The article also said that the doll was considered child pornography. There simply was not enough evidence to convict in this particular case. The precedent is certainly set now that a sex doll marketed and designed to resemble a child *IS* most certainly considered child pornography. In this case, it appears that a forensic psychologist was called on to make this determination - not CBSA, not the Crown and not the Court.Geoff wrote:Geoff wrote:https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfound ... -1.5146259
finally his case concluded - not guilty
wow - dragged for so many years
So the question is...was it a doll or just a foam? in the news article...it said a "foam"
At Sex Doll Canada, we do not recommend any shorter dolls with small or under-developed breasts, hips or other maturation features. However, as must be said, we do NOT provide legal advice or give definitive determinations on what is considered legally permissible. That is always up to the customer, and one should always err on the side of caution.
Moreover, just because something gets imported successfully once (with or without CBSA inspection) does not mean that it is or is not child pornography.
A final comment would be that it is not worth it to take risks in this area. If you need to ask the question, then it means it is in the grey zone and the importer of record would be taking a big risk to import it. We don't offer this body style / model for that reason, and we don't recommend it for importation into Canada, USA or the UK.