Prostasia Foundation: Criminalizing art and fiction is a bridge too far for the United Nations…


Date: April 14, 2019

01) Criminalizing art and fiction is a bridge too far for the United Nations

“In February 2019 the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child released a draft set of Guidelines for the implementation of an existing international treaty on child protection called the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. These Guidelines included a radical reinterpretation of the international legal definition of “child pornography,” that would expand it to include not only photographs and movies, but also “drawings and cartoons; audio representations; any digital media representation; live performances; written materials in print or online; and physical objects such as sculptures, toys, or ornaments.” In other words, criminalizing art and fiction.

This move not only violates the freedom of expression that is guaranteed in international law, but also stigmatizes millions of innocent people around the world, painting them as being tantamount to child abusers. Responding to this threat, thousands of free speech advocates and fans from around the world rapidly signed our petition against the proposal, while others sent in their own independent submissions to the Committee.

The Committee’s consultation closed at the end of March, and this week, it finally published the submissions that it had received—or at least, it published some of them. Unfortunately Prostasia Foundation’s own submission was unaccountably omitted from those listed on the Committee website, although the petition that we organized, which is a separate document that was sent later, is included. We have contacted the Committee urgently expressing our concern at the omission of our main submission, and seeking that this be rectified.

Thankfully, many of the other submissions from national governments, research institutions, and nonprofit organizations express some of the same concerns that our submission raised—and some of them raise additional points of concern.”

12 thoughts on “Prostasia Foundation: Criminalizing art and fiction is a bridge too far for the United Nations…

  1. Pete

    Good on the child protection advocacy Protasia for this petition. Unfortunately outside the US many a nation has already criminalised any modern artwork portraying children’s sexuality.

    In my opinion the UN should firstly define an universaly agreed age for a ‘child’. Then from there distinguish between ‘child porn’ and ‘child erotica’. As far as I’m concerned, the latter is simply all non photos/videos of sensual/sexual youngsters such as drawings, sculptures and stories, plus certain types of still/moving images.

    With actual child porn, to protect the children/adolescents from the criminal underground, allow the sexually liberated to give their parental/guardian permission for their consenting offspring to enjoy entertaining what is clearly a very large number of interested adults. And in doing so, I am most confident we will see a significant decrease in the number of mentally unwell people and fewer minors being sexually abused and assaulted.

    It’s 2019; time to grow up as a society by recapturing the spirit of up to the 1970s, so celebrating the beauty of youth…

    Reply
    1. eqfoundation Post author

      I can get behind this message.

      And, you are correct. The U.N. resolution will likely have zero effect on U.S. citizens.

      Theoretically…the U.S. government cannot cross this line…It’s forbidden by the constitution…

      …But…realizing how the U.S. Constitution is largely exotic toilet paper these days…It wouldn’t shock me if they tried.

      Plenty of the U.S. government is willing to throw us even further under the bus.

      Reply
    1. eqfoundation Post author

      I haven’t checked out Prostasia deeply…

      It’s not high on my list [I’m tired of “the anti voice”, internalized inside of the MAP community]…but it’s something I’m meaning to do.

      Reply
      1. Yure

        I think that the wellbeing of MAPs should be priorized over age of consent reform. If some MAPs resonate with that voice and find comfort in it, I’m not against it. But I have other reasons than mere wellbeing to fight for age of consent reform. Before I saw the need for it, I was an anti-contact and was such since I noticed my attractions at age 5. If a MAP is taken to see the harm that such law implies, I think they would turn to our side. They love children, right?

      2. eqfoundation Post author

        I agree…

        …I don’t really focus on AOC arguments, and barely even mention that battle, anymore…I’ve probably said all I have to say about it, and I’m tired of repeating myself…

        The well being of MAPs should be our primary focus…as the MAP community needs a mammoth ton of care and attention…and organization…and social progress.

        We cant effectively fight all the battles that need to be won, while our own backyard is in disarray.

  2. feinmann0

    Strong conclusion (extracts below):

    *** There was a time when a set of Guidelines like this would have sailed through the Committee on the Rights of the Child unnoticed, because no child protection group would have dared speak up against it.

    … although well-intentioned, they are also drenched in sex-negativity. But the plain fact is that sex-negativity sells, and that governments are buying. They know that censorship laws that even claim to be driven by the need to protect children face easy passage through their parliaments back home, and that once in place, such laws can be repurposed to other ends, or can provide a precedent for broader controls over other sorts of speech.

    Switzerland alludes … to the Committee’s concern over using the term “self-generated” to refer to photographs that a minor takes of themselves for their own use, which it says may “increase the risk that the child is considered responsible instead of treated as a victim.” Switzerland answers, “we do not understand the reasons why a child responsible for producing ‘self-generated sexual material of her/himself’ should be treated as a victim, especially of what he would be victim of.” ***

    I noticed one of the sections is entitled: “Religious influences on the Committee.”

    Some light at the far end of the tunnel perhaps?

    Reply
    1. eqfoundation Post author

      “although well-intentioned, they are also drenched in sex-negativity.”

      That’s kind of what we have to deal with, in the broader MAP community these days…I suffer fatigue from it, a lot…but what they are doing here, is still generally good…in the confines of the immediate fight.

      “Some light at the far end of the tunnel perhaps?”

      We can hope…

      There are a lot of nations on this planet with iron fist, religious governments/dictators and such…

      It is time that a spotlight be shown onto them…and we start dissecting their culpability in this sort of extreme oppression.

      It’s good to see that pointed out.

      Reply
      1. octaevius

        It’s a shame that nobody discusses Child Slavery. In a perfect World, there would never be any discussion of age because there would be no laws restricting anything based upon age and no reason to discuss it. You already know that all humans behave as they do based solely upon their individual desire, ability and intent. The Nuclear Family is a factor in Child Slavery as they are not viewed as humans living at the same time but just “property”. “Minor” humans that are not wholly alive.
        Who knows where this will go as nothing has really changed on Earth in terms of Civilization, anytime you see what you imagine is growth… it gets clawed back.

      2. eqfoundation Post author

        Maybe we should approach this, as a matter of child slavery…It is fitting, of many issues.

        We, as humans, need to be rid of the controlling mindset…

        …It’s like, nobody trusts anybody else over anything…So, they try to keep everybody else on a leash, or in chains.

  3. Pete

    That’s a very good idea: instead of being reactive and trying to protect ourselves (those who are sex positive and believe in child/adolescent sexuality) we could be proactive and campaign against child/adolescent sexual oppression.

    I think we could start with these liberties, staying initially within the 18+ laws :-

    – c/a right to enjoy & express their sexuality
    – c/a right to engage in sexting/webcamming with other c/a up to at least 17yo’s
    – c/a right to engage in sexual physical activity with other c/a and up to at least 16yo’s
    – c/a right to be photographed in a sexual manner, with parent/guardian legal permission.

    Let’s think this through….

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Yure Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.