I thought hard before replying to this with my question, not an answer.. it's not entirely palatable but it is something that's bothered me lately. Here's the guts of a report from The Land Of Oz "Child sex charges over Port Beach incident Viscerally we will all react 'damn right, yeah!'
. But stop and think - irrespective of the abhorrence we all feel
about adults interfering with children, this is a blatant attempt by the
pursed-lip brigade to use our gut feelings to 'creep' the laws a little further
and bring about the criminalizing of a thought process.
Forget the guy is a convicted child sx
offender for a moment.. the police 'chased him off' the beach, then 'hunted
him down' and arrested him. For looking.. As much as I too had the
original reaction "Damn right!, go get him and lob him into a cell..
pervert!" I recognized after a bit that I was being manipulated. And
for a moment I was complicit in a act of deprivation of liberty.
Next step will be the public remember something
about child sex offenses and telescopes, so when they see the
photographer lining up down the beach with a tele lens to photograph a
seagull on the rocks one can probably expect the plods to turn up en mass
and hurl them face down in the dirt for a good kicking. And if they opt
for the defense that they weren't looking at the kiddies on the beach?
ermm yeah right.. The plods have already got themselves a precedent - a guy
convicted of looking at kids, how on earth could they prove they
*weren't* looking at kids??
So I guess the next step is they have
their house torn apart and their computers and cameras seized.. Oh and
forget ever having them returned - they're deemed 'evidence' and retained
forever. Chances are, has been the case already, it would be ruled
(without conviction) they would not be permitted to own a camera
again. Ever.
And the public's attitude that perverts carry
cameras would be reinforced.
The guy was LOOKING for effinecks sakes.. we have
to draw a line don't we? Or are we prepared to accept the ideology of
thought crimes now? In a calm moment of rational thought, chasing the guy
off the beach should have been sufficient.
Odds are anyone of that persuasion could just as
easy stroll the beach getting an eyeful (why are the parents permitting nekkid
romping ? are they too not complicit?)
I'd rather rugrats were locked away at home and NOT
out spoiling my landscapes, but if they are permitted off the leash in public
then dammit as far as I'm concerned any pretext of privacy is gone.
If you'd accept anything different, you probably
can't see the next inevitable step would be the banning of the use of cameras in
public. In some places this is already the case. It helps the
authorities protect themselves from unwanted attention should they slip up and
kick the wrong person into a coma ..
If I should happen to find myself being
photographed in public and I'd rather not have my image preserved for all time,
I'd ask the photographer if they'd mind terribly deleting the offending image
and refrain from capturing more of my mug. If the photographer declined to
do so, I'd move elsewhere
I think that's reasonable ..
karl
|
