Collective Shout has called on Australian cinemas not to screen the children’s movie Show Dogs over concerns the film grooms children for sexual abuse.

In response to the global outcry from parents and child advocates, the production company withdrew the film, promising to re-cut it to remove the offending scenes. However, the film has been re-released with only a minor portion of the troubling scenes removed. This is not good enough, so now we’re calling on Australian cinemas to take a stand against child sexual abuse and refuse to screen the film. 

At this stage, the film is being promoted by Hoyts, Event Cinemas, Palace Cinemas and Wallis Cinemas. The film is currently not listed on Cineplex, Village Cinemas, Dendy Cinemas, Grand Cinemas and ACE Cinemas websites.

So far, we’ve had responses from several cinemas. 

Hoyts has claimed the film “has not confirmed its release date for Australia” and that they do not have any information about the film being shown on their screens yet- however, the film is currently being advertised on the ‘Coming Soon’ section of Hoyts’ website with a release date of 5^thJuly.

Dendy responded as follows:

Show Dogs has not been confirmed for any of the Dendy Cinemas sites. We are not planning on showing the film at this stage. 

We need your help.

Help us keep the pressure on, and let these cinemas know you don’t want them to screen Show Dogs.

Contact your local cinema here, and let us know if they respond.

We are writing to you in regards to the children’s film Show Dogs, due for release 5 July. Upon its release in the US, it attracted substantial criticism from parents and child advocates over concerns of “grooming” children for sexual abuse.

The film tells the story of a police dog going undercover at a dog show. There are reportedly several scenes in which the dog, Max, has to have his genitals inspected. When he is uncomfortable and wants to stop he is told to go to a ‘zen place’. When he submits and allows his genitals to be touched, he is rewarded by advancing to the next level of the show.

In response to the global backlash, the production company withdrew the film, promising to re-cut it to remove the scenes in question. The film has been re-released, however the scenes remain, with only the encouragement to ‘go to a zen place’ (essentially, to dissociate) being removed. The meaning remains intact, that unwanted sexual touching is to be endured and may be rewarded.

*UPDATE: CNN has reported the film will undergo edits to remove the objectionable content!* 

Child advocates have accused new kids film Show Dogs of sending “a troubling message that grooms children for sexual abuse”. The film was released in the US last week, and is not scheduled to be released in Australia until July.  

The film follows the story of a police dog going undercover at a dog show. There are reportedly several scenes in which the dog, Max, has to have his genitals inspected. When he is uncomfortable and wants to stop he is told to go to a ‘zen place’. When he does this, he can advance to the final round of the dog show.  

National Center on Sexual Exploitation has called on distribution company Global Road Entertainment to halt the distribution of Show Dogs in movie theaters and recut the movie:

“The dog is rewarded with advancing to the final round of the dog show after passing this barrier. Disturbingly, these are similar tactics child abusers use when grooming children — telling them to pretend they are somewhere else, and that they will get a reward for withstanding their discomfort.

“Children’s movies must be held to a higher standard, and must teach children bodily autonomy, the ability to say ‘no’ and safety, not confusing messages endorsing unwanted genital touching.”

From News.com.au:

Reviewers, too, have expressed their discomfort over the scenes in question.

Slate writer Ruth Graham called it “unsettling on several levels”.

“First, this is a children’s movie in which the protagonist’s success depends on withstanding a stranger touching his genitals even though it makes him uncomfortable,” she wrote.

“The movie’s solution to Max’s discomfort with the inspection is not to empower him to escape it somehow; it’s to have him learn to checkout mentally while he endures it, and to make no outward sign of his humiliation. It is not paranoid to say that this is a bad message for kids.”

Writer Jenny Rapson echoed those sentiments in a blog post on For Every Mom: “Max’s success is riding on whether or not he lets both his partner (for practice) and a stranger (the competition judge) touch his private parts. IN A KIDS MOVIE. WHAT??? Newsflash, folks: THIS IS CALLED GROOMING and it’s what sexual predators do to kids!”

Writer Terina Maldonado wrote on family film blog Macaroni Kid that “during the movie, I kept thinking, “This is wrong, it doesn’t need to be in a kids movie. Everything else in the movie is good fun except for this.”

In response to the outcry, Global Road Entertainment, co-producers of the film released a statement to CNN:

“The dog show judging in this film is depicted completely accurately as done at shows around the world; and was performed by professional and highly-respected dog show judges,” the statement said in part. “Global Road Entertainment and the filmmakers are saddened and apologise to any parent who feels the scene sends a message other than a comedic moment in the film, with no hidden or ulterior meaning, but respect their right to react to any piece of content.”

One of the writers of the film has spoken out against the scenes in question, claiming that they were written into the script by of the “13 other writers” who worked on the movie.

“[I] didn’t get to see the film until it was in its final stage of completion, and had zero say in creative choices the second I signed away the rights to my work.”

“I absolutely condemn any suggestion or act of non-consensual touching in any form, as well as disassociation as a coping mechanism for abuse of any kind. I understand and empathise with the parents’ and groups’ concerns regarding the message the movie may impart,” he said.

Children’s charity Bravehearts is also calling for a ban on the Australian Classification Board to ban the film:

Bravehearts is responding to reports this children’s film contains multiple scenes where a dog character must have its private parts inspected and manhandled. When the dog feels uncomfortable and wants it to stop is then told to just go to a ‘zen place’ and is later rewarded for his consent by being advanced to the final round of the dog show. This message is not only wrong, but it promotes acceptance of grooming and goes against the very basic principles of child protection.

The charity asked supporters to urgently contact the board at enquiries@classification.gov.au and Senator, The Hon Mitch Fifield at Minister@communications.gov.au.

Cineplex Theatres have already pulled the film:

Be sure to follow our Facebook page for further updates.

***"Trigger warning: child exploitation'' 

Campaigners and survivors of sex trafficking are celebrating what has been dubbed “the most important anti-trafficking legislation in a generation”.

According to the National Centre on Sexual Exploitation, despite investigations by the U.S. Congress, websites that facilitate sex trafficking have not been held to account. New amendments to the “outdated” law, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) would allow victims of sexual exploitation to pursue legal actions against these websites and aid prosecutors in bringing charges against them.

A still image from the 2017 documentary I am Jane Doe.

As reported in the Washington Post:

The legislation arose as Congress learned that its current anti-trafficking laws could not be applied to websites like Backpage, which host thousands of ads daily for female and male prostitutes, some of which are children being trafficked by adults. Backpage has successfully cited the Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from liability for material posted by third parties, to evade both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.

Congress launched an investigation into Backpage which showed that its operators helped customers modify their ads to delete references to teenage prostitutes, yet still allowed the ads to run. The Washington Post then reported that Backpage used a company in the Philippines to solicit both prostitutes and johns from other websites, and created new ads for the prostitutes.

In response to the amendments, various major sites have implemented significant changes:

Cityvibe shut down completely, the Erotic Review, the “Yelp of the sex trade” where men rate their experiences with trafficking victims, shut down advertisement boards in the United States, NightShift shut down to review policies, VerifyHim shut down its “newsreel,” Craigslist personals section was shut down, Reddit’s prostitution-related “subreddits” were marked private and the site instituted new policies banning the sale of sex acts and drugs, Google reportedly deleted its publicly shared commercial sex-related advertising, WordPress.com reportedly removed its commercial sex-related advertising sites, Paypal reportedly disabled advertised accounts for commercial sex-related payment, Rubmaps, Erotic Monkey, and USA Sex Guide had extended maintenance periods over the weekend, suggesting upcoming changes due to the new law, Microsoft is issuing new Terms of Service effective May 1st covering all of its platforms, including Skype and Xbox, to urge users not to use the services to share pornography or criminal activity. Read more.

This is a massive victory for survivors of commercial sexual exploitation.

See also:

Watch the trailer for 2017 documentary I am Jane Doe

Backpage’s Sex Ads Are Gone. Child Trafficking? Hardly. New York Times

Despite the advancements made in the battle to bring child sexual abuse to the forefront of public discussion, it seems society still has a long way to go when it comes to reporting on child exploitation with dignity and respect.

Take a moment to think over a recent article you’ve read on child sexual abuse—and now ask yourself, how did they describe the crime? Did the article report on a toddler being raped by an adult, or was it inferred that the offender ‘had sex with’ the child? Was the young trafficking victim reported as a ‘child prostitute,’ or a victim? Did the TV program you watched the other night report that an underage boy was taken advantage of, or that he was really ‘in a relationship’ with his abuser?

Trigger warning: This blog contains references to child sexual abuse, please be aware of and prioritise your own well-being.

Shopping with my with my 10 year old daughter one Sunday afternoon, she suggested she needed new school socks. I could not have envisioned the chain of events that would quickly unfold as a result of her request….

More and more we are hearing stories like this. All the schools affected are listed in the article below. Police are encouraging any victims to come forward and report it.

“I came across an advertisement on Child Sex Dolls while looking at Japanese news online. Who would think such a heinous insult to the sanctity of children would exist?”