Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Kid's Photos

Taking photos of children might seem a harmless activity. Parents are doing it all the time with their own kids.
But we now know that there are people around the world who get a vicarious sexual thrill from taking such photos and videos. Seen in this light, taking photos can become a more serious activity. Lewis Carroll was apparently a fanatical photographer of children and the story goes that when he died (unmarried), his nearest relative was so embarrassed by the collection of photographs that he burned the lot.
Today we know more about the habits of child sex abusers and it seems clear that photos and videos play a large part in their obsessive behaviour. Surveys of paedophiles in the United States showed that their favourite TV viewing was the programmes which showed young girls in brief costumes doing gymnastics.

So what do we do now about Jack McClellan. A self-confessed American paedophile who has no convictions against his name but is obsessed with taking photos of young children. He even has a website listing the best public areas to view little girls.
His behaviour brought a huge public response last month when he turned up at a performance of the popular children’s programme Wiggles but ignored the actors and instead took masses of photos of the young spectators. Irate parents chased him off the set and the Wiggles producers expressed their deep concern at such activities. How can this be stopped they asked? McClennan’s actions were distasteful and offensive but he did not break any laws.
Well, when there are no laws you have to make them. Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Melvin Sandvig made a landmark decision when he placed a restraining order on Jack McClellan which makes it almost impossible for the 45-year-old American to continue to live in California. It is now illegal for McClellan to go within 10 yards of a child in California.
This is no final solution but if it is not effective the legal system will have to find a better way to protect children’s right to privacy.

No comments: