Macquarie Network ::: 2GB | 2CH | LIVENEWS | RUGBYLEAGUELIVE | WHAT CAREER | AMAZING AUSTRALIANS :::
Wednesday, 08 October 2008

Will Miranda Devine apologise to Bill Henson?

6/06/2008 11:57:00 AM.  | Tim Brunero
The coppers have been told to get Bill Henson’s pictures back where they belong, but you’d never know.

You’d hardly even realise they’ve been told by the DPP there's insufficient evidence to prosecute photographer Bill Henson over his now famous pictures.

The same media that a fortnight ago was splashing the story across their front pages are suddenly relegating it to the bottom of page three.

Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, which - with a page one news story labelled the police raid on the gallery displaying Henson’s work as “a victory for decency” - has suddenly gone all silent.

Even its editorial today was strangely mute on the issue. Instead it encouraged us to thank the Queen for our Monday morning sleep in this long weekend.

And the Sydney Morning Herald, who kicked the whole thing off by publishing rightwing rabble-rouser Miranda Devine’s attack on Henson has also let the story slide underneath an important yarn on The Sex And The City premiere.

Nary an apology nor a mea culpa from their end.

Perhaps because since then there’s been a story about real paedophilia with Wednesday’s federal police swoop where 90 people were arrested – one of them a federal police officer.

The hysterical media storm surrounding Bill Henson’s acclaimed work seems kinda ridiculous next to the momentous events of Wednesday, that could lead to the prosecution of some 1500 Australians.

But for the record, here’s what’s happened.

The DPP has told NSW police a prosecution of Henson was unlikely to succeed.

The Australian Federal Police have announced no charges would be laid over pictures in the Australian National Gallery.

And the Classifications Board has said an invitation to Henson’s exhibition was “justified by context” and is “not sexualised to any degree”. They’ve given it a PG rating.

So what’s left to do now?

Well, a downcast Mr Plod will probably have to drag the pictures, along with his knuckles, back to the Paddington gallery they came from.

And the media will quietly let the story go.

And probably so will Miranda Devine – without a hint of regret and ready to do it all again next week.

COMMENTS

Friday, 06 June 2008

Tim you have got it wrong yet again and as far as I am concerned the 'classification board’ have got it wrong also. One really has to wonder what sought of people are on that board. The pictures HENSEN took are of nude children. In your article you draw reference to the people arrested on Wednesday; and what were they arrested for? Having, distributing and looking at nude pictures of children. So what you are saying is it is alright to take, display and look at nude pictures of children under the guise of art. If that is the case guess what defence all the alleged kiddie porn offenders will through up when they front Court. They will all say they are artists. Common decency in Australian society is being chipped away because of morons like you.

Posted by: Phil A, Central Coast

Friday, 06 June 2008

here here...!!! Hang your head in pitiful shame Tim.

Posted by: Tom Jones, Manly

 

Friday, 06 June 2008

Tom, I like it better when you sing.

Posted by: Tim Brunero, Sydney

Friday, 06 June 2008

I stopped because I was tired of you throwing your underwear at me. But aside from this resume you pitiful head hanging.

Posted by: Tom Jones, Manly

Friday, 06 June 2008

So what was your objection to Tim taking off his panties? That he was then at risk at being photographed by bill henson.

Posted by: Gary Teralg, Merrylands

Friday, 06 June 2008

"So what was your objection to Tim taking off his panties" Answer, smells like his (Tims) breath

Posted by: Bart R, Sydney

 

Friday, 06 June 2008

Nakedness does not equal pornography! How dumb are you people that you can't realise that? Porno is explicit, it is about power and it is about showing people in degraded SEXUAL poses. Nakedness does not equal pornography. Pornography exacts a price from its subject who prostitute themselves for a fee. They are placed in explicit positions design to present the viewer with the subjects genitalia in the most extreme of poses. Henson did not do this, came no where near in fact.

Posted by: Ben Noone, Sydney

Friday, 06 June 2008

Obviously who have not seen any of his work - genitalia has been exposed and they were in provocative positions -young boys - that was in 1997 exhibition - however the latest images showed snipets of exposure - regardless they re still kids and should not be exploited. The DPP should have nothing to say considering they themselves employed a pederest! The interesting thing will be if they actually put them back on the website?

Posted by: Dan Concerned, *

Friday, 06 June 2008

Well said Dan.

Posted by: Phil A, Central Coast

 

Friday, 06 June 2008

ex DPP (Powers) was convicted for possession of images (oh but he's not a pedarest!)-yet was able to convict Roseanne Beckett (Catt) for that same thing which ex-husband Barry Catt was responsible for with his own 4 chn.She served 10 years in gaol for what?Why should the public place trust in what the DPP have to say when they continually make errors and harbour criminals in the system.Has the DPP apologised to Roseanne? It's obvious who the justice system protects!

Posted by: Dan *, *

 

Friday, 06 June 2008

Don't think any one has to apologise for stating what they think is right according to their conscience. Even if a majority of people and the Australian Classification Board think that nude photos of minors are all right this does not make it right.

Posted by: Desmond Harris, Beacon Hill

 

Friday, 06 June 2008

There is something really wrong when it is child pornography in Britain and family viewing in Australia.

Posted by: Gregory Carlin, Belfast

 

Friday, 06 June 2008

Miranda has done nothing wrong. She was right to say what she did. The issue was important to raise, and is by no means dead. The judicial decision that the art is art is acceptable, but does not deny the adjacent argument that the girl, and any like her, are endangered by the work which should never have been posted on the web. I guess Miranda will not be invited to Big Brother?

Posted by: Happy Fun Ball, Carramar/Sydney

 

Friday, 06 June 2008

Wonderful confusion! Whether an image is pornographic or not is not intrinsic, but depends on the person viewing it, and the contexts in which it is used...feet can be pornographic for foot-fetishists. The main issue here regarding children is whether the image, and therefore the child, may be 'used' now or potentially, that is 'exploited', sexually, artistically, commercially or otherwise. The answer for very many people, including myself, is yes. The Internet especially has changed the game.

Posted by: Paul Freeman, London

Friday, 06 June 2008

Maybe i am reading your comments incorrectly but did you conclude that it IS okay with you to exploit a childs naked image?

Posted by: Concerned Liberal, Minto

Saturday, 07 June 2008

I'm reading it right, he's saying it's not right!

Posted by: Dan Concerned, *

 

Friday, 06 June 2008

Apart from Ben, the rest of you are missing the point - LEGALLY the photos are not pornography...it has NOTHING to do with art, it has nothing to do with DPP corruption...the photos simply DO NOT meet the legal definition of pornography. I can make my children strip down and stand beside each and take naked photographs and this is NOT pornography. I agree that these photos should NOT be allowed, they are inappropriate & we have to protect kids - if you agree petition for changes to the law!

Posted by: Concerned Liberal, Minto

 

Friday, 06 June 2008

This decision has merely confirmed what the elitist artists of the world have been shoving down our throats ad nauseum: call it art and you can get away with anything - even child porn. I love how Henson's apologists continue to call anyone who disagrees with them "stupid", "dumb", "uneducated". "philistines" etc. And hasn't our justice system proved them right. How stupid are we to allow this artist to continue normalising and romanticising the sexualisation of children.

Posted by: Samantha Smythe, Tassie

 

Saturday, 07 June 2008

There appears to be many men in their fifties running out & buying cameras whilst advertising for very youg girls to take their panties off- all in the name of art =mind you.These nude images of little girls will soon be appearing on your next calendar.Which makes sense because calendars of bikini clad women have been banned from the workplace for many many years.

Posted by: Alex Uren, Luddenham

 

Saturday, 07 June 2008

Simple question: If these images are so "appropriate" why are the kids private bits always faded out whenever they are shown on TV or on this and other websites? Answer: Because the producers of these various forums, like most of the rest of us, cringe at the idea of showing pictures of naked kids - legal or not! This has always been a debate about what is fundamentally right or wrong. Whether something is deemed technically legal or illegal is not the point. Society can adjust its laws.

Posted by: Jo Stalin, Sydney

 

Saturday, 07 June 2008

Yesterday afternoon, a girl called in on one of the talkback shows. She had recently finished her HSC and in her art exam did a critique of the art of none other than Jim Henson. According to her, she totalled canned his art as obscene rubbish, not worthy of being called art. Guess what, the examiners gave her a 94% .So not EVERYBODY, even in the art community, think that Jim Henson is worth ****** on if he catches on fire. Thats the point, art is objective while naked kids pictures are not.

Posted by: Jo Stalin, Sydney

Monday, 30 June 2008

Sorry, when exactly did this become about Labyrinth?

Posted by: Tom Lawrence, Frankston

 

Saturday, 07 June 2008

Tim right on the money yet again, I agree with you, Miranda should hang her head in SHAME. You were correct from the start in your first article. If it is not an offence it is not an offence and that is it. Funny isnt it Dan, when you are on the RIGHT you are remain the keeper of ALL knowledge even though the rest of society think you are way off.

Posted by: Kom Ombo, Auburn

 

Saturday, 07 June 2008

not a bad way for a 2bit no hoper artist to get his name know by all of Australia

Posted by: art critic, lalaland

Saturday, 21 June 2008

Hey. he is an excellent photographer, who has been around for years AND well known AND respected by anyone who knows anything about Australian photography and art. So far as I've seen, the pictures don't actually show any naked parts. They are obviously not wearing clothes but you can't see anything. Bill Henson has always done controversial portraits with nakedness, dark themes and sexual imagery.

Posted by: Fay Clark, Sydney

 

Saturday, 07 June 2008

No group or individual should be subjected to stereotyping, unless of course it's the Police. They can be referred to as "Mr Plods"', with all its implications, by any journalist who can access a keyboard. Police act upon information from complainants and directions from above - at times it is a difficult position to be in. Congratulations Tim and thanks for continuing the stereotyping with '"dragging their knuckles"'. By the way our police are university graduates these days - like journos.

Posted by: Winston Churchill, Sydney

 

Saturday, 07 June 2008

OMG What is Happening ! Who the hell says its ok to take pics of naked minors. Their parents are obviously, very obviously POOR parents. The kids at the girls school, how will they view it? What will the boys do with the PICS eh?? IMBECILES, This is SICK. Any1 Defending Henson or naked girl pics is a SICK NUT. "Art" get out. Tb :( YOU ARE PEDOS period. According to my Psych book, EVERY male is preprogrammed 2b stimulated by ANY female form with breasts 2 reproduce (mans primary goal).

Posted by: John Stihl, Parramatta

 

Saturday, 07 June 2008

Well Tim ,, that article had the desired effect. got the usual suspects barking at you and you 15 mins of fame. I assume that you do not have kids of your own or your thinking may be different. I have 5 daughters and if some arty farty photographer with a pig tail and close cropped beard asked me if he could take photos of them naked , all in the name of art,,, I would still take to him with a base ball bat. I do not trust lawyers or journalist to do what is right, appropriate or moral.

Posted by: Stephen ANDREWS, Camden

 

Saturday, 07 June 2008

Miranda Devine is always whinging about government waste. Yet her story has wasted a whole hunk of police time. Will she be getting out her cheque book? Or is it only waste when it's going to a 'dole bludger' and not in a fruitless witch hunt which has everything to do with sensationalist emotional button pushing?

Posted by: Tim Brunero, Sydney

Saturday, 07 June 2008

"Wasted a whole hunk of police time" Tim you fail miserably to realise it is up to the police to decide if it’s a waste of time or a worth while investigation. Miranda Devine (I don’t know her) has every right to comment or write what she believes in based on evidence. Regarding your defense for Bill Henson, be very careful or it may be you who looks pretty ordinary. In MY opinion (do I have the right Tim?), these photos are inappropriate, He's 50yo they are 12+, oh and yes he is an artist

Posted by: Bart R, Sydney

Saturday, 07 June 2008

Wow Tim I thought you would have let this go through to the keeper. talk about media watch! So let me get this right , , , Investigating the taking pictures of naked prepubesant girls (and now I hear young boys) is a waste of police time and money? so if you ran the AFP they would not pursue the producers of pictures of naked prepubesant girls? Think of the savings! One man's art is another man's porn. You will feel different when you hold your own daughter, but then, again maybe not.

Posted by: Stephen ANDREWS, Camden

 

Saturday, 07 June 2008

You are a disgrace Tim. I can't believe Macquarie Radio is paying someone who thinks it's alright to take nude photos of underage kids.

Posted by: John Smith, Randwick

 

Saturday, 07 June 2008

Perps collect advertising catalog's of children in underwear, they photograph children at the beach wearing flimsy bathers, they gather around public pools hoping that a little one will accidentally come close to them; so WHY can't naked children, without the flimsy bather material be protected? Imagine the perps that will be found with this material and let to go free based on this decision?

Posted by: Miss Smack, Adelaide

 

Saturday, 07 June 2008

Tim: I've never seen anyone write their own reviews. I wouldn't be calling it a victory!

Posted by: Dan Concerned, *

 

Sunday, 08 June 2008

I think the parents are the ones that should be charged for allowing an underage child to participate in these shots. No parent should have the right to make and child pose nude for photos whether the young child agrees or not Emotional blackmail, implied or otherwise, is a very strong factor with children. These parents are a disgrace and the police should be charging them with an offence. They have put their own egos before the long term welfare of their child. They disgust me!!!

Posted by: Chrissie S, Mooloolaba

 

Monday, 09 June 2008

Nakedness in itself is not pornographic. Whether or not Hensens images are classified as pornographic is not the point. The only point here is that a child who is legally not allowed to make the decision themself (because the law and society deem that they are not mature enough to do so), should not have that decision made for them when the effects of that decision can impact on that child long into the future. The parents have NO RIGHT to create such a situation.

Posted by: Ivan Oakes, Plumpton

Tuesday, 10 June 2008

Here here. It is hard to believe that this is not self-evident to anyone with half a brain. Clearly the original author of this piece, Tim Brunero, does not have children and does not have the slightest ability to think empathetically.

Posted by: Jo Stalin, Sydney