Blinded by rights.

A senior judge in British Columbia says that possession of child pornography is not a crime. He says there is no evidence to support the assumption that children are threatened with sexual abuse because of child pornography. He says that if John Sharpe, a 65-year-old divorced father of two, can use such material in good conscience then why should the court invade his privacy? Indeed, according to the judge's ruling, any prohibition against the possession of child pornography may actually infringe on Sharpe's freedom of conscience under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sharpe himself openly admits he likes child pornography. He is also a strong defender of "intergenerational sex", arguing that there is nothing wrong with an adult having intercourse with a consenting child. When asked by a National Post reporter whether it would be right for an adult to have sex with an 11-year-old, Sharpe replied: "I think you have to look at the context. Why would the child want to have sex? Intergenerational sex, particularly involving adolescent boys is a practice of long-standing in society."

But so is armed robbery.

While the Crown argued that possession of child pornography puts children at risk from paedophiles, Justice Shaw wrote that "only assumptions" support the idea that child pornography incites people to have sex with children. "A person who is prone to act on his fantasies will likely do so irrespective of the availability of pornography." It is debatable, he wrote, that laws against possessing child pornography protect children. Therefore, in his judicial opinion, such laws do not justify invading a person's privacy. "Books, diaries, pictures, clothes and other belongings are personal and private expressions of their owner's beliefs, opinions, thoughts and conscience. The simple possession prohibition deals with a very intimate and private aspect of a person's life and, in my view, that fact should be given considerable weight. I find that the limited effectiveness of the prohibition is insufficient to warrant its highly invasive effects."

With the stroke of a pen, Judge Shaw struck down the section of the Criminal Code dealing with possession of child pornography, on the grounds that it contravened Charter rights of freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression.

Despite an appeal and Justice Minister Anne McLellan's vow to uphold federal laws prohibiting the possession of child pornography, legal experts say it is unlikely that Justice Shaw's decision will be overturned. Why? Because the judge was demanding a 'smoking gun' - hard, incontrovertible proof that there is a causal link between the use of child pornography and the sexual abuse of children. No proof will ever be found, of course, just as no evidence will ever be found sufficient enough to establish a causal link between violence on television and violent behaviour.

Supreme Court justices are supposed to be wise. As a 66-year-old married father of two, one might have expected more from Justice Shaw.

But Canadians should not be surprised by such decisions.

Before moving to Britain five years ago, I covered criminal courts as a reporter for more than ten years. During that period, I watched many Canadian judges abandon both common sense and moral responsibility in their rulings.

The result is that the law itself is collapsing. In this case, the children that it should protect are being left vulnerable to potential abusers who are now safe from prosecution. At least in British Columbia. They are also being left unprotected against market forces that support the child pornography industry.

"If it's not overturned, it's a very disturbing precedent," said Nicholas Bala, a law professor at Queen's University in Kingston. "I don't think he gave enough weight to the harmful effects of child pornography, particularly the fact that some of this material is produced using children." Nor does Justice Shaw appear to have given weight to the anguished testimony of thousands of adults permanently damaged by childhood sexual abuse.

From this vantage point, Justice Shaw appears to have abrogated his moral and legal responsibility to protect both the accused and his potential victims, directly and indirectly.

Does Justice Shaw really suppose that by upholding Sharpe's right to conscience under the Charter he is acting in Sharpe's best interest, never mind the children he may exploit? And does Justice Shaw really suppose that there is such a thing as a victimless crime?

Every crime has a victim, beginning with the criminal himself who is its first victim, even if he is a psychopath. The law must protect him, from himself and from those he may harm. If it fails to do this, it is not a true law.

Why? Because it was not written by God Who is the author of all true law. It is therefore a tyranny. If tyranny is allowed to stand -- be it the right to abortion, euthanasia or pornography, all of which protect crime -- the nation which allows it will pay a dreadful but just price.

But don't take my word for it. St. Paul says it better: "For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour, not in lustful passion; and that no man transgress and defraud his brother because the Lord is the avenger in all things." (I Thessalonians 4, 2-6).

Oh, Canada.