News

VANCOUVER, June 30 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a ruling that stunned many, the BC Court of Appeal has rejected the appeal of a lower court ruling legalizing the possession of child pornography. The BC government appealed an earlier ruling, which struck down portions of the Criminal Code which made the possession of child porn illegal, claiming that they violated the Constitution. BC Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh said the case will be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In April, LifeSite News reported on disturbing comments by Justice Southin, one of the three appeals court judges hearing the case.  Responding to police and crown arguments to overturn the pro-child porn ruling, Southin said: “There are graphic books written about rape and all sorts of things, but we don’t ban them.” Southin questioned the definition of “children” implying that the accepted age of consent for sex – 14 years old – might be too high. Southin also expressed doubt that the children in the porn photos were exploited since they presumably posed for profit. “Whether we like it or not, isn’t it a fair assumption that they did it for money?” she asked.  Noting that some of the children in the pornographic photos were from Brazil she asked: “What are we doing pontificating about street kids in Brazil?”

“We don’t have international obligations to stop kids starving to death in the streets of Brazil, do we?” she continued.

For a related story see:
BC, Pedophilia and the Courts

With files from Canadian Press

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.