It is interesting that two big bits of information have come out today regarding Bill Henson. Firstly and as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Classification Board "assessed five Henson images taken from media websites and rated them all 'G' or 'very mild'".
And secondly, Hetty Johnston from Bravehearts has given her right of reply on Crikey after all the bollocksing last week. 
I encourage you to read the entire article so that we don't get accused of 'taking he rout of context'. For me, her argument rests on this paragraph at the end of the piece;
What of the pedophiles who are watching this with great interest? Can they call themselves ‘artists’ too? Define an ‘artist’. Can they then take photos of naked children and call it art? What about their defense when they are caught with s-xual images of children and claim its research for their artistic endeavors? How do we prove this is not the case? This is a dangerous scenario for our children and families.
Her article is rational and well put and explains much of the good work she must do. But I tell you what - and I repeat something I said earlier - I absolutely refuse to live in a world dictated to by a fear of those with mental illnesses such as paedophilia. She may have been right about Hollingsworth, but that doesn't make right about this.
Leave me out of this nanny state. What if? What if? What if?
Enough already.
Which brings me to another petition that is now available if you share my sentiments on this issue. Apparently Theatre Notes "had many requests from people who would also like to put their names to the The Open Letter in Support of Bill Henson". If you would like to do so, go here.
And don't forget the other online petition that is gathering a big swell of support.
Go on, be a Braveheart like our Mel. To quote William Wallace, "they'll never take our freedom!"
Monday, 2 June 2008
Hetty Johnston on Crikey
Posted by Nicholas Pickard at 2:30 pm
Labels: Censorship, Media, News
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Thanks Nicholas. (Not being a subscriber, I could read the whole article). I don't doubt child sexual abuse is a problem that needs to be addressed. But I wonder what Hetty Johnston would say to the adolescents, young people and former victims of child sexual abuse and those who work with such children (all of whom who have written to me) who argue that Henson's work is other than she describes it? And who are indignant about how this furore diverts attention from the realities of child sexual abuse?
Better, I think, to resist the temptation to see the world through the eyes of a paedophile and to assert instead some other values.
I mean, I couldn't read the article...
Thanks for the link. A printed version of the petition is going to be faxed to the NSW DPP's office shortly. Thanks for the support and thank you to all the SAJ readers who signed on. 276 signatures ... and counting.
Just read it. It hangs on a false opposition - rights of the artist vs rights of the children. Which in turn depends on the assumption that Henson's photos - and by extension, any image of a young person in any context - is a violation of a child's rights, and that artists who represent children are "exploiting" them, ie, the equation of Henson's work with child pornography. Which is, to say the least, a highly dubious set of propositions.
As someone who actually does listen to children and young people - and who writes for them - I find the refusal to accept the complexities around adolescent sexuality expressed by Ms Johnston and their like extremely troubling. I am wholly against the abuse of young people and wholly for their empowerment. I fail to see at all how Ms Johnston is in this instance doing anything to help either of these things. Rather the opposite, I would argue.
Worth a thousand words...
Link to interesting video about Bill Henson's photographic work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaEi9ESRB8o
Post a Comment