(Boylove News Articles) - Mick Moran of Interpol and Pro-Active Pedophile Policing: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(Modified the name of a category) |
||
(26 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 269: | Line 269: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<blockquote>Krawczyk’s statement that “(possession of erotica) shows a sexual interest in children. How can that not be dangerous?” grows from a related generality: anyone interested in deviant sex lacks empathy, social cohesion and self-control. This was the argument used to ensure that homosexuals were perennially seen, for over a hundred years, as frivolous, out-of-control, sex-crazed people who were too narcissistic to form meaningful loving relationships. | <blockquote>Krawczyk’s statement that “(possession of erotica) shows a sexual interest in children. How can that not be dangerous?” grows from a related generality: anyone interested in deviant sex lacks empathy, social cohesion and self-control. This was the argument used to ensure that homosexuals were perennially seen, for over a hundred years, as frivolous, out-of-control, sex-crazed people who were too narcissistic to form meaningful loving relationships.</blockquote> | ||
<blockquote> | |||
< | The proposition about deviants lacking social responsiveness is simply superstition. It has no basis whatsoever. It relates to the basic idea in Victorian …empire-building militarism that anyone with social responsiveness would conform to the … ‘norms’ of society. Anyone with a non-conformity that couldn’t be convincingly explained as a unique contribution to social military power could only be anti-social. The person’s anti-social nature appeared to reflect disdain for society’s ideals of moral control, ergo, he must be intrinsically out-of-control.</blockquote> | ||
The proposition about deviants lacking social responsiveness is simply superstition. It has no basis whatsoever. It relates to the basic idea in Victorian …empire-building militarism that anyone with social responsiveness would conform to the … ‘norms’ of society. Anyone with a non-conformity that couldn’t be convincingly explained as a unique contribution to social military power could only be anti-social. The person’s anti-social nature appeared to reflect disdain for society’s ideals of moral control, ergo, he must be intrinsically out-of-control. | <blockquote> | ||
< | |||
In Krawczyk’s Victorianism, the idea that a person who had a deviant sexual interest in children could be completely held in check by empathy – a strong respect for children’s true wishes and optimal situations – is completely ruled out as impossible. Have a deviant interest in children, and you can only be out-of-control and lacking in fellow-feeling, hence dangerous.</blockquote> | In Krawczyk’s Victorianism, the idea that a person who had a deviant sexual interest in children could be completely held in check by empathy – a strong respect for children’s true wishes and optimal situations – is completely ruled out as impossible. Have a deviant interest in children, and you can only be out-of-control and lacking in fellow-feeling, hence dangerous.</blockquote> | ||
Line 282: | Line 280: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<blockquote>Researchers have conducted almost uncountable numbers of studies to determine if viewing pornography incites callousness of one kind or another towards real people. They hope to find that viewing porn causes or does not cause a degradation of respect towards women – a consideration that doesn’t seem to have any plausible counterpart in discussions of gay male pornography. Sometimes these studies take a comical turn, as when Simon Louis Lajeunesse of the University of Montreal found that he couldn’t find a single 20-something heterosexual university student who could serve as a negative control in a study of the effects of porn viewing. The student population all used porn, and many had looked at it since the age of 10. Lajeunesse [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261377/Porn-study-scrapped-researchers-failed-ANY-20-males-hadn-t-watched-it.html said this | <blockquote>Researchers have conducted almost uncountable numbers of studies to determine if viewing pornography incites callousness of one kind or another towards real people. They hope to find that viewing porn causes or does not cause a degradation of respect towards women – a consideration that doesn’t seem to have any plausible counterpart in discussions of gay male pornography. Sometimes these studies take a comical turn, as when Simon Louis Lajeunesse of the University of Montreal found that he couldn’t find a single 20-something male heterosexual university student who could serve as a negative control in a study of the effects of porn viewing. The student population all used porn, and many had looked at it since the age of 10. Lajeunesse [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261377/Porn-study-scrapped-researchers-failed-ANY-20-males-hadn-t-watched-it.html said this] in summary:</blockquote> | ||
< | <blockquote>“All test subjects said they supported gender equality and felt victimized by rhetoric demonizing pornography.</blockquote> | ||
< | <blockquote>“‘Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship, which they all want as harmonious and fulfilling as possible.’</blockquote> | ||
< | <blockquote>“'Those who could not live out their fantasy in real life with their partner simply set aside the fantasy. The fantasy is broken in the real world and men don't want their partner to look like a porn star.'”</blockquote> | ||
< | <blockquote>In any case, the attempt to identify porn viewing as the cause of any particular type of attitude is fundamentally misguided. That is, it can be ruled out by anyone who believes in the principle of free will that underlies our legal system. The free-willed decision involved in viewing pornography relates to whether or not the viewer empathetically ‘makes faith’ with the subject – wishes him or her well, would treat him or her well in person, hopes that being depicted has done no harm, wouldn’t do any harm to any person to obtain similar pictures, wouldn’t sanction pictures harmfully obtained, and so on. The philosophical problem of the [[wikipedia:Is the glass half empty or half full?| half-full vs. half-empty glass]] always pertains in a situation where a person may or may not establish subjective complicity or sympathy with another person. Nothing can force or effectively ''cause'' a person to make an empathetic or unempathetic decision – apart from being sociopathically mentally disturbed and thus biologically unable to establish empathy. Traditionally, deviants are attributed the half-empty glass: whether, at a given period in history, they are Jews, or gays, or culturally distinct blacks, or pedophiles, they are deemed unable to make faith with others, with the general population. Popular superstition states that their very difference is based in their inability to conform to norms, to sympathize with their community. They are different and anomalous because they are stubborn, self-willed and oblivious, says the belief. But the reality is that, despite any annoyance these so-conceived deviants may feel at being the objects of prejudice from the majority, they remain perfectly able to choose the half-full glass, to make faith, to empathize. And they do. Any pornography or erotica viewing they do has full potential for nuanced appreciation of the human worth of those shown.</blockquote> | ||
In any case, the attempt to identify porn viewing as the cause of any particular type of attitude is fundamentally misguided. That is, it can be ruled out by anyone who believes in the principle of free will that underlies our legal system. The free-willed decision involved in viewing pornography relates to whether or not the viewer empathetically ‘makes faith’ with the subject – wishes him or her well, would treat him or her well in person, hopes that being depicted has done no harm, wouldn’t do any harm to any person to obtain similar pictures, wouldn’t sanction pictures harmfully obtained, and so on. The philosophical problem of the [[wikipedia:Is the glass half empty or half full?| half-full vs. half-empty glass]] always pertains in a situation where a person may or may not establish subjective complicity or sympathy with another person. Nothing can force or effectively cause a person to make an empathetic or unempathetic decision – apart from being sociopathically mentally disturbed and thus biologically unable to establish empathy. Traditionally, deviants are attributed the half-empty glass: whether, at a given period in history, they are Jews, or gays, or culturally distinct blacks, or pedophiles, they are deemed unable to make faith with others, with the general population. Popular superstition states that their very difference is based in their inability to conform to norms, to sympathize with their community. They are different and anomalous because they are stubborn, self-willed and oblivious, says the belief. But the reality is that, despite any annoyance these so-conceived deviants may feel at being the objects of prejudice from the majority, they remain perfectly able to choose the half-full glass, to make faith, to empathize. And they do. Any pornography or erotica viewing they do has full potential for nuanced appreciation of the human worth of those shown.</blockquote> | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
<blockquote>Ethel Quayle, I believe, unthinkingly transmits the popular superstition that the people shown in images are in some way cursed by being ‘perved on’ in erotic contemplation. The ancient superstition of the ‘evil eye’ lives on in the shudder we are raised to feel when we think of an imaginary malevolent person becoming erotic about our images – whether in photographs or in the deviant’s imagination. The idea that the deviant is ipso facto malevolent is fundamental to this primitive cultural trope.</blockquote> | <blockquote>Ethel Quayle, I believe, unthinkingly transmits the popular superstition that the people shown in images are in some way cursed by being ‘perved on’ in erotic contemplation. The ancient superstition of the ‘evil eye’ lives on in the shudder we are raised to feel when we think of an imaginary malevolent person becoming erotic about our images – whether in photographs or in the deviant’s imagination. The idea that the deviant is ''ipso facto'' malevolent is fundamental to this primitive cultural trope.</blockquote> | ||
Line 319: | Line 313: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Most authorities who oppose cartooned child pornography do so based on the Victorian idea that viewing such stuff would contagiously excite pedophiles to lose their moral constrictions against hands-on sexual assault. Quayle, according to her own text, finds this argument far less important than the abuse of the spirit-child in the image itself. Below, in her writings in Child Pornography and Sexual Exploitation of Children Online, she begins with a quote from her colleague David Oswell. I have filled in needed context to make the text semi-understandable. | Most authorities who oppose cartooned child pornography do so based on the Victorian idea that viewing such stuff would contagiously excite pedophiles to lose their moral constrictions against hands-on sexual assault. Quayle, according to her own text, finds this argument far less important than the abuse of the spirit-child in the image itself. Below, in her writings in ''Child Pornography and Sexual Exploitation of Children Online'', she begins with a quote from her colleague David Oswell. I have filled in needed context to make the text semi-understandable. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<blockquote>“…the primary concern [with child-pornographic cartoons – BN] is not one of the effects of the image on others [i.e., not the possibility of exciting some men to commit real-life offenses – BN] or one of the relations of power encoded in the image [that is, not related to demeaning children in an objectifying way – BN], but one of the virtual evidentiality of the image (ie, of the image’s capacity to refer to an objective reality that is both internal and external to the image). The ethical intensity [moral significance – BN] of the virtual image lies precisely in its capacity to refer to a scene beyond itself” ([http://xuk.obu-investigators.com/library/13a/oswell_images_matter.pdf Oswell] p. 258 (pdf). Oswell (2006) goes on to state that the crime of possession, making or distribution of child pornography (whether virtual or not) is a crime not only against a particular child, but against all children. “It is a crime against childhood as a universal” (p. 252).</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
We argue that the crime of possession, and making or distribution of child pornography, whether virtual or not, are (sic) crimes not only against a particular child, but against all children… | |||
</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
In this paper the term ‘sexual exploitation’ refers to activities that may include sexual abuse of children but may also refer to activities where no such abuse has taken place but where the very nature of the activities violates the very essence of childhood. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
Line 351: | Line 345: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<blockquote>Typology of paedophile picture collections. Level 1. “Indicative:” Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes, etc. from either commercial sources or family albums; pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.</blockquote> | <blockquote>Typology of paedophile picture collections. Level 1. “Indicative:” Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes, etc. from either commercial sources or family albums; pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the '''context''' or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.</blockquote> | ||
Line 358: | Line 352: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<blockquote>Most families have extensive and entirely appropriate pictures of their children, and such pictures are not, in these terms, indicative of adult sexual interest in children unless they are in some sense inappropriately held. Furthermore, in the same context, depictions of children in their underwear or naked may well be entirely appropriate. They can, however, be used inappropriately by adults with a sexual interest in children. Within that inappropriate context, essentially innocent pictures can fall within the category of indicative (level 1). Level 1 may include most common pictures of children, either commercially taken or from family albums. The reasons for inclusion of these kinds of photograph within the material related to adult sexual interest in children, as noted earlier, is that the extent to which a photograph may be sexualised and fantasised over lies not so much in its objective content, but in the use to which the picture might be put. In his review of 11 case studies of paedophilic sex offenders, Howitt (1995) draws attention to the significance of this kind of relatively innocent photograph in promoting and sustaining sexual fantasy. It is the context rather than the explicit content of such photographs, therefore, that is significant, and the emphasis on context in understanding child pornography cannot be over-stressed. This is also relevant to considerations of the portrayal of children and child nudity in artistic settings.</blockquote> | <blockquote>Most families have extensive and entirely appropriate pictures of their children, and such pictures are not, in these terms, indicative of adult sexual interest in children unless they are in some sense inappropriately held. Furthermore, in the same context, depictions of children in their underwear or naked may well be entirely appropriate. They can, however, be used inappropriately by adults with a sexual interest in children. Within that inappropriate '''context''', essentially innocent pictures can fall within the category of indicative (level 1). Level 1 may include most common pictures of children, either commercially taken or from family albums. The reasons for inclusion of these kinds of photograph within the material related to adult sexual interest in children, as noted earlier, is that the extent to which a photograph may be sexualised and fantasised over lies not so much in its objective content, but in the use to which the picture might be put. In his review of 11 case studies of paedophilic sex offenders, Howitt (1995) draws attention to the significance of this kind of relatively innocent photograph in promoting and sustaining sexual fantasy. It is the '''context''' rather than the explicit content of such photographs, therefore, that is significant, and the emphasis on context in understanding child pornography cannot be over-stressed. This is also relevant to considerations of the portrayal of children and child nudity in artistic settings.</blockquote> | ||
Line 365: | Line 359: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
And here we have the context for Mick Moran’s extremely constricted idea of what a pedophile could do to avoid the intervention of ‘public safety officials.’ | And here we have the '''context''' for Mick Moran’s extremely constricted idea of what a pedophile could do to avoid the intervention of ‘public safety officials.’ | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Line 375: | Line 369: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
They may go to work, they may do their dishes, but even the slightest sign – the slightest context - showing that they are experiencing an erotic attraction will bring on the full force of the law. The mere possession of legal photographs, arranged in a way that suggests eros, is sufficient to press the social panic button. As deviants, they cannot be expected to have empathy. They can’t be expected to be beneficent, well-adjusted, responsible and valuable members of the community. That would be unthinkable. Any erotic move they make is a tingle of predatory interest, the flicking of the snake’s tongue. Fail to suppress it, and the snake will soon glide out. Already, in his den, he is deliberately victimizing children, according to Taylor et al., by viewing their images. In deeper Quayle literature, he is already raping the virtual child and the essence of childhood. "Any acting out by an "MAP" has potential to harm a child and must result in action by public safety officials… regardless of illegality." | They may go to work, they may do their dishes, but even the slightest sign – the slightest context - showing that they are experiencing an erotic attraction will bring on the full force of the law. The mere possession of legal photographs, arranged in a way that suggests eros, is sufficient to press the social panic button. As deviants, they cannot be expected to have empathy. They can’t be expected to be beneficent, well-adjusted, responsible and valuable members of the community. That would be unthinkable. Any erotic move they make is a tingle of predatory interest, the flicking of the snake’s tongue. Fail to suppress it, and the snake will soon glide out. Already, in his den, he is deliberately victimizing children, according to Taylor et al., by viewing their images. In deeper Quayle literature, he is already raping the virtual child and the essence of childhood. "'''Any acting out by an "MAP" has potential to harm a child and ''must'' result in action by public safety officials… regardless of illegality.'''" | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Line 429: | Line 423: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
The matter of photographed children being unaware of their situation comes up poignantly in the case of Azov Films. Filmmaker Markus Roth admits he deceived the boys involved in his wrestling videos. In a Toronto Star | The matter of photographed children being unaware of their situation comes up poignantly in the case of Azov Films. Filmmaker Markus Roth admits he deceived the boys involved in his wrestling videos. In a Toronto Star [http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/11/16/the_man_who_seduced_a_romanian_village.html story] by Robert Cribb, one of Roth’s boy stars, Michel, says that when he agreed to act in the films, “I didn’t know he was selling them. He told me the movies went to his sister in Germany because she likes to watch them.” Parents, also, were not informed. After Roth’s release from a short sentence in a Romanian prison for making the films (Romania, unlike the US, does not sanction naturist photography), he wrote a pathetically self-excusing [http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/11/15/child_pornographers_letter_to_his_victim.html letter of apology] to his video subjects; this letter was translated into English and published in the Star. This strikes me as a very clear-cut case of inexcusably deceptive behavior, and, yes, I would call it exploitative on that basis. I don’t believe that the unknowing customers purchasing the innocent-looking videos share any culpability in this, but I would judge that Moran’s qualm about exploitation through cultivated unawareness is well applied to the filmmaker in this case. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
The other major producer of Azov Films who has been extensively written about in the press – but only the Russian-language press – is Igor Rusanov, from Sebastopol, Ukraine. Obtaining verified, accurate, journalistic information about Rusanov is not easy, and he has been completely ignored, for unexplained reasons, in police propaganda and its tame mainstream journalism emanating from Project Spade. Getting meaningful results from searches on Rusanov are difficult even for those who read Russian: speculations published by vigilantes come up strongly, while key 2011 articles in the main legitimate news source, crimea24.info, seem to have been deleted (However, we have copies of most of them). After much puzzling over the material, Kristofor and I have reached the conclusion that Rusanov’s situation was much different from Roth’s. Under his pseudonym Zverozub, he had publicly visible websites promoting naturism in beautiful Crimea, and was also highly active as a lecturer on the same topic. The boys he filmed were shown on the website, sometimes tastefully nude, for all to see. There is no doubt that the boys and their parents all knew that the boys were stars in naturist videos that were selling well – which explains the frustration of vigilantes as parents and sons circled the wagons and refused to make any complaints after Rusanov was arrested in 2011. The question of whether the boys involved in the Crimean films were sufficiently informed or not by Rusanov really boils down to whether or not children can be sufficiently informed about the possible ramifications of appearing nude in materials made available to the public. | The other major producer of Azov Films who has been extensively written about in the press – but only the Russian-language press – is Igor Rusanov, from Sebastopol, Ukraine. Obtaining verified, accurate, journalistic information about Rusanov is not easy, and he has been completely ignored, for unexplained reasons, in police propaganda and its tame mainstream journalism emanating from Project Spade. Getting meaningful results from searches on Rusanov are difficult even for those who read Russian: speculations published by vigilantes come up strongly, while key 2011 articles in the main legitimate news source, crimea24.info, seem to have been deleted (However, we have copies of most of them). After much puzzling over the material, Kristofor and I have reached the conclusion that Rusanov’s situation was much different from Roth’s. Under his pseudonym Zverozub, he had publicly visible websites promoting naturism in beautiful Crimea, and was also highly active as a lecturer on the same topic. The boys he filmed were shown on the website, sometimes tastefully nude, for all to see. There is no doubt that the boys and their parents all knew that the boys were stars in naturist videos that were selling well – which explains the frustration of vigilantes as parents and sons circled the wagons and refused to make any complaints after Rusanov was arrested in 2011. The question of whether the boys involved in the Crimean films were sufficiently informed or not by Rusanov really boils down to whether or not children ''can'' be sufficiently informed about the possible ramifications of appearing nude in materials made available to the public. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Line 461: | Line 455: | ||
I wasn’t doin’ nuthin, officer. I hope this constitutional free speech thing actually works. | I wasn’t doin’ nuthin, officer. I hope this constitutional free speech thing actually works. | ||
{{boxes end}} | |||
<br> | |||
==Addendum February 28, 2014== | |||
<br> | |||
{{box1 start}} | |||
<center> <font size="+1" color="black">Mick Moran, Interpol, asks 'stop' to Azov critique</font> | |||
</center> | |||
In a recent article on the reaction of Mick Moran, head of Interpol's Human Trafficking & Child Exploitation unit, to an earlier article on the [[Pedophobe of the Year:Paul Krawczyk,Toronto Police|Azov Films pornography arrests]], readers may have noticed that, unlike most internetters, he referred to minor-attracted people by the acronym [[MAP]]. This could have been interpreted as a tentatively friendly gesture, or as sardonic, but in either case, the usage of this recently coined term showed that Mr. Moran had been keeping up with MA web postings to some extent. | |||
It was not a big surprise, then, when Moran responded in Twitter to the [http://www.boychat.org/messages/1383941.htm initial Boychat posting] of the recent article before any links to it had been sent out. | |||
:mickmoran @mickmoran Feb 25 | |||
:Free speech is a right. I respect rights. "minor attracted persons" should not be "persecuted" if they do not act out their attraction -- | |||
:mickmoran @mickmoran Feb 25 | |||
:but if they act out then they should expect attention from me and my ilk. They are a risk to children and to the safety of children (public) | |||
:mickmoran @mickmoran Feb 25 | |||
:@Securityconcern your propaganda and twisted logic will not intimidate me. I am proud of what my colleagues and I do. #childsafety | |||
:mickmoran @mickmoran Feb 25 | |||
:I will certainly NEVER apologise to anyone who consider themselves to be part of the "minor-attracted activist community". @Securityconcern | |||
Kamil presently responded. | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern Feb 25 | |||
:@mickmoran @laoghain I wouldn't think you had anything to apologize FOR. As BN makes clear, you're an honest man http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.boychat.org/messages/1383941.htm … | |||
:mickmoran @mickmoran Feb 25 | |||
:@Securityconcern @laoghain I will not be intimidated by people who have a sexual interest in children regardless of how they write it up. | |||
:Favorited: S Ann Lane | |||
:11:57 AM - 25 Feb 2014 • | |||
(Kamil had let @laoghain in on the dialogue after she repeatedly 'favorited' Moran's response tweets - a sort of Twitter kudo.) | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern Feb 25 | |||
:@mickmoran @laoghain 'Intimidation' is an inappropriate 'spin' on some fair comment that mostly criticizes influence of bizarre academics | |||
It is anyone's guess where the feeling of intimidation was coming from. Ordinarily quoting a person's words that they explicitly say are 'for the record' is not considered to constitute intimidation. | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern Feb 25 | |||
:@mickmoran @laoghain These people say the 'virtual child' and the 'essence of childhood' are items that can be criminally abused via thought | |||
:mickmoran @mickmoran Feb 26 | |||
:@Securityconcern @laoghain I have already said I have no problem with thought. | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern Feb 26 | |||
:@mickmoran @laoghain Thanks for stressing that. I understood, but was pointing out that Quayle et al. DO have a problem with thought. | |||
:mickmoran @mickmoran Feb 27 | |||
:@Securityconcern @laoghain Thanks --enter name here--. I don't agree. (A symbol in the text had to be altered because it is banned html in Boychat format - BN) | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern Feb 27 | |||
:@mickmoran @laoghain You're welcome to post views on 'the virtual child;' what is and is not 'acting out' within still-legal actions? etc | |||
:mickmoran @mickmoran Feb 27 | |||
:@Securityconcern virtual child....what is a virtual child in your mind? Bart Simpson? | |||
Since the 'virtual child' is a woolly, quasi-voodooistic concept invented by academics Ethel Quayle and David Oswell, Kamil simply quoted the closest thing to a definition that could be found in the relevant literature. | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern Feb 27 | |||
:@mickmoran "on the basis of the differential calculus of the collection, but also on the basis that such a differential calculus is.... | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern Feb 27 | |||
:@mickmoran ...actualised through its orientation toward the child as a virtual image: each time the catalogue is accessed, each time the .. | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern Feb 27 | |||
:@mickmoran image is used, the virtual child is victimised... over and above the nature of the photograph itself [ie, whether real or not] | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern Feb 27 | |||
:@mickmoran http://xuk.obu-investigators.com/library/13a/oswell_images_matter.pdf … Best to let Oswell define it. | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern Feb 27 | |||
:@mickmoran As for Bart Simpson, one must be circumspect when citing a victim of virtual child abuse http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html … | |||
The article linked there is the famous case where an Australian gent was convicted and fined for child pornography because he had downloaded some fake Simpsons cartoons showing members of the hepatitic, four-fingered family nude and in sexual positions. | |||
:mickmoran @mickmoran 5h | |||
:@Securityconcern '''This whole site is Quasi-academia and innuendo dressed up as fact. The courts spoke. The rest is propaganda. #stop''' | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern 5h | |||
:@mickmoran Injustice is never the end of the story. Innocent men are in prison again. History goes on. Truth has to make a case for itself | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern 5h | |||
:@mickmoran We have demonstrated clinchingly that prosecutors of the matter in the USA used false information. You don't respond to that. | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern 4h | |||
:@mickmoran If there is integrity there, show me the money. | |||
Kamil says that he didn't want to be a pest and ask to clarify which site, in this climate of protected free speech, was being instructed to 'stop' -- or to '#stop," if the hashtag makes a difference. | |||
Boychat? Boywiki? Confusion about the site where Oswell's turgid paper was posted? A reference to my article itself as a 'site?' | |||
The mickmoran twitter account clearly states that it is a personal account, not the official voice of Interpol. It has had plenty of interactions in the past with shadowy Anonymous figures like @meepkittyfuck, as well as prominent pedophile-obsessed Munchausen-Syndrome types like Lori Handrahan (The omnipresent, multi-socked Lori is obsessed by the idea that her ex-husband abuses their daughter, even though published official inquiries have firmly rebuffed those assertions). | |||
Kamil seems to have been the first anonymous internetter that Moran has demanded the name of as a sign of credibility. The --insert name here -- | |||
goad followed up on several attempts to elicit his real name that can be seen in the recent article | |||
Should Moran's injunctions to stop, demands for real names, and complaints of intimidation be taken as threats, or as heartfelt pleas arising from as yet unadmitted embarrassment about previous comments? There are some possibly encouraging signs that intimidation is not what he has in mind, such as the following side-conversation: | |||
:mickmoran @mickmoran Feb 25 | |||
:I will certainly NEVER apologise to anyone who consider themselves to be part of the "minor-attracted activist community". @Securityconcern | |||
:(retweeted by Graham Grant) | |||
:Graham Grant @GrahamGrant4 Feb 25 (Retired DCI, child abuse investigation expert, now lecturer at FE college, UN & IOM consultant to CIS countries) | |||
:@mickmoran Mick who we need to take on? | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern | |||
:@GrahamGrant4 @mickmoran There's no dishonor in belonging to the "MA activist community" when one is not advocating for exploitation --- | |||
:Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern | |||
:@GrahamGrant4 @mickmoran ...but rather for full social respect for those of unpractice-able sexual orientation who have desisted freely | |||
:mickmoran favorited your Tweet | |||
:Feb 26 | |||
Perhaps there is the basis of a mutual understanding there. | |||
Meanwhile, as Kamil and Moran were conversing, a highly cloaked, completely pseudonymous Slovenian-Australian immigration activist known only as 'S' (or formerly 'Shazzam'), @dopsdingers, chimed in with some retweets of Moran's replies. When Kamil suggested that she retweet the link to the article that the replies were in reference to, she simply replied 'FUCK OFF.' Her Twitter header shows her describing herself as 'sweary,' i.e., profane. | |||
Moran has been interacting with her since at least June, according to a [http://archive.is/GmukD page] someone archived on the 'personal wayback machine' archive.is. | |||
I wonder what she'd say to him if he demanded to know what her real name was. | |||
{{boxes end}} | {{boxes end}} | ||
Line 468: | Line 605: | ||
*[[Azov Films Prosecutions - Canada]] | *[[Azov Films Prosecutions - Canada]] | ||
*[[Azov Films Prosecutions - United Kingdom]] | *[[Azov Films Prosecutions - United Kingdom]] | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
*[http://www.brongersma.info/index.php?title=The_Azov_films_-_Police_secretly_redefine_the_law The Azov films - Police secretly redefine the law] | *[http://www.brongersma.info/index.php?title=The_Azov_films_-_Police_secretly_redefine_the_law The Azov films - Police secretly redefine the law] | ||
*[https://www.boychat.org/messages/1383941.htm Mick Moran of Interpol and Pro-active Pedo Policing (original post to BoyChat)] | *[https://www.boychat.org/messages/1383941.htm Mick Moran of Interpol and Pro-active Pedo Policing (original post to BoyChat)] | ||
*[http://www.boychat.org/messages/ | *[http://www.boychat.org/messages/1384569.htm Mick Moran, Interpol, asks 'stop' to Azov critique (original post to BoyChat)] | ||
[[Category: | |||
{{Navbox Bernie Najarian|collapsed}} | |||
{{Navbox Azov Films and related articles|collapsed}} | |||
[[Category:News articles by Bernie Najarian]] | |||
[[Category:Canada]] | [[Category:Canada]] | ||
[[Category:United Kingdom]] | [[Category:United Kingdom]] | ||
[[Category:Activism]] | |||
[[Category:Azov Films]] |
Latest revision as of 15:43, 16 March 2021
Intro
This article was originally posted to BoyChat on February 24, 2014. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and not necessarily those of BoyWiki or Free Spirits and is presented here to provide further insight into the Azov Films Prosecutions and Operation Spade. All rights reserved.
Mick Moran of Interpol and Pro-active Pedophile Policing By Bernie Najarian
Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern Kamil Beylant @Securityconcern
The Irish newspaper The Independent proudly elaborated his Irish background:
Here we can see the same dichotomy coming into play as we saw in the case of the clothed images. Families, when taking naked photographs, have a blessing gaze, and thus their photographs are contextually OK. A pedophile taking exactly the same photographs would have a self-interested, cursing gaze and thus exploit the children, regardless of how protective and respectful he actually felt about them. The same principle, say Taylor et al., also applies in art. This is interesting. We know Michaelangelo Caravaggio was sexually interested in the street boys he painted in famous studies like his ‘Amor Vincit Omnia.’ Some may even have been his lovers. These paintings are thus arguably records of crime scenes, and the Louvre glorifies Caravaggio’s sexual exploitation every day it opens up. Finns will have to rethink their attitude to their beloved Magnus Enckell, whose many paintings of naked boys are described as “openly erotic and sensual” in Wikipedia. Say goodbye to a whole room in the Ateneum art museum in downtown Helsinki. There are dozens more examples like this. In case this connection of Moran and colleagues to questions about art seems far-fetched, consider the case of Spade arrestee Joe Wilson, who was pilloried by the Justice Department and the press for his legal possession of “a large portrait of a young, naked boy” – in fact, as the Justice Department was too cowardly to mention, a painting by the world-famous Otto Lohmüller. The threat to the art world from the Moran axis of policing is very real indeed.
|
Addendum February 28, 2014
It was not a big surprise, then, when Moran responded in Twitter to the initial Boychat posting of the recent article before any links to it had been sent out.
Kamil presently responded.
(Kamil had let @laoghain in on the dialogue after she repeatedly 'favorited' Moran's response tweets - a sort of Twitter kudo.)
It is anyone's guess where the feeling of intimidation was coming from. Ordinarily quoting a person's words that they explicitly say are 'for the record' is not considered to constitute intimidation.
Since the 'virtual child' is a woolly, quasi-voodooistic concept invented by academics Ethel Quayle and David Oswell, Kamil simply quoted the closest thing to a definition that could be found in the relevant literature.
The article linked there is the famous case where an Australian gent was convicted and fined for child pornography because he had downloaded some fake Simpsons cartoons showing members of the hepatitic, four-fingered family nude and in sexual positions.
Kamil says that he didn't want to be a pest and ask to clarify which site, in this climate of protected free speech, was being instructed to 'stop' -- or to '#stop," if the hashtag makes a difference. Boychat? Boywiki? Confusion about the site where Oswell's turgid paper was posted? A reference to my article itself as a 'site?' The mickmoran twitter account clearly states that it is a personal account, not the official voice of Interpol. It has had plenty of interactions in the past with shadowy Anonymous figures like @meepkittyfuck, as well as prominent pedophile-obsessed Munchausen-Syndrome types like Lori Handrahan (The omnipresent, multi-socked Lori is obsessed by the idea that her ex-husband abuses their daughter, even though published official inquiries have firmly rebuffed those assertions). Kamil seems to have been the first anonymous internetter that Moran has demanded the name of as a sign of credibility. The --insert name here -- goad followed up on several attempts to elicit his real name that can be seen in the recent article Should Moran's injunctions to stop, demands for real names, and complaints of intimidation be taken as threats, or as heartfelt pleas arising from as yet unadmitted embarrassment about previous comments? There are some possibly encouraging signs that intimidation is not what he has in mind, such as the following side-conversation:
Perhaps there is the basis of a mutual understanding there. Meanwhile, as Kamil and Moran were conversing, a highly cloaked, completely pseudonymous Slovenian-Australian immigration activist known only as 'S' (or formerly 'Shazzam'), @dopsdingers, chimed in with some retweets of Moran's replies. When Kamil suggested that she retweet the link to the article that the replies were in reference to, she simply replied 'FUCK OFF.' Her Twitter header shows her describing herself as 'sweary,' i.e., profane. Moran has been interacting with her since at least June, according to a page someone archived on the 'personal wayback machine' archive.is. I wonder what she'd say to him if he demanded to know what her real name was. |
See also
- Azov Films
- Azov Films Prosecutions
- Azov Films Prosecutions - Canada
- Azov Films Prosecutions - United Kingdom
External links
- The Azov films - Police secretly redefine the law
- Mick Moran of Interpol and Pro-active Pedo Policing (original post to BoyChat)
- Mick Moran, Interpol, asks 'stop' to Azov critique (original post to BoyChat)