The Townshend Act, and what next

[<kevinandt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From: thewho rocks
>Subject: Thoughts: The Townshend Act
>
>Here's what I've been thinking about today:
>
>We've accomplished about all we can with the massive write in campaign.

Agreed.  The seeds have been planted.  They seem to be sprouting.

>Congratulations to all who participated, and many pats on the back.

Absolutely!  Don't forget yourself, Keets.

>It was amazingly effective, and it really did turn the tide of the
>media attention.

Here, Here!

>We've
>got about two weeks to put together a plan for 1) kiddie porn charges
>or 2) a quiet hush-hush release.

Ken in MD posted that 1/28 is the date Pete again goes to the police.
If this is accurate than 2 weeks sounds about right (time for Police to
figure out how to get out of this mess).

>What I'm sure we need here is the PETE TOWNSHEND ACT of 2003 that amends
>the current child porn laws in the UK.  This act should also set up new
>programs to
>deal with the problems that are under discussion right now as a result
>of Pete's actions.

Never let anyone accuse you of not thinking BIG!

>If it seems a good idae, we can then
>start a (more relaxed) email campaign to get the act considered and
>passed.

It does indeed sound like a good idea.

Some thoughts on your outline of the problem:

>1) The repressive quality of current law that makes it illegal to look
>at child porn for any reason

I'm feeling like this angle should be steered clear of at the moment.  The
return argument that will be difficult to combat is that when you
eliminate the demand, the supply will go away too...kind of like drugs.
I'm not saying it's reasonable or realistic, I'm just fearful that the
prevailing opinion is 'anyone who looks is baaaaad'. But, there definitely
needs to be a distinction between a "looker who is repulsed" and a
"frequent flyer".

>, and to report it to authorities.

*THIS* is key.  This should be the focus IMO.  There needs to be some sort
of "HOT LINE" set up for anyone to call to report the discovery of a kiddy
porn site.  So, to amend the above (related to #1), if you look and then
report, you should not be treated as a criminal.

This will accomplish several things.
1) it will give folk a way to help.
2) it will focus attention on the fact that currently the police are not
set up to allow this, and thus the whole problem with Pete, a good
Samaritan fighting the system to help achieve change.
3) It will point blame back on the police.

>2) The fact that pedophilila is defined as a crime rather than a sexual
>orientation/deviation, which drives the practitioners underground and
>to illegal porn based on the exploitation and sometimes violent abuse
>of children.  (I think the way pedophilia is treated actually increases
>the demand for illegal porn.)

Again, this one is going to be difficult.  It's obviously an illness. 
But,I don't think it's fair to classify as an "orientation" similar to
homosexuality.  We're talking about the abuse of little children.
Abuse of little children is indeed a crime, and should remain against the
law.  But, it's a crime due to being ill.
What we're looking at is again very similar to how society views drug use.
 A crime requiring incarceration.  *THAT* I don't get with (particularly
with Pot).
Perhaps the angle should be to focus on rehabilitation, rather than
incarceration.
But, look at how far that has gotten related to drugs.

>3) The fact that it's open season to harass, persecute, threaten and
>attack suspected pedophiles, or to remove their ability to make a
>living so that they fall further into violent crimial lifestyles.

That indeed should be illegal.  But, isn't it already?

>4) The fact that victims of child sexual abuse are still considered
>somehow at fault, are discouraged from reporting the abuse, and left to
>deal with the problems themselves.

A long standing problem that I think is now changing due to the whole
Catholic Church scandal.  Is there a way to jump on that band-wagon (for
lack of better words)?

>That's all I've thought of for now.  Does anyone have any suggestions
>on the above?

One aspect that needs to be addressed is the leaking of information, prior
to the fact, to the press that then starts the whole process of ruining a
persons reputation prior to any sort of charges, or substantial evidence.
The police need to be held accountable for this, and the public at large
needs to feel that they will indeed get a fair shake.
I'm not saying the press needs to change their way, they're just doing
their job.  It's the police that should be held to a law preventing any
sorts of leakage.

I'll be dwelling on this stuff throughout the day and weekend.

Kevin in VT