But is it art?
You read John Robin Sharpe at your own peril. His stories about the sexual proclivities of teenaged boys and the men who love them are nasty, gross, brutish, perverted, bizarre, ugly and sickening all at once. If the average person spends the 10 minutes it takes to read one of his short stories – like The Spanking, in which "a man finds himself taking care of his bratty nephew Julian" – it will likely leave him or her reconsidering their next meal. You haven’t known rage-induced acid reflux until you read this animal. Reconsider that trip to Google and stay well away. Trust me.
Thanks to the federal government and at least one opposition MP, Sharpe recently got a promotion. He is no longer the proverbial dirty old man, wallowing in his own fantasies. Instead, he is the defender of free speech, and he now constitutes half of the debate on artistic merit and freedom of expression in this fine country. You heard right: This week, the man who wrote Blood & Semen will become the poster child, no pun intended, for the dangers of government-sanctioned censorship.
Sharpe, you may recall, successfully argued in front of the Supreme Court of Canada that his stories had "artistic merit," and therefore wasn’t guilty of possessing child pornography. He managed to do so in the first place because of an absurd piece of legislation put into law in 1993, which effectively outlawed any and all depictions of underage sex – including films or pictures produced by teenagers themselves. Sharpe challenged a bad, politically motivated law, and he won. (Sharpe was recently found guilty of indecent assault involving a minor, a charge unrelated to the Supreme Court decision of 2002.)
Most people, Sharpe included, say he isn’t an artist. He has eschewed the term, referring to himself, with a fair bit of pride, as "the nation’s most notorious child pornographer." Regardless, it is because of Sharpe that Parliament is pushing through a bill amending the child pornography law – which will in turn make things a little more oppressive for "real" artists across the country.
Bill C-12 would remove the words "artistic merit" and replace them with the term "public good." Specifically, "A person would be found guilty of a child pornography offence when the material or act in question does not serve the public good or where the risk of harm outweighs any public good it serves."
It’s a small change in wording that has enormous consequences. Effectively, the bill would have the courts determine what is "the public good," one of the more nebulous and murky terms I’ve ever come across. It’s meant to be all encompassing, but it isn’t. What is good for one group of Canadians isn’t necessarily so for another. It’s why Quebec has language laws, Vancouver has needle exchanges and Albertans elect the likes of Stockwell Day.
One of the bill’s ardent defenders is Conservative MP Randy White. He might be one of the recently reincarnated Conservatives, but his mindset is pure, old-school Canadian Alliance. (In fact, he still has a link to the old party on his website.) Drugs. Prostitution. The proliferation of porno. No issue is too low for White. "I have long felt that the country is into a moral and ethical crisis on a number of issues," White recently opined in the House of Commons, and his views match his rhetoric.
Early this week, White was on CBC’s The Current, defending Bill C-12. He happily admitted that, under the new amendment to the act, works like Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita would have been outlawed outright, and were he alive, Nabokov could be tossed in the slammer – along with Mr. Sharpe, one assumes. He then went on to say it would be "up to the courts" to decide "on a case-by-case basis" what is actionable.
There you have it: A member of a party that has dedicated itself to fighting the rash of "judicial activism" in this country is deferring to the courts on what should and shouldn’t be considered child pornography. The irony reeks almost as much as Sharpe himself.
So what, exactly, is obscene these days? Is Britney feigning suicide, as she did in a recent video, art? Or just another way to sell albums? Or is it both? If Lolita, a 1955 ode to the sexuality and cunning of a teenage girl, is obscene, then what about a movie like Thirteen, which takes a decidedly darker and more critical look at a similar subject? The bill effectively outlaws discussion of young sexuality, regardless of context, breadth or insight. As far as people like Mr. White is concerned, it’s all Blood & Semen.
The debate over artistic merit and freedom of expression has been hijacked by puritans and perverts, politicians and a pedophile. John Robin Sharpe is nothing if not a good patsy, a suitably malevolent bogeyman who can be used for political gain.
And he has been, to the detriment of all of us.
12 comments
The writer has succeeded in putting me squarely on the fence. Against his suggestion (as I’m sure he expected at least half the readers to do), I checked out John Robin Sharpe on the internet. I cannot believe that he is permitted to publish these works.
Unfortunately, on the flip side, I also have issue with the wording “public good”. I do believe that censorship can be useful and necessary, but I am worried at how the courts and lawmakers will handle the decision of what constitutes the public good.
This debate can never be truly resolved. While we can sit back, disgusted, at this man’s writing, can we truly charge someone with child pornography after s/he writes a graphically violent or sexual story about children?
I ask that question honestly, not facetiously, because I myself can’t answer it. I can make argue for both sides, and frankly, running through these arguments makes my head hurt.
This scenario reminds me of a story that featured a rather graphic depction of sexual torture (not of a child, but believe me, it didn’t matter…). It was one of the most nauseating stories I’d ever read, and I have a HIGH tolerance. At the beginning of the story was written ‘This story is just a series of words; place them in any other order and what would the reaction be?’ MY immediate reaction was shock – because that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read, but it did get me thinking about interpretation, exploitation and censorship.
There was a woman not long ago who, on her way to a show in the States, had her paintings confiscated at the border. They were paintings of her daughter, and her daughter appeared naked in many of them. These paintings were not sexual in any way. And yet, they were immediately taken from her on the ground of being child pornography.
There was a couple in the Prairies who took pictures of their kids. In some of the pictures, the kids were naked. Again, playful pictures, nothing sexual (and whose parents don’t have pics like that?) The photo developer alerted the police and they lost custody of their kids until they could get the courts to throw the case out.
Nabokov, Picasso, Louis Malle – they’ve all created ‘art’ depicting children involved in sexual situations. Do we have the right to remove the rights of anyone, no matter how far away they are artistically from Nabokov, from doing the same? I simply cannot throw out an answer, especially with only two thousand characters to work with.
No, Sharpe isn’t an artist.
He’s something but I’m willing to bet that the words I could come up with would result in me violating this website’s dubious moral code. So I won’t say them. I doubt I have to. You’re probably thinking them too.
There’s a line between art and meaningless smut. There’s also between being an artist and being an x-rated ass. Sharpe is smart enough to blur the line to hide behind it. I’d like to say more but what I have to say can’t be published by this politically correct weekly.
Photoshopped up images, silcon breasts, botox, hair replacement, hair removal, 14 year old covergirls in beauty mags, stand-ins. What do all these things have in common; “Creating the need”. At the opposite end we have the automobile industry, the junk food industry and the corporate lifestyle gnawing away at any hope of a healthy lifestyle. Pump that bucket of cola and chew you’re barrel of popcorn work 50 hours a week while finding time to worship those Movie stars. Yeah right, Michael Jordan drinks sprite and eats mars bars.
Creating a nation of sick individuals. The problem is not one lunatic like Sharpe. The problem stems from the clientele. One prostitute is evil and 800 clients are not? Fact, people are buying and youth is selling.
Sharpe as poster child begs for, “Who rigged this suicidal campaign?” Freedom of speech R.I.P -2004. Taking away the knowledge and selling it back. People are dying who cares about one lunatic like Sharpe. The henchmen need to ban speech like this.
Once upon a time there was a remedy for elevated cholesterol called Red Yeast Rice. Centuries ago the Chinese knew of its virtues. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring2000/Kimpel/cholestin.html
Then came a big corporation with Mevacor (Merck) and isolated the active compound in the yeast. With the brilliance of the FDA Merck obtained a patent (the “public good”* I guess since it is the FDA) and outlawed the sale of yeast in the US thus creating the need. A patent on a 3000 year old food!
Ah, I see clearly with the help FDA corporate America will feed us with deficient junk food like BurgerWorld and CocaCaca. Like good little workers we shall then spend all our money on the health they stole from us trying to look younger through the image they are selling us.The image of pedophilia.
Buy it or don’t.
Check this out if you don’t
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,63186,00.html
It’s all about creating the need by hiding the facts. Suffer little children.
I guess I must be pretty jaded if I really don’t see the point of this.
I’ve read and seen some pretty hardcore material in my time and although this ranks right up there I really can’t muster up the obligatory outrage. The artistic merit that the literal ass is hiding behind makes me sick. He knows he’s not an artist, we know he’s not one, what he produces barely qualifies as art. Oh, it was written and yes, it was published but make no mistake about it, this is not something that you’re likely to find in your library anytime soon.
My position on censorship has always remained the same: freedom of expression, artistic, political or otherwise cannot and must not be censored.
I believe that people are smart enough to recognize crap when they see it. It doesn’t matter what form it takes. If people choose to gravitate towards it then that’s their choice. I choose not to. What you do is up to you. If you get off borderline erotic kiddie fanfic then that’s YOUR choice. Definitely not mine.
I understand that we must guard against blatant disturbed smut and safeguard our children with extreme prejudice but one mustn’t assume that we are a nation of mental invalids who’ll degenerate at first sign of kiddie porn. Yes, there are degenerates in this world but guess what?
They existed before the internet and John Robin Sharpe’s sad little scribblings. Everytime the government tries to act in our favor they only push back the layers of the constitution and weaken it.
I’m sorry but this “public good” is a load of bull that’s utterly beneath us as a nation. This is just one step closer to us becoming full fledged American hypocrites with no sense of foresight or common sense. Do we really want that? I think not…
Once the government start confusing crap artists with real ones and decide to create laws the effectively censor the public for their own good, then there is a problem. Although I agree that the vulgarity written by Sharpe (and somehow published) is really atrocious, how much nannying do the public need? How many cushions do we need against life?
If this law is passed, will we no longer be able to turn on the news (or pick up a paper) and learn about genocides, wars, or festivals and celebrations because they are not considered fit for the ‘public good’? Will we no longer be able to take playful photographs of ourselves naked? Will nude beaches be left covered up?
It is difficult to find where to draw the line between harmful obscenity and freedom of speech sometimes, but I believe that treating the public as though we are children who need a high level of protection is not the solution to anything. Surely the majority of people exposed to Sharpe’s work would simply be disgusted and decide to stop reading. Surely we are capable of determing the difference between this and works like Lolita and Thirteen for ourselves. I am in agreement of restricting the age of people that can read/watch certain things, but if we are old enough to vote at 18, and pay adult fares on public transport at 16, then we need to ensure that 18 (or 16) is the age at which we’re allowed access to such media.
I am lost in this one I do not even know where to being. I mean sure this guy is horrible and disgusting but the original law has attacked people who did not even need to attacked. After a quick google search and coming to the CBC webpage on the issue I see that the law is not perfect. But laws are rarely perfect for the matter so it is understandable that there will be grey areas for them to fix. But this guy is just plain sick in my mind but if he serves the purpose then he will serve the purpose of those that need to use him.
I do not see this man as an artist though and I do not see how he could argue that in front of the courts of this land. His art while contrevisal is also wrong in that it is not the kind of topic that is suitable to be called art. Many things are but childporn is not.
This is hardly a new issue. I had done an exposé on this guy back in college. Though I don’t think censorship in this case applies to that specific degree, I wonder if the education about this kind of phenomenon will continue to be discust. People like Sharp has always existed and always will. There is no use for censorship even for deviant persons like him. Hey, we still go back and read Sade right? Sharp would seem like a schoolgirl compared to Sade. To compare the two would be downright wrong but, I think we’re talking about content here.
Sharp is useful to our society. Because he shows what men(kind) are capable of. Yes his work isn’t art, rather say a way to expiate an overflow. However, the problem that he brings to the spotlight is rather important one and it brings up all the deviants of our society. Rapes, war, crime, incest, battery, etc, are all problems in our society and it has to be spoken of. To no what’s it like. Even if the mean guy does the ‘work’. We have to have an open mind to what’s happening out there, so we are aware and ready for what ever happens.
At the end, the education is the base to jugement. Not the clean up that some law has already done for us. Because whatever is removed from our eyes, we’ll always uncounter it on the next corner.
Nowadays, art is very often used to provoke, but doesn’t it sometimes go too far? I recently heard about a dentist clinic downtown which is actually a clinic-museum: the interior resembles an art gallery and is decorated with different pieces of art from a particular artist. This month, the clinic exposes the artwork of a montrealer, who uses art as a means of exposing societal problems. She mainly touches subjects such as sexuality, aids, drugs, etc. Many could find this offending and provoking, though others might say it is constructive and educative art. Should it be banned?
I think art should mainly be used to express a feeling, a state of mind, but without going too far. This is hard to ask from a society such as ours, which is very attentive to societal problems, but I think it should be a collective effort. Shouldn’t we, therefore, redefine art?
I for one admire John Robin Sharpe, he spends so much of his life to fight for his right to do what he wants. That’s what freedom is, doing what you want, and the government is there to make sure no one gets hurt in the process. He is creating fantasies, is that so very wrong; everyone has bizarre ‘unacceptable’ thoughts be they the same as Sharpe or even worse. It seems as though if you release these thoughts and write them down you are no longer allowed to have them. I personally don’t find what Sharpe is writing disturbing and I don’t think it is illegal in anyway. It is his choice to write the material in it is the choice of others to read it, love it, or loathe it. It’s not like he is forcing his ideas upon others, he is just expressing himself. And art is essentially an expression, a creation. Sharpe should be allowed to write child pornography very simply. Is it truly art? Who cares? It is his and he is not hurting anyone so I say let Julian be spanked! I won’t read it, and I can live being none the wiser but to Sharpe or to someone who enjoys it, it is something indeed.
My comments aren’t about Martin Patriquin’s article so much as they are about a letter I read in Hour the week after Mr. Patriquin’s article appeared. The writer (whose name I don’t recall) defended John Robin Sharpe’s right to write about sexual fantasies involving young children and to publish them and promote them in the name of freedom of expression. He (the author of the letter) lumped anyone who doesn’t agree with his viewpoint along with narrow-minded twits like Randy Johnson from the Conservative Party. Not being an artist myself, I can’t offer an educated opinion on what exactly constitutes artistic merit. However, I’ve known dozens of women and men who have been victimized by pedophiles. I hate the thought of restricting any of our rights and freedoms (it seems as though the federal government has been doing a fine job of that themselves), but I truly believe that protecting a three year old, or a ten year old or even some sixteen year olds (as mature as they might seem to be) from sexual exploitation is more important than whether or not I or some other 41 year old gets to look at little Jane’s or Johnny’s naked body. The law can always be fine-tuned and improved so that a genuine artist can create something of merit, no matter how controversial. But putting an artist’s rights before a childs? That to me is unconscionable.
We have come along way in progress yes. The problem is that the laws have not been changed in hundreds of years to accomdate the that same progress. Every so often laws need to be upsated and changed as to fit the life styles of today.
It is all very complicated when you talk about passing down laws or even changing them , there is always the time it takes and the red tape of coarse. Certain parties don’t want to have the reputation of being the ones to bring up certain changes because it may hurt them in the up coming elections.
What we are talking about is saving the children from a harm to which they can not defend themselves. It is not a question of freedom of speach or freedom of an artist freedom of expression , it is about saving the child who is exposed to issues that he is not ready to deal with or defend himself from.
It is common , you get caught in a dirty act and so lets shift the subject else where to relieve the pressure of the wound already inflicted. It is so you can build an up roar and then sneek away. Like in those spagetti western movies. They start a brawl at the salon and then they take off while everybody is fighting and they can’t even remember what the issue is. That is a good move. The gouvernment move to re-phrase words is also a way of escaping the resposability of having allowed this to get this far. That is not enough we need to make some serious changes in our laws and the consequences too because they don’t seem justifiably enough for the crimes commited. We need to stop violence of every type if we are to survive another decade.