Charles Clarke and paedophiles

[Yaman Akdeniz]

On 28 Jul 2000, at 13:39, Quentin Campbell wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Yaman Akdeniz wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > Furthermore, there are a number of child pornography and Internet 
> > related cases that I provide information about on the above pages and 
> > it is very difficult to categorise all these guilty of child 
> > pornography related crimes as "paedophiles" as there are a number of 
> > cases in which the only crime involved was possession of child 
> > pornography. 
> > 
> > I am sure the issue of whether to call them "paedophiles" is 
> > debatable but I am very much concerned about ministers making such 
> > statements and child pornography being used to justify such intrusive 
> > legislation as the RIP Bill/Act.
> > 
> > I just wanted to point this to those who are interested with the 
> > policy issues related to the RIP Bill/Act.
> 
> Yaman
> 
> Since this reply will go to others outside of the "ukcrypto" list I would
> like the opportunity to respond and to repeat in part something I posted
> to "ukcrypto" earlier on in relation to "paedophiles" and RIP.

I am keeping your message so that your interesting and very useful 
comments can be read by the members of the cyber-rights-uk mailing 
list (I do not think that your message has gone through as you are 
not a subscriber as far as I know).

> In the case of people convicted of possession of child pornography what is
> not at issue is that they have "traded" in material that is produced in
> the most appalling and distressing of circumstancess imaginable.  If the
> crimminal law can catch and punish the producers/consumers and help shut
> down that market then it should be used.
>  
> Any discussion about paedophile activity and child pornography should also
> address the more general problem of sexual abuse of children in our
> society. That is the fundamental problem and the one that RIP simply does
> not even start to address.

All agreed and I have been saying similar things (see my articles) in 
relation to child pornography concerns since the summer of 1996. You 
will find out that not only RIP does not address the problem that you 
define, but those who seem to be more concerned about the issue, e.g. 
the Internet Watch Foundation, does nothing at all to address the 
wider issues, and the general problem of sexual abuse of children.

> I believe that Charles Clark and others have done us a double disservice
> by their constant references to "paedophiles" as one of the justifications
> for the provisions in RIP.
> 
> First of all it has been dishonest, at least to the extent that it has
> fooled anyone into believing that RIP will actuall make any real
> difference to the problems of paedophiles and sexual abuse of children.

Agreed. All initiatives should address this general problem and medium specific solutions 
such as hotlines for reporting child pornography or the provisions 
of the RIP Bill will not be effective or will not address the real problem.

> Secondly it has taken attention away from the major, but "hidden", problem
> in our society of the sexual abuse of children by adults who are usually
> from within the "extended family". The spokesperson for the NCH who has
> often commented on the RIP Bill provisions has portrayed paedophiles on
> the Internet as if they are the only problem we should be worried about.

Child pornography has always been a cottage industry but the 
statistics show that with the advancement of new technologies, these 
are more visible but it is very difficult to speculate whether child 
pornography and paedophilia are "growing problems" or whether it is 
the same as in 60s but just more visible. I managed to trace back to 
early 1980s the use of computers by paedophile networks. So in my 
view, even if there is a problem, we are not completely facing a new 
problem and it has been also dealt adequately. 

> Paedophiles on the Internet are a nasty but peripheral problem. But as I
> pointed out in an earlier posting to this list:
> 
>  "If you talk to Social Workers, Police and others actively involved in
>   child protection you will discover that there are certainly hundreds,
>   probably thousands, of sexual abuse cases in the UK involving young
>   people with learning difficulties on which the CPS has been
>   unable/unwilling to prosecute. [I am referring here to cases where the
>   child lives at home and the abuser is a member of the "extended family".
>   The cases of children who have suffered sexual abuse while in
>   institutional care is a separate and major scandal].

Good point which shows that the Internet is not as dangerous as 
parks, homes.

>  "The alleged abuser(s) are known to the Police and to Social Services but
>   the abuse often continues. Usually the victim is the only witness.
> 
>  "The problem for the CPS is the difficulty of putting such vulnerable
>   people into the witness box and having their evidence stand up under
>   cross examination".
> 
>  "I believe that this is a national scandal but one that gets little
>   publicity in either the local or national press. NCH and similar
>   organisations must be aware of the scale of the problem." 

Even if they are aware, they seem to have an ulterior reason for 
pushing forward the regulation of the Internet.

>  "I am thus bound to ask why these organisations are devoting their
>   efforts, and charitable funds, pursuing their "internet agenda" rather
>   than addressing the terrible situation that exists on their own door
>   step".

This is a good question which needs to be addressed by those 
organisatons and by the Home Office. 

> I am indebted to Nicholas Bohm for the shrewd observation he made in
> response to the above comments:
> 
>  "This phenomenon is not unique to aspects of child abuse.  Much law
>   enforcement agitation in the crypto sphere seems to be similarly
>   misdirected.
> 
>  "Freudians would I think call this 'displacement activity'. Inability
>   to solve a hard problem causes frustration, which is vented by
>   energetically solving an irrelevant but easier one".
> 
> 
> 
> Quentin 
> --
> PHONE: +44 191 222 8209     Computing Service, University of Newcastle
> FAX:   +44 191 222 8765     Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, NE1 7RU.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Any opinions expressed above are mine. The University can get its own."
> 
> 


Mr. Yaman Akdeniz,
Director, Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK)
Url: http://www.cyber-rights.org
E-mail: lawya@cyber-rights.org
Tel: +44 (0) 498 865116
PGP Fingerprint:
075A 1640 8F7A 0273 6C24  B9C3 551F A9F1 0397 F663