|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I have looked at the cover of the Australian art magazine that has caused some fuss and bother in Australia.
To me no right thinking person would ever associate this picture with any sexual thing. There is no pornography here. The child is in an innocent naked pose. No genitals are on view and the picture is even more innocent than those of Otto Lohmüler's pictures of naked boys in the basis that they show genitals.
I am NOT speaking of the law. Not. Responses to this post about "that is what the law says" will be treated as irrelevant. I am speaking of common sense.
Where a picture is artistic, and where there is no sexual act, real or implied, depicted, I see every reason for that picture, or statue, or artistic work, or photograph to exist. it may be criticised as good or bad art, but the originator should not be in fear, nor should those who reproduce it.
By allowing our legislators to ban such pictures we allow the lunatic fringes of control and the thought police to rule us in fear. We let the new puritans take over.
How long until these moral guardians turn the calendar back and execute homosexuals?
It is time to stop this "those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear" inexorable slide to stern morals.
[Updated on: Mon, 14 July 2008 12:24]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, Timmy,
That is the excuse of many authoritarian lawmakers and in particular our amazingly right-wing home secretary.
And it is untrue that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.
If they SUSPECT you of thinking terrorist thoughts they want to be able to lock you up for 42 days, incommunicado and with nothing legal a lawyer can do and without any comeback if what they do is let you out on day 41. You have no legally valid complaint against anyone. They can do this to anybody.
Even in the USA, where they have Guantanamo as an example of what the government can do outside the law, they can only keep you for two days without charging you with a crime or you have legal redress. (Am I right about this? I read it in the Guardian so errors are always possible!)
So the truth is that you ought to fear them, **particularly** if you have done nothing wrong. It is those who have done nothing wrong who are going to be unjustly treated (just as it is the innocent who suffer most unjustly at Guantanamo).
And at present it is 28 days and that is fourteen times as long as in the USA and much worse than anywhere in the enlightened west.
All a tyrant needs to enable him to stay in power for ever is to be able to lock up any opponent whenever he wants. President Mugabe Brown here we go or should that be Colonel Gadafy Brown?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> I have looked at the cover of the Australian art magazine that has caused some fuss and bother in Australia.
>
> To me no right thinking person would ever associate this picture with any sexual thing. There is no pornography here. The child is in an innocent naked pose. No genitals are on view and the picture is even more innocent than those of Otto Lohmüler's pictures of naked boys in the basis that they show genitals.
>
> I am NOT speaking of the law. Not. Responses to this post about "that is what the law says" will be treated as irrelevant. I am speaking of common sense.
>
> Where a picture is artistic, and where there is no sexual act, real or implied, depicted, I see every reason for that picture, or statue, or artistic work, or photograph to exist. it may be criticised as good or bad art, but the originator should not be in fear, nor should those who reproduce it.
I have a question.... How does the "artist" find a child to pose for the work? What I mean, does he walk through a local park? Place an ad in a newspaper? An agency?
How could a parent respond to such an ad or solicitation?
I just don't understand it...... can someone please explain this to me...
I'm serious, I'm also trying my best to ask nice, but thinking about this is really making me upset....
>
> By allowing our legislators to ban such pictures we allow the lunatic fringes of control and the thought police to rule us in fear. We let the new puritans take over.
>
> How long until these moral guardians turn the calendar back and execute homosexuals?
>
> It is time to stop this "those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear" inexorable slide to stern morals.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Marc,
Please don't let us upset you. We aren't saying things with that intention.
But seriously, if it upsets you to hear me say that something is OK that you find deeply repugnant, then don't go there. Don't read it and don't reply to it.
We all avoid upsetting other people and letting them upset us.
That's why I don't go into churches though my friends try to get me in them saying "Come and see this beautiful building and forget it is a church."
But I can't.
And I can appreciate that you just don't accept that people can take pictures of naked children with innocent motives and can even publish them and still neither feel bad nor be bad.
But I fear that even writing that will upset you. So forgive me, please.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Parents are supposed to protect their children... to keep them from harm of any sort....
I just dont understand how they can let something like this happen...
Innocent as the final work appears... How can they do it?
I want to understand how a parent can do something that intentionally harms... even if they think it's for the childs own good... I've been trying to understand for a long time... and nothing makes sense.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yikes and just watched V for the first time three days ago. Call me paranoid but I’m sitting here listening to Libera and am expecting them to come busting down the door at any minute….. J/K : ) but really we need to be aware, even though many may have thought that was a silly movie, the message was there and it was a good one.
I can’t and won’t stop yelling from the roof tops religious fascism is the worst of the worst no matter what guise it takes, and it does not have to be denominational to be religious.
People are so eaten up by guilt shame and blame that it’s going to eat the human race alive, OK you can call me paranoid now, but I know I’m right the history is too fresh………. Why people can’t see it is beyond me!
OK rant over………….. for the moment!
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
The photograph was bought from the child's mother who is a photographer. Or so I understand from the news article.
Otherwise there are law abiding child model agencies who will supply properly chaperoned models.
But I do not intend this thread to be yet another "gosh it's great to take pics of kids" thread. It is the lawmakers who worry me far more than anything else.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arich wrote:
> I can’t and won’t stop yelling from the roof tops religious fascism is the worst of the worst no matter what guise it takes, and it does not have to be denominational to be religious.
Oh, I don't think that it has to be religious fascism : after all, Pol Pot, Stalin etc were hardly devout!
People have taken upon themselves the (alleged) right to ruin or kill their neighbours, often through paid informants etc, for all kinds of reasons, and religion isn't necessarily top of the list. Anything that sanctions the excuse "it's for their own good / the good of society" is pretty suspect, in my view.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Once again.... you miss my point.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
For you to understand it is necessary for you to realize that this child's mother does not believe that taking a picture of her daughter naked is harmful to the child. I know that you believe that it was harmful to the child and I am not trying to dissuade you from that belief.
This child's mother may be very protective of her, but she does not agree with your belief that taking a picture of her nude is harmful.
In this instance she did not have to search for her model, however all of your suggested methods for finding a child to pose for the work are correct. It is no different from finding someone to appear in a movie or play. Newspaper ads, yes. Agencies, yes. An agent, producer, photographer or artist spotting someone in the park or on the street, yes. Just because you read of such things happening in fiction does not mean that they don't happen in real life the same way.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t know NW, I find all those you mentioned pretty devout if to nothing else than there own delusions. One way or the other it all looks very much the same whether Pol Pot or Torquemada. They were all bat shit crazy, and set them selves up as demigods, but then I see religion as dogma and demagoguery, nothing more. Just mpov mind you.
I think really there is everything religious about this “new puritrrany” but little spiritual. I don’t want to argue the finer points and maybe my more outrageous statements don’t help the cause along, so I’ll calm down, if I havta, and try to talk less like a wild eyed revolutionary (Dang I don’t even like that word) I don’t want to fight a battle and maybe die just to have things come full circle to where we started. LOL dropping the ® doesn’t help (clasp hands behind back, looks down and kicks the dirt.
Sorry for making light of what I find a very serious situation. But I don’t see much coming if these discussions, the world is too busy worshiping and the alter of mammon, at least until the mirrors break and the smoke clears and reality sets in. then things should get real interesting.
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
