A Black Mark

[orange.paint]

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]

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]

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

 

[orange.paint]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[S McKee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[zipperhead_cop]

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.