proclaimed by Parliament in s. 718(a), (b) and (c) of the Criminal Code, commonly referred to as denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and the
need to separate offenders from society, must take precedence over the other
recognized objectives of sentencing.
We as a society owe it to our children to protect them from the harm caused
by offenders like the appellant. Our children are at once our most valued and
our most vulnerable assets. Throughout their formative years, they are manifestly incapable of defending themselves against predators like the appellant
and as such, they make easy prey. People like the appellant know this only too
well and they exploit it to achieve their selfish ends, heedless of the dire consequences that can and often do follow.
 The sentencing judge made specific reference to these
Sentencing for the production, distribution and possession
of child pornography
 This court has also frequently stated that denunciation
and general deterrence are the primary principles of sentencing
in offences involving child pornography. In our recent decision in
R. v. Inksetter (2018), 141 O.R. (3d) 161,  O.J. No. 2702,
2018 ONCA 474, Hoy A.C.J.O. stated, at para. 16:
By enacting s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, Parliament made clear that
denunciation and general deterrence must be primary considerations for any
offence involving the abuse of a child. Further, this Court has repeatedly
stated that denunciation and general deterrence are the primary principles of
sentencing for offences involving child pornography: R. v. D.G.F., 2010 ONCA
27, 98 O.R. (3d) 241, at paras. 21-22, 30; R. v. Nisbet, 2011 ONCA 26, 
O.J. No. 101, at para. 3; R. v. E.O.,  O.J. No. 563, at para. 7; R. v.
Stroempl,  O.J. No. 2772, at para. 9.
 Hoy A.C.J.O. observed that the evidence in that case
reinforced the concern that increasing technological sophistica-
tion has facilitated the production and distribution of child
pornography. She noted [at para. 26] that the evidence estab-
lished, as a general trend, that “[t]he images and videos keep get-
ting more aggressive. The police are now identifying more images
of ‘baby rape.’”
 In R. v. F. (D.G.) (2010), 98 O.R. (3d) 241,  O.J. No.
127, 2010 ONCA 27, 250 C.C.C. (3d) 291, Feldman J.A. noted, at
para. 21, that for the previous two decades, courts had been on
a “learning curve to understand both the extent and the effects of
the creation and dissemination of child pornography over the
internet and to address the problem appropriately”. She noted
that in cases involving the making of child pornography and child
sexual abuse, significant custodial sentences had been imposed.
She observed, at para. 22: