Difference between revisions of "Pedophobe of the Year:Paul Krawczyk,Toronto Police"
|Line 453:||Line 453:|
The linked reference cites a Toronto Globe and Mail article from Nov. 2006.
The linked reference cites a Toronto Globe and Mail article from Nov. 2006.
The unique stresses faced by officers who work on child-pornography cases prompted the Ontario Provincial Police a few years ago to introduce a screening and support program called Safeguard. It was designed by Dr. Peter Collins, a forensic psychiatrist for the OPP and associate professor at the University of Toronto.
"Really it's just a spinoff of trying to protect undercover officers generally," Dr. Collins said yesterday, after a brief stop in Toronto to see how Det. Constable Krawczyk was doing. "You're having them sit down with professionals to essentially debrief them and make sure they're okay."
Just to give you the context of what this all means, here’s what I said about Collins and the Canadian attitudes he influenced in my article “Ethel Quayle's new Spirit of Child Pornography: as a menace to free speech in areas unrelated to porn.”
Just to give you the context of what this all means, here’s what I said about Collins and the Canadian attitudes he influenced in my article “Ethel Quayle's new Spirit of Child Pornography: as a menace to free speech in areas unrelated to porn.”
There have been two long-standing objections to child pornography. One is the view that children should not be put in a sexual situation that is recorded for later viewing by other people. The other is that viewing such recordings might incite people to take sexual advantage of children.
… The second objection (to child pornography), the ‘opening the floodgates’ (OTF) argument, appears at first to be much simpler to uphold (than the prevailing U.S. attitude, that child pornography is bad when its production or distribution harms children, directly or indirectly). It proposes that viewing child pornography loosens up the viewer’s mind, making him imagine that the scenes he sees in the depictions are possible for him to view in the flesh or even to touch and get involved in. It also proposes that the circulation of such material infects additional people with the same loosening-up of inhibitions and prohibitions. This objection has the minor problem that it is clearly involved with thought control, directly trying to regulate what people have in their minds. In practice, however, western societies have never been afraid to erect some barriers against “thoughtcrime,” as author George Orwell called it in his novel ‘1984.’ Traditional penalties against crimes like adultery and sodomy were often exaggeratedly severe in order to frighten others away from the same orgasmically reinforced behaviours. Blanket prohibitions against publishing on sexual topics – all those bans on D.H. Lawrence’s explicit novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover – also exerted thought control against sexual no-no’s.
The main problem with OTF is that it refers to causality. It requires that you believe that images will mechanically cause people to change their thought patterns and to perform acts that they wouldn’t perform otherwise. Free will, the fundamental assumption of the justice system, must be seen to be compromised by sexual imagery. Or more simply, you have to think that many people will take a monkey-see, monkey-do approach to depictions. This may sound like common sense, since we all take in information that influences what we do, and the entire advertising industry is dedicated to motivating us with images. And yet, there are deep problems involved in assuming images will have predictable effects. We have a relationship with advertising that we don’t have with all other sorts of visuals and stories. We all know, for example, that most people can watch violent dramas on stage or on television and yet not be mechanically caused to go maim or kill people. Horror films don’t function as advertising. Indeed, watching second-hand, controlled violence – for example, in American or Australian football games – is thought to be one of our main ways of shouting aggressive urges out of our system. This is called ‘catharsis,’ when merely watching something works out the energy that might otherwise go into problematical actions. Images may cause the exact opposite of what they show.
The catharsis argument has long been applied to pornography of all kinds. Using porn has been proposed as a way of quenching urges for extramarital sex, problematic fetish behavior (think of the poor fellow a few years ago who was arrested while standing in the underside of a women’s campground outhouse, watching all the women do their thing up above – he must have had very poor internet skills) and sex with underage partners. Social-scientific studies attempting to find out whether pornography causes what it shows or defuses it are a notoriously mixed bag, some claiming an effect and some claiming no effect. Such studies are also plagued by scientific problems – biased assumptions and skewed samples. Studies on pedophiles, for example, have mostly been done on people who have been arrested or otherwise caught. The groups studied probably had exaggerated proportions of people with low intelligence (examples removed in deference to BoyChat house rules), and people whose risk-taking behavior stemmed from serious depression or other existing mental health problems. These highly arrestable subgroups are also the most likely groups to take a monkey-see-monkey-do approach to images: the very-low-intelligence person might see new ideas he truly had never thought of, and then have no idea why they shouldn’t be acted on; the sociopath might reason that if someone else was actually getting something that was only a fantasy for him, he was darn well going to get some live action too; and the depressed person might think, ‘what have I got to lose if I do that too?’ On the other hand, the numbers of people who use erotica to subdue their socially inconvenient sexual urges are likely to be far larger than the numbers in these risk-prone special groups.
Logically, in order to believe that child pornography causes sex with children or further child porn production, you have to also believe the parallel causality stories. You cannot escape the analogy that adult hetero pornography must cause the degradation of woman and relationships, and that violent depictions must cause violence. ‘Sensual images propagate the morally loose things they show’ has to be a general conclusion – it can’t be specific to one arbitrary topic or another. In fact, the OTF campaign against child pornography on the internet is the outgrowth of a (so far) spectacularly unsuccessful campaign to eliminate adult heterosexual pornography on the grounds that it causes women to be conceived of and treated as objects. I strongly suspect that everyone who believes in OTF causality for child pornography also believes in ‘objectification’ causality in adult hetero porn. In working against child porn, these believers have simply chosen a field where the counter-arguments that trip them up are socially difficult to present. Their arguments can’t win on the adult battlefield, but the same propositions can win on the child front.
The front runner in the OTF camp in recent times has been the Supreme Court of Canada. In its key judgment R. vs. Sharpe, it bought heavily into the idea that child pornography causes unrealistic deformations to occur in the minds of those who view it. This idea was introduced to it by expert witness Dr. Peter Collins, who was then working for the Ontario Provincial Police. The court, in its judgment, accepted the following (among other, similar propositions that I won’t discuss in detail:
Dr. Collins testified at trial to the first type of harm identified by the Crown, namely that the possession of child pornography contributes to the cognitive distortions of paedophiles. He testified that it is generally accepted amongst the vast majority of forensic psychiatrists that possession of child pornography reinforces some paedophiles’ cognitive distortions. He described these “offence-facilitating beliefs” as the rationalizations and justifications that paedophiles have for their deviant behaviour. Cognitive distortions contribute to the paedophile’s belief that sexual activity with children is acceptable, and that children enjoy sex with adults. Dr. Collins concluded that child pornography, cognitive distortions and the validation of the belief that sexual activity with children is acceptable are inextricably linked.
Firstly, Collins says, the moral fundamental that ‘sex with children is unacceptable’ is literally warped out of shape within the brain by ideas arising from exposure to child pornography. Secondly, porn introduces the unthinkably unrealistic idea that ‘children enjoy sex with adults’ as a new fun-house mirror deep in the pedophile’s mind.
Collin’s first proposition is basic Victorianism: seeing any depiction of forbidden sex unforbids it. Child porn makes sex with children seem do-able. Depicting adultery makes adultery happen. Writing about promiscuity produces orgies. Allowing sale of Lady Chatterley’s Lover weakens the family. Cognitive distortions consist of permissions to accept the unacceptable, and these permissions are caused by viewing a representation of the unacceptable. Freedom of speech thus must be limited so that it doesn’t allow any representation of forbidden sex. Thought must be limited to what is legally allowed in real life – but only in the case of sex. Sex has more corrupting juju than violence or any other topic that can be shown in books, photos and movies. There are no legally problematical cognitive distortions built up by watching a grisly revenge murder on TV, but such distortions are built up by seeing realistic or cartoon imagery showing sexuality in a child.
The second proposition – that children do not enjoy sex with adults – is what philosophers, technically, would call an ‘empirical’ question. It is a real-world item that could be tested by an experiment: you could allow 500 children to decide privately if they wanted to have sex with any of 500 attractive adults, count how many (if any) decided to do so, and then interview them at later time intervals about whether or not they enjoyed it. Human behavior is a part of biology, and answers to biological questions (except where physical or chemical limits are involved) are usually statistical. It would be statistically safe to predict that some proportion of the children would enjoy sex with adults – perhaps some of the 14 year old heterosexual boys who admired the 21 year old supermodels in the adult test group. Think of the classic Summer of 42, one of the most successful movies in history. Its author, Herman Raucher, did indeed fall in love with and have sex with a 30-something woman when he was a child of 14. Evidently he enjoyed the experience very much; he spent years looking for his Dorothy and wrote a movie and a book about his profound experience of love with her.
Nonetheless, such a ‘how many kids like Raucher are there?’ experiment cannot ethically or legally be run. Its outcome can only be imagined. Collins therefore proposes the bizarre cognitive short-cut of stating that imagining one experimental outcome, non-enjoyment, is cognitively well formed, while imagining the other, enjoyment, is cognitively distorted. Indeed, extending Collin’s pseudo-logic, reading Raucher’s autobiographical story, which graphically shows a child enjoying sex with an adult, provides permanent brain corruption.
And Collins is supposed to be a scientist.
Revision as of 12:01, 5 January 2014
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
Pedophobe of the Year – Paul Krawczyk, Toronto Police:
By Bernie Najarian
This year’s winner of the ‘Phobie’ is Russian president Vladimir Putin. His award is well deserved. The thin-lipped, beady-eyed android has passed a law that bans truthful discourse about gay relationships. In effect, the law attempts to re-isolate gay youth into traditional self-hating desperation. Meanwhile, in the social climate Putin has fostered, muscle-building thugs lure gay teens in from the internet to torture and humiliate them on camera. The gangs behind this activity have almost complete legal impunity. They often represent themselves as fighting pedophilia.
Which brings us to the topic of pedophiles. The heavy sludge of social fear and loathing that once clung to gays is rapidly being dissolved away in the Western world, and is being electroplated directly back onto the minor-attracted – not just the lawbreaking members of the group, but also the law-abiding . We now have the creepy satisfaction of being able to say that ‘our haters are more hateful than yours’ in the vast schoolyard of sociopolitics. At a time in history, however, when hundreds of people a day comment on the internet that we should all be killed, anally raped and genitally mutilated, how could anyone truly stand out as our equivalent of the Homophobe of the Year? Who could we fairly call the Pedophobe of the Year?
Before I answer this question, I have to clarify the context. I’m not here to defend or excuse people who break the law, even if the law in one jurisdiction or another is imperfect. My concept of a ‘pedophobe,’ here, is that this word cannot be used to describe someone who is simply hostile to the concept of intergenerational sex involving minors. The Pedophobe of the Year has to be someone who is also unreasoningly hateful toward completely law-abiding minor-attracted people (including people who act as law-abiding at a given time, but are vulnerable when laws or their interpretations change with retroactive force).
I know that the word ‘pedophobe,’ like ‘homophobe,’ has etymological problems: it literally means ‘fearer of soil,’ while ‘homophobe’ means ‘fearer of the same.’ “Paedophobe,” a spelling one never sees, means ‘fearer of boys.’ Despite these linguistic annoyances, I think we all understand what these words are getting at.
My investigations have revealed that there is one person on this planet who truly stood out as a pedophobe in 2013. This year, he has caused more needless grief for law-abiding minor-attracted persons than anyone else, by far. He is Detective Paul Krawczyk of the Toronto Police.
Detective Krawczyk was one of the principal investigators involved in Project Spade, the insidious, two-year-long, secret mass-arrest campaign aimed at the customers of ‘naturist’ video distributor Azov Films. The firm was based in Krawczyk’s home town of Toronto, Canada. Krawczyk was instrumental, among other things, in the international coordination of the series of arrests that extended across the globe to many far-flung purchasers of Azov’s wares.
His principal accomplishment as a candidate Pedophobe of the Year does not lie in that effort alone. His true triumph lies in his successful social extortion of international police forces that were initially reluctant to cooperate with Project Spade. He was able to force them to adopt his viewpoint that the Azov customers were serious pornography-collecting criminals, rather than mostly innocuous viewers of legally sold naturist cinematography. To achieve this result, he truly did something unusual. How often do you see members of one nation’s police forces showing up in the press and publicly humiliating the forces of other, friendly nations?
The problem with Azov Films, as a police target, was that the material it sold had passed lawyers’ tests for legality in more than one country. It contained no sexual content, just photos and videos of boys involved in nude sports and recreation. Canada’s particularly conservative criminal code allowed judges to determine such ‘nudity only’ naturist material as child-pornographic if they subjectively decided that “a sexual purpose” was involved in manufacture. In most other countries, though, the materials were clearly legal or borderline-legal. Even in Canada, the home base of Azov Films, the company had survived a police raid in 2005 and its naturist wares had been accepted as non-pornographic.
Early on in Project Spade, Toronto Police obtained the enthusiastic cooperation of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), a specialized police force dedicated to preventing and detecting crimes involving the U.S. mail. The workload of this force had been declining significantly for years, in lockstep with the general decline in use of ‘snail mail,’ and USPIS, as an institution, was clearly on the road to irrelevance. Perhaps there should be no surprise, then, that the force became vigorously involved when they found out much of Azov’s material was being shipped by post through a warehouse in North Tonawanda, New York.
USPIS became so committed to arresting the Azov customers that they clearly took steps to minimize the chances that the material would be considered legally benign. Clever strategists produced a reinterpretation of the wording of existing U.S. law so that the Azov material could be represented to judges as pornographic. This reinterpretation, as can be seen in the dozens of Justice Department affidavits collected and linked at the Boywiki Azov Films page, involved labelling any frontal nudity seen in the sports activities as ‘displaying the genitals,’ and any posterior nudity involving bending as ‘displaying the anus.’ This oversexed view of naked sports allowed normal athletic movements to be represented as ‘lascivious,’ thus fulfilling one of the ‘Dost criteria’ used to distinguish pornographic from non-pornographic child nudity in the US.
Other nations’ police forces were seldom as cooperative as USPIS. Project Spade was ignored by many of the 94 countries where the Azov products had been distributed. The final list of participating police forces mentioned in Toronto Police press releases included those of Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Israel, Romania, Ukraine, Greece, Mexico, South Africa, Spain, Norway, Ireland, Hongkong, and Gibraltar. Conspicuous gaps included the U.K., and most of Europe, Asia, and South America.
Immediately after the Toronto press conference on Nov 14, 2013, where cooperating forces broke their silence about Project Spade, Krawczyk showed up in his role of international enforcer. He appeared in the news in Australia, humiliating the Australian federal police for their slowness in jumping on the Spade bandwagon. His criticisms were reported in a national news story titled “Child porn suspects slip through net after Australian Federal Police bungle.”
How often do you see members of one country’s police forces calling the legal judgments of other friendly nations ‘disgusting?’
But Krawczyk was not content just to go after Australia. The U.K. had stiffed his efforts completely. As the National Crime Agency’s Deputy Director General Phil Gormley revealed on Nov 17, “The material sent by Toronto via Interpol in 2012 was assessed at the time by CEOP (the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Center, a department with the NCA). The material related to customer details of purchasers of DVDs and videos from the internet. The ‘screen shots’ CEOP received did not show contact child sexual abuse, and were classified by CEOP's experts as Level 1 on the COPINE scale (used to rate the criminality of potentially erotic material involving children from 1, minimal, to 7, maximal -BN).”
That meant that the Azov material was judged too innocuous to excite legal interest in the UK.
Krawczyk was free to avenge himself for this after the Nov. 14 press conference.
Scandal-rag the Daily Mirror breathlessly reported on Nov. 28 that “Toronto police chief Paul Krawczyk (he’s not the chief – the error is typical Mirror sloppiness - BN) told a fortnight ago how he passed the list (of Azov customers) to UK detectives in 2012.
He said: “I know the British authorities are aware of the project but we have not been informed of any arrests or other data or conclusions.”
The Mirror’s reporter, Tom Pettifor, described the customer base as “perverts” and “suspected child abusers.”
One little bully, two big kids bashed up on the schoolyard. Australia and the United Kingdom. It was the police version of World War III, and Canada blew the enemy to self-reviewing smithereens.
It has to be said that Krawczyk wasn’t the sole Spade representative responsible for kicking the Brits and Aussies in the slats. His main partner in this enterprise, though, is someone whose name we don’t know. Since the covered-up beginning of the Azov arrest series, it has been clear that USPIS, generally in decline, has one thing going for it. Among the people who do its public relations and its legal positioning is at least one near-genius. USPIS has a professional propagandist who is so sharp that he, or she, inspires awe, the same kind of awe that Bin Laden inspired when he (not Bush) brought down the towers. Simple but brilliant.
To allow Spade to go forward in the US, brilliant legal trickery was used to make the Azov product appear illegal to judges, and then the press were masterfully fed tantalizing pieces of disconnected drama, while being completely obstructed from revealing the underlying story. As dozens of men who were otherwise legally stainless were arrested for their Azov purchases, selective disclosures by USPIS emphasized the small number of cases where child contact offences or genuine child pornography collections were discovered. Much was made, in particular, of three arrestees who were found to have made private home movies of naked children. Two men did this in school facilities where they worked, and one filmed at home, recording his interactions with a child he was allegedly ‘raping’ over a six-year period, according to his Washington State charges. The many arrestees who had lived their whole lives without legal transgression (most arrestees were over 50 years old) were ignored in publicity, other than being written up in their home town newspapers as child pornography buyers. The more dramatic American stories appeared, oddly, in newspapers in two geographic locations – in the local area of the arrested offenders, and in the UK. The UK stories appeared in the conservative scandal-tabs the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror. In retrospect, this pattern of publicity appears to have been designed to make a point to the still-uncooperative U.K. authorities.
It was in the Nov. 14 press release in Toronto, however, that the USPIS propagandist revealed his master stroke. He (or she) produced a huge and apparently unchallengeable figure, 330, as the number of child victims of sexual exploitation who had been ‘rescued’ in the US as the result of the 74 arrests made there by Project Spade. Added together with the 6 victims from Australia from 65 arrests, 24 in Canada from 108 arrests, and so on, that brought the ‘rescued children’ number up to 386 worldwide, 85% of whom were American. That’s in contrast to 348 arrestees worldwide, 22% of whom were American. That may make it seem as if one or more Americans had abused large numbers of children. The completely unrestrained Tom Pettifor of the Daily Mirror went so far as to say that police had “freed 400 child sex slaves.”
What Pettifor and others didn’t bother to check was that criminal affidavits and press reports detailing the contact and videographic offences of the individual US Azov arrestees were widely available. Complete information on the offences of 54 of the 76 US arrestees was available online, to be collected either with some personal labor or by looking at websites produced by online the minor-attracted community where the information had already been compiled. The 54 well documented arrests, including all of the worst-case examples cited by USPIS in their publicity, accounted for the ‘rescue’ of at most 16 Americans who had been exposed to sexual contact as children. Many of these 16 had already reached adulthood, some of them decades earlier. They were the only people who could possibly be conceived of as ‘sex slaves’ among the 330 U.S. ‘rescues.’
The number of children who had been ‘exploited’ via private videography, without their knowledge, was around 80, plus an uncertain number of others who could not be identified or counted because identifying features were not included in the films. One arrestee, Scott Studer, filmed a total of 74 naked boys after eight years of secret filming in the showers of a school where he taught physical education. He did not attempt to interact sexually with any of the students. Another, David Engle, made around 500 videos of sexual acts involving a single boy over a 6-year period, plus a few additional videos showing him touching another boy who was asleep. A third, Josh Ensley, became something of a ‘poster boy’ for USPIS by filming the genitalia of boys and girls using the washroom at a school where he worked as a janitor. He used a small spy camera hidden in an air freshener container, and probably filmed in a way that did not allow his targets to be identified. It seems unlikely that large numbers were involved, and even if they were, they would not be countable. If they had been countable, the counts would certainly have appeared in Ensley’s public Justice Department press releases or affidavits.
The appearance, in ‘child rescue’ lists, of over 200 ‘sex slaves’ who could not be substantiated in any way, plus an estimated 100 slaves whose enslavement consisted only of being immorally videotaped without their knowledge, gave USPIS and the Toronto Police an enormous advantage in shaming the police forces who did not cooperate with their massive pedophile roundup. The question on the mind of every U.K. citizen who picked up the Mail or Mirror to read the day’s news had to be, “How could our police miss out on arresting evil men who could be sexually enslaving hundreds of children even as we speak?” The stories even tied in to previous Mail and Mirror stories that astute readers might remember, involving perpetrators like Engle and Studer. It stood to reason that the British police must have known all this was going on. And here they were, sitting on their hands. It was absolutely outrageous.
While that was going on, Krawczyk was always available to speak to reporters and gently point out what a bloody botch their local police forces had made.
The force of public pressure on the UK police forces must have been gruelling. Most of this moral force was exerted, as in an old horror movie, by the imaginary groanings and sufferings of 300 nonexistent, ghostly slaves.
What, people might ask, motivated Krawczyk to put his fellow police officers through the torture of being held morally accountable by hundreds of apparently fabricated victims? Was he conscientiously doing his job in calling out others who appeared to be slacking? Did he sincerely believe the USPIS propagandist and pass on his fabrications unwittingly? Or was something more sinister going on?
It is understandable that Krawczyk, working day to day chatting incognito with child porn traders and contact offenders on the internet, is not fond of sex offenders. A couple of years ago, a man in St. Thomas, Ontario, began to sexually assault a pre-school-aged girl, probably his own daughter, on live cam in front of Krawczyk. Later, Donnie Snook, an allegedly prolific contact offender who was a St. John, New Brunswick city councillor, offered Krawczyk some sort of a sexually tinged interaction with a boy on live cam. Krawczyk made sure the local police got there before the session could begin.
Krawczyk cut his teeth on international child porn roundups as the coordinator of 2010’s Project Sanctuary, which led to the arrest of 57 men on a total of 218 charges. He’s good at what he does. In interviews, he sounds soft-spoken and reasonable.
The trait that identifies Krawczyk as a pedophobe is not his efficiency as a tracker of pornographic and sexual offenders. Above and beyond that, he strongly promotes his own idée-fixe that all minor-attracted people are sex offenders. He’s the sexual-politics equivalent of an officer who is convinced that all Muslims are terrorists, openly or secretly.
In his interview with the Brisbane Courier Mail, criticizing a judge who let an Azov customer off with a fine, he said that “it was ‘time the courts realised’ the (Azov) material was causing a cycle of abuse against children.”
Interestingly, an interviewer for Voice of Russia managed to get Krawczyk to yield the criteria used to define a rescued child in Project Spade – something that Project Spade lead investigator Inspector Joanna Beaven-Desjardins waffled and obfuscated about in the Nov. 14 press conference. He told the interviewer, “the children were either being sexually abused or they were being sexually exploited by having videos taken of them in exploitative positions, so whether they were, you know, having video taken without their knowledge when they were nude or actually having sexual acts performed on them and then those were videotaped.”
This statement allows us to be reasonably certain that the numbers of rescues given by USPIS was an outright fabrication, rather than a number enlarged by inclusion of types of perceived victims that were not mentioned in press materials. For example, David Engle videotaped the groin areas of some of the minor league baseball players he coached while they were on the playing field, clothed in their baseball uniforms. We can now be sure that those boys are not included among the ‘rescued children,’ since they were not filmed in the nude. We can also be sure, based on Krawczyk's definition, that USPIS wasn't counting 'prospective victims,' such as students who were at risk of being videotaped in future years if Studer and Ensley had been left to work unchecked. Krawczyk’s clarified definition leaves no way to account for the total of 330 rescued children in the US, other than to imagine that over 200 of them were linked to the 22 U.S. arrestees who, to our knowledge, were never mentioned in the press (number reduced to 19 in latest data - BN). Surely, however, unless a major case was completely covered up by USPIS and the Justice Department, none of those 22 men is responsible for hundreds of victims. All the known dramatic cases, wherever there were multiple contact offences or videotapes, were heavily publicized, and were detailed in the Nov. 14 press conference.
Krawczyk is a 43-year-old, married father of two who joined the Toronto Police force in 1996 as a street cop, patrolling some of the city’s impoverished housing projects. He has clearly found himself as a pedohunter. He and his colleague Janelle Blackadar won a joint award as Police Officer of the Year in 2012 for their work on Project Sanctuary. In a 2008 listing of public service salaries over $100,000, Krawczyk’s salary had risen to CAD 101,699.66, plus benefits, around $95,700 in current US dollars.
Many other police officers worldwide work in positions similar to the one Krawczyk holds, but he is surely the first to have successfully beaten up other national police forces whose approach to minor-attracted people seemed too soft. It is very likely that his efforts will have a lasting effect on anyone in the UK who is found to possess COPINE level 1 images, such as family-style photos of children in swimsuits at the beach. Through Project Spade’s brazen exaggeration of victim numbers, he has also had a lasting impact in promoting the idea, among police forces and judiciary worldwide, that any sign of minor attraction is sufficient to proclaim a person dangerous and justify a raid. Krawczyk, in my view, will do whatever is possible to send the most innocent and legally conscientious person to prison if any evidence of minor attraction can be found in his or her possessions or actions. After all, how can the person “not be dangerous?”
If his endorsement of USPIS’s egregious 330-victim fiction is deliberate complicity, he may be willing to lie and cheat in order to get any suspected pedophile into a cell.
Vladimir Putin is a teddy bear compared to Paul Krawczyk.
Krawczyk is the hands-down winner of the 2013 Pedophobe of the Year award.
(This article or excerpts may be reproduced in unaltered form without copyright restriction.)
Compilation by ‘Kristofor’ of the data on contact offences and offenses related to children photographed while nude or with exposed genitals. Reprinted with permission.
Links for press stories and/or affidavits for each of the U.S. Project Spade cases listed below are at http://en.boywiki.org/wiki/Azov_Films_Prosecutions
This is for comparison with the USPIS claims of 330 children rescued in the US. To be eligible for inclusion within that number, the children documented below must have been contacted or photographed within the United States. Other contact and photographic offenses, however, are mentioned separately, to allow readers to get the complete picture.
Definitions are in the first entry.
1. Kendall, Jonathan Nr. contact (number of child sexual contacts discovered for arrestee): 0 Nr. photo (number of children subjected by arrestee to photography while nude or while genitals exposed): 0
2. Wilson, Joseph Monroe Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
3. Keller, Richard Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0 Americans (possessed video, photographer not determined, showing some children playing at a French nudist resort)
4. Thomas, William Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
5. Cousens, Edward F. Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
6. Deneault Gerald Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0 (Registered sex offender with previous contact conviction)
7. Silva, Gerald Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
8. Woolery, Philip Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 1 (Video showed 16 year old boy, apparently not a personal contact, masturbating in pool)
9. Hopper, Harry Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
10. Byrd, Gary Jefferson Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0 (Had previous legal case that involved taking nude photos of children)
11. Finocchiario, Joseph Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
12. Hitt, Loyd Jeffrey Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
13. Sysock, Nicholas G. Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
14. Mason, John Charles Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
15. Ensley, Josh Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: No counts published, probably not countable (Videotaped children using washroom; had placed a spycam in an air freshener container)
16. Villemez, William Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
17. Nielsen, Andrew W. Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
18. Baynes, Michael Winston Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 1 (ambiguous) (Teenaged boy was filmed in the nude but apparently no laws were broken)
19. Engle, David S. Nr. contact: 2 Nr. photo: 2 (Made many videos of his sexual encounters with one boy. Both contacts still children in 2012 when arrest made.)
20. Studer, Scott Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 74 (Filmed children in shower and locker room at school where he worked.)
21. McClendon, Larry Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
22. Bieler, Ryan C. Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
23. Kasler, Ryan Nr. contact: 1 (in Romania, not the U.S.) Nr. photo: 0
24. Katzenmeyer, Kris Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0 (Previously registered as a sex offender; nature of offense not disclosed by state)
25. Shaffer, Mark B Nr. contact: 2 Nr. photo: 0 (contacts: one boy, contacted when 12 years old in 2008, would be 16 in 2012 when arrest made; one girl, contacted when 5 – 9 years old in 1996-2000, 21 in 2012)
26. Johnson, Stanley Keith Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 1 (Boy was photographed nude in 2004 when 8 years old; 16 in 2012)
27. Lanier, Jerry Michael Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
28. Nouwen, Robert L Nr. contact: 2? Nr. photo: 0 (82 years old when arrested. Had sexual contact with children over 40 years ago, then apparently became abstinent after asking for counselling. Two contacts were mentioned in press report, but prosecutor statements implied that there were more. All contacts apparently middle-aged or older in 2012, though ages not stated. No charges laid related to those cases but one person mentioned as making court statement.)
29. Jones, Willard I. Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
30. Mobley, James Donald Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
31. Manring, James Douglas Nr. contact: 7 (all in Japan) Nr. photo: 10 (all in Japan) (While working in pre-school in Japan, sexual contact and photography with 5 boys, 2 girls, all around 5 years old, in 1996-1999; also filmed 3 additional children playing naked. Children estimated 17 – 21 years old in 2012.)
32. Robertson, Daryl J Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0 (Previously acquitted of sexual assault on a boy)
33. Rosenfeld, Louis Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
34. McMullin, Brad Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
35. Hickey, Stephen Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
36. Czukoski, Troy Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
37. Compton, Charles Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0 (Previously registered as a sex offender based on a contact offense)
38. Forrest, Stuart Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
39. Collins, Douglas Randolph Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
40. Beres, Mark Nr. contact: 3 Nr. photo: 3 (Boys were stated as ages 3, 7 and 13 at time of contact and photography, but no indication found of whether offenses were current or in the past)
41. Hamel, Thomas Nr. contact: 2? Nr. photo: 2-4? (Only known information is that Hamel was arraigned on two counts for ‘child sexually abusive activity’ – legally defined as “a child engaging in a listed act” – and four additional counts of ‘child sexually abusive material, possession.’ Inferred two contacts, but possibly one contact subjected to two acts.)
42. Roman, Jorge A Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
43. Perian, Clifford Eric Nr. contact: 2-3 Nr. photo: 0 (Had 3-4 teenaged contacts, but the age range given was 16-17; the age of consent in home state Colorado is 17. According to a Justice Dept. press release “There were … allegations that Perian sexually touched and was sexually touched by at least three boys ages 16 to 17 in approximately 2004 through 2006.” All contacts over 20 in 2012 when arrest made.).
44. Guros, Evan Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
45. Shaffer, William Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0 (Was accused of contact offense 26 years before Spade arrest, never prosecuted.)
46. Downsbrough, Bruce O. Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0 (Had past record of accusation dealt with by police >25 yr earlier; not prosecuted)
47. Hager, Stanton Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
48. Hines, Jeffrey Lynn Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 2-3 (Photographed two children in his home bathroom using a hidden camera; possessed a video, possibly taken by him, featuring a boy “in a vehicle at night engaging in a sex act.” Was previously registered as a sex offender for a contact offense involving a 6-year-old).
49. Russell, Richard Dean Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
50. Burnham, Gerald Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0 (Registered sex offender with previous offense involving a 15-year-old).
51. Appel, Charles Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
52. Bennett, Clifton Brett Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
53. Meyer, Walter Thomas Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
54. Mitchell, James Rick Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
55. Loskarn, Jesse Ryan Nr. contact: 0 Nr. photo: 0
out of 74 arrests mentioned at the Project Spade press conference on Nov. 14. Unaccounted for at compilation date: 19 arrestees.
Total American children ‘rescued’ as children from illegal sexual contact at the time of arrest: 3 definite, possibly as many as 8, but ambiguous news stories prevent clarification.
Total American children and current adults affected as children by contact offenses, recent or historic, newly revealed by Project Spade. 12-14 mentioned; Robert L. Nouwen appears to have confessed to more incidents that occurred over 30 years ago.
Added note by BN: The number of additional American children who were not subjected to contact but who were ‘rescued’ by discovery of secretly held nude photography in which they figured, was 78-79, in addition to an unknown number partially photographed by Josh Ensley in case number 15. It isn’t clear if students who were photographed in the past in schools would be considered ‘rescued’ when the photographic images were discovered years later.
A comment by ‘Kristofor’ on Bernie Najarian’s article ‘Pedophobe of the Year: Paul Krawczyk, Toronto Police’
When I read the opinions of Paul Krawczyk, they sound curiously familiar.
In particular, as paraphrased by Brisbane Courier-Mail reporter, Krawczyk said “it was ‘time the courts realised’ the material (videos and photos from Azov Films showing non-sexual child nudity) was causing a cycle of abuse against children.” And then he said, “(Possession of such materials shows) a sexual interest in children. How can that not be dangerous?”
These statements embody two of the primary principles of Victorian-era sexual philosophy that remain with us today.
1. The statement, “the material was causing a cycle of abuse” grows from the following generality: images or writing reflecting socially heterodox sexual ideas straightforwardly cause deviant or promiscuous sex to occur with increased frequency. This was the essence of the argument used to ban the D.H. Lawrence novel, ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover.’
2. The statement, “(that) 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.
Typically, Krawczyk mentions psychiatric studies in support of proposition number 1. In fact, the issue of the extent to which pornography causes any kind of behavior is profoundly controversial, and nothing is considered proven. You can find studies supporting every position from ‘positive effect on human relations’ to ‘no effect at all’ to ‘profoundly negative effect on human relations.’ A major problem is that most researchers and funding organizations embark on such studies with unstated biases that then skew the results. Add in the fact that into the 1980s, many publishing psychiatrists (unlike some categories of psychologists) were complete statistical naïfs, and you get a profoundly unsettled area of investigation.
The proposition about deviants lacking social responsiveness is simply superstition. It has no basis whatsoever. It relates to the basic idea in Victorian, white-man’s-empire-building militarism that anyone with social responsiveness would conform to the uniformities (usually called ‘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.
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.
Krawczyk’s ideas, however, don’t just sound familiar because they reflect Victorian ideas. They sound very much like the ideas propounded by Dr. Peter I. Collins, psychiatrist, as an expert witness in the crucial ‘Regina vs. Sharpe’ legal case that shaped the Canadian legal attitude towards child pornography. I wrote about Collins a few years ago in an article contrasting his attitude, and the resulting Canadian attitude, to the attitudes that dominated in the U.S. and the U.K. To simplify, the Canadian attitudes were pure Victorianism; the U.S. firmly rejected Victorianism presumptions and demanded evidence of harm done to children; and the U.K. went in the direction of new age shamanism, conjuring up child spirits that were injured even in imaginative cartoons.
It turns out, if you do a little web investigation linking the names, you find that Paul Krawczyk, back when he was a greenhorn in 2006, was trained by Peter Collins.
The linked reference cites a Toronto Globe and Mail article from Nov. 2006.
- Azov Films
- Azov Films Prosecutions
- Azov Films Prosecutions - Canada
- Azov Films Prosecutions - United Kingdom