these punishments are, essentially, for crimes of
Chris Langham, a well-known UK comedy actor, was recently imprisoned
for downloading fifteen illicit child porn images on to his computer,
and in this piece I hope to demonstrate that the punishments being meted out for
offences such as this are far too severe, that these severe punishments are
largely imposed because of the abuse hysteria and male hatred that are
continually being generated by the feminists, the media and the abuse industry,
that these punishments are, essentially, for crimes of thought, that the
real culprits whose activities very actively promote the sexual abuse of
children are getting away Scott free, and that the underlying aim behind both
the hysteria and the harshness is, quite simply, part and parcel of the
unremitting drive to demonise men and to profit from doing so.
the outset, however, it is probably wise to state that the argument is not
that viewing illicit child material should be made legal, but that the current
response to it is unwarranted and way overblown, and, further, that the hysteria
about this issue is largely being generated by those very people whose
activities promote child abuse in the first place, and that, basically, they are
fomenting hysteria to cover up what
they, themselves, are doing.
Chris Langham's crime was
And the first thing that one has to
strip away when trying to understand the arguments that follow is that
there is no dispute over the fact that the downloading of
such images is illegal - and that it should be so. But when we have done
this, we are left with the fact that Chris Langham's crime
was trivial - certainly in comparison to many other crimes for which the
punishment is slight.
For example, ...
She Had Suffered Enough
A woman who battered a nine-week-old baby in an horrific attack HAS
AVOIDED JAIL after a judge decided she had already suffered enough.
Claire Thompson, 32, who had been entrusted with looking after the
infant, was found guilty in March of
fracturing its skull, breaking a rib
and inflicting up to three leg fractures
But no jail time.
Langham has not abused any child
Langham has not abused any child, nor has he promoted the abuse of
children. What he has done is simply to look at images of abuse.
looked at pictures.
But, in practice, he is
being taken so horribly to task by the media, the public and, indeed, the
law not because he looked at pictures - a trivial offence -
but because of what this implies about what might have been
going on inside his head and because various powerful groups want to hide the
fact that they, themselves, are major promoters and purveyors of child
sexual abuse; and, typically, they do this by protesting very heavily that
they are outraged by such abuse and by passing the buck on to whomsoever
else they can - with much success.
imagine that Muslims
were being prosecuted and vilified simply for looking at pictures of
To get a better feel of what is going
on here, imagine that Muslims were being prosecuted and vilified simply for
looking at pictures of terrorist attacks; the argument being that simply
by looking at such pictures, Muslims were both encouraging acts of
terrorism and being turned on by them. Or imagine the same arguments being
applied to people who watch programs that depict murder and violence - both
fictional and non-fictional - viz; that the very act of looking at such
material promoted murder and violence as well as indicated that the
viewers themselves wished to perpetrate such things.
whole notion, though having some considerable merit, would be completely
unacceptable to the majority of people.
I suggest that the
notion does have 'some considerable merit' because I actually do believe
that if, for example, certain Muslims were persistently attempting to view
images of terrorism then this would likely indicate that there was some
fascination with the subject and also some likely desire on the part of
such Muslims to be engaged in terrorism. I am not saying that this would
necessarily be the case, but that there would be a strong likelihood that
this would be the case. Furthermore, images of terrorism could easily
inspire religious zeal for further terrorism.
And one could apply
similar arguments in the case of people who persistently immerse themselves in matters to do with
But we would not be publicly vilifying or prosecuting such
people - for many reasons, which are too complex to go into in this
And yet Chris Langham is being heavily demonised
for having looked at pictures.
hardly constitute evidence for a rabid obsession with their content
Fifteen images hardly constitute evidence for a rabid obsession with their content
- and even if it did, it still remains the case that the only 'crime' here
is 'downloading pictures'.
Indeed, one of the most
aggravating aspects of this case is the almost unbelievably naive discourse that
has been generated over the matter concerning the question of whether or not
Chris Langham is a 'paedophile' - something which he denies. And those who
believe that he must be so (which is the vast majority of people, it would seem)
are mostly arguing that, therefore, he deserves a prison sentence.
Chris Langham was not convicted of 'being a paedophile'. He
was convicted for downloading pictures.
And we would not,
for example, convict a Muslim of 'being a terrorist' simply for downloading pictures.
would be outraged at the very idea of such a thing.
should one make of all those therapists who spend hours of their time
every week delving into matters relating to child sexual abuse?
Furthermore, of course, if it is indeed
the case that looking at some fifteen pictures is, in fact, highly indicative of
some significant moral defection when it comes to children
then what, perhaps, should one make of, say, those police officers who choose
to spend many hours every week looking at such material - and who
choose to view thousands of pictures? And what should
one make of all those therapists who spend hours of their time every week
delving into matters relating to child sexual abuse?
if the desire to look at fifteen images is definitively indicative of say, 'an
unhealthy sexual interest in children', then those who choose
occupations that involve far greater engagement with such material should be
viewed with even greater concern.
Indeed, I am almost
certain that, one day, we will actually find this to be the case.
this more bluntly; when, for example, brain-scanning technology allows us
eventually to state with relative certainty who, exactly, is turned on by
child sexual abuse, it will come as no surprise to me if we discover that
a very large percentage of those who choose to work in this particular
area are, in fact, at the top of the tree when it comes to 'an unhealthy
sexual interest in children'.
And, of course, given
the current hysteria and the way that it seems to be heading, I think that men would
be very wise to demand that such brain-scanning techniques were employed on such
people before they were permitted to embark on any careers involving child
Apart from protecting children, this would also help to ensure
that the various pronouncements of those who are involved in such matters were
genuinely out of concern for the children rather than, say, the devious
machinations of closet paedophiles attempting to gain further access to
situations which excite them sexually; something which has happened time and
time again over the past two decades; e.g. therapists (of various kinds)
claiming that they are interrogating children about sexual matters because of
their concern for their welfare when, in fact, they are simply exciting
And if the notions above suggesting that people should be
investigated by brain-scanning technology if they wish to work with children and,
further, that they should be penalised if anything untoward is believed
be going on inside their
heads at any given time offends you in any way then, perhaps, you are beginning
to understand what is being done to Chris Langham - and, indeed, to all
men - in one way or another.
(The only difference here is that Chris Langham did not have a brain scan.
Instead of such a scan, the fifteen images were used - by the public - as the 'evidence' for
what was going on inside his head.)
After all, if, according to much of
the public, Chris Langham, who
does not work with children, deserves severe
punishment for an alleged thought crime concerning child sex, then
it surely follows that the minds of those who actually work in the
area of child sexual abuse need to be investigated very closely indeed - and
that if anything untoward going on inside their heads is discovered by a brain
scan, then, presumably, they should be vilified much more
severely than Chris Langham.
Chris Langham is being
demonised for an alleged thought crime.
In short, Chris Langham is being
demonised for an alleged thought crime.
I emphasise the word alleged, because I see no evidence,
thus far, to prove that anything particularly untoward was
actually going on inside his head when he viewed the images.
however, do not accept this. They would say, "Yeah right. No sexy thoughts
were going on inside his head, eh? Pull the other one."
hold on a moment.
In his testimony, Chris Langham pointed
out that he, himself, had been sexually assaulted at a young age, and that
his desire to view such material was related to his inner need to
understand the situation from an adult point of view.
of people buy books on 'abuse' - women mostly
this really so far fetched? Well, why should it be? - given that millions
of people buy books on 'abuse' - women mostly - allegedly in order to come
to terms with events that they, themselves, have experienced.
so we are told.
Indeed, there are nowadays whole
sections to be found in libraries and book shops that are solely devoted
to tales of child sexual abuse; so popular has such material become.
why is it so far-fetched to believe that Chris Langham was simply using
images to do whatever it is that, for example,
women claim to be doing when they immerse themselves in tales of sexual
Or is it, in fact, the case that people who read such books do
actually turn themselves on sexually
when they wade through book after book describing child sexual abuse? And,
if so, then why are they not also being vilified - and prosecuted
- for what is going on inside their heads to do with child
The child-abuse hysterics surely cannot have
it both ways.
The child-abuse hysterics surely cannot have it both ways.
Either people who flock to buy books
on abuse are turning themselves on - in which case why are they not
vilified and, possibly, prosecuted? - or they are using such books to resolve their
personal issues (not for sexual reasons) which is exactly what Chris Langham says he was doing.
So why is Chris Langham being
given such a hard time for doing what millions of people do? - with
And the answer to this question is
that, quite simply, Chris Langham is a man.
been a woman, you would not have heard much in the way of outrage from the media or
from the public. On the contrary, I imagine that, if anything, we would
have been very forcefully led to believe that the woman was a victim of
some sort, that her viewing of illicit material was a cry for help
stemming from some unwholesome past, and
that the utmost sympathy should be accorded to her.
because Chris Langham is a man, it is nowadays taken for granted that he
must have had some evil intent
However, because Chris Langham
is a man, it is nowadays taken for granted that he must have had some evil
intent and that, therefore, he deserves to be treated very harshly indeed.
And so he is being vilified for what might have been inside
his head as he viewed the pictures.
When it comes to children, western men have been thoroughly demonised, and
almost any contact (physical or mental) that they have with children - even their own - must
nowadays always be viewed with suspicion, whereas, of course, when women
have contact with children, their actions are always to be seen as
A primary schoolteacher has been banned from working for allowing children
to hug him.
Here is an example of the campaign ads put out
by a child abuse 'charity' in America.
You will notice that the idea
behind the first advert is to buttress the view that women nurture children
and protect them, while the idea behind the second advert is to cast suspicion even on a man who is simply
holding a child's hand.
it does not seem 'right'
for a man to hold the hand of a child.
The second advert is basically saying that it does not
seem 'right' for a man to hold the hand of a child. And, before long, the
public will actually believe that it is not right for a man to hold the hand of a
Now, you might believe that the previous paragraph grossly
overstates the case, but I can assure you that it does not. Over
the past three decades, we have witnessed the definitions of abuse expanded to a
ridiculous degree, and these expansions of definition are very often preceded by
publicity campaigns designed to demonise even the most innocuous actions of men
- actions that are often merely actions of kindness; e.g. a male teacher putting
an arm around a crying child.
one might recall the recent incident of the priest who was dismissed from
his post simply because he kissed a young girl on her forehead - in full
view of the class and the teacher.
It is simply presumed
that he must have had some wicked intent, or that he might
have had some, and that, therefore, he needs to be punished.
Chris Langham, the priest did nothing to harm any child - on the contrary,
he was being warm, positive and friendly towards a child in a public setting - but he was punished for
what abuse hysterics thought might have been going on inside his head. Nobody
actually knows what was going on inside the priest's head, but he was
fathers who bathe their own
children should be suspect
And there are now even radio
advertisements being aired which suggest that fathers who bathe their own
children should be suspect; e.g. If Dad Gives His Little Daughter a Bath and Puts Her to Bed, Call the
Cops! Glenn Sacks
And three very important issues
arise from all this, all of which reveal the truly appalling extent to which
men are being mistreated as a result of the abuse hysteria that certain
organisations profit from generating.
Firstly, men are now being very harshly treated
not only for completely innocent actions, but also for the thoughts that they might
Secondly, they are being punished without
any proof of what their thoughts actually were.
all men are being horribly demonised as a consequence.
one only has to look again at the disgusting advert above to appreciate
what is going on - on a huge scale.
it is women, rather
than men, whose thoughts are more readily prone to engage in fantasies of
child sex abuse
And yet it seems to me
that it is women, rather than men, whose thoughts are more readily prone
to engage in fantasies of child sex abuse. ...
Misery Literature For Women The bestseller lists are full of memoirs about miserable childhoods and anguished families. Waterstone's even has a "Painful Lives" shelf. Why are authors confessing their hurt so freely and do readers find morbid enjoyment in
"I just don't buy the idea that people buy these books for information or advice, for an 'Open Sesame' to becoming free of their own harrowing memories", says Times columnist Carol Sarler.
"Rather they show that, as a nation, we seem utterly in thrall to paedophilia. We are obsessed with it. And now, with these books, we are wallowing in the muck of it. It's all rather disgusting."
It is mostly nothing more than verbal pornography
The idea that people will spend hours ploughing through material that truly
disgusts them or upsets them is nonsense. They love this stuff. It
is mostly nothing more than verbal pornography; particularly for women who get
turned on by the idea of being 'abused'.
It is one thing to read a newspaper article that might describe what sexual
horrors people have undergone, but quite another to devote hours of one's time
wading through a book that gives all the details; and then to buy another book,
and another book, in order to go through it all again and again.
And, of course, if this child-related pornography was visual, rather than
verbal, those who manufactured it, or viewed it, would definitely be prosecuted
As such, it seems likely that one of the main reasons that more men than
women are prosecuted for their interest in child sex is to do with the fact that
men are more likely than women to employ the visual mode when it comes to satisfying this
Indeed, had this been the other way round, I am almost certain that visual
depictions would have been seen as completely acceptable by the public while
verbal ones were made illegal - because this is the way that the cookie has been
set to crumble for the past many decades; woman - good, man - bad.
But the evidence seems to suggest that it is women, rather than men, who
immerse themselves more in fantasies about child sex. After all, the amount of visual
child pornography that is consumed by men is surely but a tiny fraction of the
verbal quantity consumed by women - even if only for the reason that the former
is illegal whereas the latter is not.
Furthermore, as is typically the case, the
detail that is found in books coupled with the imagination of the reader will
likely produce far richer mental representations of the subject matter than will
be produced by images. All in all, therefore, the notion that men engage more in
unwholesome thoughts to do with child sex than do women seems risible.
women have many more opportunities to satisfy any
natural curiosities or sexual predilections that they might have
concerning children's bodies
Furthermore, of course, women have many more opportunities to satisfy any natural
curiosities or sexual predilections that they might have concerning children's
bodies and attitudes because of their far greater involvement in child-rearing.
Activities such as bathing, dressing, playing, hugging, kissing, fondling, etc.,
allow women to make contact with children in a very intimate manner. Not only
does this allow women to satisfy (and, perhaps, expunge) any natural curiosities
that they might have in a
way that is mostly denied to men, but it also allows them to engage in sexual
activities - major or minor - without much chance of being discovered.
many of these therapists were sexually excited by what
they were putting these children through
Indeed, further evidence of the high levels of women's interest in child sex
abuse stems from those many thousands of cases wherein female 'therapists' spent months trying to force
young children into admitting that they had been sexually abused when all the evidence -
which included the persistent denials of the children themselves - suggested that nothing
of the sort had taken place.
In my view, many of these therapists were sexually
excited by what they were putting these children through. Quite simply, talking
about child-sex with the children turned them on. And, of course, given
that when it comes to satisfying themselves sexually, women are particularly
attuned to the verbal mode for stimulation, the notion that these therapists
were not excited by their investigations seems highly unlikely.
And, clearly, the sexual imaginations - i.e. the fantasies - of
those women who tried to promote the myth that children across
the country were being subjected to ritual satanic sexual abuse tells us far more about
what goes on inside the heads of these women than it does about anything in
After all, there was no ritual satanic sexual abuse. It was all inside their
Where did these notions come from? How long were they circulating inside their
deluded minds? How many thousands of hours did they think - i.e. fantasise
- about children being ritually and sexually abused throughout the UK? Why did they spend so
much time dwelling upon such fantasies?
Well, in my opinion, when people fantasise for thousands of
hours about sexual situations involving certain types of
individual in certain types of situation, there is only one conclusion that can
realistically be reached - and this is that they are being sexually aroused.
(Also see, Slap That Face - Beatrix
And this is surely the conclusion that must be reached by
anyone who believes that the viewing of fifteen pictures is indicative of somebody
requiring a prison sentence - and a public battering.
But here we are, with Chris Langham being publicly vilified and imprisoned
for looking at some pictures, whereas thousands of women 'therapists', who
fantasised about child sex for years on end, who badgered children as young as
three with sexual thoughts and imagery, and who harmed tremendously thousands of
children and families, are barely criticised, let alone imprisoned.
How do they get away with this?
Well, one technique of theirs is to continue to make a huge fuss over child sexual
abuse and to claim that they are thoroughly appalled by it.
The truth, however, is likely to be very different.
My guess is that they love it.
Finally, I was shopping at ASDA (Wal-Mart) last week. They have a very small
selection of books on sale. And I presume that they only sell those books that
are in particularly high demand by the public. About 20% of the titles of the
entire range were to do with 'abuse', and another 20% were to do with serial
killers, murderers, torturers and, in general, 'evil' people. You know the type.
But Chris Langham is in prison for looking at a few pictures.
In the next part I hope to show that if the public and the abuse
professionals were genuinely concerned about child sexual abuse,
then they would be demanding that severe punishments are handed out to those
people who promote it the most.
And the fact that they do not do this reveals much about what
is really going on in this area.