Fred Nile
There’s a trend amongst those calling for Bill Henson’s blood to link the artist’s photography to a slew of other unrelated issues in hope of validating their argument. Be it rape, raunchy t-shirts and music, or in Fred Nile’s case, ‘Homosexual Mardi Gras.’
“I congratulate his main defender, David Marr, for his consistency, because as patron of the indecent Homosexual Mardi Gras he is not offended by near-naked teenagers and topless lesbians parading through the streets of Sydney. Obviously he would not be offended by Bill Henson’s photographs which are really child pornography” said Rev Fred Nile MLC.
Christian Today – Thursday, 9 October 2008
If it was anyone else you’d think they’d forgotten to take their meds, but in old man Nile’s case it’s not really surprising is it. It’s offensive that he claims those who attend the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras would not be offended by child pornography, but not surprising.
Bill Muehlenberg’s no better. He asks what’s the difference between Henson and a paedophile. His answer ‘Not much.’ He also goes off about the fall of civilisation:
‘Indeed, it is we, the concerned parents and citizens of Australia, who are really at fault. After all, Craven informs us that we are nothing but “zealots,” “philistines,” “socially deranged,” and running on “hysteria”. Yes, we are the real monsters here. We are destroying society and bringing the West to ruin because we have so foolishly thought that children matter, that they are weak, vulnerable and easily exploited, and that they deserve our highest care and attention. Foolish us.’
[...]
‘So I have an idea. The next time I run a red light, punch out a foolish Age columnist, or take a few liberties with a toddler, I will just plead the excuse of “art”. I dare any judge or court to convict me in that case. If they refuse to do anything about Henson, then they should surely leave me alone.’
No Bill, what you just described is illegal. I dare say he or she would find it a joy convicting you. I know I would.
Thanks to Bob for the link.
15 comments
Tazia says:
Oct 10, 2008
Bill’s stuff is banned from thousands of galleries around the world, one can’t show that stuff in respectable places
very few auction houses will touch it, in places such as London it is entirely illegal.
Journal of Photography – ‘Fairy’ images conviction adds to …
13 Aug 2008 … ‘Fairy’ images conviction adds to confusion … convicted of four counts of making indecent images of children and one count of possession. …
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=809629 – Similar pages
That’s London, and Bill’s fetish stuff is a million times more extreme.
If you can’t sell it in England, is it art? and one has to sell it in a backroom in Oz, which is what Bill does.
It is BS to pretend it is normal art, because it clearly is nothing of the sort.
I’m not surprised he was sneaking around primary schools. THat is to be expected, given his kiddie fetish problem.
Matthew says:
Oct 10, 2008
Where’s the evidence that Henson’s work has been banned in any commercial gallery anywhere in the world? Why do people who keep saying that always forget that the OFLC rated his photos “G” and “PG”? People can keep on saying that it’s child porn, but I’ve never heard of “PG” rated child porn. And why is Henson’s stuff “fetish”? Nudes are a now a fetish are they? Also, what is “normal art”? Matthew Barney? A nice little Russell Drysdale? Christ, talk about bloody hysteria.
Bob Bain says:
Oct 10, 2008
Fred Nile comments..
“As the MP who successfully campaigned for the child pornography law in the Wran era, I feel very strongly about any attempt to water down these laws which are designed to protect vulnerable children”.
This is a reminder for those who have forgotten it – or who have never been exposed to the idea – it was once legal in New South Wales to sell sexually explicit images of children and they were indeed displayed for sale in downtown Sydney in the early 1970′s in magazine form. I never purchased one of these magazines but they were legal and were available. It was possible to identify the children as the covers were not hidden although wrapped in plastic as porn magazines are today.
Being the age I am I recall the campaign to have them banned in New South Wales but can find few traces of the history of this on the Internet – apart from an article regarding the “Color Climax Corporation”(see reference below 1.) who sold them legally in Denmark.
The police today make a distinction between child pornography and child abuse material. The sexual depiction of children does not necessarily imply abuse.
Fortunately I am not “turned on” by images of children and (indeed) it’s hard to get me “turned on” by X-rated movies as nudity and displays of sexual intercourse have close to zero impact on my psyche.
Reference 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Climax_Corporation
“Also notable is the fact that Color Climax was one of the only large-scale commercial producers of child pornography in the modern history of erotica to openly advertise the fact.[citation needed] Although generally not mentioned by the multi-national corporation of today, from 1969 to 1979 Color Climax was responsible for the relatively large-scale distribution child pornography.[1] Though participation by such a mainstream studio was unique to Denmark, it generally did not reflect a wide-spread societal acceptance of child pornography in the country at the time.”
BUT it was legal ! In my lifetime homosexuality has been illegal and the cause of notorious scandals – at one stage involving Russian spies and intimadation of those who had homosexual inclinations- and child pornography legal.
Today it’s the other way around although the sale of hard core pornographic magazines remains legal while the video alternative is banned.
I could say “go figure” !
Stush says:
Oct 10, 2008
“The next time” he takes a few liberties with a toddler?
Stevian says:
Oct 10, 2008
Well spotted Stush. Would it be imprudent to mention that most cases of child abuse are perpetrated by parents, other relatives and trusted family friends. Is the Bill Henson hysteria perhaps a masterful piece of misdirection by those with something to hide.
Mike says:
Oct 10, 2008
@Tazia: Thousands? In that case it won’t take long for you to list 10 here for us all to see, right? Even one or two?
Fetish? based on what evidence?
You know it’s okay to say you don’t like Bill Henson’s work without writing vicious lies.
@Matt: I’m waiting for it also.
@Bob: Fred Nile’s best work undoubtedly.
@Stush: Yeah, the ‘next’ worried me as well.
Mike says:
Oct 10, 2008
@Stevian: Who would you rather mind your children: Bill Henson or Bill Muehlenberg? I know who I’d choose.
Stevian says:
Oct 10, 2008
That’s a tough question Mike, and since I don’t have children, one I cannot, and will not attempt to, answer. I was merely pointing out that statistics prove children are more at risk from those that they know and trust than from strangers.
http://www.stopchildabuse.com.au/aware/statistics.asp
Mike says:
Oct 10, 2008
@Stevian: Don’t worry, it was more of light hearted comment about Bill M’s dodgy quote than a real question.
Dom says:
Oct 10, 2008
@Tazia
“I’m not surprised he was sneaking around primary schools.”
Only in the same way talent scouts for TV, sporting institutions, and people representing many other reputable businesses and passtimes you probably wouldn’t bat an eyelid at “sneak” around primary schools. That is to say they all do their “sneaking” after attaining permission from the proper authorities and looking around the school in a completely supervised way. None of them approach children directly and all subsequent contact is made through the parents of the children involved.
Honestly, you can’t think you’re holding a reasonable debate with comments like that.
I’d argue that most people defending Bill Henson don’t give a crap about his art. What they are defending is society’s right to approach matters of free speech and censorship with a clear head and reasoned debate rather than letting the fickle whims of moral panic decide what is acceptable or not.
So, with that in mind, as long as no parent and no subject of Bill Henson’s work has alleged abuse on his part can we please stop demonising the man himself and just talk about the content and the context of the art work?
Also:
“If you can’t sell it in England, is it art?”
That’s the weirdest definition of art I’ve ever heard. It’s definitely a good laugh, but I don’t think the measure of somethings artistic merrit has ever been defined by it’s appropriateness as a commodity in England before.
Mike says:
Oct 10, 2008
“If you can’t sell it in England, is it art?”
There’s always nudes on Antiques Roadshow
Matthew says:
Oct 10, 2008
Yeah, I forgot to comment on Tazia’s bizarre statement (and link to an article) about a court case that had absolutely nothing to do with Henson, not does it somehow prove that his works can’t be sold in the UK. There’s no link between the two.
Look, a book which compiles his work can be bought on Amazon.co.uk.
Chris says:
Oct 27, 2008
Dom, you’ve about hit the nail on the head. And it is a fair point. And in history, when have nude paintings ever been censored. Guess we will have to whitewash over all those paintings featuring nude cherubs etc.
Fair enough, if what Bill Henson was doing involved any sort of sexual implications, let alone hardocore erotica scenes, yes then jail the man, but the human body as an object of art is something to be admired. Isn’t that why parents of newborns get intimate photos of them cradling their young bundles of joy on their shoulder professionally done?
Besides, it goes to show societies perceptions on what is acceptable. Nudity is taboo, even though its just skin and bones at the end of the day, nothing more. And shots of violence and blood and gore are acceptable and shown at 8.30 at night when it is well known that not all kids sleep that early.
Finally, in regards to Fred Nile and his comment that it’s hard to get turned on by X-Rated movies, seriously, at least admit to having some sort of libido. I’ll admit myself that I have looked up porn. Pretty much every guy I know has looked up porn at some stage. Even if it is only on rare occasions, in this day and age, pretty much any computer literate male with warm blood and a couple of hours with nothing else to do is going to “dabble” in it, even out of curiosity just to see what the fuss is about, and so what? As long as it isn’t something illegal (ie. child porn, beastiality and snuff) then what is wrong with it?
A letter against filtering from a concerned Christian mother - Somebody Think Of The Children says:
Oct 28, 2008
[...] such an extreme way in online communication. Of course The Australian Christian Lobby, being the fine up standing citizens they are, are in favour of filtering. Stay up to date with censorship issues affecting Australia by [...]
Cruise Ships says:
Jun 9, 2010
That is to say they all do their Fred Nile and his comment that it’s hard hat his works can’t be sold in the Nile defined by it’s appropriateness.
_____________________________
willsonmax