No, this did not happen in Evil Satan and Little Evil Satan lands. This disgusting piece of filth
happened in good old Australia. Yep, the same country that has been bending over backwards to cow-tow to Islamic extremists. When you open the door, all kinds of crap blows in.
The family of the girl who appeared in a nude photo on the cover of an art magazine has welcomed the image's approval by the Classification Board. Yesterday the board approved the image of Olympia, who is now 11.
The Classification Board reviewed the edition and gave it an unrestricted (M) rating. This means it can be published but discretion is advised for readers under the age of 15.
An image of a nude child sitting in front of, or placed onto, a painting has been allowed to be published on the cover of a public magazine. With the only stipulation that there be discretion on the part of buyers who are under 15. Why did they make this ruling? It's ART, you fool!
"The board notes that the images and text within the publication that relate to this debate about the difference between art and pornography and the sexualisation of children requires a mature perspective," she said.
It was allowed in order to spur debate over whether there is such a thing as child pornography. Thank you liberals !!
What do the parent's of this young child have to say about this? Heck, it was THEIR PHOTO. They can't be more pleased.
Olympia's father, art critic Robert Nelson, has welcomed the decision to approve the image.
He says the ruling should put an end to the debate debate (sic?) about the exploitation of children and artistic freedom in Australia. Mr Nelson says the furore has exposed some paranoia about nudity.
This lame excuse for a father wants MORE child nudity. Having a block against child pornography, heck even calling it child pornography, is just a paranoia against nudity. Hey, here's an idea. Let's just all go over to this guy's house, and demand that his wife and daughter just walk around everywhere they go naked. Let's follow them into the tub. Let's follow them to the store as they parade their pride. I am sure they would be happy. Heck, probably so. Another reason why some people should be banned from breeding.
Mr Nelson agrees there are risks in using naked children in art, but he says that should not stop it from happening.
"The long chain of moral issues would surely be beyond the apprehension of a six-year-old, so what I've been satisfied with is that that component of consent is happily taken on by the parent in the same way that parents consent to all kinds of activity that might involve some degree of risk," he said.
The editor of Art Monthly, Maurice O'Riordan, says the Classification Board has made a sane and just decision.
" Yep, there may be risks that my daughter may end up molested, or another's daughter may be raped by child perverts, but who the hell cares. It's ART!! If by these images I demean women and children further as just objects of sex and lust, then by golly I did the right thing!! If my daughter grows up with a wholly distorted view of the world then my job as a loving caring father is complete."
Don't worry, Sha'ria law will take Australia over in the next decade and this stuff will finally be put to end. Publicly at least.