When we saw the following story in the June 2002 issue of the Canadian Adventist Messenger, we immediately recognized it as something that urgently deserved a wider audience. Thus (with only minimal modification and with the author's permission) we share it here with our readers.--Editors.

N MARCH 26, 2002, THE BRITISH Columbia Supreme Court ruled that a child pornographer's writings had "artistic merit."¹ Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw said that the accused, John Robin Sharpe, was guilty of possession of pornographic photographs, but that his written work was different. It was--are you ready?--art.
Yes, the sadomasochistic scenes of violence and sex directed at young boys (generally below the age of 12) had artistic merit. Mind you, in the opinion of the court, these writings were "by almost any standard, morally repugnant." Nevertheless, they had somehow become more acceptable under the rubric of "art." Now of course, as the old cliché goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." "Art" means many things to many people. But should we as a society have to put up with lewd, crass, sexually perverse stories victimizing young boys as "art"?

The problem, of course, is who determines art? What standard does a community use in determining such? As Christians we advocate the biblical moral standards of behavior. The problem there, of course, is that the Bible itself has been rejected by at least one tribunal in Canada as hate literature.² In trying to determine whether Sharpe's writings had artistic merit, the court heard from three literary scholars. Two said the writings did have artistic merit. The third expert categorically denied that there was any literary merit to the stories.

Justice Shaw did not accept the evidence of the third expert, who was, incidentally, a professor and chair of the Department of English at Simon Fraser University, in part because the professor's "moral considerations played a significant role in the formulation of his opinion." The professor was to have been more "objective." His moral assessment had gotten into the way of determining whether the stories had literary merit.

Justice Shaw was guided in his decision by a previous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) dealing with the same Mr. Sharpe. The SCC had said that "'artistic merit' should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art. Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support the defence."³ The SCC went further, stating that even material harmful to children would escape prosecution under the law if it were deemed artistic by the trial judge!

So what made this work so virtuous to receive the classification of "art"? According to the witnesses, there was an edited form and content; the genre of the short story; there was conflict between the characters and an organized plot; themes ran throughout his work; and there was the creative use of language between the characters. All of this and more made Sharpe's writings portraying sexually abusive relationships with boys deserving of "art."

What's a Christian to Do?
So what do we do about this? Do we as Christians have any role in this area of public policy? I think we do. We must be careful, but we must act. Christians in Canada, for example, should be willing to pick up a pen and paper and write to their elected representatives and protest the lack of protection given to children in the current pornography law. Allowing pornography with a risk of harm to children is ridiculous. It appears that sex with children is the next wave of immorality seeking legitimacy-in the name of freedom.

The University of Minnesota Press has just ordered a second printing of the controversial book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex, by Judith Levine. In the book Levine argues that abstinence-only sex education is misguided, and suggests that adults exaggerate the threat of pedophilia and molestation. They are "denying young people the opportunity for positive sexual experiences." "Consensual sex between adults and teenagers isn't necessarily harmful."

Some 2,000 years ago a man in the desert called upon his society to repent of its sinful ways. All of the "up to duty" types thought him crazy. He was a loner who had nothing better to do, they said. What was his message? In the day of judgment the Lord would cut down everyone who did not produce good fruit; share with those in need; don't cheat others out of their money; do violence to no one; live moral, upright lives (see Luke 3:10-18). But what led to the demise of John the Baptist was the challenge to the king's immorality. John reproved Herod for the adulterous relationship with Herodius, his brother Philip's wife (verses 3:19, 20). According to Jesus, there was no greater prophet (Luke 7:28). But for his boldness, John literally lost his head.

Anytime Christians raise the specter of immorality in our society we face opposition. To the secular mind Christians should keep their mouths shut. But I ask you: How can we keep silent when future generations of young people are being set up for sexual fodder in a depraved society fixated on the lust of the flesh? Writing a letter of protest to the powers that be in light of developments such as the Sharpe decision is the least we can do.

_________________________
¹ R. v. Sharpe 2002 BCSC 423, par. 107.
² A Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered Hugh Owens and the Saskatoon Star Phoenix newspaper to pay $1,500 to each of the homosexual activists who complained that an ad against homosexuality with biblical references was discriminatory and inciting hate against an identifiable group.
³ R. v. Sharpe (2001) 150 C.C.C. (3d) 321, per McLachlin C.J.C., par. 63.

_________________________
Barry Bussey is legal counsel for the Ontario Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. (Reprinted by permission from the Canadian Union Messenger, June 2002.)