# A Black Mark



## 043 (16 Mar 2006)

No jail for soldier in porn case

By DON MACPHERSON The Canadian Press

GAGETOWN, N.B. — A soldier from Nova Scotia who used computers at a New Brunswick military base to secretly view child porn received a suspended sentence during a court martial held Wednesday.

Master Cpl.                             , originally of Glace Bay, pleaded guilty to the National Defence Act charge of accessing child porn.

He looked at the images in October 2004 at computers in a classroom at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown.

A suspended sentence means                               doesn’t have to serve time behind bars as long as he commits no further offences in the next year.

He will pay a $2,500 fine over the next year. 

                   , an instructor with the school of Military Engineers, admitted at a court martial Wednesday that he had viewed the images.

Assistant prosecutor Maj. Jean Caron said no images were retained on the computer, located in a classroom at the military engineering school, and that’s why                  faced the charge of accessing child porn rather than possessing it.

Caron said a soldier with the Canadian Forces computer incident response team in Ottawa received an alert unauthorized websites were being accessed.

That technician discovered someone using                     user login "accessed unauthorized websites containing child pornography," Caron said.

The web surfing sessions totalled about 2 1/2 hours between Oct. 21, 2004, and Oct. 25, 2004.

Caron noted                        co-operated fully with military police during the course of their seven-month investigation and has shown remorse for his actions.

Patrick Hurley, a Fredericton civilian lawyer who served as                           defence counsel, called no witnesses during Wednesday’s sentencing hearing, but submitted a package of letters of support, from                        wife and fellow soldiers.

They all expressed their continued support for the soldier in those letters, Hurley said.

The prosecution and defence submitted a joint proposal for sentence, suggesting that the case law indicates a 10-day term of imprisonment and a $2,500 fine would be appropriate.

                      , who has no children, has served in the Canadian Forces for nine years and had an exemplary record until this offence.

He has served three tours of duty, in Bosnia in 1999, Eritrea in 2000 and Haiti in 2004.

Hurley said his client has a stellar reputation in both the military and general communities.

"He is a soldier at heart," the defence lawyer said.

Commander Peter Lamont, the judge who presided over the court martial, said it is his duty to impose the least severe sentence that will still maintain discipline in the military.

"I consider that (                          ) has demonstrated real remorse," Lamont said, noting the letters of support indicated the offence was out of character and unlikely to be repeated.

Speaking with reporters following the court martial, Caron said                       future in the military is up to others to determine.

*Now, here is the burning question....................Should he be retained?*


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Mar 2006)

No.  I also think that a suspended sentence sends the wrong message.  Just like retaining him does.  I would waver on this if he went into some kind of counselling.  
My question is that your article seems like an open source yet it is edited.


----------



## 043 (16 Mar 2006)

Yeah, it is open source, I just took his name out of it. He is going to have a hard enough go of it. People know who it is anyways but I am not going to advertise it. 

I think he should be let go................although it is hard to know if it is a sickness or just a one time deal with him. I say let the doctors make the call. Would be hard to hide him in the corps though.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Mar 2006)

seen


----------



## scoutfinch (16 Mar 2006)

I dare say that the Canadian Press is open source; therefore, I am not sure the need to edit the name of the offender.


----------



## scoutfinch (16 Mar 2006)

Sorry, we cross posted.

2.5 hours on the site does not constitute an accidental trip to a kiddie porn site.  

I am not sure why he should not be dismissed from employment.  No doubt DND has a Internet User Policy and I suspect that such actions violate the policy.  I know that viewing kiddie porn at most civilian work sites would be cause for dismissal.


----------



## Baloo (16 Mar 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> Yeah, it is open source, I just took his name out of it. He is going to have a hard enough go of it. People know who it is anyways but I am not going to advertise it.
> 
> I think he should be let go................although it is hard to know if it is a sickness or just a one time deal with him. I say let the doctors make the call. Would be hard to hide him in the corps though.



I don't know about that. The whole "sickness" line...really doesn't float with me. Or a lot of other people, for that matter.

I too wonder the reasoning behind his retention. Solid community citizen? Significant contribution to the military and country? I don't think either of these things should matter, and the military should be the first to institute harsher punishments for crimes like these, regardless of what the civilian world will show within their judicial process. Children need to be protected, and a suspended sentence for a crime like this, even if it is a first time, should be dealt with more harshly, even if it consists of being discharged. Military computers will not be utilized to conduct crimes of this nature. Can't look the other way on this. 

My 0.02.


----------



## COBRA-6 (16 Mar 2006)

Anyone who's been in the forces more than a week knows that DND computers are monitored, he should be released for being stupid, then beaten for being sick...



			
				scoutfinch said:
			
		

> 2.5 hours on the site does not constitute an accidental trip to a kiddie porn site.



+1


----------



## Rescue Randy (16 Mar 2006)

Retaining him after he has used DND computors to view any type of porn is hard to justify, but with all the caveats they are using I suppose that it could be justified if the punishment meted out were adequate, and if administrative action were also taken.  That said, the only grounds for retaining him if he is proven to have viewed kiddy porn on any medium, whether DND owned or not, should be in order to serve his prison time in a military jail - prior to releasing him with a 1(a) release item.  There is no place for him in the military - regardless of how good of a soldier he once was.


----------



## 043 (16 Mar 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Anyone who's been in the forces more than a week knows that DND computers are monitored, he should be released for being stupid, than beaten for being sick...
> 
> +1



Thanks for the chuckle!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## scoutfinch (16 Mar 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Anyone who's been in the forces more than a week knows that DND computers are monitored, he should be released for being stupid, then beaten for being sick...
> 
> +1



I don't mean to be dense (however, it won't be the first time and I am sure it won't be the last) but I did not understand the +1 reference?

Thanks


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2006)

+1 is like a ditto -- 

in this case an agreement with the above poster.

I am more than a little disgusted by the lax sentence.


----------



## scoutfinch (16 Mar 2006)

Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.  I thought I had somehow screwed something up!

SF


----------



## NCRCrow (16 Mar 2006)

have a look at his pic:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/490328.html

Left-Right Left


----------



## Trinity (16 Mar 2006)

What difference would it make if he was surfing regular porn using
DND computers rather than child porn.  Should he also be released then?


----------



## scoutfinch (16 Mar 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> What difference would it make if he was surfing regular porn using
> DND computers rather than child porn.  Should he also be released then?



Viewing *regular porn* (for lack of a better word) is not a violation of the Criminal Code.  

Wihtou greater knowledge of DND Internet Policy, I can only guess that viewing *regular porn* no doubt could be subject to discipline upto and including dismissal  -- like any  civilian job.  

Using a CF computer to perpetrate a criminal act should be cause for discharge.


----------



## Baloo (16 Mar 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> What difference would it make if he was surfing regular porn using
> DND computers rather than child porn.  Should he also be released then?



One is a criminal offence to be affiliated with in any manner, while the other is not. There is a DEFINITE difference. 

Why would he be released for the "regular" kind? Perhaps a warning, if there are specific regulations against accessing such sites.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Mar 2006)

The charges were:



> 1. (alternative to charge 2) S. 130 NDA, accessing child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1) CCC).
> 2. (alternative to charge 1) S. 129 NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.


(taken from http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/calendarmar_e.asp )

While a sentence of dismissal with disgrace would be an option if found guilty under 129, it would not if he was found guilty under the 130 charge, as the Criminal Code does not include that penalty - generally, if you are charged under article 130 of the NDA for a Criminal Code offense your sentence must be aligned with the Criminal Code.

In this case, he was ordered imprisoned for 10 days, fined $2500, and then had the sentence of imprisonment suspended by the judge.

He could still be released on administrative grounds; that is an entirely different process and not part of the court-martial (though the judge may consider such possible action in determining sentence).


----------



## beach_bum (16 Mar 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> Anyone who's been in the forces more than a week knows that DND computers are monitored, he should be released for being stupid, then beaten for being sick...



I am horrified that he was not jailed and released from the CF.  He is sick and I wouldn't want him anywhere near me or my child.


----------



## 043 (16 Mar 2006)

beach_bum said:
			
		

> I am horrified that he was not jailed and released from the CF.  He is sick and I wouldn't want him anywhere near me or my child.



Yup!


----------



## Trinity (16 Mar 2006)

Here's a jag question


is NDA 130  whatever is illegal in the criminal code...


Cause the NDA goes up to 129.  And my search has shown other
charges under NDA 130 but various different charges under the same number.


BTW.. my first question.. is simply to get you thinking.  PM me if you want my opinion,
I just want to see reactions first without tempering them.


----------



## S McKee (16 Mar 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> What difference would it make if he was surfing regular porn using
> DND computers rather than child porn.  Should he also be released then?



Because while regular porn is supposedly between two or more consenting adults and to some extent socially exceptable to view, child pornography is not. Moreover the makers of child pornography exploit and victimize the most innocent and defenceless in our society; children. They are forced or coerced to performing sex acts for these sickos.


----------



## S McKee (16 Mar 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Here's a jag question
> 
> 
> is NDA 130  whatever is illegal in the criminal code...
> ...


----------



## monika (16 Mar 2006)

beach_bum said:
			
		

> I am horrified that he was not jailed and released from the CF.  He is sick and I wouldn't want him anywhere near me or my child.



Ditto. Speaking as a civi, maybe it's two faced but I expect CF members to be held to greater account on something like this. We just had a huge child porn bust centred out of TO and having a government employee using government equipment to access it, and get such a light sentence?

Sends the wrong message to me. Then again I'm guessing the people he works with might have their own penalty to meet out.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (16 Mar 2006)

TMM said:
			
		

> Ditto. Speaking as a civi, maybe it's two faced but I expect CF members to be held to greater account on something like this. We just had a huge child porn bust centred out of TO and having a government employee using government equipment to access it, and get such a light sentence?
> 
> Sends the wrong message to me. Then again I'm guessing the people he works with might have their own penalty to meet out.



Yeah I was posted in Gagetown when this guy was arrested and there was a lot of people really torqued (rightly so)

I was shocked last night to hear this sentence. Not even a reduction in rank and time in the crowbar hotel at CFDB??? Wow!! I regularly saw RCR Ptes go off to Edmonton for AWOL in Gagetown for up to a month...this guy gets nothing???

This is a reprehensible crime....as everyone has noted...and yeah stupid from the point of view that everyone knows that Big Brother is watching...question though....is this guy suffering due to his tours and needs help?
Yep I know, I know.....let's get him some help and then let him find another job where he's not endangering his buddies and their kids...I'm on net.


----------



## medicineman (16 Mar 2006)

Well, all I have to say is people know who he is, where he works, what he looks like, etc... - the court of public opinion is often worse than that of the Crown.

A guy actually said on the radio this morning that " if (he) ran into him on the Base, I'd have NO problems punching him in the face..."

MM


----------



## dapaterson (16 Mar 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> is NDA 130  whatever is illegal in the criminal code...



NDA 130 states that an offence under Canadian law is an offense under the NDA.  

Thus, if something is illegal under Canadian law, a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline can be tried for doing it, regardless of whether it took place in Canada or not.  It also permits the military to try certain cases where civilian courts would otherwise have jurisdiction.


NDA 132 is more intersting - it makes it a service offence to violate foreign laws in those countries.  I dont know of many (if any) court martials or summary trials with charges laid under 132, though...


----------



## Trinity (16 Mar 2006)

Thanks...

I did look up the NDA... but it ended at 129...


----------



## MdB (16 Mar 2006)

Now, it's pretty disgusting. The court failed to correct the situation! 

What kind of message does that send to other military members breaking the law?? 

You know what? There won't even be a scandal. There's one in my mind. And that guy should spend 1 month up in DB, no matter what his collegues will do. They would also breaking the law discriminating him. That's not their role to punish him, that's the court's.


----------



## bbbb (16 Mar 2006)

This is disturbing to say the least.

How did a CF member have time to see a porn site? How did a CF member get the motivation to view a porn site? There is no need to post his name here, if this gets out the public's opinion of us will drop. Oh, I guess they know anyway. He should be severely disciplined regardless of if they find out or not.

Discipline!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Mar 2006)

It seems to me that a many pers are getting off with fairly light sentences (purely a feeling on my part).  I think its time some examples are a made again.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Mar 2006)

Depending on your job and postion there may be a lot of down time.
This is in the news already, an open source.  The military is a reflection of society as a whole.  I imagine he would have done the same thing regardless of what he ended up doing career wise.
Motivation?  Well I'll that to the doctors.


----------



## 0007 (17 Mar 2006)

I can't imagine how this man could get any sort of respect from recruits; that alone should be grounds enough to get rid of him. It burns my ass to think of how many recruits get turned down for much smaller infractions done in civilian life. Forget about how disgusting the act was, how absolutely moronic was it to access child porn of DND website? He should be one for stupidity or bad judgement alone. I know realise why the recruiting process is so long and stringent, and I have that much more respect and understanding of it now!


----------



## regulator12 (18 Mar 2006)

His name should not have been edited from the article we shoule know his name and he should be publicly made aware to everyone so we can label him as a sick sick man. This type of behaviour in this country needs to be punished with stiff penalties and not with soft punishments such as this....dont be shy in the future to publish there names they dont need our protection...let them suffer public humilation.......


----------



## regulator12 (18 Mar 2006)

The sad part is, this type of thing goes on all the time and because our laws are so weak people like this will just do it again.........it really really sickens me....i wish i coud meet this bastard and i would make a example of him........


----------



## NCRCrow (18 Mar 2006)

Just think of the exploited kids this person was encouraging by accessing this filfth. Think of your own kids............
This pic is from the Chronicle Herald in HFX and is accessible open source. 
I wonder what his PER said for Ethics and Conduct, NI is too weak of a statement. 

2500 dollar fine, gimme a break. He should give that money to a shelter for exploited children. Disgusting!!!!


----------



## regulator12 (18 Mar 2006)

To look at porn is one thing but to look at under age porn whatever age it may be under 18 is WRONG. Its the law and it there should be no lets give him a break. and thats what they have seemed to do is give him a break.....


----------



## gnplummer421 (18 Mar 2006)

What scares the heck out of me is that everytime this sort of thing happens, no one ever would have expected so and so do be able to do this. He was such an outstanding person in the Community yada yada. I can just imagine the sheer number of people who are doing it and not getting caught!

Could be your next door neighbour, your co-worker. How would you react if your best friend for life was caught doing something like that, would it be the end of the friendship or would you somehow try to overcome it? 

Nasty stuff...
Gnplummer


----------



## NCRCrow (18 Mar 2006)

A co-worker in Ottawa and once a good friend got busted for Internet Luring. It was not a good scene as they arrested him on the 417 with his whole family in the minivan.

I arrived at my work and the whole building was yellow taped off, I said "sweet.. day off". (Tsunami to follow)

This incident diminished our morale and trust as a section as he was just one of the guys. It definitely had an effect on the team,as we ostracized him and rightly so. 

One minute a co-worker/friend, next minute criminal. It still hurts to think about it, but he did the crime and deserved the full brunt of the criminal courts and removal from the military.

2500 dollars is lame and people on this forum not posting his name is weak. This forum is meant to encourage free speech within the guideline set out by the owner.(which I enjoy and thank Mike)

WTF...An Admiral got busted for looking at MAXIM images on his laptop. 

I could not work with somebody who has done this type of crime,less be in the same room with.

Crow


----------



## bbbb (18 Mar 2006)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> Just think of the exploited kids this person was encouraging by accessing this filfth. Think of your own kids............
> This pic is from the Chronicle Herald in HFX and is accessible open source.
> I wonder what his PER said for Ethics and Conduct, NI is too weak of a statement.
> 
> 2500 dollar fine, gimme a break. He should give that money to a shelter for exploited children. Disgusting!!!!



I like your thinking. He should NOT only have to give that amount to the shelters, but ALSO to the CF, each level of government where he lives, each local charity where he lives, and to each family where he lives. In addition to his fine he should be demoted to Private (recruit), sent to military prison for a gruelling 'rehabilitation', court-martialed, and either (a)-given a dishonorable discharge or well, if he's courtmartialed I guess there won't be any other option that (a). I must admit he should then be sent to normal prison for a -lengthy- real rehabilitation.

Discipline is really important you know.


----------



## medicineman (18 Mar 2006)

Dude,

If you'd have read the article concerned, you would have seen that he had in fact been court martialed.  That's alot of what we're griping about here at the moment.

MM


----------



## armyvern (18 Mar 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> I like your thinking. He should NOT only have to give that amount to the shelters, but ALSO to the CF, each level of government where he lives, each local charity where he lives, and to each family where he lives. In addition to his fine he should be demoted to Private (recruit), sent to military prison for a gruelling 'rehabilitation', court-martialed, and either (a)-given a dishonorable discharge or well, if he's courtmartialed I guess there won't be any other option that (a). I must admit he should then be sent to normal prison for a -lengthy- real rehabilitation.
> 
> Discipline is really important you know.



?? Your post count from yesterday seems to have decreased drasticly. Too busy posting and not reading?

This thread is brought about as a direct result of the dis-satisfaction of the results of his open courts martial which was held here on this Base last week. Even a brief read of the Halifax Chronicle Herald article would have made the point obvious that this "punishment" was doled out by our military Justice System.

Please read the threads before you post.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Mar 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> Discipline is really important you know.



Realy ?

I must thank you for bringing this to our collective attention.  I cannot wait for you to come out of whatever school you attend and lead us out of the darkness  :


----------



## rick7475 (18 Mar 2006)

He should have at least been stripped of his leaf and brought down to Pvt. Can't have a guy like in any leadership capacity. Scares me to think this guy could be in a war zone somewhere, come across some children ... he needs to go.


----------



## techdog (19 Mar 2006)

Who are we protecting by not publically publishing this individuals name?  Imagine the sad day has come where the Canadian Forces family protects the scum bag that violated children in the most unlawful way for what?  Who is protecting these innocent children?  People have to remember that these children did not volunteer to be violated in this manner - they were forced into these acts.  Does our protection of CF members as a whole, as a community influence this unlawful behaviour further?  Why protect the lowest of the low, why protect an individual that obviously has problems....mentioning that he has served his country, a proud soldier....the last time I checked there are many great individuals that I am very proud of for serving their country and my idea of a soldier....sorry pedophile does not fit the picture!

Our system sucks!!!  Not only do we protect the ones that falter and fail as upstanding citizens but the system we have for disciplining these individuals is slow and haphazard....currently there is "an upstanding Soldier"....NOT! serving in the military on base Petawawa who was arrested in the spring of 2005, finally Charged Feb/March 2006 and what you may be asking is the rest of the story....well here we go ........No story everything is pending a court date.  The last time I checked no court date - imagine that, here is an individual who has been charged with accessing and possessing over 2,000 images on a DND computer and home computer still aloud to walk the streets, socialize with children............maybe even your children and what...nothing?  So far name has been released on the news and radio and that's it...what has the CF come to?  Where is the example we need to set!!!!!!!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Mar 2006)

You mean like the presumption of innocence???


----------



## techdog (19 Mar 2006)

Innocent until proven quilty.....firm believer in that.  My standing I believe that our justice system / court system has to work faster on these issues.  The fact that it has taken a year and still nothing processed where does that leave the community in which this individual resides/works/associates with?  The charges have been laid, the evidence stacked up....there is no innocence - unfortunately we are waiting on the conviction.  If this individual was a civilian he would have had his day in court already and the community would probably be more at ease by now!

As for the other individual we are discussing the CF member in New Brunswick....charges were laid and quilty as charged, not enough of a charge but they were laid.


----------



## regulator12 (19 Mar 2006)

Innocent till proven guilty yes...system is slow yes...But in this case the guy was found guilty and given a lame slap on the wrist...sends the wrong message to others who will do what he does and what he will continue to do because thats the nature of the beast...I hardly doubt that this was his first time looking at this porn and i dont think it will be the last. Our system does suck in a lot of respects to slow, not strict enough, they make to many deals with criminals its really sickening. That pedophile in Edmonton who ran that porn ring got 3 years in jail, longest sentance they say ever, judge could have given longer one but the guy made a deal with them.....thats crap let the guy make a deal then say hey no what....no deal but thanks for the info now you can rot in jail... theres a lot that needs to be done with this matter and this matter is important because it affects the Children of our future these kids who are subjected to this behaviour may grow up to do the same thing have major psychological problems who knows.....Especially now with the internet we see how often this happens more now......drastic things need to happen to sort out a problem that seems to have no solution at this time......


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Mar 2006)

For the last time his name has been released in the news media.


----------



## S McKee (19 Mar 2006)

I don't know what was going through the mind of this judge, however the last two individuals that were in the digger for possession of child porn,  we're an officer who got 9 months, he was caught with a tremendous qauntity of child porn, and a Pte who was caught with about hundred pics he got 10 days, both were released from the CF. By the way people who are charged and convicted of this crime are classified as sexual offenders and (if ordered by a judge) are required to provide a DNA sample to the national DNA bank. So we have a sex offender as a member of the CF, makes you proud eh?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Mar 2006)

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Williamson_Linda/2006/03/19/1494856.html
Linda WilliamsonSun, March 19, 2006
    Hunting monsters 
We're great at catching child-porn criminals -- and terrible at punishing them

Child pornography is, by definition, a world of dirty little secrets. The vilest of worlds, the most horrifying of secrets. 

Most of us will never have to glimpse this world, unlike the iron-willed police officers we dispatch to plumb its depths. 
But every one of us is in on the most distasteful secret of all -- the open secret of a Canadian justice system that treats the pornmongers' crime like, pardon the expression, child's play. 
Last week's astonishing announcement of the breakup of an international child porn ring -- some 40 people arrested in Canada, the U.S., Australia and England -- came like a bolt of bright light out of a dark cloud; some hopeful news in the face of a very bad situation. A little like Prime Minister Stephen Harper's surprise visit to Afghanistan, if you ask me. 

In both cases, we can feel proud that Canadians are making a difference on the front lines in a battle against a monstrous evil, and that our official resources are behind them. In both cases, too, those resources have long been lacking, and still are. 
Last week's porn bust is just the latest example of the brilliant work our police -- and by "our," I mean big kudos to the Toronto Police child exploitation branch -- have made in this field. Armed with the very latest in technology, they're constantly figuring out ways to trap those who hide in the shadows of cyberspace. 

This particular bust showcased the finest in police work, from the quick action of Edmonton cops who acted on a tip that led them to catch a man in the act of distributing child porn on his computer -- to the wizardry of the Toronto crew, who pioneered a way to track child porn consumers through the webs they weave on the World Wide Web. 
Police were able to pose as child-porn traders themselves in chat rooms that specialized in the unthinkable -- including live videos of men sexually abusing their own children, a.k.a., "molestation on demand." I'll spare you further details. Suffice it to say these creeps weren't chatting about the artistic merits of Nabokov's Lolita. 

The point is, time and time again, with innovations like the Toronto squad's partnership with Microsoft in creating software to track pedophilic pornographers, our police beat the bad guys. They're not only battling hard on the front lines, they've infiltrated behind enemy lines in a high-tech war. 
Our courts and legal instruments, by comparison, are stuck in the past. For years, our child porn laws were in limbo due to esoteric arguments about freedom of artistic expression and whether "works of the imagination" can be illegal. 

Meanwhile, the twisted multitudes who crave real, hardcore images of real children -- including babies -- being raped were building an empire online: Some 20,000 new child porn websites pop up each month, the CBC reported last week. 

We have figured out how to catch these monsters. Where we fail is in figuring out what to do with them after they're convicted. 
Canada's maximum penalty for trafficking in child porn is 10 years. It has never been used. Jail terms are rare -- the usual sentence in a child porn case is house arrest. (By contrast, in 1999, a U.S. child porn distributor was sentenced to 1,335 years in prison.) 
On Friday, Edmonton's Carl Treleaven, who pleaded guilty to helping run the chat rooms at the centre of this worldwide child-sex-video ring, was sentenced to just three and a half years in jail -- even though the judge called him a "danger to society" and the volume and depravity of the images he traded "unprecedented." 

Pathetic. Yet this was the toughest sentence ever imposed in Canada for distributing child porn! One Edmonton cop called it a step forward. 
Treleaven, a self-described child porn "addict," will be free again in a matter of months. Some step forward. 
If we're so good at catching these vermin, why are we so bad at putting them away? 

Prime Minister Harper, I hope you're listening.


_Makes one want to throw up......._


----------



## Sheerin (20 Mar 2006)

To play devil's advocate here.

No one here knows exactly what he was looking at.  It is entirely possible that the porn site he was visiting had child porn on it as well and he just didn't see it or even recgonize it as child porn.  Under the criminal code if you're looking at pictures of a girl who 17 years and 364 days old you're guilty of accessing child porn.  It wouldn't surprise me if most here who have looked at porn on the net have at least one point looked at girls who weren't quite 18 without knowning it.  Of course there are no statistics to back this up, call it a gut feeling.
Then of course one has to ask if this is the case how did they know that the models were <18 years old?  

Now if he was in fact looking at kiddie porn (ie: young kids) then yes he deserves to be sent to prison and booted out.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> To play devil's advocate here.
> 
> No one here knows exactly what he was looking at.  It is entirely possible that the porn site he was visiting had child porn on it as well and he just didn't see it or even recgonize it as child porn.  Under the criminal code if you're looking at pictures of a girl who 17 years and 364 days old you're guilty of accessing child porn.  It wouldn't surprise me if most here who have looked at porn on the net have at least one point looked at girls who weren't quite 18 without knowning it.  Of course there are no statistics to back this up, call it a gut feeling.
> Then of course one has to ask if this is the case how did they know that the models were <18 years old?
> ...



Sheerin and regulator12  

Where have you guys come up with the magic number of 18 years of age as what distinguishes Child Pornography from other forms of Pornography?  There was a ruling by the Liberals back in the day when Sven Robinson was sitting in Parliament that set the Legal Age of Consent at 14.  If that is the age (14), then your arguments are even more off.  You are no longer looking at 'teenagers', or 'young adults', but really young children or 'infants'.  There is a even more vast a difference here.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Mar 2006)

Whoa  George, I think you are getting it wrong there. I would have to look it up but legal age of consent can change depending on the duo's ages, and for public display I'm positive they are right, its 18.


----------



## Sheerin (20 Mar 2006)

Section 163.1 of the CCC.



> 163.1 (1) In this section, “child pornography” means
> 
> (a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
> 
> ...


http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/180971.html


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2006)

Good to know.  Ages vary for different things and circumstances.  It still is vastly more discusting if it is of children under the age of 14, than those who are nearly adults, and even more discusting if they ages are in the single didgets.

We have had the Legal Age of Consent discussion elsewhere.


----------



## regulator12 (20 Mar 2006)

> The Criminal Code now defines child pornography as "a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means… that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual behaviour… or the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years… or any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years…."



http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/childporn/

Your right George Wallace that it is more discusting if the person looks at 14 or younger persons and some could argue that looking at a 17 year old is not as disgusting....BUT i would counter that with how old is that 17 year old really. I would think that the picture of a 17 year old girl could really be a 12 or 14 year old girl. So it would be hard to say that looking at a 17 year old is not that bad WHEN in all reallity you could really be looking at a 12 year old. I personally feel that looking at anyone porn of someone under the age is risky and wrong because you really cant for sure know there age...The line should not be blurred when it comes to this sort of thing....i dont think that we as people should start saying well...its not that bad....she is only 17....yada yada....Like i said before that 17 year old may very well be 12......


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2006)

.....and the Devil's Advocate could come back and say that that 24 year old is only 17.   It can go on and on.  Tough call for the those who have to enforce the Law.


----------



## Trinity (20 Mar 2006)

US has regulations requiring companies keep proof age age.



> The new regulations -- known in the industry as "2257" because of their section of the U.S. criminal code -- apply to content produced after July 3, 1995. They require Web sites to collect a performer's date of birth, a copy of a form of government-issued identification and every alias ever used in the industry. The records must be stored for seven years along with copies of any content in which the performers appeared.



Not saying it works.  Not saying everyone follows the regulation, and of course not saying porn is only made in the US.

However, if the site says it complies to 2257, you can be reassured its safe (maybe?!)

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113979639540872097-YHUZhGF_wNyT0sc_zghUONQ2xWA_20070213.html?mod=blogs

(not that I know anything about this )


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (28 Mar 2006)

Have we perhaps reached a stage where we have to start thinking about looking at regulating the internet a little closer? I know I know...shoot me but a.) I'm not a liberal and b.) I'm a Padre....so there!

When TV arrived on the scene (before my time I'll have you know) there were never any questions about showing pornography on the TV especially given the fact that young people and children could easily be exposed to what ever was broadcast. I realize it was a different time and that morals were way different then etc. however maybe they had it right when it came to regulating the exposure of people to porn and violent images etc

We had regulations on magazines...and still do to a certain extent.

I read some research some years ago and I can't quote (because I can't remember the source) it here but it went along the lines that the earlier people are exposed to porn images and violent images the more likely they are to accept that as normative and there is a certain addictive quality to it as well.

By making it readily available on computers via the internet we are, as a society, sowing the seeds of moral and spiritual depravity. I am talking here about pornography which is an exploitative use of sexual or violent images celebrating the base instincts of humans and denigrating relationships, vice erotica which seeks to educate or celebrate the beauty of human sexuality and raise human relationships to a higher level.

Let's not split hairs about how old people may or may not be...pornography is exploitation of people of all ages...most especially the sap watching it. 

(None of this is to excuse the actions of the mbr that this thread was started about...I condemn his actions...he made a bad choice and he should be held responsible to a much greater degree I feel.)


----------



## orange.paint (28 Mar 2006)

i look at porn as I am attracted to women.He looks at porn due to his attraction to children.I date women....wait so he is living in our community and how do you think he looks at kids...

I posted this a while back and was asked to take it down as the court had not decided.If you want to know if its your community look on 411.ca,luckly its not in my community.

If this was the "old" army......I wonder what would happen?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (28 Mar 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> i look at porn as I am attracted to women.He looks at porn due to his attraction to children.I date women....wait so he is living in our community and how do you think he looks at kids...
> 
> I posted this a while back and was asked to take it down as the court had not decided.If you want to know if its your community look on 411.ca,luckly its not in my community.
> 
> If this was the "old" army......I wonder what would happen?



Ok so his attraction to child porn presumably would encourage him to view children and react to children as objects for his gratification...that is very bad. 
There is lots of evidence that all porn tends to convince the viewer to view and react to women and men as objects for self gratification. All of it is destructive to healthy relationships.
Maybe it all needs to be regulated a little tighter....and maybe what we don't see won't hurt us...any of us.
I still think it was a mistake to allow every terminal in DND internet access. Not every CF member needs access to the Internet to do their job.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Mar 2006)

Not responsible enough for a computer, certainly not responsible enough for me to put my life in his/ her hands........


----------



## orange.paint (28 Mar 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Not responsible enough for a computer, certainly not responsible enough for me to put my life in his/ her hands........



well said.

I personally think living should also be taken away...but im an extremeist sometimes

I dont agree with no acess to internet,I use the internet everyday but i'm not a sick F^c* so there is no problems.Im surprised there hasnt been protest in front of his house to get him out of town yet.


----------



## Trinity (29 Mar 2006)

I think the "other" padre is right    


Porn (straight, gay, child, whatever) objectifies the person in the film,
and in turn, we the viewer may very well do the same. 

Anytime we can turn a person into an object, we fail to show 
basic respect to that person, which degrades and dehumanizes them.
Anytime we can dehumanize someone else, to get "deep", we really
dehumanize ourselves as well.

Thus, porn, something that I was forced to see against my will while
at my fraternity (and no where else  ) isn't a healthy option for an individual.


----------



## HItorMiss (29 Mar 2006)

Alright Padre but what about the argument that pornography just caterers to a need and that the only real person being taken advantage of in the process is the person who buys it?

If for instance you have someone not forced to do porn against their will then who really isn't making money on the process...the viewer who is spending money on it.


----------



## orange.paint (29 Mar 2006)

I like porn (i.e playboy perfect ten) 

I hate perverts who find children sexually attractive.
This isnt about porn being bad its about perverts looking at child porn, living in our communities,and getting a light punishment.makes me sick.


----------



## pbi (29 Mar 2006)

The decision to retain him or release him is an administrative one, and has little to do with the outcome of any court case. Guilt in criminal cases requires proof beyond reasonable doubt: administrative decisions only require reasonable grounds for action. The two processes are quite separate, and IMHO so they should be. My opinion (without knowing all of the facts, nor his previous record of behaviour, nor much else...) would be C&P as a minimum, with career restrictions to ensure he is not employed around cadets, children, etc. If there were sufficient grounds, you could go directly to release without C&P but that can be a hard sell with NDHQ sometimes, and raises a question about due process if this was the first time.

Cheers


----------



## S McKee (29 Mar 2006)

Just to add... It doesn't really matter if it was the "first time" the mbr engaged in this type of behaviour or not. The seriousness of the offence and the public stigma attached to the member (he is a convicted sex offended) and the damage to the  CF as a result of his further employment would be grounds enough to administratively dismiss him. However admin releases are generally initiated by the unit. I have seen mbrs released for first time offences that were significantly less serious than this.


----------



## orange.paint (29 Mar 2006)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I have seen mbrs released for first time offences that were significantly less serious than this.



Seems the army has time for people who find children attractive and cruise child porn on DND computers, but hell your career is done if you drink and drive.Not saying drinking and driving isnt serious but dam in my mind I would much rather have a guy who messed up and drank a few too many than a guy who finds my children attractive.

What about overseas deployments?Children there in some countries have no voice in public,makes you wonder what could have happened with perverts like this in third world countries with children running around.

i also hated the way the ATV news seemed to boost him up by saying in words to this affect " an outstanding well decorated soldier" nice to tell the public how this great soldier is fu8ked up.


----------



## armyvern (29 Mar 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I think the "other" padre is right
> Porn (straight, gay, child, whatever) objectifies the person in the film,
> and in turn, we the viewer may very well do the same.
> Anytime we can turn a person into an object, we fail to show
> ...



I would agree with your sentiments Padre, but only to a certain extent.

I draw the line at straight, gay, hetero, and other legal forms of pornography. For the overwhelming majority of this class of pornography, the "featured models" are indeed consenting adults who are of a maturity level and an age appropriate to make their own personal choice and decision. It is their choice, and whether or not all may agree or disagree with the choice they have made, it is their choice. We have the choice to look and/or watch or the choice not to. In the end, these people are consenting adults. At least these adults have chosen to have themselves 'exploited' or 'objectified' (and I'd argue that most of them do not feel as they are being exploited or objectified).

In a class by itself, is "kiddie porn" where indeed the most vulnerable of the world's citizens, our children, are being exploited and abused. There is certainly no consent or maturity level involved the photographed subjects of this type of pornography. It's pure exploitation of those who can not make the decision on their own and who are unable to defend themselves against it. As these kids are not capable of making these decisions, the courts have done so for them and laws are in place in attempts to prevent this type of abuse and objectification of our children. The "adults" who actually condone and further exploit these kids by subscribing to, viewing, making or encouraging child pornography are indeed guilty of exploitation and objectifying an obviously non-consenting child. This disgusts me. They deserve no quarter in my books.

I have absolutely no problem with consenting adults choosing to view or participate in any type of pornography which involves other consenting adults. At least I have a choice and can defend myself...a child can not.

Those adults who choose to participate in the porn class with non-consenting children deserve whatever comes at them. Unfortunately, in some cases, what they get is too far from enough. May they rot in h.e. double toothpicks.


----------



## Trinity (29 Mar 2006)

armyvern said:
			
		

> I have absolutely no problem with consenting adults choosing to view or participate in any type of pornography which involves other consenting adults. At least I have a choice and can defend myself...a child can not.



I agree with you.  There can be no comparison between child porn or other illegal types of porn vs consenting porn.

The only clarification I would make about consenting porn, is that the end user is the one who is 
hurt (as per my explanation on objectifying humans) whether they recognize what they are doing it or not.
(which I would consider a bad thing)


HOWEVER, its not illegal to do things to oneself that may be hurtful, i.e. smoking, drinking,... and porn is
no different in that respects.  The individual who uses it risks harmful changes and even addiction (which has been documented).

I started to type in an example, but due to the small army and nature of the site, I have rescinded BUT please believe me
that I have seen the effects cause damage in lives (note the plural)

So really, I think we all agree to the same point, I'm just trying to add that the individual knowingly or unknowingly
is doing damage to oneself with this behavior.  Each person must assess the risk of their behavior and be aware
of the consequences to oneself.


----------



## armyvern (29 Mar 2006)

I agree Trinity. I am guilty of being an evil smoker. One day however, I may give it up...I hope.


----------



## S McKee (30 Mar 2006)

I have to agree with Trinity regarding the harmful effects and addictive nature of even "socially acceptable" forms  pornography. It is a multi-million dollar a year industry (and growing) and with the advent of the internet it is more accessable now than ever before. Unfortunately many people have the mistaken idea that since it's alright to view legal porn it can't be harmful. It's hard to convince some people, that viewing porn can become an addiction and that porn users are no different from other addicts, in the sense that the porn addict like the drug addict builds a up a resistance to the "drug" overtime and requires more to achieve the same high. For the porn addict this means they need to view more violent and deviant forms of pornography in order to experience sexual arousal. For some, the addiction takes over and they engage in high risk behaviour regardless of the consequences in order to get their high. For an individual to engage in this behaviour on a DND computer knowing the likelihood that they will be caught is almost certain, speaks to the power of this addiction.


----------



## armyvern (30 Mar 2006)

Jumper said:
			
		

> For the porn addict this means they need to view more violent and deviant forms of pornography in order to experience sexual arousal. For some, the addiction takes over and they engage in high risk behaviour regardless of the consequences in order to get their high. For an individual to engage in this behaviour on a DND computer knowing the likelihood that they will be caught is almost certain, speaks to the power of this addiction.


I don't think anyone ever said porn couldn't be harmful. Equating "legal porn" to "kiddie porn" is comparing apples and oranges however. The two are simply NOT comparable as one form is *consensual* and one is not.

Your statement regarding the need for "some" porn users to 'upgrade' (or downgrade depending upon your personal opinion) their porn to a more "deviant" type does indeed occur in "some" cases. The sticky point is though, that those that view "normal" porn made using consenting adults are sexually attracted to adults. Therefore they may indeed switch their porn allegiance at some points in their lives, more than likely by an upgrade from let's say Playboy to Hustler, still a "legal" porn involving consenting adults. Some people think Hustler is "deviant" and some do not. It's all comes down to ones own personal ethics and morals and how one projects what they believe to be ethical and moral on someone else. Thankfully the courts have agreed and laws are in place which determine that "non-consensual porn" (involving either adults or children) is not acceptable under any circumstance. Thankfully, they have also agreed that porn which represents interaction (reader/viewer or model/actor etc) between consenting persons of a legal age is acceptable, allowable and legal. Don't like it...don't watch, read whatever. Adults are capable of making this choice and judging by subscription rates and the popularity of legal porn, millions of people world-wide are glad to be able to make their own choice. 

Viewing all types of porn at work is not allowed, Nothing out there says this member was addicted to "legal porn" at any point in his life. This member was busted for kiddie porn. Illegal even when not on a work computer, as it should be.

To insinuate that any viewer of "legal" porn who is sexually attracted to adults runs the risk of eventually deviating to a sexual attraction to kids, is simply not supported. Likewise those that are sexually attracked to kids changing their ways to eventually become attracted to adults. Not going to happen. One does not usually switch out their allegiance between the two.

I am all in favour of consenting adults being able to make their own choice as to what porn they watch/read in their own surroundings as long the porn involves "consenting" individuals. 

Those that choose to participate in kiddie porn however, are a different story and are in a "class" by themselves and again, may they rot.


So I know a guy with a 22 year subscription to Playboy (renewed annually for his birthday). I'm not going to try to convince him that he's addicted and that he may find himself requiring "violent" or "devient porn." The facts simply do not support the arguement of the projected slow, downward spiral into a world of deviency in this household.


----------



## S McKee (31 Mar 2006)

Armyvern, I was speaking about addiction overall, I was not suggesting that ones sexual orientation is likely going to be changed by the pornography they view, i.e one is not going to change from being a heterosexual to a pedophile because they look at porn. However, like most high risk behaviours such as drinking and drug use, there is a risk of addiction, especially for those who are predisposed to addiction. Some may have their subscription to "Playboy " for 20 yrs like your friend and not go beyond that, for others, Playboy is a gateway into more deviant forms of pornography. You are right that the choice to view or not to view is based on ones own moral and ethical leanings. Personally, I believe that those involved in the porn industry, particularly women, are exploited. For the most part these woman are drawn to it because of their life circumstances, i.e drug/alcohol addiction, prostitution, victims of sexual abuse, poverty, lack of education etc. Yes their participation may be "consensual" but it is consent by duress as far as I'm concerned. Regarding your comments on the courts, I would have to say what the courts legislate as acceptable and unacceptable behaviour is hardly comforting, this is the same Supreme Court that recently decided that swingers clubs posed no danger to  public morality. What's next? There is an excellent documentary about the pornography industry called "Sell Me Your Soul" where several woman and porn producers are interviewed about the industry, if you get a chance to see it, watch it and tell me that those people aren't exploited? From a Judeo-Christian perspective I find it sad that we live in a culture where sexually immoral behaviour is now considered "acceptable" and "normal".  Just old fashion I guess.


----------



## kerfuffled (2 Apr 2006)

Porn is porn and always will be, but child porn is a sick crime committed upon the truly innocent. For a member of the armed forces to get a slap on the wrist for it makes me just as mad as when I see anyone else get away with it. Someone who views this garbage is just a step away from DOING it to a child and that to me is a capitol crime.They need to be dealt with in a severe manner. :threat:


----------



## Trinity (2 Apr 2006)

kerfuffled said:
			
		

> Porn is porn and always will be,
> 
> it to a child and that to me is a capitol crime.



Porn is porn..  and will always be?  Wow.. so informative.
So I guess porn with animals, bondage, gay porn, is.. well porn
and will always be (with your blanket statement)

I doubt you've even read or at least taken time to digest
the rest of the posts in this thread.



Capitol crime?   Try Federal or Criminal Code of Canada


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Apr 2006)

Yep, watched the Hedgehog the other day on TV, he sure seemed downtrodden and exploited


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Apr 2006)

For those of you who are arguing about the general distaste of all porn, I have to say in the strongest possible terms, child pornography is beyond worse.  
We aren't talking about teenagers engaged in pillow fights gone too far.  For the investigator, a determination of any given image, or video clip needs to be made as to the age of the participant.  In all likelyhood, a living victim will be logistically impossible to produce and come to court.  
So it is in only the very most blatant child porn that charges are generally brought.  So we are talking about 11 years old and under.  Way under.
That this debate can go on a civilly as it has, indicates that none of you truly know what is out there.  For that I am glad, because had you seen some of the horror I have witnessed as a result of investigations, you would have the cold sick knot in your stomach that I do as I type.  Our resources at work allow only one detective to be in charge of all internet related crimes.  I would not do his job for a half mill a year.  
Five year old boy, with dead vacant eyes.  Video of a girl, barely a toddler, looking around off camera and crying, asking for "mom?".  If I related a fraction of what is out there, I would probably be banned within the hour.  Maybe I'll take a hit for this too, but I only relay it because it seems some people don't get it.  
A person who could look at these images and feel anything other than illness and rage, not want to weep and kill in the same breath, is a completely damaged skinbag, and has no business being around humans, let alone draw a pay cheque from the CF.  They cannot be fixed.  They will not change.  The subject of their desire are little kids, and they feel unsatisfied when with anything shy of that.  
At least some of you are finally realizing what is going on in the legal system.  
VICTIM RIGHTS DO NOT EXIST.  DETERANCE AND PUNISHMENT DO NOT EXIST.
The system is completely geared to "rehabilitation" and criminal rights.  Do not be surprised when this "member" (said with unbridled disdain) gets a transfer to the furthest post away possible and buried in a basement for a couple of years, so he can "get back to a normal life".  Made particularly easy in the absence of his name (he isn't to remarkable looking).  

My kids live with me.  Your kids may live in a PMQ on this guys base.  Try not to think too much about that when you deploy for your next ROTO.


----------



## M Feetham (3 Apr 2006)

Everybody keeps saying that this guys name should be posted but nobody has yet. Post it and be done, it's in the papers so its not like you are violating any gag orders from the courts, and before anyone says anything to me, I havn't read the article in the paper yet. I do however think he should be taken far away and dealt with more severly than the courts have done. I have two young children and if I thought someone was harming them in any way there would be a very large target painted on that someone's forehead. The cure for perverts like that 5.56mm taken at speed.


----------



## 043 (3 Apr 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> I have two young children and if I thought someone was harming them in any way there would be a very large target painted on that someone's forehead. The cure for perverts like that 5.56mm taken at speed.



Hmmmmmmmmmm and do you think you did well on the psych testing for CSOR?


----------



## Trinity (3 Apr 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> Everybody keeps saying that this guys name should be posted but nobody has yet. Post it and be done,



If its such a burning issue for you.. why don't you do it.



> and before anyone says anything to me, I havn't read the article in the paper yet.



Oh, I see.  You haven't bothered to take time to read or rectify the situation, just enough time to complain.



> I have two young children *and if I thought* someone was harming them in any way there would be a very large target painted on that someone's forehead. The cure for perverts like that 5.56mm taken at speed.



What if your thought was wrong and you hurt/killed an innocent person.  I've been involved in  one case where
a child molestation allegation was false, but according to you solution, we should kill them if we even suspect 
something is awry?  Even my opponents on this site which are for the death penalty for child molesters would at least
say someone should be proved guilty first.


----------



## M Feetham (3 Apr 2006)

It's not a burning question to me, cause until I read this thread I didn't even know about it. I'm not usually one for current events in the newspaper and I watch the news irregularly at best. My testing for the CSOR will be just fine, I'm not crazy I just pretend to be. I would do anything to protect my kids or wife, that's part of the job. I was simply stating that people seem to tiptoeing around their morality. Post the guys name or don't but make a decision., don't debate it to death.That's all I'm saying. I'm not even trying to get anyone pi$$ed off or anything. The guy is sick, we don't need that in the forces, get rid of him.
Marc.


----------



## orange.paint (3 Apr 2006)

It doesn't really matter posting his name on this site or explaining what you would do to him etc.
Basically he got off very easy with a slap on the wrist for in my opinion a major major crime.If you guys really want to know where he lives he is the only one listed in the oromocto phone book.It however does not list his address but if you put it into 411.ca it has his address listed as a postal code.Which narrows it down to a couple blocks.I suggest if you live in the area and are concerned to do so.It is narrowed down due to the fact part of that postal code includes the Oromocto First Nation's which I highly doubt he lives on.

Maybe if you are a concerned parent in this area pass it up your chain of command,CFHA,etc that you are uncomfortable with this member living in your area.Who knows it may add to his problems and actually hurt his pocket book a little more.I know if it was my block I would have been bringing this up.

Also some of our policemen on this sight may be able to tell us isn't there a law against moving pedophiles into areas with schools?As Oromocto is full of them in the PMQ area.

cheers


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Apr 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Also some of our policemen on this sight may be able to tell us isn't there a law against moving pedophiles into areas with schools?As Oromocto is full of them in the PMQ area.
> 
> cheers



I'm not aware of any specific law.  Sounds like a good idea, though.
Sometimes you see court imposed conditions when a case is pending or a conviction is registered that read "Not to be in the company of persons under the age of 14 without their parent or legal guardian.  Not to be found in or around any area that persons under 14 are likely to be found".  If a diddler wants to get arrested constantly (and we are always happy to oblige) they would live close to a school, park, community center etc.  Of course, some do anyway, so they can get closer to the kids, or just sneak pictures of them as they are walking to school.  
Parole could probably impose some conditions like that, or an 810 order under the Code.  Hard to say.  As a generality, trust your instincts.  
Just by way of contrast, check out this web site:

http://www.nsopr.gov/

Just another thing our American friends have over us.


----------



## S McKee (4 Apr 2006)

Unfortunately dealing with child porn cases is new territory for the military courts. And they have (and I could be wrong) no power to impose probation conditions such as limiting movement and access to children against convicted sex offenders. I know they cannot impose treatment. As the Inmate Rehabilitation Coord at the DB I dealt with one inmate who was caught with thousands of child porn images, he showed no remorse and in my opinion will likely re-offend. The courts did not even send him for an assessment prior to his sentence. I had some very interesting conversations with the JAG and Mental Health services about this fellow and his likelihood to re-offend.  It is my opinion that the military courts system should not be hearing these cases until our judges are suitably educated and the system has been tailored to impose proper sanctions and restrictions on these people. Once again the military courts have taken on something that they are not set up deal with.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Apr 2006)

Jumper - I agree that CMs are not appropriate for such offenders, but I don't think mere education will make a difference,

Miltiary Judges are limited in their sentencing to the punishments prescribed by the NDA.  In these cases, they are further hamstrung:  they must abide by the Criminal Code, inasmuch as those punishments are permitted under the NDA.

So, in the case discussed on this thread, the judge found the member guilty under section 130 of the NDA.  He could only impose punishments permitted under the Criminal Code (s. 163.1(4.1) CCC)).  Those punishments do not include reduction in rank or dismissal with disgrace.

The selection of charges vests in the military prosecution office - it's those charges that dictate the possible punishments.  This isn't a case of a judge screwing up; it's the prosecution that created this situation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Apr 2006)

Interesting,
So, in your opinion, this would have been better served in a civilian court?

...and then a "conduct" charge after?


----------



## S McKee (4 Apr 2006)

Yes, the primary goal of the military courts is punishment, period. Surprisingly it was an initiative from the DB that incorporated inmate rehabilitation and treatment into the disciplinary program. However rehab is voluntary. Military courts are way behind. IMO this is and will become a liability issue for the military, if we start to regularly lock-up sex offenders and release them without making provisions for treatment, or issuing probation conditions after release, we are in fact releasing untreated sex offenders with no restrictions out into the community. (Think Globe and Mail test) Unfortunately my concerns to JAG have fallen on deaf ears.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Apr 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Interesting,
> So, in your opinion, this would have been better served in a civilian court?
> 
> ...and then a "conduct" charge after?



Exactly - civilian court for accessing child pornography; court martial for misues of DND computers / violation of an order (ie the DAOD on acceptable use).

That does not constitute double-jeopardy, as the two items are very different.  To my mind, there are few situations that warrant charges under 130 of the NDA when in a domestic situation - we have civilian courts to deal with matters under the Criminal Code (or other Canadian laws).


----------



## FateumetMeum (5 Apr 2006)

Dishonourable discharge and jail time is the only thing a Canadian "soldier" should be given if admittingly viewing,using,selling or anything involving child pornography.
Give me a GOD DAMN BREAK, telling us his military history and his dedication....he through that in the shitter when he stuck his head into the computer monitor for "2 and a half hours" to view little kids being manipulated and assaulted. Sick, I am embarrassed for being a Cape Bretoner if indeed that ass was from Glace Bay, I wonder if he has ever been with other soldier's famalies and their children. I only hope it was a one time thing, let's not let him have another chance.
His only post now should be to Edmonton.

Pissed off maritimer


----------



## orange.paint (5 Apr 2006)

MCpl Winstanley CFB Gagetown, Building F-1, Oromocto, NB 
Charges and results Charge 1: (alternative to charge 2) S. 130 NDA, accessing child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1) CCC).
Charge 2: (alternative to charge 1) S. 129 NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

VERDICT: Charge 1: Guilty. Charge 2: A stay of proceedings.

SENTENCE: Imprisonment for a period of 10 days and a fine in the amount of $2500. The carrying into effect of the punishment of imprisonment has been suspended.

There you have it.Name and public charge you can view it on the court martial site.Instead of mcpl_________ there you go.

Also can someone explain in normal english what the hell a stay of proceedings means? Is it like a not guilty?Not responsible for action?


----------



## Armymatters (5 Apr 2006)

It means that if the person is in military service or is within 90 days after termination of or release from military service and has received notice of a civil action or proceeding, the court may on its own motion and shall, upon application by the servicemember, stay the action for a period of not less than 90 days.
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,31049--1,00.html
In short, this guy is hanging around the military for another 90 days, until he can represent himself in court, as his military responsibilites prevent him from showing up in court/or his current job prevents him from being removed from the military right away.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Apr 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> It means that if the person is in military service or is within 90 days after termination of or release from military service and has received notice of a civil action or proceeding, the court may on its own motion and shall, upon application by the servicemember, stay the action for a period of not less than 90 days.
> http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,31049--1,00.html
> In short, this guy is hanging around the military for another 90 days, until he can represent himself in court, as his military responsibilites prevent him from showing up in court/or his current job prevents him from being removed from the military right away.



I hate to break it to you armymatters but your source is *US* law..........

This is a Canadian military case..........


----------



## Armymatters (5 Apr 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I hate to break it to you armymatters but your source is *US* law..........
> 
> This is a Canadian military case..........



Whoops...

Did some digging into the National Defence Act, and this is what it says:

240.4 (1) The Court Martial Appeal Court may allow an appeal against an order made under subsection 202.121(7) for a stay of proceedings, if the Court Martial Appeal Court is of the opinion that the order is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence.

Effect
(2) If the Court Martial Appeal Court allows the appeal, it may set aside the order for a stay of proceedings and restore the finding that the accused person is unfit to stand trial and the disposition made in respect of the accused person.

In short, he is appealing the ruling on the second charge, but not the first, or there was insufficient evidence to convict him on the second charge. I need to see the court transcripts to get heads or tails out of it first though.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Apr 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Whoops...




 :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2006)

It's what happens when the whole sum of your military knowledge comes from a book. :


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Apr 2006)

was this a trial of first instance, or an appeal to the appellate court?

w601


----------



## deh (5 Apr 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Whoops...
> 
> Did some digging into the National Defence Act, and this is what it says:
> 
> ...



Wrong.

The second charge was offered as an alternate to the first.  Meaning the court could try him on the catch all 129 if there was not enough evidence to support the primary charge, as the requirement to prove conduct prejudice to the good order and discipline is much easier to meet.  This has nothing to do with appeals.  Since he was found guilty on the first there is no need to try him on the alternate, simple enough?  Stop spouting off like you know what you are on about and put down the book until someone shows you how to use what is written inside.  Haven't you already been called out about this sort of thing?

Up the Guards!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Apr 2006)

Not too sure about the military system, but in criminal law, a stay or withdrawl of a charge can be as a  result of a plea bargin.  Did he plead guilty?  If so, he probably plead to the charge that couldn't get him fired.  As previously pointed out, the 130 is the military tie in to a CCC charge, and as such, since the CCC has no dishonourable discharge provisions, that is not a penalty that can be handed out.  They toss the 129, and NAMBLA-boy gets to keep his job.  I had kind of hoped that sort of crap only happened in my world (although it doesn't impress me here either).  
What I don't get is why not make him serve his 10 days?  How bad can it be?  Or why take a plea agreement, unless the case was screwed up somehow.  
Now you too can refer to it as a legal system, not a justice system.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Apr 2006)

From "Military Justice at the Summary Trial Level", 14 Sep 2001



> *Alternative Charges*
> 
> 153.     When offences have been charged in the alternative, an accused can only be found guilty of one offence.  the presiding officer shal pronounce a finding on the alternative charge in respect of which the accused was found guilty and  direct that the proceedings be _stayed_ on the other charge.



(Footnoted reference to QR&O 108.20 (9)


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Apr 2006)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up


----------



## scoutfinch (6 Apr 2006)

deh said:
			
		

> Wrong.
> 
> The second charge was offered as an alternate to the first.  Meaning the court could try him on the catch all 129 if there was not enough evidence to support the primary charge, as the requirement to prove conduct prejudice to the good order and discipline is much easier to meet.  This has nothing to do with appeals.  Since he was found guilty on the first there is no need to try him on the alternate, simple enough?  Stop spouting off like you know what you are on about and put down the book until someone shows you how to use what is written inside.  Haven't you already been called out about this sort of thing?
> 
> Up the Guards!



This is the correct interpretation.  The other *stuff* with respect to  appeals is an entirely different area of law regarding stays pending appeals. 

I second the call for people to watch what they say when they have no expertise on the subject matter.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Apr 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Whoops...



Whoops! is right.  Right outside of your Lanes.  I hope you have learned something from the replies correcting your assumptions.


----------



## kerfuffled (6 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Porn is porn..  and will always be?  Wow.. so informative.
> So I guess porn with animals, bondage, gay porn, is.. well porn
> and will always be (with your blanket statement)
> 
> ...


Talk about your blanket statements. Don't put words into my post that arent there, chachi. I read enough posts in this thread to see how some people will debate the absurd and defend a shitheads rights.I was merely dropping my 2 cents, I have already made up my mind about the topic and don't have any regrets about it. I don't care if somebody thinks I am not "digesting" or reading enough posts to understand.

OUT


----------



## HItorMiss (7 Apr 2006)

kerfuffled said:
			
		

> Talk about your blanket statements. Don't put words into my post that arent there, chachi. I read enough posts in this thread to see how some people will debate the absurd and defend a shitheads rights.I was merely dropping my 2 cents, I have already made up my mind about the topic and don't have any regrets about it. I don't care if somebody thinks I am not "digesting" or reading enough posts to understand.
> 
> OUT



So I says Pardon???   Did you really just call a Padre Chachi? Oh my... 

Cry Havock and let slip the dog's or war  ;D


----------



## Trinity (7 Apr 2006)

kerfuffled said:
			
		

> Talk about your blanket statements. Don't put words into my post that arent there, chachi. I read enough posts in this thread to see how some people will debate the absurd and defend a shitheads rights.I was merely dropping my 2 cents, I have already made up my mind about the topic and don't have any regrets about it. I don't care if somebody thinks I am not "digesting" or reading enough posts to understand.
> 
> OUT



Wow.

Instead of clarifying your "blanket" statement that I called into question you avoided doing that through profanity and insults.

Your three posts here have been very interesting.  I don't need to retaliate through insults, threats, or profanity because people
here know who I am, respect my view (even if its opposite). If you can't answer what "porn is porn" or wish to leave it vague,
then i have every right to interpret what you meant if you fail to make it clear. 

I honestly can't wait for your response because I know it will be childish and insulting, only furthering to serve your true nature
to the site.  I wish you best of luck trying to reach 100 posts as most people who come off as strong as you (kid recruit or armyboi) don't
last too long around here.

God Bless

Trinity


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (8 Apr 2006)

Wow this is getting a little off the mark me thinks.

No one was saying this guy didn't deserve much more than he got. I think we all agree he got off light and this is a travesty.

What was being said further is that we are enabling people to do this crap at work by giving them the opportunity to have unrestricted access to the Internet. Why do people need that? How many in the CF really need that to do their work? How did we ever get along without it before we had it?

Further I am saying that Pornography is an addictive or potentially addictive activity. This consenting adults stuff is a red herring I'm afraid. There are lots of things that consenting adults do that many of us don't want to see or hear about because "society" deems them to be harmful and destructive to our common good and well being.

As people who are supposed to be serving with honour perhaps we should ask ourselves if pornography (I include in that word exploitation of any sort not just sex...exploitation of violence is pornography too) of any sort is a noble and virtuous thing for a society to allow? Should the RMC cadets who filmed each other having sex and distributing it on the net have been disciplined or told that all that stuff is OK because they are consenting adults?

Now that the Internet is so available this stuff is available to impressionable children and yes....perverts of all sorts.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Apr 2006)

In Hoc, I think you are trying to put a Genie (sp?) back in a bottle.  The internet, for good or for bad, is not going anywhere.  IMO this explosion of instant information will have a cultural impact that won't be recognized for what it was for generations, and only with hindsight will it be determined if we got too much of a good thing too fast for our culture to handle.  
Just as an aside, would it not be better to provide the ability to access these things on a government monitored computer?  In that way, the child molesters can be routed out quicker, since there is no expectation of privacy on a work computer, thus no Charter of Rights issues for seizing it and examining it's contents.  
Give people enough rope, and they will make macrame hanging baskets.  Or something like that.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (8 Apr 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> In Hoc, I think you are trying to put a Genie (sp?) back in a bottle.  The internet, for good or for bad, is not going anywhere.  IMO this explosion of instant information will have a cultural impact that won't be recognized for what it was for generations, and only with hindsight will it be determined if we got too much of a good thing too fast for our culture to handle.
> Just as an aside, would it not be better to provide the ability to access these things on a government monitored computer?  In that way, the child molesters can be routed out quicker, since there is no expectation of privacy on a work computer, thus no Charter of Rights issues for seizing it and examining it's contents.
> Give people enough rope, and they will make macrame hanging baskets.  Or something like that.



Well yes you are right it is a genie out of the bottle thing. The Internet is young and it could be policed a lot better I think. Maybe we need more police resources for that...I don't know.

Let's face it it's not only sex that is on the net....who wants to watch peopel being snuffed? that's pretty sick too....Jihad folks in Iraq are getting that stuff on the net.
Bomb making....do we want young teens to know how to make a bomb?

I love the fact that I can find out stuff and communicate better with my family and find good research for work and sermons and stuff but there is a huge dark side to this too!
I've had a lot of cases in my office of folks who are hooking up with people on the net while spouses are away or not paying attention and it's effecting a lot of relationships. I just shake my head sometimes.

I think you're right the implications of this explosion in technology is huge and has a lot of implications for our world.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Apr 2006)

Maybe you should start a thread split about technology and the Mark of the Beast.  Seems there are a few things in Daniel and Revelations that are applicable.
[/hijack]


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Apr 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Maybe you should start a thread split about technology and the Mark of the Beast.  Seems there are a few things in Daniel and Revelations that are applicable.
> [/hijack]



Yeah I'm not saying that it's the end of the world I'm just saying that there is a dark side to this stuff that is somewhat troubling. Do we say "Oh there's nothing we can do about it?" and leave it at that.

The police are starting to do a good job cracking down on some of this stuff and catching perverts who lure kids on line etc. They are starting to get serious about catching the kiddie pornographers too. So it's not like the net is impossible to police.
Our security people have great tools for tracking people who misuse our intranet.

Technology is great and I'm not railing against it. I'm just saying that maybe we need to question what kinds of things we as a society and a world are not going to sit still for in the use of technology...and how are we going to enforce it?


----------



## Rosie67 (7 Aug 2006)

:-[after reading all these threads, viewing the news articles,  talking to family, etc about this person.  Firstly you should know that I  do not agree with any kind of child pornography at all, nor do I make excuses for it...   We should all know the whole facts about this incident before we throw the stone and get the tar out!!!!. Firstly, it was not kiddie Porn he was looking at , in fact it was actually adults,young girls,,( over the age of 19)  in diapers, with bibs etc.. but the law states that any one accessing the internet and using young girls, and such words that specify child articles is known as child pornography.  Secondly, not only does this mcpl have an outstanding career record in the military, but also within his families community.  He has lots of nieces and nephews that he loves and would be trusted around them.  Please don't judge  the mcpl because he has to judge himself each and every day.   He has paid his price in his career and in his community.  He has suffered more than anyone would ever know.  He has lost respect of his co-workers but gained love from his family and true friends.  He has lived a hard life through his family history( violence and death) in the  best way he can and has came out a stronger and a brave person. Not making excuses for mcpl but just seeing the other side. For those of you whom live in Glass Houses please dont throw the stones!!!!! We are all human and make mistakes, unfortunately, the news media made an example out of this ex-ordinary person.   To you from me....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Aug 2006)

Considering what each and every member of the CF does each and everyday is always under the scrutinity of the media and public, you will have to excuse the lack of compassion this individual is getting. He knew what the consequences would be should he got caught and he knew how badly it would reflect on the CF and each member serving and retired. He brings shame on us all. I have nothing but contempt for people like this. So spare us the moral platitudes as this guy does not deserve it.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Aug 2006)

Rosie67 

Thank you for resurrecting a Topic that was discussed in the past, and was left well in the past.  Thank you for bringing it back into the "Limelight".  If you were so concerned about this member's health, reputation, and job security, perhaps you should have not brought it up and attracted more attention to it, but rather allowed the healing to start.  You have just made another 'wound' in this families mental health.

Again.

Thank you.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Aug 2006)

Rosie67 said:
			
		

> :-[after reading all these threads, viewing the news articles,  talking to family, etc about this person.  Firstly you should know that I  do not agree with any kind of child pornography at all, nor do I make excuses for it...   We should all know the whole facts about this incident before we throw the stone and get the tar out!!!!. Firstly, it was not kiddie Porn he was looking at , in fact it was actually adults,young girls,,( over the age of 19)  in diapers, with bibs etc.. but the law states that any one accessing the internet and using young girls, and such words that specify child articles is known as child pornography.  Secondly, not only does this mcpl have an outstanding career record in the military, but also within his families community.  He has lots of nieces and nephews that he loves and would be trusted around them.  Please don't judge  the mcpl because he has to judge himself each and every day.   He has paid his price in his career and in his community.  He has suffered more than anyone would ever know.  He has lost respect of his co-workers but gained love from his family and true friends.  He has lived a hard life through his family history( violence and death) in the  best way he can and has came out a stronger and a brave person. Not making excuses for mcpl but just seeing the other side. For those of you whom live in Glass Houses please dont throw the stones!!!!! We are all human and make mistakes, unfortunately, the news media made an example out of this ex-ordinary person.   To you from me....



First off, what you are referring to is the fetish avenue often called "adult babies".  IMO it is pretty creepy, and any man that wants to be diapered, soil himself and breast feed from an actual lactating woman still is not a credible bet to be around my kids.  
Second, you cannot get a conviction for being in possession of child pornography in the absence of child pornography.  If you had read the whole thread, I made the point that only the most obvious example of child porn are brought forward as evidence, and the sad guideline is if the subject clearly looks younger than 12 years old.  A 21 year old model with pigtails and a soother obviously would not constitute child porn.  I am pretty sure you never saw the case file, unless you happen to be one of the investigating officers, defense counsel or a prosecutor.  
Since you appear to know this individual, or actually are the individual, then you would understand why someone might "spin" a story to gain support.  Obviously he can't say there was nothing on the computer.  However, that is a good story to put forward to minimize the culpability and potentially elicit some support from people who would like to hold a torch out, but just can't extend an olive branch to a kiddy diddler.  Let me guess, stop me if you have heard this one: "I wasn't the only one that used that computer, and I took a hit for another guy", "my lawyer said they would drag this out forever and cost me everything I have so they would get me no matter what", "the computer was second hand, and they found a bunch of stuff from the previous owner", "I was up for promotion and they were downloading that stuff when I was on lunch/PT to take me out of the competition".  Did you know that there are whole chat forums and support groups for child mollesters, including how to hide/scrub your hard drives, stories to tell your families if you get caught and methods of grooming children to be receptive to early sexual contact?  
No doubt he had a good career.  Lots of sick individuals are able to be very successful at their jobs.  There are sociopaths among us that excel at what they do.  
As far as the price he has paid?  Loss of face?  Shunned by the military family he rejected?  BOO F*CKING HOO.  What about the price the little exploited child sex slaves pay for entertaining sick dogs that get off on this stuff?  At 14, they are burned out shells of humanity with completely skewed values and ideas as to what constitutes love and sexuality.  Pretty much guaranteed teen prostitution, and death with a needle dangling in an alley.  
But by all means, next pic nic you all have together send your kids on a "nature walk" alone with Master Corporal AB, since he is such a solid guy.  
Denial is a warm, comforting blanket sometimes.  I hope the cost of your personal comfort doesn't hurt someone around you.


----------



## KevinB (7 Aug 2006)

I feel stupider and dirtier for reading this thread...

I'd rather he just have been slow marched out back and shot.


----------



## Jay4th (7 Aug 2006)

I agree I-6.  Probably a good thing we arent in Law enforcement.  Anyway, Zipperhead_cop is much more articulate than you and I even though I sense he may feel as we do.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (7 Aug 2006)

you guys rock! :threat:


----------



## paracowboy (7 Aug 2006)

kneel down. Face the ditch.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (7 Aug 2006)

No not again!


----------



## Trinity (7 Aug 2006)

Nice Rosie...

Sometimes you think you're doing the right thing...

Sometimes you need to stop and think if the move you are going to make
is the best for all involved.

Posting was definitely a mistake.  

But now that you did
1) what is your relationship to the good MCpl?
2) how can you say what is factual and what is not? Unless you have a transcript
it's simply your opinion.. which has caused more harm than good to your own cause.

Mods.. might want to lock for her own protection.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Aug 2006)

I think a stake with wood piled around it would be better....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Aug 2006)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> I agree I-6.  Probably a good thing we arent in Law enforcement.  Anyway, Zipperhead_cop is much more articulate than you and I even though I sense he may feel as we do.



Pretty accurate.  I just try to explain it from the LEO side for the civilians sometimes.  Knowing child molesters cannot be rehabilitated, I am all for the simple solution:

 :sniper:


----------



## Shamrock (8 Aug 2006)

Not to sprout off some Liberal tree-hugging hippy we're all equal crap, but I've always believed that everyone can be rehabilitated and can return to society as productive members.

In some cases, as Soylent Green.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Aug 2006)

;D Jerk! Coffee on the keyboard, & woke the wife. Warn a guy!


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Aug 2006)

Callsign Kenny said:
			
		

> In some cases, as Soylent Green.



 :rofl:

Wow, that'll keep a smile on my face, even when I step into NDHQ today.


----------

