We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
TWO MEMBERS OF the Oireachtas are leading a call for a new bill against sexual offences to change all references to “child pornography” to “child abuse material.”
Yesterday’s announcement of the 2014 Sexual Offences Bill includes offences against organising, producing, arranging, possessing and distributing “child pornography.”
Those strengthened legal measures – and others targeting trafficking and child grooming – have been widely welcomed.
However, there have been calls today for Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald to change the language of the statute to acknowledge the seriousness of images and videos featuring child sexual abuse.
“We have to call it what it is – child abuse,” Labour TD Ciara Conway told TheJournal.ie.
It’s time for us to get tough with these people.
The word ‘pornography’ has certain connotations and might give the impression that there are willing participants.
These children do not have a choice in this.
Independent Senator Jillian van Turnhout has also appealed to Fitzgerald to ensure that the new law reflects the absence of consent and “horrific” nature of child pornography.
The International Police Organisation INTERPOL has stopped using the term “child pornography” for these reasons.
Instead, the group refers to the offence as “child sexual abuse material”, “documented child sexual abuse”, “child sexual exploitive material”, “child abuse images,” or “depicted child sexual abuse.”
Pornography is a term used for adults engaging in consensual sexual acts distributed (mostly) legally to the generally public for their sexual pleasure.
Child abuse images are not.
They involve children who cannot and would not consent and who are victims of a crime.
The child abuse images are documented evidence of a crime in progress – a child being sexually abused.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Who would consider anything labelled ‘Child Pornography’ to be consensual?
Would that not only be the case if either participant came forward as either having been coerced or forced to participate or if either distributed the images to a third party and beyond?
If that’s the case then I would agree with you with regard to the minefield it could potentially create in instances of consenting adults and teens also sharing their own personal images. However, I don’t think recognising the legitimacy of calling images of child abuse anything other than that which they are negates your valid point. I suppose my issue with using the term “pornography” for these vile images is my real issue and I was really referring to the images of child abuse in its most literal sense and not in terms of teenagers sharing personal images for which they both consented.
Pontius you are right in saying that once it is on your phone you are guilty of an offence. this is something that teenagers don’t realize when in comes to the area of “sexting”. Technically if someone under the age of 17 takes a sexually explicit image of themselves and sends it to someone else they are guilty of producing, storing and distributing child abuse images. It is up to the DPP to decide if they want to prosecute. Where the biggest problem lies is where a child sends an image to someone, lets say a boyfriend, and the relationship breaks down then that image could be further sent on without the child’s consent as happened in a case in Cork. This I believe is where the whole area of consent comes into being in the legislation although I haven’t had a chance to sit down and fully study the legislation in full.
Too little, too late, To late when the pictures are taken.
While I don’t think anyone in their right mind would consider child abuse to be consensual the term pornography has connotations of consenting adults engaging in sex for the purpose of creating images to be distributed for profit. Where children are involved they are images of the sexual abuse of children. When discussing either I think it is important that the difference is always stated and would agree that the terminology used to describe these images should do so accurately. I refuse to use the term child pornography precisely for the clear distinctions between images of abuse and any other type of sexual imagery.
Police what? I re read the article to see if I was missing something. It is referring to the changing of wording from references to “child pornography” to be changed to a more accurate term, such as images of child abuse. In terms of what is actually being referenced images of the sexual abuse of a child is more accurate since it is a literal description of the image and therefore in my opinion doesn’t lessen the gravity of what that image depicts, which again only in my opinion the use of the word pornography does. I don’t see comments on the legislation which obviously would require policing but on the language contained in it.
This is quite scary:
“Consent
5A. (1) It is hereby declared that in relation to an offence that consists of or 25 includes the doing of an act to a person without the consent of that person, the existence of consent in respect of that act shall be determined in accordance with this section.
(2) In determining the existence of consent, an agreement between the parties to engage in the specific act must be established. 30
(3) In determining the existence of an agreement between the parties to engage in the specific act—
(a) an examination of the communication between the parties immediately prior to the act shall be conducted, and
(b) each person must be shown at that time to have understood the 35 nature of the act.
(4) An understanding of the nature of the act shall only require the person to understand the physical nature of the act and shall not require the person to understand possible physiological consequences of the act.
4
(5) (a) In determining whether a person has consented to engage in a sexual act, no higher standard of understanding shall apply to persons with disabilities than that which applies to persons without disabilities.
(b) In determining whether a person understood the nature of the act, 5 the presence of a mental impairment shall not be a determinative factor.”.”
What the f#ck you on about. This is about children. What child going to give consent to be abused, raped. My god man.
Catherine,
position of dependence and trust’ includes, but is not limited to, a person who—
(a) provides care,
(b) is responsible for welfare,
(c) occupies a position of authority,
(d) provides education, or
(e) provides support services including therapy or counselling,
to the victim;
‘sexual offence’ includes—
(a) a sexual offence within the meaning of section 3 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001,
(b) an offence under section 2, 3 or 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990,
(c) an offence under section 6 or 7 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993,
(d) an offence under section 4 or 5 of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008, or
(e) any other offence of a sexual nature contained in any other enactment and which has been so prescribed in regulations made by the Minister for Justice and Equality under this section.
It’s pretty obvious that it’s about more than children.
I think Fiona that everybody knows exactly what child pornography is and that they don’t need it explained to them in more legalistic words. I understand that in legal terms it is necessary to exactly define certain acts but to my mind at least when you start using terms like “child sexual exploitive material” (which is a bit of a mouthful) you soon find that it becomes shortened to CSEM. That acronym loses any impact of the abuse act and almost sanitises it.
I agree with you about the use of acronyms that it could be seen as sanitising but don’t agree on use of pornography in references to children whether the difference between adult and child is widely understood or not.
No criminal psychologist or psychiatrist would ever use the term child pornography. Ever. It’s child abuse.
Actually Deirdre child pornography is the term that is used in these areas of study but I think that it is used interchangeably a lot more often. Rather than getting hung up on the actual phraseology of the media it is accepted that the images are abuse images and that the term “child pornography” is very much distinct from “adult pornography”.
Watch how they propose to police this.
What part precisely do you find so frightening?
have your say