Don’t downplay the serious consequences of child pornography

No matter the perpetrator’s sentence, victims’ woes never end, John Wiens says.

I am saddened, and filled with a deep sense of disquiet by the unbelievable and shocking attempt by Paula Simons to downplay the seriousness of David Belke’s crimes against children in her Nov. 21 column.

Knowing what we do about the sexual exploitation of children, how can we possibly not understand the consequences for children of nude images collected without informed consent, say something like “(only) a dozen images were considered pornographic,” and be willing to question the idea of “minimum sentences” for trusted and influential adults.

It seems the height of naiveté to accept Belke’s explanation that he didn’t “receive sexual gratification” from the images and that he was “attracted to children’s innocence” and then use the lame justification that “he had no sexual relationships of his own.” Why nude pictures of young girls and why collect them? Does one need nude pictures to capture images of children’s innocence? And where did he collect them from — surely neither the children nor their protective parents would have given permission for these pictures to be distributed and downloaded by just anyone.

More than likely the images are “stolen” to begin with, supporting a large underground not-so-clandestine industry that promotes and sells them. And what about the private rights of the children? Do Belke’s rights to his fantasies somehow trump or negate their rights to privacy? Consider a survivor’s testimony, “They don’t know me but they’ve seen every part of me. They are being entertained by my shame.”

Does the quantity of pornographic images somehow mitigate the fact that they are produced, collected and possessed? Quantity has absolutely nothing to do with how right or how wrong and guilty Belke was — one image is one too many. Furthermore, just because there were no images depicting sexual violence does not for a minute let him off the hook. After hearing the stories of many victims of pornographic imagery, I would like to inform that real stories, like real images, do real damage to real people. A real survivor said, “They are trading around my trauma like treats at a party.” Tragically, stories of suicide often follow on the heels of stories of exploitation.

As for minimum sentences, I believe they are necessary and appropriate although, based on the knowledge I have, they are not only minimum but minimal in relation to the sentences faced by the children who are sexually exploited.

Theirs is a life sentence, never knowing who will invade their privacy, when it will be invaded, but knowing always that the images last forever.

I grant that Belke’s is a lifechanging sentence as well and that is probably as it should be. But he’s an adult, and he made a choice. He should have been aware of the implications. He’s already enjoyed what living can offer, something he seemed prepared to steal from or deny children.

Readers need to know that child sexual exploitation is a huge and growing problem. Cybertip.ca receives 4,000 reports per month about concerns over child sexual abuse imagery and videos, involving children as young as babies all the way to teens. This number is only rising with Project Arachnid, a new internet search-anddetection program developed by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.

This is a huge societal problem and any attempts to minimize it need to be met with fierce opposition, even outrage. My plea to readers is to never downplay the undeserved lifelong, damaging consequences of child pornography and its related activities for children and their families. Our children deserve better and our society can do better if it takes this matter as seriously as it deserves.

It is a matter of life and death for them — and we all have a part to play.