(Boylove News Articles) - Spading Up Hate: Joanna Beaven-Desjardins' Big Lie

From BoyWiki
Revision as of 16:36, 2 January 2022 by Etenne (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


This article was originally posted to BoyChat on December 13, 2013. 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.

Spading Up Hate: Joanna Beaven-Desjardins’ Big Lie:

By Bernie Najarian
With contributions from Kamil S. Bey, Kristofor and Artémie Khazdjian

A hush fell across the room on Nov. 14, 2013, as the Metropolitan Toronto Police, flanked by partners from multiple international police forces, stood at the podium in the Toronto, Canada Police Headquarters Media Gallery, poised to make a major announcement.

The momentary hush was the final instalment of a much longer hush that had been going on since May, 2011. Now, the silence was about to be shattered in a big way, as an outstanding triumph of cooperative policing was announced. A major child porn distributor based in Toronto, Azov Films, had been dismantled, along with the vast worldwide ring of pedophiles it had served. The long-lasting police operation involved, called Operation Spade or Project Spade, was finally having its day in the sun.

Across town, much bigger crowds of reporters were frantically trying to buttonhole Toronto mayor Rob Ford, a ruddy human football who had just confessed to smoking crack cocaine. The Toronto Star newspaper had been needling for over a year at the mayor and his Somali drug pirate friends, and had finally succeeded in popping their silence. On one side of town, journalists fought against a hush; on the other, they came to collect the spoils of colluding in one.

The Toronto Star, in the Azov Films case, was especially deeply implicated in the hush. In exchange for years of silence, Toronto police had given the paper special access to their ongoing Azov investigations. Star reporters had even used the international police connections and surreptitiously travelled to Romania, where they had interviewed the families of boys who had wrestled in the nude in ‘naturist’ films produced by filmmaker Markus Roth. These films had been sold to the public by the Azov distribution center in Canada. The Star’s information was withheld from publication until the big police press event was ready to be staged.

The Toronto police were collaborating in the investigation with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), a special police force for crimes involving the U.S. mails, and with national forces in Australia, Spain, South Africa, New Zealand, Israel, Ukraine, Romania, Germany and Mexico, among others. The Azov investigations were a deep secret in all these countries except the Ukraine. As individual customers of Azov were arrested, affidavits and press releases in the US only reported that the men had received materials from “a foreign company” or “a Toronto company.”

On the internet, communities of minor-attracted people who were aware of Azov Films – long in the open and purported to be a perfectly legal purveyor of naturist cinema – cracked the story early, in Aug., 2011, based on Russian-language news reports on the Crimean Peninsula of the Ukraine. They attempted to get the ongoing mega-bust into the news elsewhere. After Sept., 2012, when the keynote arrest of pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Richard Keller was individually publicized in Boston, special web pages were set up listing the arrested men and the accusations laid against them. Fresh news reports of people being arrested for ‘child pornography’ were sifted for clues that disclosed the hidden Azov link, such as an allusion to videos ‘received from a foreign company.’ A clear pattern could soon be seen despite the police obfuscation.

Internetters wrote to reporters to show them that the individual arrest stories were linked to a much bigger picture, and to clarify that the materials in question had long been considered naturist and legal rather than pornographic. Surely it was of interest that child pornography prosecutions were going forward based on material that had been repeatedly lawyered as legal. Men were being arrested left and right who had had no legal mens rea – that is, no intention to break the law. Nonetheless, nearly all journalists worldwide boycotted these efforts and maintained the overall hush. Police clearly had warned them off the story, perhaps with the conventional line that investigations were ongoing and suspects shouldn’t be tipped off. The suspects in this case, though, had all been completely above board in their dealings with Azov, and had used their credit cards and personal email addresses. There was no chance of anyone evading identification as a purchaser. It didn’t matter. The only exception outside the Ukraine to the total press blackout was one reporter, Matthew Crane, writing for an Indiana paper called the Dubois County Free Press. He disclosed everything to local readers. It appeared that this aptly named paper was, perhaps, the only truly free press left in North America. Journalists today, one suspects, are so dependent on police forces for their daily feed of drama that they will normally suppress a major story indefinitely as long as the police wish them to do so. And when they do release the story, they will generally spin it as the police want them to spin it.

When press blowout day finally came for the Azov affair, how the police did spin that story. They twirled it in style. The Azov press party was like the Academy Awards. The stage in the Toronto Police ‘media gallery’ featured a ceremonial line of officers and online activists, all dressed in their best uniforms or suits. Inspector-in-Charge Jerry O’Farrell was there from USPIS headquarters in Washington, DC, along with his lead investigator Brian Bone. Police were present from every regional unit in Canada that had participated in Spade, and they were joined by colleagues from Australia, Spain and Mexico. It was a gala occasion, lacking only streamers and disco balls. The amount of public money spent on airfare, accommodation, meals, and maybe champagne for all the international glory-sharers must have been prodigious.

“As you look behind me, you’ll see an incredible array of different uniforms and police agencies represented,” crowed Toronto police chief Bill Blair, introducing the press conference. But, then again, why not throw an event? The story the police had to tell was as dramatic as any seen in a Hollywood crime blockbuster.

The reality of Azov Films was not as dramatic as the show that was about to take place. The company, according to online statements still visible in web archives, had consulted with lawyers throughout its existence, and had plausibly represented itself as supplying naturist videos and photographs that were legal in most Western countries. Toronto Police, during question period at the press conference, disclosed that they had investigated Azov in 2005, and, as lead Project Spade investigator Inspector Joanna Beaven-Desjardins (surnamed just Beaven by Bill Blair) stated, “no charges were deemed to be appropriate at that time.”

American law, similarly, had a track record of judgments indicating that ‘nudity only,’ without sexual content or marked genital focus, was ‘protected content’ under the constitutional right to free speech. Producers of the Azov videos therefore rigorously controlled their content to be non-sexual in nature. The videos consistently featured boys mostly from age 8 to 15, and featured them in the buff, so a sexual interest on the part of at least some viewers could reasonably be inferred. The subjects of the films, however, came from countries where naturism or at least skinny-dipping and nude communal saunas were well established as acceptable. They were encouraged to act naturally and were not put into sexual situations, deliberately or accidentally. The Azov website said “We do not sell nor condone the sale of child pornography. Our naturist/nudist films are of authentic naturism and are not obscene, lewd, sexually oriented, lascivious, or pornographic. They are not illegal to own, sell or distribute. Our naturist films are suitable for viewing by all family members.” In films from the Ukraine, the subjects played sports, swam, lay on the beach, took showers, and basked in the Russian sauna (Detailed descriptions of the scenes shown in the movies are found in over 30 affidavits released to the public in the USA as individuals were arrested. Many of these affidavits are linked in Will Robinson’s Azov Films wiki page. In Romania, the boys played out the same sorts of nude wrestling scenes as are shown on thousands of ancient Greek pots and potsherds from nearby regions.

Prosecution was only possible in the U.S. because of a legal innovation introduced by USPIS strategists: any scene in the naturist sports where the nudity shown revealed the front of the body was cited as ‘displaying the genitals’ and was therefore recast as ‘lascivious’ on that basis. This allowed invocation of the previously determined ‘Dost criteria’ suggested for use in the US to distinguish erotic from banal nudity in material involving children. Similarly, scenes showing any bending of the reverse side of the body were accused of ‘exposing the anus,’ even though Azov’s editing had prevented any actual sight of the subjects’ anuses, and had excluded gestures that would appear to be provocative.

The spin placed on this material in the police gala gave out a much different picture than that seen by careful readers of affidavits. The verbal twisting was subtle at first, as such efforts generally are. Ultimately, though, the police managed to spin the straw of ‘possibly over-appreciated naturism’ into the investigational gold of ‘frank child pornography.’ They began their spinning by mentioning truly explicit child pornography, not connected with Azov Films, that they had found at the home of Azov owner Brian Way. Beaven cited “hundreds of thousands of images and videos detailing hundreds of thousands of horrific sexual acts against very young children.” She then spoke of seizing 45 terabytes of data at Azov’s warehouse, an amount, she pointed out, that if printed on paper, would yield a pillar higher than 1500 CN Towers stacked one above the other (The CN Tower is a 1960’s ‘space needle’ type construction in Toronto, 1,815 ft. or 553 meters high). A quick calculation shows that that would take the digitized porn to the edge of the Earth’s exosphere, raising the possibility of putting together a bridge of pornographic zeroes and ones extending to the moon after a few more investigations. The contents of any typical DVD warehouse, however, would stretch much higher than Azov’s space tower in the same calculation system.

After that bit of theater, in descriptions of Azov Films, Beaven said simply, “investigators believed many of these images were consistent with the Canadian criminal code definition of child pornography.” This was plausible, in that Canadian law (Criminal Code section 163.1) allows a judge or jury to decide subjectively whether nude images that were not intrinsically sexual when made, were, nonetheless, recorded “for a sexual purpose.” What Beaven didn’t mention was that a track record of American legal cases had specifically rejected this sort of subjectivity, leaving naturist images squarely on the right side of U.S. law.

In response to Beaven’s opening salvo, reporters asked some probing questions. . “Was it sort of borderline?” asked a woman who had clearly done some homework. “Do you think that some of the people who were getting these images didn’t consider them to be child sexual abuse images?”

Beaven responded with a brazen fudge line: “They were clearly child pornography – clearly children being sexually abused and/or exploited.” This answer could be defended as reciting a broad definition of child pornography, but to most people, it would very strongly imply that sexual contact was being made. Nothing of the sort occurred in any of the films, including those repeatedly treated as the most incriminating in U.S. affidavits.

The reporter continued, “So people who were buying these movies knew exactly what they were doing.”

“Yes, correct,” Beaven replied.

In fact, a reading of the individual affidavits on Azov customers discloses that many stated that they believed their purchases were legal, similar to other naturist offerings available on Amazon websites and elsewhere. Their suppositions have been supported by one U.S. court. In Valencia, California, a typical Azov-related child pornography possession charge against teacher Douglas R. Collins was reduced to a misdemeanor. A spokesperson for the local District Attorney’s office said, “A thorough review of the evidence revealed that the material in the defendant’s possession did not meet the legal definition of child pornography. The content did not depict minors engaging in sexual activity. Rather, the videos were of nudist/naturist activities.”

In the Toronto press conference, such views were not to be heard.

As the press question period continued, the online video of the conference, filmed with a static camera pointed at the stage, recorded a male voice tentatively identified by confidential sources as that of the Toronto Globe and Mail’s Tu Thanh Ha. He asked, “I’m sorry, could you clarify (your assertion that the videos were pornographic), because the company promoted itself as selling what it called naturist movies, yet you say that some of the movies depict explicit sexual acts?”

“Yes – I didn’t say that,” Beaven replied, cautiously contradicting herself. “I think you may have got that from somewhere else. However, the pictures and videos we have been investigating are definitely child pornography as defined under the criminal code, meaning that it’s children being sexually exploited, pictures being taken for a sexual purpose.”

“Which does not mean necessarily a sexual act,” the man rejoined.

“No,” Beaven replied, “not always a sexual act for a sexual purpose.”

This may seem, so far, to lack pizzazz as a pornographic horror story, but the missing element of drama was supplied by Jerry O’Farrell of USPIS.

“The child victims identified in this operation numbered over 300,” O’Farrell said when he took the stage. “These 300 children have had their lives altered forever.”

The impression this left on the minds of the public, as news stories quoted it, can be illustrated with the comments posted on the CNN wire story that appeared in Kentucky’s ky3 news service on Nov. 14.

Terrence Lee • Top Commenter Whenever a dog attacks and harms a child it is destroyed. Should the same thing happen to all of these 350 people (she means the 348 arrested worldwide)?

Gloria Hughes • Chief Examiner at CIC Pedophilia is a disease that is cured with bullets.

Peggy Fischer • Marshall Senior High If they knew something was going on in 2005 then WHY did it take that long to get help for the children?? (O’Farrell’s story backfired to some extent, making police look incompetent - BN)

Carol Goldsberry-Albrecht That was what I was thinking. How many innocent lives could have been saved if they didn't wait so long? Bea Hall • Texas County Technical College So where are these children now? Were any of them children that had been kidnapped?

Karen Erkiletian • Works at Mercy Clinic Rolla God bless those who helped save those children. I pray all the children receive counseling and hopefully are reunited with loved ones who will help them recover from their horrible experience. I hope all those sick people who were involved in this, rot in prison for the rest of their miserable lifes (sic).

Emily Anonmaly (pseudonym for Anonymous supporter Emily Ann Croushore - BN) Northern Arizona University You do realize though these children will likely be turned over to foster homes where there is great probability they will be sexually victimized again. 70% of children in child protective services across the nation have been raped and/or sexually assaulted. Sick world we live and it's time we brought back the death penalty for rape.

Karen Erkiletian • Works at Mercy Clinic Rolla I agree with you Emily. It is a sick sad world and scares me what it will be like the older my grandchildren get and they begin to have children of their own too. I believe the death penalty would be appropriate for rape, esp of children. Sometimes I think we need to go back to biblical ways. Hope you and yours are doing well!

O’Farrell’s numbers incited the public to homicidal outrage, creating visions of hundreds of kidnapped children being tearfully reunited with their parents after being raped by Azov customers. The numbers of victims and the time involved in the investigation also made the police look like slackers who’d let kids be diddled for five years while they did their paperwork, but that bit of counterspin could easily be overlooked.

We now know, thanks to the documentary efforts of pseudonymous internetters ‘Will Robinson,’ ‘Affan’ ‘Kristofor’ and ‘TJ,’ that this figure of 300 ‘victims’ in the USA (the official number was “more than 330” as of Nov. 14, 2013, according to the Toronto Star) is, at best, mysterious. It is perhaps imaginatively calculated or even, for the most part, fabricated. Of the 76 men arrested for their Azov purchases in the US, all but 22 have had their offences detailed in the press. Also, prosecutors’ affidavits are available for the majority. The number of children involved in contact sexual offences with these men, excluding a small number of cases prosecuted and fully dealt with in the past, was 13 to 15 in the US and eight outside the country. Only eight of the 54 known arrestees were involved in those offences. In addition, another eight arrestees had historic charges that had been legally dealt with, including one acquittal and two cases of dropped or unfiled charges. Four of these eight were registered sex offenders. No person charged or investigated in the past for contact offences was involved in any new offences of that nature. Of the 13 to 15 current, US-based ‘victims’ (some of whom would have been considered legally consenting in the nearly half of US states with an age of consent at 16), a high proportion were involved in previously undisclosed cases from the distant past, and were well into adulthood at the time of the Azov investigation. Based on all available details, the actual number of Americans who were children in 2011 and who were rescued from contact offences as a result of Project Spade is fewer than 10. No number is insignificant, but to give out the figure of 10 rescued children doesn’t have quite the same impact as stating there were 330.

Perhaps, though, since children were being rescued from ‘exploitation’ in general, photography was involved rather than contact offences.

O’Farrell certainly seemed to imply this. Apparently continuing to talk about the 300 rescued children, he said, “The images of them become a permanent record of the sexual abuse of a child. In this operation, the victims were all pre-pubescent (mispronounced), some as young as 5 years of age. Once child pornography images are posted on the internet, they can continue to circulate forever.”

He ended off with the catechism of contemporary police voodoo about child spirits living in images: “The child is re-victimized as the images are viewed again and again.”

These comments by O’Farrell only deepened the mystery. None of the 54 documented Azov cases in the US involved a man who made pornographic images of children he was in contact with, and then posted them on the internet. Nor were any such images of personally known children sent out through direct internet communication or any other medium, including the mails. There were some flagrant cases of privately held videos. Most notably, gym teacher Scott Studer, over an eight-year period, filmed a total of 76 high school students taking showers. Elementary school janitor Josh Ensley installed hidden cameras that videotaped childrens’ genitals in the washrooms of a school where he worked. Jeffrey Hines videotaped two children in his home washroom. James Manring, perhaps the man O’Farrell was alluding to with his statement that children as young as five were filmed, recorded his sexual encounters with seven preschoolers in the mid-1990’s in Japan, Later, according to statements made to police, he resolved never to touch children sexually again, and held to his resolution until the time he was arrested. Police officer Philip Woolery somehow managed to film a 16-year-old boy masturbating in a swimming pool, without having any other documented interaction with the youth. The boy was not cited as a victim in press reports about Woolery’s trial, and we presume that he was spared the trauma of being identified and notified that his youthful indiscretions had been recorded. And then there was David Engle.

O’Farrell described him as “an attorney and youth baseball coach in the state of Washington who pled guilty to producing over 500 videos of children, all under the age of 16, who he sexually molested.”

That sounds like a lot of children. What O’Farrell omitted is that around 495 of those videos involved the same teenaged child. A single additional child was involved in the remainder. Serious legal offences, then, but not greatly adding to the mystery number of 300 victims. The two boys are included in the general contact offence count of 13 to 15, given above.

The total number of American victims of the arrested men’s intrusive, illegal photography numbered 76 + an unknown number (Ensley) + 2 + 2 = 80 + Ensley’s number. Ensley is unlikely to have filmed 220 sets of genitals. There are at least 200 American victims of sexual exploitation in O’Farrell’s press conference story who remain unaccounted for, plus another 30 added on in the Toronto Star’s official count. Were they victims of the unknown 22 offenders? This seems very unlikely. O’Farrell gave a list of the most serious and dramatic cases he had seen, and although the names of suspects were not spoken, the details clearly matched those of Engle, Ensley, Manring and Woolery. It is highly unlikely that any of the 22 arrested, unpublicized men could account for a substantial fraction of the missing hundreds of rescued children, and yet still not be mentioned among the serious cases.

Lead USPIS investigator Brian Bone told the Toronto Star in separate interviews that, as reporter Julian Sher put it, “At (age) 31, he has seen often graphic abuse and pain, yet the level of suffering among child victims he uncovered in Project Spade never fails to unnerve him.” That may be so, but was the unnerving pain seen strictly among the 13 to 15 contact victims, or was there soul-shearing agony evident among the estimated 100 who were surreptitiously filmed for unethical home viewing? Without wishing to invade anyone’s privacy, we must ask if it would not be illuminating to clarify what criteria USPIS was using to define a child rescued from exploitation.

The answers Beaven gave during the question period shed very little light on what was going on.

“Can you elaborate on the children rescued?” asked a reporter. “Are we talking about children being taken out of homes, or film studios? What does that mean that they were rescued?”

After clarifying that the ‘rescued’ count only applied to children the Azov customers knew, not to the children filmed in the Azov productions, Beaven answered, “They were removed from the situation of the sexual abuse.” In response to a later question, she said, “It’s a first for the magnitude, one, of the victims saved. That, to us, is the paramount result that we want – that’s a first for us.”

Canada, according to the Toronto Star, only claimed 24 “victims saved” after 108 men had been arrested, numbers that were in line with those given by other countries such as Australia. There was nothing else, anywhere in the world, comparable to the massive number of ‘rescues’ claimed in the US.

Seeking further clarity, a reporter asked, “And you did mention there were a few cases where the people who have been arrested or who were involved knew the victims? Are there – was that also a majority of it, or were there a lot of people who did not know the victims who were being exploited?”

In terms of documented US cases, you already know that eight arrestees out of 54 had had undisclosed sexual contact with children they knew. Beaven’s answer?

“I can’t say that it was the majority, but it was an investigation that surprised our officers on how many hands-on, meaning how many actual people that were arrested actually also sexually abused.”

In the case of Azov arrestee William Shaffer from Michigan, Wylie Christopher, the USPIS inspector involved, told wxyz.com that, “Statistics show that 1 in 3 people that view child pornography have molested a child.” That’s 33%. Among the publicized US Azov cases, even if the non-backsliding historical offenders are included, the number is only 16/54. That’s 29%. If the previously unprosecuted offenders are singled out, the ratio is 15%, or about 1 in 6, half the usual rate. How do we reconcile those numbers with the statement that “it was an investigation that surprised our officers on how many hands-on” cases there were? Beaven couldn’t be citing Canadian cases, since with only 24 child rescues among 108 Azov arrestees, even if each rescued child was being abused by a separate arrestee, that would only involve 22% of the men, or less than 1 in 4.

What are we missing here, Inspector Beaven?

With consummate showmanship, Beaven saved the best until last.

‘This is just the beginning of these types of investigations of this magnitude,’ she said near the end of the question period. In response to a related question about how the investigations were being adapted to changing times, she added, “Now we’ve gone underground with the internet, and all these people with the same sexual desires – predators (conspicuous gesture of exasperation on the video) – they can get together, basically unknown, in a covert way.”

The last sentence contained the ploy that surprised me the most. Beaven clearly referred to all persons attracted to minors, “people with the same sexual desires,” as “predators.” Let’s have a look at a couple of these ‘predators’ from the Azov arrests. North Bay, Ontario’s Edward Rutherford, 55 when arrested, owned a variety store that had sponsored community hockey teams for years, including one involving children. He had never touched a child sexually (Like many arrestees, he endured considerable publicity when arrested, and we can expect that at least some persons with historical complaints would have come forward.) He had also never downloaded or viewed conventional child pornography. He had an adult son. According to his lawyer, he had become intrigued by what seemed to be an unusually attractive ‘nudist’ website. Predator? Only if looking upon willing, naked frolic is equivalent to lethal carnivory. How about Joseph Wilson, 43, well loved teacher from Villa Rica, Georgia? Wilson was a hobby sculptor who was in the process of sculpting a boy au naturel, but was too discreet to use live models, so he ordered some Azov material instead. He had no track record of contact or photographic offenses. Is this what a ‘predator’ looks like today, or is Joanna Beaven literally ‘crying wolf?’ In fact, 24 of the 54 publicized Azov arrestees in the U.S. had spotless legal records, other than their Azov purchases, even when their belongings and personal histories were microscopically ransacked by police investigators. Several others had nothing more incriminating than a few extra photos that may or may not have met the legal definition of pornography.

The extent to which Toronto police are on a crusade against all the minor-attracted is revealed by an article that appeared in the Brisbane, Australia, Courier Mail. Detective Paul Krawczyk from the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit, described as a key officer on Project Spade, publicly lambasted the Queensland, Australia, justice system for only levying an Azov customer a $1000 fine, with no criminal conviction.

"If you think of the children who are being exploited in these (instances) and in some cases abused, to me it's unacceptable to have a $1000 fine, Det Krawczyk told reporters. (None of the children filmed in Azov productions was alleged by Romanian or Ukrainian police to have been sexually abused - BN)

The same article continues, “Police say the demand for child abuse material leads to further abuse of children. People found with the material are also frequently found to have abused children.

“Det Krawczyk said it was "time the courts realised the material was causing a cycle of abuse against children.

"‘It's completely disgusting,’ he said of the Boonah (Queensland) sentence.

"’We were pretty similar to those type(s) of releases back in 2005 and earlier. It used to frustrate me … You only possess this material if there is a sexual interest.’

Clearly, Krawczyk wants to jail everyone who has this sexual interest – every “predator” in the sense of Beaven – if only for the Canadian minimum of 14 days. That way, there’d be a record of who to watch and who restrict forever afterward. As he says, the impetus to do this has arisen since 2005.

Let’s look, then, at what may have changed between the time Azov Films passed a police inspection in 2005, and the time it became portrayed as an international ring of disgusting child-abusing pedophiles in 2011. Beaven was asked at the press conference,” have the types of movies and videos changed over those 5 years?”

Her typically sinuous answer was, “I would say, allegedly, yes, they have.”

What had actually changed at Azov during the five years? The impression given by Toronto Star stories is that the main change in Azov’s business was the increasing popularity of Markus Roth’s nude wrestling videos from Romania. Given that the clothing worn in wrestling is always scant, and that no hint of sexual engagement ever appeared in U.S. federal affidavits describing Roth’s films (despite, no doubt, minute scrutiny by police looking for erections), Azov’s shift in a pornographic direction was, at worst, marginal.

In the same period of time, however, public moral outrage over sexual abuse grew steadily. Canadian and international police, who had been raiding true pornographic exchange networks in 2009 (Operation Icarus) and 2010 (Project Sanctuary), switched in a big way to trawling legal networks for true offenders who might randomly be exposed. Their keystone venture into this new investigational strategy was Operation Rescue, the raid on the 70,000-member, scrupulously legal website boylover.net. And indeed, a small proportion of members of that site, including several administrators, were exposed as either contact offenders or illicit image collectors, even though none of the communications about those activities ran through the website itself. A small proportion of 70,000 people still amounts to a fair number of people, and 184 arrests were announced at the Operation Rescue press gala in March, 2011. The idea of filtering the legal masses via mass raids in order to snag the few illegal fellow-travelers was a smash success. All that was needed to generate further trawling success stories was a sufficient pretext to have search warrants approved against more networks of ostensibly legally acting minor-attracted people. I would argue that Azov Films became redefined as definitively pornographic at the moment when Toronto police realized that launching a pedo-hunting safari did not require that a plurality of the men investigated truly be disposed to break the law. That ‘aha’ moment arrived with a bang in March 2011. Azov Films was raided in May of the same year.

Currently, Krawczyk, Beaven and colleagues are engaged, in essence, in a fervent campaign to pin yellow stars onto all of the world’s new Juden, the minor-attracted. No pre-existing concept of legal photographic content will stand in their way, if they can circumvent it. They know that if enough harmless men can be mortified, some authentic offenders will also be turned up. Every child rescued from the minority of true offenders can be theoretically multiplied by 30 for impact, and turned into a huge ‘children rescued’ number that no one can scrutinize in any way. When the pedophiles are all tagged, and barred from parks, churches, schools, theaters and libraries, then the world will be a safer place.

Any approach more lax than that, as Krawczyk said, is ‘completely disgusting.’

Beaven, one of the great architects of this final solution, deserves the last word. Let’s repeat the one straightforwardly meaningful quote she uttered during the glittery Toronto showcase, and contemplate it in all its verbally convoluted glory:

“This is just the beginning of these types of investigations of this magnitude.”

See also

External links