Out of the dark shines a ray of hope in the form of Justice Minister Ramon Hnatyshyn’s Bill C-54. At long last, a truly conservative Bill from the federal government! Is Prime Minister Mulroney finally ready to act on the overwhelming mandate-for-change given him by the Canadian people?
Hatyshyn’s anti-pornography bill is a tight package, giving clear definitions for both hard and soft-core material. At present, Canada’s Criminal Code makes a distinction between explicit and implicit sexual material. Only depictions of explicit sexual acts, where there can be no doubt as to the sexual activities of the participants, is currently illegal. Clearly, more up-to-date legislation is needed to provide guidelines for what is known as “erotica.”
Recently, I viewed a selection of pornographic material during a presentation given by a representative from Project “P”. A joint task force of Ontario Provincial Police and Metro Toronto Police, Project “P” educates the public on the true nature and content of pornography. Mention that word, and the average person conjures up images of Playboy
and Penthouse magazines. However, the video I saw made it abundantly clear that today’s pornography is truly worse than one could imagine!
The fine line between implicit and explicit sex is often a case of camera angle or a strategically placed tropical plant. The bizarre acts, degradation of men, women and children and physical abuse are unfathomable. In some cases, the participants were obviously drugged and unaware of their circumstances. Even with so-called “erotica,” little is left to the imagination.
The fine line between hard-core and erotic material is one which porn producers bend and challenge with increasing frequency.
Bill C-54 makes a clear distinction between pornography and the more subtle “erotica.” Pornography would encompass visual matter depicting violence, acts of degradation, child pornography, penetration of any bodily orifice with an object, defecation, urination or ejaculation onto another person (with or without consent), lactation or menstruation “in a sexual context.” Visual depictions of incest or necrophilia, masturbation, vaginal, anal or oral intercourse also fall under the definition of pornography.
No redeeming social value
Erotica is defined as “any visual matter; a dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, in a sexual context, or for the stimulation of the viewer, of a human sexual organ, a female breast or the human anal region.”
Feminist and Gay Rights critics have argued that this Bill will take us back to Victorian times. It is simplistic to imply that we are left with a choice between artistic freedom and Victorianism! Indeed, the choice boils down to one of individual rights versus the common good. To argue that Bill C-54 will necessitate the clothing of nude statues is nonsense! There is ample provision within the Bill to safeguard artistic freedom if “the erotica has artistic merit or an education, scientific or medical purpose.”
Recently, a local Women’s Council brought to light information on attempts to hamper anti-pornography activists. American pornographers have set aside $900,000 to be used to discredit any organizations opposing pornography with North America – a relatively small amount when one considers that pornography is a 12 to 15 million-dollar business (excluding video sales), on this continent. In Canada alone, organized crime takes in $500 million annually through pornography.
For those who market and sell it, pornography is big business. Producers of porn are its only beneficiaries. I am convinced that neither pornography nor erotica has any redeeming social value. Study after study has pointed out the tremendous harm this plague has inflicted upon its consumers and their victims. Just how does pornography hurt us?
According to the Fraser Report, pornography has three major effects. One: whether hard or soft-core, it degrades women and robs them of the need to be treated with respect, as it portrays women as objects or possessions to be used by men. Two: male violence against women is treated as socially acceptable and viewers of porn are desensitized to the suffering of others. Three: these two influences have a strong negative influence on the family.
Essentially, pornography is harmful to society because it causes an increase in violence. In an excerpt from “Take Back the Night,” contributor Irene Diamond points out that wife batterers are frequent consumers of pornography. American sociologist, Strauss and Baron, discovered “an unusually high rate.” (Keep in mind that the best-selling sex magazines fall into the category of “erotica.”) Their research stated that: “often we find that the man is trying to enact a scene in some pornographic picture.” In a ritualistic manner, the rapist reads some form of pornography before assaulting his intended victim.
Children become merchandise
Family relationships fall victim to the effects of porn. Teenagers receive a portion of their sex education from sex magazines and videos. One film viewed or acknowledged by a large number of teens is “I Spit On Your Grave” – a blend of violence and sexual activity. Teenagers between 12 and 17 years of age are the target group of porn produces; they represent the most frequent consumers of hard-core pornography in Canada. The implications are frightening for the next generation, as today’s teens become tomorrow’s rapists, batterers and abusers.
With the exception of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) no one could rightfully defend or endorse child pornography. Yet, it has become a lucrative venture. As exposure to this activity, untold numbers of children are missing or killed each year. According to the U.S. Department of Justice Child Abuse Task Force, over 1,500,000 children under the age of 16 are used in commercial sex. It is estimated that one quarter of the profits grossed from the sale of pornography is income derived from kiddie-porn. There is also increasing concern that adults are abducting children for use in prostitution, pornography or personal sexual use. Many of these children are later killed. Innocent victims of pornography.
Pornography magazines, intercepted en rouse from the U.S., include “personal” ads placed by parents offering to swap their own child for another. It is a sexual “cultural exchange” of sorts, in which the child becomes the merchandise. The scars these children must bear!
Child sexual abuse and incest can all be linked to pornography. Bill C-54 would attack these odious practices from two directions. First, a maximum ten-year jail sentence for distribution porn would act as a disincentive. Secondly, the removal of erotica from public access and limitation of such to those 18 and older, would be an initial counter measure. Yet, for those under 18, it is relatively easy to get an older “friend” to purchase such material on behalf of another.
Surely no one could reasonably argue against passage of this Bill. Remarkably, there are those who oppose further controls on pornography!
Civil Libertarians have raised the freedom-of-expression flag in an effort to halt C054. They deny any link between exposure to pornography and abuse of women and children.
Naturally, film and video producers and distributors are opposed to portions of the Bill. This August, a coalition of movie and video distributors, cinema owners, library and museum administrators, film makers and artists printed thousands of postcards to halt Bill C-54. Addressed to Prime Minister Mulroney, the cards request that the Bill be dropped completely because “present laws provide all the recourse required to deal with abuses.” This coalition represents elements of the visible pornographic trade. While they may not be responsible for the distribution of hard-core pornography, the erotica they peddle is the first step in any addiction to pornography. The evidence mounts. Pornography becomes addictive. Erotica leads to a desire for more intense and more bizarre material.
Gay Rights organizations, in briefs to the Fraser Commission, argued that homosexual pornography is different from heterosexual porn. Participants in homosexual porn are consenting, unlike their heterosexual counterparts, who are depicted as “submissive.” Homosexual Rights activists view Gay pornography as “a victimless cultural phenomenon.” This comes as a surprise to me, when I consider that the act of sodomy itself degrades at least one participant.
So much for the theory of the victimless cultural phenomenon!
This same group made an unusual recommendation to the Fraser Commission, dealing with revision of the Criminal Code in the area of hate literature. Homosexual Rights groups urged the Committee to “explore the idea of extending the hate literature sections of the Criminal Code to protect sexual minorities…” The militancy of this group is obvious in their further suggestions to repeal present obscenity legislation, censorship of any kind, as well as a redefinition of pornography on the basis of sexual violence only.
Bill C-54 does address this issue, advocating a broadening of “hate propaganda” offences to include any identifiable group meaning “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, sex, religion or ethnic origin.” Should the inclusion of the word “sex” be interpreted by the courts as “sexual orientation” we are looking down the barrel of a loaded shotgun, my friends.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Gay Rights proposal to protect “sexual orientation” from self-perceived “hate propaganda” is clearly an attempt to muzzle those who would stand in the way of a hidden agenda, which homosexuals have circulated within their own publications! Perhaps a more accurate definition would replace the word “sex” with “gender.”
As the time for the vote on Bill C-54 draws closer, I urge you to write your MP; the Honourable Ramon Hnatyshyn; and our Prime Minister, to express your support for this Bill, with the amendment to the clause on hate literature. The proliferation of pornography has caused untold suffering for countless Canadians. Every member of your family is a target of its effects. Christian men and women must begin to stand up as the Salt and Light of this world, to speak against evils of any kind. As Light, we shine forth into a world of darkness to stand for what is right and just. As Salt, we add flavour. Remember, too, that salt is an ingredient essential to life itself. Without it, what kind of a world would this be?
