The majority of the public will see the 660 headline and the 50,000 paedophiles living and working among us, and will vote for any government brave enough to root them out. We will accept the figures without question and hug our children a little closer, clearly we are surrounded by perverts.
Lets take the word paedophilia out of the crime for a moment, and effectively, what we have seen is 660 people arrested for cyber crime, I refer t them as The Six Hundred, as they do indeed now face a Valley of Death. This is a case where innocent until proven guilty matters not a jot. We don't know the details, we don't need to know the details, they're yucky, paedophilia of whatever category is a capital offence right?
But before we fire up the bonfires, shouldn't we have some sort of adult debate? Following the case of missing Madeleine McCann has given me some insight into government and media tactics of using sensational headlines to make us 'look over here, not over there'.
From the scant details available, only 39 of those arrested were registered sex offenders. That means that 621 were not. I want to know why not? Are we to believe that these men have never, ever, been reported for abusing children in the real world? If it follows that viewing child pornography leads to abuse then there must be real victims. So why have the 621 men never been reported, and if they were, why was no action taken?
What constitutes an indecent picture of a child? If a mother posts a picture of her child in the bath, is she sharing underage images? Ditto, ditsy teens sending 'selfies' to their friends via text. Everyone appears to be too coy, to question what the images were of. We have heard about the grotesque and the horror, but not about the majority, and I am assuming these weren't the majority as it would effectively mean children are being slaughtered on every street in Britain as we speak.
Lets take the hysteria out of the debate, and examine the crimes. How is child pornography categorized? There must be varying degrees. Does it involve children in varying stages of undress, or does it involve children dressed up a la tiny pageant queen Jonbenet Ramsey? Kiddie pageants have a huge paedophile following. Paedophilia is like any other crime, it has different branches, different tastes, different crimes there has to be a distinction between the lonely outcast who's crime is seriously bad taste in porn, but has harmed no-one and the actions of prolific child abuser with access to thousands of kids.
Unfortunately, due to the 'delicacy' of the subject, the public won't ask questions. Paedophilia has become the new terrorism, the threat to our children that will lead even the most rational among us to shout encore when a politician suggests policing the internet. No-one will question, or God forbid, defend the 600 for fear of being accused themselves. We have a perfect 'Crucible' situation, paedophiles are this century's witches, the evil that lies at the heart of society. Effectively, they are being arrested for cyber crime, and from a freedom of speech and human rights perspective, that is a very dangerous path to go down.
In recent years, paedophile rings have been uncovered through the bravery of the victims and the whistleblowers, NOT the internet. In the case of Jimmy Savile, isn't it strange that the real reports made to the police about him were ignored for decades? If he had taken time away from the actual abusing to download images he would have been picked up within seconds!
'The smallest minority on the earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities' - Ayn Rand