Yes, in a judgment of 25 September last, the Brussels Court of First Instance sentenced a man for rape of a minor, without the author having had any physical contact with his victim, the abuse taking place by means of a webcam. A verdict that will hopefully set a precedent because it sweeps away the idea that rape cannot be committed “at a distance”, as is the case with new technologies.

1. A progressive interpretation of the offence of rape

In this case, the defendant required the 15-year-old girl to self-penetrate in front of a webcam. There was therefore no physical contact between the author and his victim. But if we look more closely, the fact that the sexual act is committed by one person against another is not a constituent element of the offence of rape. What is, however, is that there is an act of sexual penetration on a person who does not consent to it. The sexual act here is indisputable: the girl has practiced digital self-penetration. And at no time did she consent to it. The documents in the file show the blackmail, insults and threats made against the victim if he refused. The Brussels Court of First Instance rightly found the author guilty of rape. By reminding that physical contact between the abuser and the abused is not necessary to commit rape, the judgment therefore gives an evolving interpretation of the offence. But it does more. By mentioning that the author “cowardly sheltered” behind Facebook’s anonymity, the court insists on the perversity of the acts committed via new technologies. Far from considering online sexual abuse as a less serious version of those committed “in real life”, this decision erases a boundary that is too often established between the “real” and “virtual” world. It should be recalled that materials representing the sexual abuse of children, such as those that the victim was forced to produce, are first and foremost evidence of a material, very real act. Etienne Wery, a specialist in digital law, says nothing else: “A few years ago, it was regrettable that when it came to IT, the damage was also often considered virtual. But when you see the victims, it is often a life to be rebuilt and the suffering is not virtual. Now the judges recognize this.

2. The new faces of child sexual exploitation

Indeed, underestimating the impact of new technologies on the sexual abuse of minors misses one of the most important aspects of cybercrime. Every day, millions of materials representing child sexual abuse circulate on the Internet. Produced by adults, but also by children/adolescents. In its latest report, EUROPOL identifies this “self-produced” content as one of the greatest cybercriminal threats. How do these devices end up on the Net? Because teenagers do sexting, that is, they exchange sexual pictures. These private materials can nevertheless be found on social networks, through negligence, malice, revenge, etc. Cybercriminals and cyber predators are also masters in manipulation. They have all the “tricks” to win the trust of minors and make them stage themselves. When these “self-produced” materials are used as a means of blackmail to obtain other photos or money, it is called sextortion. This is exactly what the above-mentioned author did when he threatened his victim to perform certain sexual acts. If the sole and only responsible for these sexual abuses remain their sponsors, let us not forget the importance of equipping children from an early age with the tools for the responsible use of new technologies. This is exactly the objective of the (Dé)clic project, which is participatory, innovative and sustainable, and places young people at the centre of their own prevention. Because, however important the case law of the Brussels Court may be, the important thing is that the acts do not take place.

 

 

For several weeks, critics have been hovering around Petit Paul, a comic book created by Bastien Vivès. This adult book tells the story of a 10-year-old boy whose particularity is that he has an oversized sex. Although he is not of sexual age, the main character “systematically finds himself in impossible and embarrassing situations“.

Because it illustrates extremely explicit sexual acts between a minor boy and adult women, this comic book rightly shocked many readers. Immediately, a petition was launched to remove it from sales. She adds: “The book is supposed to be humorous, and it seems delicate to us to laugh at a scene that glorifies child abuse, a subject that is unfortunately far too topical.”

It should be noted that in the meantime, two renowned French bookshops (Cultura and Gilbert Joseph) have already decided not to sell the book anymore. This is not the case for supermarkets such as Amazon….

Is it an illegal work?

Yes ! the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by France, prohibits the sale and access to materials representing the sexual abuse of children*, defined as “any representation, by any means whatsoever, of a child engaged in explicit sexual activities”.

Who would dare claim that Little Paul comics escapes this category? She who shows, among other things, the child forced to cunnilingus to his teacher or a position “69” with his judo teacher?

Faced with the accusations, Glénat, the book’s publisher, defends itself: “This work of fiction was never intended to de-dramatize, promote or legitimize the abuse of minors in any way whatsoever. It is a caricature whose drawing, deliberately grotesque and outrageous in its proportions, leaves no doubt as to the totally unrealistic nature of the character and his environment.

Is it not cynical or naive to judge that the “grotesque” nature of the comic book or the “totally unrealistic” nature of the character does not “de-dramatize” or “legitimize” child sexual abuse?

And hypocritical to be surprised by the controversy when the prefect and collection director of Petit Paul is none other than Céline Tran, alias Katsuni, a former pornographic actress.

Let us not underestimate the impact

Apart from the illegal nature of the book, depicting a child in sexual acts with an adult is never insignificant. This helps to normalize the fact that a minor may be an adult’s sexual partner.

What if the child doesn’t resist, like Little Paul? To assume a child’s consent, because he or she does not resist, is to ignore years of research in trauma. The latter show that a victim of sexual abuse’s lack of reaction may result from the state of paralysis in which he or she finds himself or herself. This “apparent consent” is in fact a survival reflex!

By depicting sexual relationships between a child and an adult, Petit Paul normalizes these relationships that should not be, sweeping away the fact that a child his age is legally considered incapable of giving his consent to these acts. This is extremely misleading and dangerous.

Moreover, by endowing his 10-year-old hero with a disproportionate sex, the author endorses and reinforces the hypersexualization of our society, by which minors are potential sexual objects. From there to think that the child is seeking, or even provoking the sexual act, there is only one step that some people take happily. It is therefore important not to underestimate the impact that works of fiction with an apparently “grotesque” and “unrealistic” character of the Petit Paul type can have.

*ECPAT Belgium avoids using the term “child pornography”, which could suggest that acts are consented to by trivializing them. We prefer the term “materials representing child sexual abuse”, in accordance with the Luxembourg Guidelines.