It was inevitable the "wannabe intelligentsia" and self declared vanguard of human expression one witnesses slithering around on the far Left of politics would come out batting hard and shrieking like banshees in defence of "renowned artist" Bill Henson's right to show his complete photographic works.

It would appear, in the minds of these self righteous peddlers of second rate art, that just because Mr. Henson is a worldwide renowned artist, everything he produces should be beyond criticism. They also fall back upon the argument that many notable people possess Mr. Henson's works- so therefore they too should be arrested.

This hysterical claim might hold some weight assuming the only work Mr. Henson produces are full frontal pictures of underage naked children apparently trying to replicate poses displayed by models of more mature years. Other than that, such ridiculous off the cuff remarks only serve to prove the thought processes of these people are as shallow as their self proclaimed artistic abilities.

This twisted logic was brought to the fore several nights ago during the airing of the ABC's "Questions and Answers" program. A panel loaded with social engineers, a pseudo conservative MP and self righteous Labor and Greens MPs proceeded to battle out all the tough issues facing our nation today (all coming to the same conclusion- surprise!).

Greens leader Bob Brown (who for some reason babbled on how concerned he is about what kind of country we are all going to leave for "our grandkids"- the mind boggles as to how this man thinks he is going to produce grandchildren to worry about) produced some twisted claim that the same people who seem so concerned about the abuse of children in art are the same people who happily locked up children (of illegals) in detention centres.

The point being? The issues are completely different and entirely unrelated. The illegal immigrants brought their children here, halfway around the world, by passing several safe havens and entered the country illegally. We did not put them in that situation, the actions of their parents did.

The only panel member displaying any sense of uncompromising decency was Aboriginal representative, Warren Mundine who quite rightly declared (in effect) that the whole issue takes on a whole new perspective because it involves children, the question of their innocence and whether the "models" involved had the maturity and mental competence to make an educated decision about the activity in which they were engaged.

The debate which the liberal left wing "elite" seek to have on the issue will be entirely on their own terms. They will seek to hide behind emotive claims such as "freedom of speech and expression" (a right they would have no qualms about denying to political opponents such as ourselves), they will claim they enrich our society and without their works we will return to a cultural dark age and be intellectually barren, they will shriek about "censorship" and furthermore claim that art is to "push the boundaries" and provoke a reaction- a sign of a healthy and dynamic society.

Strange how they're only happy when the reaction they get is a lowering of society's standards- remaking society in their own image.

In this instance (as with many others), art has overstepped the line. In a world where innocence is scorned, values are treated as little more as "quaint prejudice" and liberal thinkers pursue their quest for change purely for the sake of change, our children must be protected. No one is denying there is a place for children in art, the innocence, the open and honest expression of emotion displayed by a child is a valid subject for art, however, full frontal nudity of young girls on the verge of puberty is not art by any stretch of the imagination.

It would pay to remember that the people shrieking in defence of this "art" are those of the same mindset that legalised sodomy, the same people whose open minded inclusive attitude gave rise to political parties and organisations around the world now defending the "interests" of paedophiles (hell, if you're going to accept one group's individual tastes and practices you apparently have to accept them all or you're displaying intolerance and prejudice), the same people declaring that drugs should be legalised- all based on the premise that a personal act or belief is an individual issue and therefore is not the business of society.

However, on the issue of morality it does become the concern of society. The laws of a society in general reflect the standards and cultural identity of that society. The liberal obsession with individual pursuits is no different to the creed declared by Alastair Crowley (once dubbed the most evil man in the world) "Do what thou wilt". They claim in the individuals' pursuit of free expression or private practice that society is not harmed, therefore the law and narrow minded members of society should keep silent.

Fortunately in this case, general society has made it's voice heard in a very clear backlash although one fears that apathetic Australians, once having spoken out will acquiesce to the demands for a "fair go" by these purveyors of degenerate rubbish.

To quote UK writer Roger Scruton "The whole dispute, represented as that between "dark intolerance" and "enlightened reason", is nothing more than a clash of prejudices. And while one side frankly admits that the feelings he brings to this dispute are moral, the other hides his bigotry behind a mask of reason, serenely expecting to carry the day".

To Australian Protectionists it is the duty of society to defend the innocent.