Last week, John Grisham, US author, lawyer and politician, made some, shall we say, controversial comments in an interview with the Daily Telegraph. He suggested that the punishments enforced on those convicted of watching child pornography are too strict and that the police should focus their attention on “real paedophiles”.
Grisham exemplified his point by recounting the case of a good friend who, in a drunken stupor, “pushed the wrong buttons,” and wound up watching child porn.
I fear that he is suggesting that membership to the fantastic ‘All White Male Club’ allows for exemption from the rules and restrictions that the rest of society must adhere to.
Now, I wondered whether Grisham’s suggestion, that it might be easy to drunkenly stumble across child pornography while trying to find adult porn, might have some legs. In order to gather some anecdotal evidence, I posed the question to all of my twenty-something-year-old-male-friends, and the response came back as a unanimous no. I think I may, perhaps, be justified in assuming that, of all people, this group are likely to possess fairly extensive experience in this field and yet not one of them has ever been in the situation Grisham describes.
Is it just a coincidence, then, that Grisham is most keen to defend those he appears to be able to most strongly relate to: “guys my age” who are “sixty-year-old white men”? I fear that he is suggesting that membership to the fantastic ‘All White Male Club’ allows for exemption from the rules and restrictions that the rest of society must adhere to. Grisham’s assertion that these men have “never harmed anybody” seems to suggest that the watching of child pornography is a victimless crime. He places the blame, then, entirely on those who create the material. Unquestionably, these people are the most sickening; however, Grisham’s mates have still involved themselves in a corrupt and abusive industry. His argument fails to appreciate a basic concept of supply and demand; arguably child porn exists because there is still a strong demand that is capitalised on by criminals.
Every time someone clicks on that image or video, intentionally or unintentionally, they are fuelling the demand for an industry which profits from abusing children.
As asserted by Jon Brown from the NSPCC, “every image is a real child who has suffered.” When mindlessly trolling the internet we tend to just look at what’s there, without ever really considering how it came to be. Child pornography came to be because someone sexually assaulted a child and put it on the internet for others to enjoy. Every time someone clicks on that image or video, intentionally or unintentionally, they are fuelling the demand for an industry which profits from abusing children. Whether or not Grisham really considered the implication of what he was saying, I think that any comments which, even slightly, trivialises the severity of this issue are completely out of place.
In swooping to the defence of other middle-class, white males, Grisham serves to prove Perry’s point entirely.
Grisham has since apologised for his comments, stating that “Anyone who harms a child for profit or pleasure, or who in any way participates in child pornography—online or otherwise—should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.” Unfortunately the views expressed still resonate, Grisham’s distorted empathy may be perceived as being inextricably linked to race and gender; he is essentially suggesting that we adapt the law for one, already advantaged, social group. Grayson Perry, Turner Prize winning artist, has explored the privileges afforded to this group in a recent article, The rise and fall of the Default Man. He describes how “the Great White Male […] dominates the upper echelons of our society, imposing, unconsciously or otherwise their values and preferences on the rest of the population.” In swooping to the defence of other middle-class, white males, Grisham serves to prove Perry’s point entirely.
The issue transcends the, frankly disgusting, crime of viewing child porn. Yes, individuals may be entitled, but this does not extend to entitlement of limitless excuses for their ‘accidental crimes’. So, are Grisham’s buddies any more undeserving of their sentence than your average shop lifter? No, they most certainly are not.
Maddie Waktare
Image courtesy of Mississippi State University Library via Flickr
The giveaway for me was when I heard what he said about his friend “…he never touched anything”. Notice Grisham did not say “anyone” but “anything” – which demonstrates clearly how he (and far too many others) perceive these abused children.
What a dumbass.