A Black Mark

[medicineman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You mean like the presumption of innocence???

 

[techdog]

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]

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]

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

 

[S McKee]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

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]

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]

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,

(i) 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 activity, or

(ii) 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;

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

 

[George Wallace]

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]

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]

.....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]

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]

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.)