 (1) No other European Union country criminalises mere possession of adult
visual material. To do so here would create an Orwellian victimless crime
enforced by Thought Police. There is no justification for trying to surround
Britain by an Iron Curtain against freedom of access to adult material on
the internet. It would breach the Human Rights Act.
(2) “ Degrading,” “ serious violence” and “ aberrant” are subjective
concepts which have no place in criminal law. As Bernard Shaw stated: “ The
role of the artist is to shock.” The proposed definitions of proscribed
material would be interpreted in different ways by different juries,
resulting in an arbitrary system of imprisonments.
(3) The only justification for proscribing mere possession of visual
material is protection of minors, because they cannot give valid consent to
the sexual acts portrayed. The proposed laundry list is intolerable because
it provides no defence of consent by the subjects portrayed. Where there is
no consent, the existing criminal law applies. Proscribing images of
bestiality would criminalise classical art, such as Leda and the Swan and
The Rape of Europa.
(4) The question is wrongly worded. What is required is justification for
prohibiting adults from exercising their freedom of choice. There is none
because the proposed crime is victimless. No-one is harmed by merely seeing
any material. If they were, all crime films and some newsreels would have to
be banned. Bestiality, necrophilia and violence, whether filmed or not, are
already illegal.
(5) The present law is solely directed at paedophiles. The proposal, by
contrast, seeks to imprison law abiding people who chose to look at adult
material of which others disapprove. Any criminal offence committed in the
production of the material can and should be dealt with under existing law.
(7) Imprisonment is totally unacceptable for victimless thought crimes. The
United Kingdom already has the highest prison population in the European
Union. Why increase it with people whose only offence has been to look at
the “ wrong” thing ? It would breach the European Convention on Human
Rights.
Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment
(1) If the financial impact will be low (paragraph lll) then the amount of
material concerned cannot be large enough to justify imprisoning viewers.
The requisite supply and demand exists and there is no evidence that it will
increase. There is no “ gap” to be closed.
(3) Participants in the material are already protected by the criminal law
against assault. There is no justification for using the old “ protection of
children” argument. That would mean proscribing all material which is
unsuitable for minors. No country does that. Option 4 has benefits, namely
freedom of citizens in a supposed democracy to watch what they chose.
(4) Option 4 contains no message. In a democracy there should be no
authoritarian “ Nanny State” which only allows material of which it
approves. If so alcohol and cigarettes should be banned.
(6) Male gay S-M material should be noted.
Notes to this Draft
The numbering above refers to the sections in the Home Office consultation
document. This can be downloaded from
www.unfettered.co.uk/backlash/consult.html
Backlash, an umbrella organisation set up to contest the proposals, has its
own website at
www.unfettered.co.uk/backlash/index.html
|
