- Global Voices - https://globalvoices.org -

Colombia: Controversy Over Photos of Minors Published by Adult Magazine

Categories: Latin America, Colombia, Freedom of Speech, Law, Media & Journalism, Politics, Religion, Youth

Last week, the Office of the Inspector General [1], through Ilva Myriam Hoyos, Delegate Inspector for the Defence of the Rights of Children, Adolescents, and Family, announced [2] [es] it had requested the Attorney General's Office and the Colombian Institute for Family Welfare (ICBF, for its initials in Spanish) to open an investigation into one of the articles published in the latest edition of the adult magazine SoHo. Ms Hoyos based her request citing the Code of Childhood and Adolescence [3] [es], and the Penal Code [4] [es]. Both Ms Hoyos and Inspector General Alejandro Ordóñez [5] are known for their conservative positions, and SoHo had been involved [6] in a similar controversy in 2005.

The article, titled “Dejad que los niños vengan a mí [7]” [es] (“Let the children come to me,” referencing Mark 10:14 [8]. WARNING: explicit images), includes photos from an exhibition [9] [es] by photographer Mauricio Vélez (a regular contributor to the magazine), opened until mid-April at a hotel in Medellín. The controversial pictures depict staged scenes of nude underage boys (or models pretending to be minors) being watched by actors dressed as Catholic priests.

According [10] [es] to the magazine's editor-in-chief, Daniel Samper Ospina [11], Vélez “clarified the minors [depicted] are 16 and 17″ and were photographed ‘with their parents’ permission.” Samper told [12][es] Semana magazine (which owns SoHo) that “in Colombia we love to keep up appearances; therefore the State ends up persecuting the photographer who denounces pedophilia through his work, and not those who commit these abuses [13].”

The controversy erupted over the social networks. @cynosargo [14] tweets:

Pfff, Daniel Samper Ospina se cree el Larry Flynt colombiano o qué? A otro perro con ése hueso.

Pfff, Daniel Samper Ospina thinks he's the Colombian Larry Flynt [15] or what? I'm not biting on that one.

Jose L. Peñarredonda (@noalsilencio [16]) argues that,

Lo que va a ser interesante entre la pelea entre Soho y el Procurador es que van a llevar a los tribunales el concepto de ‘arte’

The interesting thing about the fight between SoHo and the Inspector General will be the concept of ‘art’ being carried to court.

Photographer [17] Manuel Noguera Salas (@manuelnogueraS) [18] supports the work by Vélez:

@DanielSamperO Un aplauso para Mauric[i]o Velez, La gente se escandaliza por la representación de la realidad? La verdad les duele!

@DanielSamperO Applause for Mauric[i]o Velez, do people get shocked with the representation of reality? Truth hurts!

But Lina Artunduaga (@LinaArtunduaga [19]) disagrees:

Pues a mi las fotos de Vélez no me gustan! Son niños desnudos con un adulto y punto. Parecen más apología que denuncia…

Well, I don't like Vélez's photos! They're naked children with an adult, period. They seem more endorsement than denunciation…

With a similar point of view, María Prieto (@LaRola) [20] tweets:

La publicación de las fotos de #soho no aportan nada al debate de la protección a los menores. Soho social e irreverente ya me sabe mierda.

The publication of the photos by #Soho makes no contribution to the debate about protecting minors. [The] social and irreverent Soho already tastes like shit to me.

Chilean cartoonist Alberto Montt (@albertomontt [21]) tells SoHo's editor-in-chief:

Señor @DanielSamperO, si la gente reaccionase la mitad de indignada x los casos de abusos y pdflia q x las fotos, otro gallo cantaría.

Mr @DanielSamperO, if people reacted with half the outrage with cases of sexual abuse and pedophilia than they have with the photos, things would be quite different.

While Daniel Arango (@stultaviro) [22] criticizes the magazine:

SoHo, revista erótica con prurito intelectual y aire sofisticado, que termina reducida a material masturbatorio de taller de mecánica.

SoHo, erotic magazine with intellectual obsession and sophisticated look, which ends up being reduced to masturbatory material for automobile repair shops.

Dan Gamboa Bohorquez (@larepuvlica [23]) writes:

El contexto es tan importante como el contenido. El trabajo “Dejad que los niños vengan a mí” es muy bueno, pero SoHo no debió patrocinarlo

Context is as important as content. The work “Let the children come to me” is very good, but SoHo shouldn't have endorsed it.

Fernanda Contreras gives her opinion (@PardeGatos) in two tweets (1 [24], 2 [25]):

Si alguien, a favor o en contra de Soho, abre diciendo ‘sin moralismos’, empezó mal. De eso se trata, de debatir sobre morales. En ese sentido, estar a favor de Soho no es ‘no ser moralista’, sino argumentar en pro de una moral opuesta a la del Balbuceador.

If someone, for or against Soho, starts by saying ‘no intention to be a moralist’, they are beginning the wrong way. That's all it is about: debating about morals. In that sense, to support or oppose Soho is not ‘being moralistic,’ but arguing for a morality opposed to the Stammerer General's

Ana Maria Villamil C (@Mme_Bavarde) [26] tells Samper:

@DanielSamperO Así es este país! Se indignan por unas fotos y por la muerte de una lechuza… pero les da igual si matan a una juez!

@DanielSamperO This is how this country is! They are outraged because of some pictures and the death of an owl [27]… but they don't care if a judge is murdered [28]!

Tiffany Aching (@AgnesCheshire [29]) says that,

A los curas les queda fácil comerse niños porque la iglesia tiene muchas organizaciones y colegios. Y También trabajan con niños vulnerables

For Catholic priests, it's easy to have sex with children because the church has many organizations and schools. And they also work with vulnerable kids.

SoHo's editor-in-chief Daniel Samper Ospira (@DanielSamperO) tweeted (1 [30], 2 [31]):

Los esfuerzos de las autoridades deberían ser contra la pedofilia, no contra el fotógrafo que la tomó como temática de trabajo y de denuncia[.] Las fotos no inducen a malos pensamientos con los niños, sino a sentir indignación ante el cura que les coquetea.

The authorities’ efforts should [focus] against pedophilia, not against the photographer which used it as a subject for work and denunciation[.] The photos don't incite to [have] impure thoughts with the children, but to feeling outrage at the priest flirting with them.

On the local blogosphere, Jonathan from A la diestra [32] [es] defends Ms Hoyos’ request, while Carlos Forero harshly criticizes Samper and Vélez on Segunda Plana [33] [es]:

Lo hecho por Vélez y Samper es asqueroso, usar a menores de edad desnudos en una exposición artística o en una revista para adultos es depravado, su supuesta iniciativa de denuncia se queda corta ante el hecho de la exhibición de los cuerpos de los niños.

What Vélez and Samper did is disgusting, using naked minors for an artistic exposition or an adult magazine is perverted, their alleged initiative of denunciation runs short before the fact of the exhibition of the children's bodies.

But David Osorio at De avanzada supports [34][es] Samper by republishing the controversial photos and attacking the Inspector General:

[E]n estos días el fanático, fundamentalista e intolerante Ordóñez ha vuelto a poner todas las armas que tiene a su alcance, lanza en ristre contra la revista SoHo, una vez más, por unas fotos que no son de su retorcido católico gusto y agrado.

In the last few days the fanatic, fundamentalist, and intolerant [Inspector General] Ordóñez has set up again all the weapons in his reach, attacking SoHo magazine, again, because of some photos which aren't of his twisted, catholic liking.