Blowing the Whistle on ECPAT

Originally published at: Blowing the Whistle on ECPAT - Prostasia Foundation

Editor’s Note: Prostasia is reprinting useful material from our newsletter for blog readers. This essay first ran in the November 2020 newsletter. To keep up to date on everything happening at Prostasia, you can sign up for the newsletter here. In Prostasia’s analysis of the Canadian Godbout case, in which Canadian child pornography law was…

1 Like

“In its Explanatory Memorandum, ECPAT once again cited its own Luxembourg Guidelines in support of a recommendation that “States parties [should] include in their legal provisions regarding child sexual abuse material (child pornography) representations of non-existing children or of persons appearing to be children.”

How far up your own ass do you need to be to cite your own prior opinions as evidence?

3 Likes

These are the same people that tried to include material that did not involve real children into the definition of CSAM/CSEM.

I’m sure there are a lot of people over at ECPAT who do amazing work and genuinely care about children, but this type of tomfoolery is simply unforgivable, as it would only serve to muddy up definitions and make it harder for actual children to receive the attention they need, all the while diverting precious LEA resources towards people who do not represent a threat to children over material that does not involve children.

2 Likes

In the UK it is. Several other countries as well.

All a nest of thugs, then. Just because a group is numerous doesn’t mean that they are respectable. See witch-burning peasants. Yes, I’m blaming the peasants directly because not all of them were put up to the task by any priest at all.

1 Like

We need to be wary of groups who try to lump in fiction alongside actual abuse material.

2 Likes