It is worth noting, then, that even after Mr. Justice Shaw's decision most of the Criminal Code's Section 163.1 still stands. That section gives voice to society's abhorrence of people who prey on children for their own or others' sexual gratification. It defines child pornography as any visual depiction of children engaged in or appearing to be engaged in an explicit sexual activity, and any written or visual material that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under 18. The code goes on to say that anyone who makes, prints, publishes or possesses child pornography for the purposes of publication is a criminal and must be punished. Ditto anyone who imports, distributes, sells or possesses it for the purposes of distribution or sale.
Simple possession is also a crime, the law says.
The law makes an exception if the material has artistic merit or is for educational, scientific or educational purposes. It is the prohibition on simple possession the judge has struck down. There are some court judgments with which we struggle, and this is one of them. We agree, reluctantly, with the judge's stress on privacy rights. What people do in the privacy of their homes, provided they do not injure others, should not concern society.