MP Joy Smith (Winnipeg riding of Kildonan—St. Paul) is advocating and pushing for a new law to force ISPs to block pornography websites online. Similar to the one that PM David Cameron is pushing in the UK, the law will impose a filter to block porn so that people cannot "accidentally" fall onto while surfing the web. Any explicit image, story or connotation will try to be blocked. However, adult with a subscription to an ISP can opt out of the filter by calling your ISP and specifically to let them know you want to access these websites.
Why? you may ask. Her logic is "to protect the innocence of children from sexual explicit websites", "fight child exploitation" and the "sexualisation of our children" . Thats right...kids. She deeply believes that when you turn 18, you magically know the difference between porn and real life sexual relationships. By 18, you are mature enough to look at penises, vaginas and breasts, but at 17, you will be traumatized. Talk about social conservatism ignorance at its best (or worst).
Reading her blog on her newfound obsession I found her logic (or serious lack of)a disgrace to argumentation. Here are her points:
-You can opt in adult channels on TV networks
-The UK is doing it, so Canada should follow a (flawed) report from the Children's commissioner to study the impact of pornography on children. The commission already has the goal to: "[...]have a duty to protect children and young people from harm and this includes that caused by viewing pornography"
-a 2007 study in pediatrics found 66% reported "unwanted exposure and that filtering "reduced the risk of unwanted exposure". a similar sudy found 75% or 16-17 year olds were accidently exposed to pornographic sites
-Communication Research study found that children in grade 7 and 8 that were exposed to x rated content was a predictor of the perpetration of sexual harassment (they were 14 and older and this was a simple discussion by the researcher at one school) and another report in 2009 believes that boys who view frequently porn were more likely to be "supportive of sexual coercion".
-Parent(s) of her riding
-Toronto Star columnist that finds porn socially unacceptable
-Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy believes children are traumatized by the simple action of viewing porn
-Beyond Borders that shares her view
-Free them, an organization that believes children viewing porn will increase child slavery
I am not going to refute her arguments: there is no point in arguing with dumb people. I hope you guys laugh at some of this shit coming out of politicians.
You may read her blog at website or on Huffinghton Post