(1) Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in
this area requires the law to be strengthened?
No, the beauty and the power of the Internet is its freedom. We are rational
human beings and we see what we want to see and can ignore what we don’t.
Once the idea is accepted that censorship is okay, then it is a slippery
slope downwards as the government of the day may use this legislation to
impose more draconian censorship of a more political nature. Already we have
seen website owners with images of dead and mutilated bodies taken by
soldiers in Iraq on their sites being prosecuted in the USA for having
‘obscene’ images (indeed they appear in the guidelines for this act). These
people would not be covered by the defenses outlined in the proposed
legislation as they are undertaken by an individual on a web log (blog) and
are not, therefore, a member of a recognized media organization. The
majority of people in the UK would, most probably, be sickened by the images
and they would obviously fulfill the criteria outlined in the proposed
legislation (particularly those taken from within Abu Ghraib by the
disgraced Lyndie England and her cohorts which were quite obviously sexual),
yet their suppression would be a political rather than a moral one. And why
is it only confined to sexual material? Why not ban all violence in movies?
In the film ‘Commando’ (Certificate 15), over 50 people were murdered in
gruesome circumstances with blood and gore everywhere and Mel Gibson’s
‘Passion of Christ’ is a horrendously violent and sickening film, yet we, as
a society, find that acceptable, but if someone sees a film featuring say
bondage then society needs protection from them. I for one cannot reconcile
this viewpoint. And unfortunately it doesn’t cut much ice saying that the
actors in ‘Commando’ and ‘Passion’ were obviously stunt men and the action
was faked. It is very much the norm in the more aggressive ‘pornographic’
films that this is also the case. These films usually have the equivalent to
a BBFC certificate attached, issued by the licensing authorities in that
country, which ensures that the participants are over the age of consent and
that they took part willingly. Moreover many of the actresses in these films
(particularly in Japan) have a large and devoted fan clubs and they earn a
significant amount of money from them and are on record saying they enjoy
making them. Strange as it may seem, a lot of people enjoy taking part in
say BDSM activity, which is not in itself illegal, so why are they being
singled out for special punishment?
Britain has the strictest censorship laws in Europe and it also has the
highest number of violent sexual assaults (and they are rising every year).
There is a considerable body of long term research that concludes (see
footnotes) that not only is aggressive pornography not detrimental to
society but can actually be beneficial by acting as a safety valve for the
more psychotic members. You cannot legislate against human lusts; after the
needs for shelter and food is met it is the strongest human drive and so
government legislation will never have any effect, however much it might
make the legislators feel good. If people are not allowed to have this
safety valve through a pornography/masturbation route then how do they carry
out their fantasies? On a lonely girl walking home after a party? Obviously
this is not an acceptable route, but there is a danger that if they have no
outlets for their frustrations that the number of assaults will increase
even further. The evidence amassed by Professor Kutchinsky (see below) shows
that once restrictions on pornography are relaxed, then sexual assaults fall
(particularly those involving children), so why would a government flirt
with legislation that, according to scientific research, may actually put
women and children in this country in even more danger. One look at the
international crime figures shows that the countries with the strictest
censorship laws regarding adult material also have the highest number of
sexual assaults. Indeed you can almost plot the strictness of the censorship
by their relative position on the tables. Britain currently stands as the
country with the 6th highest number of violent sexual assaults (out of 191),
the highest in Europe, which is not a record to be proud of. The
government’s job is to protect its citizens not to make them more vulnerable
just on the excuse that it is ‘doing something’.
And of course there is massive scope for police corruption. The disgraceful
behavior of the Met’s Obscene Publication Squad is a case in point, where a
large number of officers were fired for soliciting bribes, falsifying
information, assaulting ‘suspects’ and generally behaving in an out of
control fashion, all brought about purely by the senseless Obscene
Publications Act. And we have to ask ourselves exactly what was gained by
it? The answer of course is nothing positive, which is precisely what this
latest act will achieve.
A better approach would be to require that websites have a coding system
and/or introduction screen that explicitly lays out what the site contains
and which can be picked up by the browser’s screening software thus
preventing them being accidentally being accessed by children.
(2) 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?
There may not be any conclusive research that supports the negative effects
of the so called violent pornography, but there is plenty of scientific
research that concludes that it is harmless and can indeed be beneficial for
society (see footnotes), including Home Office sponsored research, so why is
the government ignoring this?
On a personal level I might well find the majority of this material to be
degrading, violent or aberrant. But that doesn’t mean it should be banned
for everybody. Why should I (or anyone else come to that) be allowed to
impose my tastes on everybody else? For example, I find homosexuality
abhorrent, but I do not wish to impose my views on other people. If people
want to view pictures of men putting their penises inside other men’s
rectums, then it’s up to them, as long as I know where they are so that I
don’t have to look at them. I also consider boxing to be abhorrent - the
sight of two men beating each other into pulp in the name of sport turns my
stomach and their injuries are certainly not faked and do, in most
instances, lead to long term brain damage and premature death. And watching
seal cubs being beaten to death is pretty horrific. I could go on and on
with this list, but I think I’ve made my point. There are a lot worse images
available in the world than those featuring BDSM or whatever.
(3) Do you agree with the list of material set out (in
paragraph 39)?
Obviously not and for the following reasons:
First it is far too vague and is obviously nowhere near representative of
the actual material that is going to be banned under this new legislation.
Already we are seeing ‘guidelines’ being issued by the Home Office that
indicate that consensual spanking will be covered by the legislation.
Research carried out by Kinsey has indicated that 42% of people have
experimented with spanking as part of their sex lives. So why are they being
penalized? Up until a few years ago we still practiced corporal punishment
in schools and no-one suffered any long term effects, but school discipline
was a lot better. It is still practiced as a judicial punishment in 89
countries in the world with few long term effects. Are we, as a society,
that seriously worried about legions of middle aged men going round
indiscriminately spanking people after they’d watched a forty year old woman
in a gymslip getting put over somebody’s knee?
The list contains bestiality, and who exactly is the legislation is going to
be saved from victim hood? The woman? It must have been consensual on her
part as it’s very difficult to force someone to perform oral sex on an
animal. So the animal then? Are we really going to put people in prison
because a dog’s feelings might be hurt? The inclusion of this in the list
smacks more of individual distaste rather than any of the stated aims of the
legislation.
Similarly in the case of Scatology (watching excrement being voided) or
Urolagnia (not my spelling – this was taken from the ‘guidelines’ issued by
the Home Office – it is supposed to mean an interest in urinary functions).
I am seriously wondering who is the victim here. Will watching these videos
want to make us go to the toilet? Are we then victims because we vent our
bowels? This smacks of nanny statism as it has nothing whatsoever to do with
the proposed aim of the bill but instead speaks of the distaste that the
legislators (or whoever drew up the secret ‘guidelines’) have for people who
are interested in this fetish. Disgusting it may well be to the majority of
people, but that doesn’t mean that it should be banned for the minority:
isn’t that what the Human Rights Act is supposed to be about? Protecting the
free expression of people who don’t necessarily conform to the mainstream of
society, particularly if the practice is essentially harmless (a lot of
people drink their own urine as they believe it is beneficial to their
health and doctors say it causes no damage – will this be banned too?). Is
this being included because the police have evidence that Graham Coutts went
to the toilet just before he murdered Jane Longhurst?
And what about if the ‘corpses’ in the necrophilia films were to walk into
court? Would the assumption still be that it was non-consensual and then
jail them too for taking part in the production? Remember that despite all
the (large) sums spent investigating it there has never been a real snuff
film found anywhere in the world. Ever! They are all posed.
The list mentions that it covers acts of grievous bodily harm that would be
penalized as long as they appeared in pornography. Is breaking someone’s arm
something that would incite lust in somebody? If so I must lead a very
sheltered life. People being suspended from meat hooks were also mentioned:
does that mean we have to dispose of the Classic Richard Harris film ‘A man
called Horse’? Because that had a very long and incredibly explicit scene
where he was suspended on meat hooks. How much of our video cabinet will we
have to destroy to avoid running foul of this law? Or will it be exempt as a
work of art? Or because it features a man not a woman being tortured?
Customs and Revenue already regard movies featuring women being abused as
obscene but will allow in movies featuring men being abused. Is this act
going to be just as sexually discriminatory?
It is worthwhile noting that non sexual violence is also being included, so
things like seeing civilians in Iraq being killed will be illegal. This is
hardly sexual and smacks very firmly of press censorship.
And by whose lights will they be regarded as aberrations? Tony Blair?
Stephen Byers? David Blunkett? Pillars of moral rectitude all.
(4) Do you believe there is any justification for being
in possession of such material?
Absolutely: for example BDSM can be a dangerous practice and therefore the
BDSM community offers ‘training’ films that teach adherents to this
particular fetish the correct way to bind their consensual partner
(According to research undertaken by a BDSM ‘match making’ website there are
3 submissives [i.e. people that want to be tied up, usually males] for every
dominant, so they are hardly victims – moreover they represent up to 12% of
the population according to research carried out by Kinsey on behalf of
Playboy), so as to minimize the risk of loss of blood to extremities and
prevent possible asphyxiation. These training films will be banned under the
legislation. How will the legislators feel when somebody dies because of
this legislation? Or will they be viewed as fair game for having such
‘aberrant’ sexual desires?
Another justification is for people undertaking work on behalf of
defendants. There is no mention in the guidelines that states that the
defense can have access to this material, only prosecutors. This is
blatantly unfair and will inevitably lead to miscarriages of justice like it
is proving to be in some child pornography cases. And will this material be
so wicked that it can’t be shown in open court? If so, how is anyone likely
to get a fair trial?
And of course the biggest justification of all is the Human Rights Act,
allowing free expression, which covers the right to view material that many
people would find disgusting. The government claims that they have a right
to abrogate this freedom in order to protect public morals, but they have
not offered any research to suggest that this indeed will protect us. And
who exactly is providing the moral benchmark?
(5) And (6) Which option do you prefer and why?
Do nothing. This legislation is being viewed as knee jerk regulation (or an
excuse for a very narrow sector of the population to impose their moral
views on the population as a whole) as a result of the actions of one,
obviously deranged, man, a man moreover who had a proclivity for asphyxia
sexual practices which, according to his girlfriend, he had long before he
had internet connectivity. In other words, it is doubtful whether the
presence of this material on the internet had any bearing on the actions of
Graham Coutts.
If it could be proved categorically that the suppression of this material
will prevent another tragedy like Jane Longhurst, then I’m in favour of it,
but I am afraid that this proposed legislation will have entirely the
opposite effect. Particularly in view of the serious scientific research
that has shown that this material is not harmful to society.
It is almost guaranteed that sexual assaults will increase under this
legislation. Do we really want that? Will there be a sunset clause in the
legislation such that it will be allowed to die naturally after a fixed
period if sexual assaults indeed increase or will the women and children of
Britain just have to take their chances on the basis that the nanny state
thinks it can impose social behavior on society using the blunt stick of
legislation. It hasn’t worked with yobbish teenagers, the drugs culture,
weapon wielding gangsters or binge drinkers so why does the government think
it will work in this instance?
(7) Which penalty option do you prefer?
Why are we looking at penalizing something with prison when there is no
evidence to show that it is harmful to anyone? A better way, if we must have
this legislation, would be to confiscate the material, then give counseling
to the person in whose possession it was found, but only then if they had
showed it to a child (or didn’t take enough precautions to stop it being
seen by a child) or to someone who did not wish to see it. For people who do
commit sexual offences against someone else and they have this material in
their possession, then it should result in harsher sentences.
This is a very bad piece of legislation. It is further restricting the
rights of the citizens of this country and there is a very strong argument
to say that the legislation should not be brought in on that basis alone.
Moreover it will not, and never will, gain a consensus amongst the other
countries in the world (unlike child pornography) and so this legislation
will not achieve one of its main aims of restricting the market for this
material: its effect in that area will be marginal at best and will, most
probably, increase its sales.
Furthermore, the clause that states that the material will always be viewed
as non consensual just in order to make prosecutions easier is a miscarriage
of natural justice in its own right. Any legislation must be weighed on its
fairness (scales of justice) to both the prosecution and the defense. Any
law that naturally weighs in favour of prosecution will become an unfair
law. I, for one, would like to think the prosecution does work hard to bring
a case to ensure that innocent people are not unjustly convicted (have they
forgotten the judicial aphorism that “it is better to let a thousand guilty
men walk free than jail one innocent one?”). Making their job a lot easier
by bringing in blatantly biased legislation will not make us sleep safely in
our beds.
And let’s not forget what Lord Bingham of Cornhill, former Lord Chief
Justice had to say on Human Rights:
“The European Court of Human Rights has imposed a strict test of necessity,
relying on such concepts as pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness. The
overriding principle is clear: since the right in question is to be regarded
as fundamental, any restriction of it must be strictly justified."
And the vague definition that it may (possibly, maybe) cause harm is hardly
a strict justification to remove this right, however ‘abhorrent’ the
practices portrayed are. I can foresee that this legislation may yet founder
in the European Court of Human Rights a couple of years into the future
unless it is defined a lot clearer than it is at present. And don’t forget
the ECHR is not known for being well disposed towards hidden committees
effectively drafting legislation on the hoof as they draw up the lists
mentioned in the discussion document. A read through Hansard while this bill
was going through committee shows that the members had the same doubts about
how the HRA will impact on this legislation despite what the discussion
document might say.
As regards the protection of victims is concerned: this could be better
achieved by using this material as evidence to help secure a prosecution
against the perpetrators of the crimes (if any) which are illegal under
current legislation.
This law is unfair, based on moral prejudices rather than scientifically
backed reasoning and may well achieve the opposite effect that that
intended. Furthermore, we haven’t even begun to assess the fallout regarding
the current legislation on child pornography as Operation Ore starts to
unravel, so why exacerbate the problem by adding extra potential for
possible public outrage at the miscarriages of justice? As yet we haven’t
had the ECHR hearing a case of a convicted ‘pseudo photograph’ producer and
applying the strict justification rule, particularly as it could, in some
quarters, be regarded as art, but we will. The ECHR has given the UK
considerable leeway regarding the restriction and censorship of adult
material, on the grounds of safeguarding the morality of the nation, but it
has to at some point draw a line in the sand and say there and no further or
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act is not worth the paper its written on.
And the vague justifications, with no objective or scientific backing that
have been brought forward to support the bill may yet fail the strict
justification hurdle. And where will that get us?
This law looks like an attempt by a government who have completely and
utterly lost any sense of perspective and have run out of ideas as to how to
solve the actual, real problems in society (which are mainly of their own
making) to force the population to conform with a very narrow view of
morality that is preached (but sadly not practiced) by certain members of
parliament and their wonks. Furthermore it looks like it is being brought in
purely to find a use for the sparkly new high tech crimes unit (and the
myriad Abusive Images Units that all the police forces now have) that the
government have wasted so much money on when society would really prefer
their policemen to be patrolling the streets keeping us safe rather than
sitting in front of computers looking at porn all day. This act will, at a
conservative estimate, involve over 500 full time policemen as well as
forensic experts and will cost in the order of 75-100 million pounds a year
(minimum) to implement. Is this opportunity cost worth paying for the
minimal (at best) ‘benefits’ that it will bring (which have never been
explained to us) when the police forces are so under funded and remember
this money will come out of the rates (i.e. its local councils who have to
pay for it). Do we want to see further rate rises (and pensioners going to
jail) just so our legislators can impose their morals on us?
It is a bad law and should not be allowed to reach the statute books.
“The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable." -
Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
Appendix:
Research supporting the legalization of pornography:
1990 Home Office Report, "Pornography: Impacts and Influences", (by Dr Guy
Cumberbatch and Dr Dennis Howlitt)
Reasearch by Berl Kutchinsky who is a Professor of Criminology at the
Institute of Criminology and Criminal Science at the University of
Copenhagen (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/14/kutchinsky.pd)
Milton Diamond of the University of Hawaii’s - Manoa John A. Burns School of
Medicine, Department of Anatomy and Reproductive Biology, Pacific Center for
Sex and Society in Honolulu and Ayako Uchiyama from the National Research
Institute of Police Science Juvenile Crime Study Section 6, Sanban-cho,
Chiyoda-ku in Tokyo
(http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html)
|
