12/22/2010

No Yellow Ribbon for Jonathan Wong

The British court has found Jonathan Wong, a MOE scholar reading History at York University, guilty as a sex offender. What did he do? He possessed child pornography videos in his computer. I am also sure that many people watch pornography in Youtube. Are they sex offenders too? Or must one be found to have pornography in ones lap top to be considered a sex offender? My simple understanding of a sex offender is one who committed a sexual act that is not permitted, either by force, without permission or against a minor. Did Jonathan Wong commit such an act? Viewing pornography could be for curiosity, a process of growing up, a animal lust. Admittedly viewing child pornography is a step further to the dark side. Did Jonathan do what he did out of curiosity or a process of growing up? Or is it a sickness, a mental condition? If it is a sickness, a disease that results in perversion, should he be treated as a sick man rather than a criminal? If it is just a case of curiosity, a temporary perversion, is the punishment too severe? Murderers or rapists could get away with their crimes on grounds of mental sickness or even an abused childhood. The University also expelled him and prevented him from completing his studies. Now this would do more harm to him as a human bean than in helping him in any way to right his sick behavior. He has a life to live and needs to be equipped with an education to complete his life journey. Is the University being too harsh to Jonathan in this case? Jonathan has not harmed anyone except himself. What he did is not acceptable to what society would consider as decency. But there is no need to destroy his life. He has taken his punishment. What he needs now is help to become a normal person again. Depriving him of an education is akin to hammering the nails into a coffin. At most his act is deplorable. He did not rob, maim, kill, rape or hurt anyone. Where is the appropriateness in the punishment dealt to him? The court is fair in the six month suspended jail sentence. Is the University being fair and enlighten in expelling him? Hard core criminals are also allowed to study in prisons and sit for their examinations. Where is the Yellow Ribbon?

11 comments:

Gerard said...

In these eras of heavy media influence as well as increasing conformity, I believe in the light of such circumstances, a reputable university would do anything it takes to keep 100% "pure". If I were them, no doubt, I would view the matter in a different manner. It would be heartening to see someone come forward and help this kid because both you and me truly don't want to see anyone fall into despair just for one mistake.

Matilah_Singapura said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matilah_Singapura said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matilah_Singapura said...

Indeed. This is a complex issue.

There is a difference between consensual adult sex and obviously coerced/ conned child sex. Children are easily exploited by adults - adults being the 'trusted' party. Therefore it is easy to argue that any images of child sex were obtained by 'exploitation', and those in possession of such image are a part of this process -- which to me seems quite a stretch; as despicable as I find child porn to be.

Every adult I know would protect a child if he or she was being physically abused (e.g. bullied) in public. Similarly to protect children against sexual exploitation is a reasonable and necessary stanch for a modern society to take.

However the laws over the years have become totally intrusive -- invading one's privacy, -- presuming GUILT without any proof.

In Australia they are particularly ridiculous,and invasive. All people entering Australia are to declare to customs and immigration if they posses any form of pornography on their computers, mobile phones, electronic devices (like iPods, PSP, iPads, hard drives, optical media). The devices and ones person are subject to search.

In fact possession of Japanese hetai/ manga/ anime depicting 'sexualised' children will get you jailed and fined in Australia. My understanding is that there are similar laws in the UK.

The Johnathan Wong case:

The 'curiosity' argument doesn't hold: he had 1000's of images archived and cataloged on his drive.

The University has every right to expel him. The MOE has every right to terminate any dealings with him. No organisation can be expected to sacrifice their reputation.

Now for the courts: is this guy a criminal/ sexual offender? IMO not if he didn't directly HARM a child. Laws should be limited to determining whther wilful physical action which directly affects other parties are lawful or not. For e.g. child molester or child rapist.

I don't think any Yellow Ribbon will be forthcoming. It'll be a long time before Mr Wong is 'trusted' again. As a convicted sexual offender, he will be 'tagged' for life.

Anonymous said...

"My simple understanding of a sex offender is one who committed a sexual act that is not permitted,.........". Unquote.
In possession and viewing child pornography itself is an act related to sex that's outlawed in most countries.

"Viewing pornography could be for curiosity, a process of growing up, a animal lust. Admittedly viewing child pornography is a step further to the dark side. Did Jonathan do what he did out of curiosity or a process of growing up? Or is it a sickness, a mental condition?". Unquote.

Does Jonathan get to satisfy his animal lust or natural curiosity if he or others did not make the child pornography which is a crime beyond any doubt.
True, sex is second to air and food and is also a nature endowed need. Most adults if not all have wild imaginations about it and that leads to some going pervert and sick due to it. This in turn leads to others falling victims to their perversions.

Prostitution and other commercial sex are everywhere in the world even in highly religious countries. Why? To some extent, me thinks it is to keep humans from committing sexual offences due to the natural urge and need.

"If it is a sickness, a disease that results in perversion, should he be treated as a sick man rather than a criminal? If it is just a case of curiosity, a temporary perversion, is the punishment too severe? Murderers or rapists could get away with their crimes on grounds of mental sickness or even an abused childhood". And "Jonathan has not harmed anyone except himself". Unquote.

Same question; if he and others did not make the materials he viewed, where did the materials come from? And if there were such materials, offences were committed to have them made. So, the harms were much more than just Jonathan himself.

Me would agrees with anyone that viewing adult sex films and or recordings that are produced for sex edult education, sex therapy and living enjoyment in private should not be penalized. However, any perverse form should be looked into and anyone going beyond the accepted level allowed in the society must be punished and corrected medically, emotionally, psychologically and whatever means that help.

patriot


"

Gerard said...

To the above commenter, I don't think he stands a chance fighting the court over a sentence that is unduly given. Law is fact but the persons passing the sentence may be subjected to perception. Law is fair yet somewhat incompletely fair again. Lets just hope he has a plan for the future and by the time he gets somewhere, his tag would disappear.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Child pornography is definitely bad. The adults making those videos must be preying and exploiting the young. Needs tough enforcement to weed them out.

Possession of them is equally bad. It is a sickness for sure to have cravings for chldren. Normal human beans are not programmed to lust for children. These are sick people alright.


Should Jonathan be treated for his sickness or he shall be what he is, a pariah in society?

Personally I feel that the university should allow him to complete his studies in some way. He could, without help, turn into a hideous creature, preying on children. If he could he helped from his sickness, he could live life normally again. The exclusion from working with children should stay till he can convince the law that he is clean and healthy again.

Depriving him of his education is a bit too much.

Matilah_Singapura said...

At the end of the day, you cannot escape the idea of self-governance: i.e. if you are doing something against the law, you have made a choice.

What happens after that is essentially beyond your control. You get caught -- can't control that. You get convicted -- the final verdict is completely up to the courts. You are busted, caught red-handed with the evidence.

Unfair or not, Mr Wong has no choice but to wear his lot.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi Gerard,

In my view, the sentence by the court is pretty fair. He is guilty and his act is not tolerable. He must be punished. But he is given a chance not to commit it again. That's what the suspended sentence is all about. The court is not ruthless in this case.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Matilah, according to the British media he got only 50 video and photos, not 1000 lah. This exaggeration will give a different impression of how bad he is. I know 50 is bad enough. 1000 is very deep in the hole.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Ok my bad.

But with 50 using the "curiosity" argument is really stretching it ;-)

I'd be interested to know how much, if any, of his "collection" was of the Japanese anime or cartoon variety.

These days you are a criminal if you possess cartoons showing sexualized children.

The legal precedent has already been set. Laws and justice have long been "international". Court rulings in one country are likely to influence the legal opinions in another country.