By: reidsays
23/05/2008
7:55 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
agree with all of what you say on protection....perhaps we approach it from a different angle....yet the intent IS to protect the children.....that is the important thing
cause this isn't a small issue that is going to be fixed from only one angle???
and i also agree that it needs attention and action...
i think you should be aware that that is where my life is on these boards...
we will all do what we can....apologies for my outburst on you pansi but the thread was evoked much emotion and frustration and rightly so......
to me this is still a smokescreen....the immensity of those in power with perverted persuasions is being diverted....and perhaps for the ulterior motives of further suppressing individual freedoms...as the 'attacked and named paeds posters' are also |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
7:58 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Some say that Child Protection must be at 'all costs'. if it is at the cost of much of our individual freedoms, is that too much? |
|
By: kerry_33au
23/05/2008
8:03 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kerry_33au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Some say that Child Protection must be at 'all costs'. if it is at the cost of much of our individual freedoms, is that too much?
NO!! |
|
By: pansi1951
23/05/2008
8:05 pm Yahoo! Profile:
pansi1951 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
co <It is time for the majority to foot their foot down otherwise heaven help the future...>
......................... .........................
Exactly. Chaos, we're running so far off the tracks, it's scary. Because of man's selfishness. We want it all, if we want to look at pics of nude pre-teens we should be allowed. It's not my fault that the children didn't really want the pics taken, it's my right, want want want, don't spoil my fun, I hate being told that I can't have something, it's not fair. I don't care who gets hurt, as long as I have my way.
Clean up a bit, we're way polluted. |
|
By: weed612001
23/05/2008
8:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
weed612001 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I have decided to compose a poem about this issue. Seriously!!
I'll post it in general discussion tommorow night. |
|
By: weed612001
23/05/2008
8:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
weed612001 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| In that case pansi should we be outraged that channel 7 saw them? |
|
By: reidsays
23/05/2008
8:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"Some say that Child Protection must be at 'all costs'. if it is at the cost of much of our individual freedoms, is that too much?"
"NO!!"
the point is kerry...that the lose of our individual freedom WILL NOT protect the children!!!
infact it may be used for the perverted's advantage:(
(great weed...can't wait to see the poem) |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
8:11 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<Some say that Child Protection must be at 'all costs'. if it is at the cost of much of our individual freedoms, is that too much?
NO!!>
So if all photos of children were banned (including home albums); if police right of search at any time to confirm this was permitted; if the right to associate at any time with children other than your own was a criminal offence, woudl you consider that a fair price? |
|
By: pansi1951
23/05/2008
8:12 pm Yahoo! Profile:
pansi1951 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
reidsy < apologies for my outburst on you pansi >
......................... ......................... ....
No need for apologies reidsy, we're adults with differing views, it's all par for the course. Apology accepted gracefully :)
I will fight for human rights and more so for the rights of children until the day I die, so I get emotive too. |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
8:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<I will fight for human rights and more so for the rights of children until the day I die, so I get emotive too.>
Fair enough too. But if you lose your rationality and perspective, then your fight loses its moral high road. |
|
By: kerry_33au
23/05/2008
8:19 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kerry_33au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I cant see how you can compare photos on public display to private snap shots in the family home. |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
8:20 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<I cant see how you can compare photos on public display to private snap shots in the family home.>
I'm not. You are. but answer the question. Are you willing to accept greatly reduced freedoms for the goal of Child Protection? |
|
By: lefowlerau
23/05/2008
8:21 pm Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I dont need to read another book to know the damage caused by sexual predators but your very post unlines the problem I am repeating. AS soon as the words naked and girl are used together people bring out 'predator' and 'paedophile' etc. Thats a knee-jerk reaction - not considered thought. Do you really want a world where everyone is afraid to own a camera in case a child accidentally comes in frame? Do you want a world where advertisment for childrens clothes has to use text not drawings or pictures? One american moron A-G actually suggested that ALL photos of children be banned and possession of them be a criminal offence. THIS IS WAHT WE ARE FIGHTING. sometimes the battle lines are drawn in odd places. We, (ie thinking, non-hysterical people), dont want to fight that kind of legislation so we say NOW that such exhibits are not porn. It may not be to your taste (and it isnt to mine) but that's not the point. Freedom is removed by degrees and before you know it we wil end up in a situation like what I described.
------------------------- ----
Nice longy, I agree. |
|
By: kerry_33au
23/05/2008
8:24 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kerry_33au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I'm not. You are. but answer the question. Are you willing to accept greatly reduced freedoms for the goal of Child Protection?
Be more specific about what freedoms you are refering too |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
8:25 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<I dont need to read another book to know the damage caused by sexual predators but your very post unlines the problem I am repeating. AS soon as the words naked and girl are used together people bring out 'predator' and 'paedophile' etc. Thats a knee-jerk reaction - not considered thought. Do you really want a world where everyone is afraid to own a camera in case a child accidentally comes in frame? Do you want a world where advertisment for childrens clothes has to use text not drawings or pictures? One american moron A-G actually suggested that ALL photos of children be banned and possession of them be a criminal offence. THIS IS WAHT WE ARE FIGHTING. sometimes the battle lines are drawn in odd places. We, (ie thinking, non-hysterical people), dont want to fight that kind of legislation so we say NOW that such exhibits are not porn. It may not be to your taste (and it isnt to mine) but that's not the point. Freedom is removed by degrees and before you know it we wil end up in a situation like what I described.
------------------------- ----
Nice longy, I agree.>
Thanks. Sometimes I think the lessons of the 1930s were not well learned. Now, under the guise of terrorism or Child Protection, basic freedoms are eroded and normally good and decent people stand up and applaud it. |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
8:26 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<I'm not. You are. but answer the question. Are you willing to accept greatly reduced freedoms for the goal of Child Protection?
Be more specific about what freedoms you are refering too>
I was VERY specific before. What about the unfettered right to search by Police in your home for 'obscene' material? what about it becomeing illegal to associate with children that are not yours? You said that any loss of freedoms is worth the price for child protection. Or is that no longer true? |
|
By: buzzanddidj
23/05/2008
8:28 pm Yahoo! Profile:
buzzanddidj Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Media Statement
Friday 23 May 2008
Statement on behalf of Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery and Bill Henson
After much consideration we have decided to withdraw a number of works from the current Bill Henson exhibition that have attracted controversy. The current show, without the said works, will be re-opened for viewing in coming days.
Bill Henson is one of Australia's leading contemporary artists and is internationally respected. His works are held in every leading art institution in Australia and are included in the collections of a number of the world's most prestigious art museums. The Art Gallery of New South Wales and the National Gallery of Victoria have both recently held a retrospective of 30 years of the artist's work.
Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery will remain closed while the current exhibition is re-hung.
http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/news/henson-stateme nt.html
. |
|
By: reidsays
23/05/2008
8:29 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
yep...me too lefowlerau...not often i agree with longweek but has happened several times lately!!
kinda feels like the populations of countries like *** germany....doesn't it?
cannot see it coming...so focussed on a valid objective - child protection - why do you think they are called 'rock spiders'????
they slip through the cracks..??..without being noticed? |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
8:29 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<Friday 23 May 2008
Statement on behalf of Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery and Bill Henson
After much consideration we have decided to withdraw a number of works from the current Bill Henson exhibition that have attracted controversy. The current show, without the said works, will be re-opened for viewing in coming days.
Bill Henson is one of Australia's leading contemporary artists and is internationally respected. His works are held in every leading art institution in Australia and are included in the collections of a number of the world's most prestigious art museums. The Art Gallery of New South Wales and the National Gallery of Victoria have both recently held a retrospective of 30 years of the artist's work.
Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery will remain closed while the current exhibition is re-hung.
http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/news/henson-stateme nt.html>
A victory for stupidity and over-reaction. |
|
By: kerry_33au
23/05/2008
8:30 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kerry_33au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Yes long weekend I am. For one thing I have nothing to hide. |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
8:31 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<yep...me too lefowlerau...not often i agree with longweek but has happened several times lately!!
kinda feels like the populations of countries like *** germany....doesn't it?
cannot see it coming...so focussed on a valid objective - child protection - why do you think they are called 'rock spiders'????
they slip through the cracks..??..without being noticed?>
And the other side is that loss of these freedoms doesnt help the problem anyhow. paedophilia doesnt happen out in the open so banning things out in the open will be totally ineffective. More laws wont help; its already highly illegal. It is just this seemingly helpless feeling that 'we must be doing something' and so draconian and pointless measures suddenly have appeal. |
|
By: kerry_33au
23/05/2008
8:32 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kerry_33au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I don't remember saying anything about banning all photos. What I said is how can you compare home photos to ones on public display |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
8:34 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<Yes long weekend I am. For one thing I have nothing to hide.>
Welcome to N*A*Z*I Germany!. To think that you would willingly sacrifice your freedom of association for this. You would ditch your constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure. And what about the right to take photos of crows that may (shock horror) contain children. Ready to go to jail for that 'offence'. |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
8:35 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<I don't remember saying anything about banning all photos. What I said is how can you compare home photos to ones on public display>
You would be willing to accept the banning of all child photos other than your own? |
|
By: schwangfucious
23/05/2008
8:35 pm Yahoo! Profile:
schwangfucious Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
>>>>>More laws wont help; its already highly illegal
There's just no political, or, in the case of the radio station involved, ratings gain, to be made from admitting that there was nothing there |
|
