by Susan Martinuk. July 26, 2013.
Three months ago, I wrote a column describing two new and highly-disturbing phenomena taking place in Britain: child-on-child sex abuse and child-on-child rape.
From 2009-2012, 4,562 children/teens (under the age of 18) committed 5,028 sexual offences against others under 18. Considering that most sexual assaults are never reported to authorities, that these statistics represent data from only 34 of the 43 police districts across Britain, and that data from the three largest districts was not reported, one can easily conclude that Britain is in the midst of an epidemic of child-on-child sexual assault.
Why would a 13-year-old boy rape his five-year-old sister?
There are doubtless many contributing factors for each individual situation, but sexually assaulting a fellow child is not an instinctive behaviour; it’s a learned one. As such, the UK’s National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children believes that much of the blame stems from easy access to “sexual material that is warping people’s views of what is ‘normal’ or acceptable behaviour.” A 2012 British Parliamentary Report came to essentially the same conclusion.
As a consequence, it was hardly surprising when British Prime Minister David Cameron addressed this problem in an impassioned speech earlier this week. He said Internet pornography was “corroding childhood” in Britain and Internet content should no longer be “beyond debate” because of free speech issues. Further, he said that Internet providers and search engines have “a moral responsibility” to act to protect children.
He announced a joint task force with the United States to work with industry to remove child pornography from the Internet, more powers to investigate Internet predators and pornographers, and changes to remove legal loopholes from the law books. He then called for the creation of a “blacklist” of search terms that return the most violent, abusive images of pornography and “leave no doubt whatsoever about the sick and malevolent intent of the searcher.”
If search providers won’t voluntarily accept the “blacklist,” then Cameron will do it through legislation. As well, family-friendly filters will be automatically placed on all new Internet accounts, blocking access to extreme sexual images.
His remarks covered the legal, social and educational aspects of the nation’s pornography problem. But the statistics provide the impetus for action, and they show that kids are producing pornographic images and acting on them.
The UK’s Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre reports that 22 per cent of complaints in 2011-12 were related to the distribution of self-generated indecent images. Of those, over one-third were produced by children under the age of 15.
Deakin University in Australia reports that 88 per cent of porn scenes involve violence and 94 per cent depict violent aggression against women. Researchers there have come to much the same conclusion as in Britain — that young men mimic porn and initiate these violent sex acts with their female partners.
The response to Cameron’s initiatives in Britain has been primarily positive. But beyond British borders, the response has been predictable, raising the same arguments we’ve heard before.
State censorship! What about freedom of speech? It can’t be done — the technology isn’t there. A blacklist of search terms will deny us access to great works of art or important information on sexual health.
But all of the above is mere sophistry when one reads about a 10-year-old repeat rapist. Or the 13-year-old boy mentioned above who just happened to be addicted to porn for two years before raping his five-year-old sister.
These arguments send kids the erroneous message that maintaining the status quo is acceptable. But Cameron himself admits that “our collective lack of action … has led to harmful … truly dreadful consequences.” Indeed, the statistics show that doing nothing is no longer an option in Britain.
Finally, it is sheer ignorance and drama to claim that this is a ban on freedom of speech and an issue of state censorship. The porn is there for adults who change the settings on their computer. These parents can even choose to allow their kids to watch it. So any chatter of censorship or a ban is deliberately misleading.
Before condemning Cameron’s actions, take a look at your own children and consider the statistics that prompted him to act.
Source: Calgary Herald