O.J. No. 2238
Ontario Court (Provincial Division)
Sparrow Prov. Div. J.
July 20, 1995
between the 7th day of August 1993 and the 30th day of September 1993, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in the Toronto Region, unlawfully did distribute child pornography, to wit; computer image and text tiles entitled MOPPET01.GIF, MOPPET02.GIF, MOPPET03.GIF, MOPPET04.GIF, MOPPET05.GIF, 3DOGSEX.ZIP, FWKIDS01.ZIP, FWKIDSO2.ZIP, FWKIDSO3.ZIP, FWKIDS04.ZIP, FWKIDS05.ZIP, KIDDYEAT.ZIP, KIDSARAP.ZIP, YNGFUN10.ZIP, YNGFUN11.ZIP, contrary to the Criminal Code.
1) Many of the images have been produced from store catalogues, and thus reflect at least the faces of real children. As explained in the decision, clothes are usually removed and genitalia added by computer software. Thus it would be possible for the child's parent, neighbour or relative to come across this shocking material without prior awareness;
2) The accused has kept a booklet entitled "Facts on Friends", containing the names, addresses, phone numbers and brief descriptions of real children living on real streets in Mississauga. The first names of these children as well as descriptions of them are used in the pornographic texts. The Crown argues that the accused is obviously closely watching certain neighbourhood children, who he could attempt to seduce.
3) In Exhibit 9(h), a document located on his computer entitled "Recent Zephyrs Listings and Notes", the accused states "I love young children and would love to do everything in my stories that I've written, however, that time has not come ... yet". The Crown argues that this is clear indication of an intention to ultimately act out, and
4) He has kept a scrap book of stories involving sexual assault trials, and changes to the law in this area, which is also indicative of someone leaning in the direction of illegal sexual activity rather than pure fantasy. Dr. Collins testified that many pedophiles collect such material on legal matters.
This objection ignores the reality that, on the basis of the opinion evidence which I have accepted, private possession of child pornography poses a realistic risk of harm to children, by reinforcing cognitive distortions, fuelling fantasies, and its potential use in "grooming" possible child victims. It is entirely reasonable and within the legitimate objectives of Parliament to criminalize private possession of child pornography.
|SPARROW PROV. J.|