to criminalise looking at pseudo images of children, just massively wrong and plain lunacy, but in our rush to be seen to protect the children we have allowed this to become a crime and played into the hands of the "nutters" who would like to control every aspect of how we think and live.

Then came the criminalisation of viewers of extreme sexual imagery and the slippery slope incline begins to increase, and next of course we have the latest lunacy that was the subject of this article before I began ranting.

It will not end with this, see some sense, please. Once sketches and artistic representations have fallen to these people, text will be next. Imagine life without Nabukovs Lolita, Laurie Lees Cider with Rosie, Angela's Ashes and any other number of books that dare utter anything about children and sexuality, positive or negative.

How much have we already given up and how do we go about demanding it back? The discourse that has infected our society in regards to children and sex has all but silenced anyone who dares criticise or question by vilifying them a sympathiser with the perverts who prey on our kids. How Pythonesque, "If she weighs the same as a duck she must be a witch" and I do despair that no satirical genius or luminary has adequately attacked this mythology since the brilliant Brass Eye

This oh so slippery slope was started with the best of intentions, to prevent child abuse imagery, but as sentient and intelligent beings it is time to ask ourselves whether it was worth it. How much will we give up for the sake of the child, how much for the pseudo child, the drawn child? As food for thought realise that the information the public has about child abuse imagery is from the police, courts and child abuse industry. What if for one horrible moment this issue was not as big as it has been made to seem? Then we have given up much for very little.

Protect the children by all means, (strangely enough Maria Eagle MP and your "nutter" friends, parents are rather good at that on the whole.)but when it comes to challenging what we have been told and what these lunatics intend to do, I expect the likes of Mark Lawson, The Guardian and the media in general to have the foresight and the balls to take them head on and denounce them for the utter garbage mongers they are.


Update - David Hockney steps up to the plate