In what can only be described as a stunning, sickening decision, a court in Melbourne last Friday granted a twelve year old girl permission to begin hormone treatment prior to a sex change operation.
Lawyers for the girl's mother successfully argused that the girl, at twelve years of age, had a full understanding that she was actually a man trapped in a girl's body. Those lawyers were paid for by the Victorian Government, heavily supported by ideological special interests.
Are they mad?
Look, as far as I'm concerned, once you're 18, do whatever you like with your body. It's none of my business. Change it from female to male. Change it back again. Even change it into an elephant for all I care. It's your body and you're an adult, making your own decisions.
But is a twelve year old really equiped to make this decision?
The story's here.
Which brings me to the other furore involving a twelve year old this week... a photographic exhibit at an art gallery in Sydney featuring photographs of nude male and female 12 year olds.
Furtunately, the police reacted swiftly, impounded the offending "art works", and are pressing child pornography charges against the gallery and the "artist".
Let's leave the issue of what the children's parents were thinking when they granted permission. This is bigger than that.
What's amazing about this is that the art elite are incensed. They believe "art" is somehow "pure", and "artists" are above the law.
I'm sorry. There's something not right about taking full frontal photographs of a naked 12 year old girl or boy, even in the name of "art".
It's stunning that the "art community" doesn't get it. Their warriors, some of them curators at the biggest publicly owned art galleries in the country, bombarded the media in defence of the artists right to express his creativity. Somehow, they thought it was ok.
Really... they just don't get it. What's the difference between their "artist" taking pictures of naked children and selling them for tens of thousands of dollars in the name of "art", and some low life taking pictures of naked children and posting them on the internet? As far as I'm concerned, there is no difference.
And I'm sorry, even if I buy the "art" line... I don't care how pure the art is... some sick bastard is going to look at that "art" and get his jollies. You might not be a paedophile, but you're certainly feeding them.
The ideological left is screaming. "Censorship", they cry. Yes. It bloody well is... because you start drawing that blurry line between "art" and child pornography, and you're on a very slippery slope.
*SIGH*
Is the world going mad?
4 comments:
i totally agree with you on both counts, particularly with respect to what is tantamount to exhibiting child porn in the name of art. what a crock of fucking shite. that's not art. that's self indulgence. and anyone who defends this artist's point of view is just as culpable as the artist himself. you're so right. they just don't get it.
and the parents - my god. what were they thinking to allow their children to be part of this? my mind has been boggled by this story.
"is the world going mad?" No, it's been mad for a very long time now. Stark raving mad.
Sometimes people use "art" to do things they are not otherwise allowed to do, and usually with good reason, and they think they can actually get away with it. Like that guy who was starving a dog and called it art. Nice try, asshole.
I was shocked at this one too.and the gallery in question I would never have thought would tolerate "art"of this nature.
Its just wrong.
Post a Comment