Firstly, however, I would draw your attention the fact that I run a business
making adult leather goods ("bondage gear"), selling my products to
consenting adults.
In addition, before I get to my replies, I wish to strenuously express my
disapproval of the tone of the entire document, the questions it poses and
the manner in which they are posed (eg falsely implying links between this
material and child pornography), which seem to be neither impartial nor
unbiased and which appear to be more aimed at eliciting favourable (to the
Home Office) responses from the public, presumably so they can be spun into
"the majority of people who replied were in favour of the proposals".
I also wish to object to the aim of the document which seems to be to create
nothing less than a "Thought Crime" whereby if someone so much as looks at
an image, even if the participants are consenting adults, they should
automatically be considered a criminal if the Home Office deems the image
"abhorrent" or "unacceptable" according to the Home Office's particular
values or beliefs.
To answer the questions raised by the Consultation:
Q. Do you think that the challenge posed by the Internet in this area
requires the law to be strengthened?
No.
The Internet is the greatest tool for Freedom of Expression since the
invention of the printing press, yet, even before the advent of printing,
there have been those who, for whatever reasons, some putatively good,
others criminally ill, have sought to censor the right and the ability of
others to express their views deeming them "abhorrent" or to "not have a
place in society".
Freedom of Expression is the right of the individual to say what they wish,
even things that others may not like and provided that right is used
responsibly there should be no restriction on it at all.
Please note that by "responsibly" I do not mean "not saying or showing
things that the State doesn't like", but "not abusing it by, for instance,
calling on others to commit acts of violence". If someone was to express a
belief that "we should not allow so many immigrants", that would possibly be
unpleasant, but not an abuse of the right of Freedom of Expression. Were
they, however to say "I think we should give all the immigrants a good
kicking", that would be unacceptable.
By the same token, simply producing an image that some may consider
"abhorrent" does not mean that the producers are saying "you should go out
and do this", that is a decision for the individual and the vast majority
should not be penalised on the off-chance that one aberrant individual may
consider acting on such an impulse. This would makes as little sense as
banning alcohol because a minority drink and drive.
I also would like to point out that, with regard to my employment, through
working in a "Sex Business" I have had more than a little contact with adult
material, including some which this consultation could consider "extreme".
Despite this, however, or, perhaps more likely, because of it, I have not
felt inclined to commit acts of non-consensual (sexual) violence, nor would
I ever, yet, were this material to be found in my possession, these
proposals mean I could be jailed even though I have done no wrong.
I have little doubt that many of my thousands of customers have also had
contact with such material, however I have absolutely no reason to think
that any of them would commit such acts either, yet, they, too, could suffer
imprisonment simply for looking at something that someone else doesn't like.
Additionally, I do photography as a hobby and on various (non-pornographic)
photographic and modelling sites, you can see images created for the "Goth"
scene, which often feature young women in sensual or erotically styled poses
whilst covered in fake blood and apparently "dead", sometimes with slit
throats etc. Often these images involve other models posed as if they had
caused the injuries. These images could easily be classified as "serious
sexual violence" or even "sexual interference with a corpse", a ludicrous
situation when they are simply pictures posed by consenting adults!
Q. In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible
negative effects, do you think that there is some pornographic material
which is so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should not be tolerated?
No.
This is a question which I consider offensively "loaded", since it seems
blatantly rigged to get people to answer "well, yes, I suppose there could
be".
As your question admits, there is an absence of any conclusive research
results of negative effect and, indeed, all the evidence produced by
reputable researchers indicates that actually the contrary is the case,
indeed often that the vast majority those who use this material get a
"cathartic" effect from it which means that they are less likely to suffer
negative effects.
As I mentioned above, the right of Freedom of Expression contains the right
to say or publish things that others may not like. This right should not be
infringed upon for whatever reason (even if those reasons are brought
forward with the best intentions) since it would diminish a most basic and
important freedom.
Q. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of
such material?
Q. Do you agree with the list of material set out in paragraph 39?
No.
(I will answer these two questions together since they form the crux of my
objections.)
It is not a matter of whether there is any "justification" for "possession"
of such material, the question should be "is there any real justification
for criminalising someone for possessing such material" and my answer is a
categorical and unqualified NO.
One of the most fundamental rights enshrined in our laws is the right to be
"Presumed innocent until proven guilty", yet these proposals and these
questions appear to wish to turn that on its head as they have an underlying
implication (based simply on opinions, not facts) that anyone who wants to
look at such material must somehow be "aberrant" and thus considered a
potential (if not actual) criminal who needs "protection" from themselves by
a Nanny State. This is contrary to all established principles of liberty.
As such, I most certainly do not and cannot agree with the list of material
set out in Paragraph 39 since it would, if passed into law, effectively
establish the authority of the State to criminalise ANY material that it
considers "abhorrent" or to "not have a place in society" and would thereby
empower the State to subsequently extend its powers to impose censorship on
the internet and other mediums.
There are, I would mention at this point, regimes in this world who have
attempted to introduce and, indeed, have actually enacted such laws
preventing the expression or discussion of particular concepts, ideas or
beliefs. This country is supposed to be a bastion of freedom against such
intolerance, but these proposals are simply the thin end of a very large
wedge that could drive its way through the basic and fundamental rights that
we have fought for and which many have died to preserve.
Q. Which option do you prefer?
Q. Why do you think this option is best?
Q. Which penalty option do you think is preferable?
I will also answer these questions together.
Despite blatant attempts to load the dice against it, my preference is most
certainly for "Do nothing".
We already have sufficient laws to protect people from acts of violence or
non-consensual sexual activity. We have laws to protect children and
campaigns to educate parents about their responsibilities to protect their
children from seeing inappropriate material on the internet.
Again, where it says "although we recognise that accessing such material
does not necessarily cause criminal activity, we consider the moral and
public protection case against allowing this kind of material sufficiently
strong to make this option unattractive", your document admits that there is
no evidence to back up its claims or justifications or beliefs, yet still it
attempts to gloss over this fundamental flaw in its reasoning in the hope
that the reader will fall for the rhetoric and the hyperbole.
Obviously my answer to the third one is that there should be no penalty
applied to the possession of this material. Such penalties would be
virtually un-policeable and would have no effect on those very few who might
be inclined to commit acts of violence if they saw this material, but it
would have the effect of criminalising adults who would never commit any
offence at all.
A parallel example at this point would be the banning of various types of
guns following the Hungerford and Dunblane atrocities. Despite those bans,
the level of gun crime in this country has risen, whereas, were it to follow
the logic of these proposals, it should have gone down.
If gun crime increases in this way, something which is, surely, much easier
to police and enforce, (being based on fact and clear evidence, rather than
solely on subjective opinions of whether something is "abhorrent") there is
no way that these proposals could have any of the effects they claim they
will produce.
In closing I have to say that I consider these proposals to be incredibly
poorly thought out and seem more an attempt by a minority to foist their
particular standards of "acceptability" on the majority "by the back door".
This is not the sort of behaviour that we should expect in a free country.
|
