Possible abuse and exploitation of Ukrainian child models

[JasonRichmond]

I tried to send this message to both the email addresses that you posted, but both were returned by the dreaded 'Mailer Daemon' as undeliverable.



Subj: Reply to posts by Safr and Damiells in my thread in Ukraine.com
Date: 14/04/2004
To: webmaster@studio13-arts.com


Dear Sirs,

At last, after nearly two years since I began my enquiry into the so-called 'Lolita industry' (if you don't mind me calling it that, and placing Studio 13 in that category for the moment) in Ukraine, I have a response from someone who works in the industry.

Thank you to both of you for posting in my thread. I wish your book every success and cannot wait until it is finished and published. I have only just checked my emails, and been alerted to your posts. It is late and I am too tired to give you a proper response, but I am too excited to wait until after I have slept!

Your posts have given me considerable food for thought and raise a range of issues which deserve deeper consideration and a more coherent response than I can offer now. I should approach your claims and arguments as sceptically as everybody else's; but, in the UK, we only ever hear one side of the story and it is never yours, which by itself makes me sympathetic to what you have to say.

I hope we can discuss more fully another time what drives the lucrative market for your particular brand of commercial art. For now, I would just make some brief comments, while referring you to my arguments in my yahoo groups at http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DARE-US and http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawn-dogs.

First. I acknowledge that, as artists, you are proud of, and idealistic about, the work that you produce. However, even if one accepts the most cynical interpretation of what motivates people to pay $50 a month to look at the pictures - that they are what us Brits call 'wanking material' - there is not a shred of credible evidence to support the claim that 'the Internet creates paedophiles', or that looking at pictures of naked children makes anybody go out and molest a child. That is the first of two critical moral questions, and the first of two moral premises on which your pictures are criminalised in the UK, and on which thousands of people are being prosecuted for possessing them. The British Home Office regards child nudity as Level 1 or Level 2 child porn (on a scale in which Level 1 is the mildest and Level 4 is the worst).

Second. The second moral question, and moral premise for the criminalisation and prosecutions (for example, 'Operation Ore' and 'Operation Innocent Images' - see the web site, http://www.madbadorsad.org) is that subscribing to the sites in which the pictures appear is 'child abuse by proxy' or 'paying someone else to abuse a child'. Your posts in my thread rebutted those claims emphatically and I note all that you say.

This is a burning issue in the UK because police resources are being drawn away from day-to-day child protection - so that children are less protected from physical abuse, criminal neglect and sexual abuse in their own homes (where at least 80% of child sexual abuse occurs) - in favour of dawn raids, arrests, and the confiscation of computers which costs 2000 pounds per computer to analyse and classify the pictures of children, one by one.

This is a big issue in Russia and the Republics because the industry is worth billions of dollars in foreign exchange, and is a source of employment and income for thousands of young people, and, as you say, supports thousands of families who would otherwise be destitute. As I have argued several times, harassing and criminalising the industry will only cause harm and grief to the models, rather than 'saving them from exploitation', either by depriving them of work and a vital source of income, or by driving the industry underground, so that it is run by unscrupulous criminal gangs rather than by responsible employers such as yourselves.

If the definition and criteria of 'child exploitation' were applied consistently, thousands of sweat shops would be outlawed, that currently produce a range of products for western markets, including footballs, trainers, clothes and fashion accessories.

That leaves the outstanding issues around the sexualised representation of women and girl children in the arts and media within western culture. Of course, the claim that nakedness is necessarily sexual, is contestable, especially by the naturist movement. I have not read Nadine Strossen, and reserve judgement on those issues until I have at least done so. In this connection, and in relation to the issues I have already discussed, I would be very interested to know how your models and former models feel about their experience of working in your studio.

I had already planned to go to Odessa some time this year (probably late Autumn), to visit the charities that work with the street children and to seek the help of local journalists in getting to the truth about Studio 13. Therefore, I hope you do not think this too cheeky of me to ask, but I would be honoured if you would extend to me an invitation to visit the Studio, and talk to yourselves, the staff and the models. I hope to engage the interest of the media department of Bournemouth University, to the extent that they will loan me equipment that will enable me to make a video documentary of my week in Odessa (I wish it could be longer than that). In any case, I will return to the UK with a journal and a report of what I discovered in Odessa, and will then struggle to get that report promoted and published as widely as possible in the British media.

By that time, hopefully, I will have read your book, and (subject to my own observations supporting its claims) will do what I can to promote it in the UK and over the Internet.

I am sorry that I misled people about the closure of Studio 13; but I did so in good faith, based on what I took to be a reliable source, namely a report in Obozrevatel that was drawn to my attention by Jim Davis, the political editor of the Kiev Post. I had also sent emails to the webmasters of the sites in which your pictures appeared, such as ukrainian-angels.com, seeking assurances about the welfare of the models, but received no reply.

Jason
email: jason4support@aol.com

[Damiells]

Hi Jason,

I have no explanation why you could not contact Studio 13 Arts as all our systems are working. However, thanks in advance.

Get back to me as quickly as possible, it's really time that someone "from the other side" takes position. We have nothing to hide and I can see already from your last message that you have misleading information.

Studio 13 Arts can arrange for you everything you want, from meetings with the staff to discussions with the models and the families involved. Again, I don't want to start a public discussion with details for many reasons but specially the protection of our girls.

Also I would like to make clear, that Studio 13 Arts NEVER PUBLISHED PICTURES ON UKRAINIAN ANGELS OR OTHER WEBSITES. Without going into details, we are against what happened with all this "Lolita Sites" all over the net. Some of them clearly broke with the limits set by laws and was exploitation of the models. Studio 13 Arts during all his lifetime has never crossed the limits set by most western jurisdictions. This is the only reason why Studio 13 Arts still exists, the girls trust us and enjoy to be part of the project and none is sitting in jail.

Contact me at webmaster@studio13-arts.com or the ICQ Number that has been sent to you on your private Email Address.

[safr]

Thanks a lot for your addressing my and Daniel's messages! As to the UK laws and general public's attitude towards child nudity in Arts, I'd only like to remind all British people of their great compatriot Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) - one of the first art photographers who dared to take pictures of naked underaged girls; I also invite them to take a look at works by contemporary British artist Graham Ovenden and then take a moment to contemplate. Or would it be better to burn "Alice in Wonderland" and put Mr. Ovenden behind bars?..

[vidmak]

jason,

please reply -it's urgent

vidmak@list.ru