A Case of Child Pornography and the Social Context
R. v. Barabash, 2015 SCC 29, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 52 was a court case derived from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench that was appealed to the last court, the Supreme Court of Canada. Donald Barabash, 60 years old at the time, was charged with making child pornography and possession of child pornography while, Shane Rollison, 41 years old at the time, was only charged with the making child pornography (cite). Barabash and Rollison were tried together on the child pornography charges after two teenage girls, aged 14, had been filmed engaging in a variety of sexual activities with Rollison, Barabash and with each other. The social justice issues of poverty and drug abuse paired with unstable bringing …show more content…
v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 SCR 45, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), outlined when child pornography could be kept lawfully. Barabash used this defense to argue the legality of keeping the videos. Though both the girls were legal age at the time to consent to sexual activity they must be over the age of eighteen to be filmed or photographed in such ways. The legal age of consent was changed from 14 years old to 16 years old shortly after the incident but in no relation to the occurrence. Sharpe outlined ways in which child pornography could be kept for private use as a legal exception to the statue. For cases of child pornography, the courts tend to look at the harm that could be caused from such videos. In Sharpe, section 2 of the charter of rights and freedoms is at stake. Section two of the charter contains...(cite). Holding and possessing such videos, allows people to express themselves in certain ways. In order for the broad child pornography definition to be constitutional, there must be some exceptions in place. One of those are the “private use” exception. The Sharpe case sought to consenting people filming themselves engaging in sexual activity should be able to posses such videos. After the case, the court said that this exception could be used on the basis of three criteria. The first being, “The recorded sexual activity must be lawful” (cite). The second is “all participants must consent to the recording of the lawful sexual activity” (cite). Thirdly, “[t]he …show more content…
They had their freedoms infringed on, specifically section two, part b of the charter of rights and freedoms “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”. They provided the girls with a home and may have had a lapse in judgement when providing them with drugs. However, the sexual activity they engaged in with the youth was legally consensual. For the rest of their lives, Barabash and Rollison will face a negative connotation from the stigma associated around this trial. Regardless of acquittal, most people with access to social media, the news or the internet can find that the two men were involved in a child pornography case, even though the girls were of age and had consented. There is a social justice issue of stigmatization of people who are involved with the justice system that needs to be addressed. There needs to be further research and constructive reasoning to find a way to avoid future victimization of accused people. The Canadian justice system is in place to ensure justice is served, however, with the current public access to information, accused may face stigmatization for the remainder of their lives regardless of a guilty finding. This life sentence of stigmatization needs to be resolved in order to give accused a fair chance at life after the
R. v. Barabash, 2015 SCC 29, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 52 was a court case derived from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench that was appealed to the last court, the Supreme Court of Canada. Donald Barabash, 60 years old at the time, was charged with making child pornography and possession of child pornography while, Shane Rollison, 41 years old at the time, was only charged with the making child pornography (cite). Barabash and Rollison were tried together on the child pornography charges after two teenage girls, aged 14, had been filmed engaging in a variety of sexual activities with Rollison, Barabash and with each other. The social justice issues of poverty and drug abuse paired with unstable bringing …show more content…
v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 SCR 45, 2001 SCC 2 (CanLII), outlined when child pornography could be kept lawfully. Barabash used this defense to argue the legality of keeping the videos. Though both the girls were legal age at the time to consent to sexual activity they must be over the age of eighteen to be filmed or photographed in such ways. The legal age of consent was changed from 14 years old to 16 years old shortly after the incident but in no relation to the occurrence. Sharpe outlined ways in which child pornography could be kept for private use as a legal exception to the statue. For cases of child pornography, the courts tend to look at the harm that could be caused from such videos. In Sharpe, section 2 of the charter of rights and freedoms is at stake. Section two of the charter contains...(cite). Holding and possessing such videos, allows people to express themselves in certain ways. In order for the broad child pornography definition to be constitutional, there must be some exceptions in place. One of those are the “private use” exception. The Sharpe case sought to consenting people filming themselves engaging in sexual activity should be able to posses such videos. After the case, the court said that this exception could be used on the basis of three criteria. The first being, “The recorded sexual activity must be lawful” (cite). The second is “all participants must consent to the recording of the lawful sexual activity” (cite). Thirdly, “[t]he …show more content…
They had their freedoms infringed on, specifically section two, part b of the charter of rights and freedoms “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”. They provided the girls with a home and may have had a lapse in judgement when providing them with drugs. However, the sexual activity they engaged in with the youth was legally consensual. For the rest of their lives, Barabash and Rollison will face a negative connotation from the stigma associated around this trial. Regardless of acquittal, most people with access to social media, the news or the internet can find that the two men were involved in a child pornography case, even though the girls were of age and had consented. There is a social justice issue of stigmatization of people who are involved with the justice system that needs to be addressed. There needs to be further research and constructive reasoning to find a way to avoid future victimization of accused people. The Canadian justice system is in place to ensure justice is served, however, with the current public access to information, accused may face stigmatization for the remainder of their lives regardless of a guilty finding. This life sentence of stigmatization needs to be resolved in order to give accused a fair chance at life after the