A few weeks ago I had one of my worst days as a new MP. A woman came to see me in my office in Caringbah in southern Sydney and told me the appalling story of how her child was being exposed to pornography by the child’s own father.
The child is less than five years old. I won’t go into the other details for risk of identifying the individuals involved, but rest assured it would make the most tolerant and liberal thinking of readers angry and sick.
What is worse is that as we looked to see what remedies were available to help this mum protect her child, we found there were none – and the police confirmed as much to her.
The problem was the father in this case was not seeking to expose the child to this material, or anything else he was doing, as a step towards physically or sexually abusing the child. He just didn’t seem to care that bringing this stuff into the home and putting it in full view of his own child was a problem. While his actions may not constitute a sexual offence against a child under the strict definitions of the law, most of us would agree he is a complete idiot.
The NSW Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 No 63, section 14, clause 2 says a person must not privately exhibit in the presence of a minor a film classified R 18, unless the person is a parent or guardian of the minor. Section 24 of the same Act also says in clause 2 that a person must not sell or deliver to a minor a publication classified Category 1 restricted or Category 2 restricted, unless the person is a parent or guardian of the minor.
This is not on. And the same position seems to be taken up by most, if not all, other jurisdictions, including in Victoria where your mum and dad can show you an X18+ film at home. If not at bad Government, at least we draw the line somewhere in NSW.
The home should be the safest place in the world for a child—a safe haven, a sanctuary for love, care and development. The home must be a place where children are not violated or at risk of being violated physically, emotionally and indeed spiritually.
We do have laws in this country that serve to protect children from the predatory behaviour of those who use pornography as a tool to corrupt and exploit children for their own selfish and base purposes. We have also taken important steps to protect children from child pornography and have moved to afford new protections that relate to new media and technology.
However, it would seem we have overlooked protecting our children from the failure of parents themselves, who either negligently or knowingly expose children to porn.
Now I am all for parental responsibility and allowing parents to bring up their child according to the values they hold dear as a family. I am the last person to advocate the nanny state. But this is not one of those ‘not that there’s anything wrong with that’ scenarios . There is something wrong with this and our laws should say so.
When a parent’s ‘values’ (or absence of) places a child at risk or contravenes our values more broadly as a society, our laws should and must draw the line. It is not acceptable to knowingly or negligently expose a child to porn, whether you are a parent of that child or not. To do so, in my view, is child abuse—it is an assault on their innocence and on their psychological and sexual wellbeing that has long-lasting impacts.
Federal Magistrate and Adjunct Professor to the School of Law at the University of Western Sydney, Dr Tom Altobelli, recently told the World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights in the UK of a case he heard in February, 2007. The court heard shocking testimony of the display of sexualised behaviour of a five-year-old boy towards his two-year-old younger brother, as a result of his exposure to pornographic material he had found on his father’s computer. The testimony read:
‘Sam— (not his real name)— stated that he saw people with no clothes on the computer. Sam described getting hot in the head when he thinks about doing things stating ‘My head feels hot inside and I don’t like these feelings’.
The case further heard that both parents had been aware of ‘Sam’s’ access to this material for two years. ‘Sam’ and all children like him deserve better. They deserve to be protected and they look to our parliaments to provide that protection.
A recent Australian study also reported children saying they felt ‘sick’, ‘yuck’, ‘disgusted’, ‘repulsed’ and ‘upset’ after having seen or experienced pornography on the internet. Studies also show that longer term exposure puts one at greater risk of developing sexually deviant tendencies, committing sexual offences, experiencing difficulties in one’s intimate relationships and accepting the rape myth.
These influences are more pronounced for boys than girls. While our boys become enslaved and addicted, it is our daughters who are ultimately objectified and abused as a result of pornography.
If adults and parents wish to expose themselves to this material, that is their business, it’s a free country. They every right to make their choices and live with the consequences of those choices. But even those who would defend an adult’s right to porn would surely not oppose any restriction or sanction on parents who knowingly or negligently exposed their children to this abuse.
We have laws in this country that protect our children from the dangers of guns in the home. They must be locked in a secure box made of hard wood or steel , with locks of solid metal. Ammunition must be stored in a locked and separate container. Failure to meet these requirements attracts a jail sentence.
If we can protect our children from guns, then we should also be aware of the loaded gun that is lying around in the homes of thousands of Australians on computers, on coffee tables, in bathrooms, in bookcases within easy reach and access of their child, who will suffer the consequences of their exposure to pornography for years to come, potentially for the rest of their lives.
Some may consider my warning alarmist, but if we are serious about protecting our children, we must do all we can to protect them from porn, and do it now.
Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
Numerous workplace safety rules (no harness, fall arrest etc) broken in this pic of Roosters coach Brian Smith http://t.co/jx4PgtBs
Yo, mummy bloggers! Your expert input is required in this doozy of a child-rearing dilemma http://t.co/0JfOnCq1
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?
Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…
Hipsters with hip replacements
Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…
La dole cheque vita is not so sweet on $16 a day
Your task is simple. Here is $115.50. It must last one week. You have no savings, no assets, but thankfully…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
marley says:
I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics
Erick says:
Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops
Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more
Most commented