My responses to the specific questions raised in the consultation document
are as follows:
1. Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires
the law to be strengthened?
No I do not. The Internet is the people’s only truly free medium for freedom
of expression. The question actually asks whether we feel the Internet
should become yet another medium for State oppression. It is not the
Internet that would be censored, as we know this is virtually impossible,
the proposed law will target people not the Internet. This is clearly a
means of virtual electronic book burning via self-censorship. Moreover, it
is self-censorship that cannot be guaranteed, as we, the Internet users,
cannot be sure what is on the end of a mouse click until after it has
loaded. Thus, even if we all agreed with the premise that violent porn
should be outlawed, we could never protect ourselves 100% from exposing our
computers to it. Nor could we ever prove any outlawed material that came to
be on our machines was there purely accidentally because there would always
be a trail showing we had clicked on a link and received said images.
It would also seem prudent at this juncture to introduce the concept of
pluralism and tolerance. Why would anyone who claims to be in favour of
creating a “Just and Tolerant society” suddenly decide that many millions of
people that enjoy doing something, without ever becoming a nuisance to
society, should be singled out for punishment? This is somewhat reminiscent
of Nazi Germany’s attitudes to Jews in expressing an abhorrent and unfounded
hatred for some section of society simply because they are different.
It might also be worthwhile pointing out that the people that make
‘realistic depictions’ of certain acts do so of their own free will and,
moreover, have a perfectly legitimate right to express their sexuality in
ways other people may indeed find abhorrent. We all have a right not to
believe in conservative, fundamentalist dogma, which appears to be at the
root of these proposals. Consenting adults should be free to share their
sexual experiences with other like-minded, or simply curious, individuals.
Any interference, where not strictly justified by proof of harm, can only be
construed as an abuse of fundamental Human Rights.
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?
No I do not. In the absence of any evidence of harm what is the law to
protect us from? Our own misguided opinions perhaps? Indeed, is the law now
to be used to enforce intolerance and if so, how is that justified without
any evidence to support that most vile position? Are we not trying to create
a “Just and tolerant society”? Are we to suffer unjust and unjustified laws?
This question is also extremely misleading. All the evidence from around the
world not only suggests there are no negative effects but actually shows
there are positive effects from the availability of this kind of material.
One need only consult the work of Dr. Milton Diamond and Dr. Beryl
Kutchinsky to discover that the Obscenity laws in Britain, as enforced by
our Courts and censorial bodies, are actually adding to the problem of
sexual violence in society. The law is already acting in direct opposition
to the welfare of the people and now you aim to add fuel to the
rights-abusing fire? What happened to reason, logic and above all else hard
scientific fact? Is the law to become nothing more than the sounding board
of the puritanical zealots? Are we to suffer yet another Inquisition on the
basis of beliefs? This consultation is a farce. The whole premise behind it
is nothing more than a puritanical crusade through people’s private affairs.
Leave us alone to enjoy our own sexual fantasies. The law has no place
invading my mind or anyone else’s.
This country has a long history of imposing baseless, irrational,
rights-abusing laws. For decades homosexuals were persecuted under the law
for their ‘aberrant’ behaviour. That law was wrong and so is this attempt at
branding some strange fetishes as being too strange to be legal. What’s
next, a law which bans oral sex or only permits sex between married couples?
We might laugh but in some States of the USA such laws exist and are
actively enforced! This consultation is not only a farce it is an insidious
attempt not only to gain the approval of the religious conservative right
but also to impose their ‘standards’ on the vast majority who do not share
their fanatical zeal. Shame on anyone who supports this proposal, they are
all nothing but illiberal, narrow-minded, intolerant fascists.
3. Do you agree with the list of material set out (in paragraph 39)?
No I do not. Where’s the harm and the evidence of that harm? Is this merely
an attempt to protect people from offence? No one has a right not to be
offended. Having the right to cause offence is the cornerstone of a
democracy. The law cannot be used to protect people from offence else we
lose our democracy. I might add that the ‘Pagan’ community, and by ‘Pagan’ I
include secularism as this most definitely falls outside orthodox religion,
have rights to worship in ways the Christian community may find abhorrent
but as this is a matter of conscience and religion it is protected under
Human Rights Legislation. Sex with animals, corpses etc. could all be
justified in a ‘Pagan’ context of worship and is therefore protected by Law.
4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of
such material?
As a matter of fact yes I do and it is called Freedom of Expression. “Do you
believe there is sufficient justification to lock people away for indulging
their sexual fantasies?” might be a better question. That is after all what
this whole piece of Home Office propaganda is about isn’t it? - Prosecuting
people that think differently from some assumed line in the sand definition
of sexual normalcy? There is no such thing as normal. We are all very
different individuals, products of our upbringing and environment. And
contrary to what our legislators want us to believe, when it comes to
creating ‘normal’ productive members of society with no strange sexual
fetishes, then the best environment for that is a sexually open one free
from stigma and draconian morality legislation. Of course no one in
Government knows that because no one in Government has looked at the facts
and acknowledged that everything they believe is adding to the problem of
sexual violence in our society. Ignorance is devastating!
5. Which option do you prefer?
Obviously I choose option 4 – Do nothing.
6. Why do you think this option is best?
Because there isn’t a problem, only a perceived problem in the minds of
those who cannot think beyond their own puritanical perversions. What some
see as violent and degrading, others see as being fun and exhilarating. It
is not for any Government to dictate sexual tastes or preferences.
Protection of children’s welfare is one thing, cracking down on what adults
find pleasurable to look at is another thing entirely. The problem
throughout this consultation is the inclusion of the phrase ‘realistic
depictions’. Such material does not cause harm to the participants or
viewer. We see endless people being shot, stabbed, run through and hacked to
death with ‘light sabres’, being blown to pieces, taking drugs, being run
down by cars etc. in numerous mainstream films. All these acts are
‘realistic depictions’ of violence against people and yet no action is being
proposed to make criminals of people in possession of these images. If
however, we add some nudity, some hint of sex then suddenly the Government
jumps on the anti-porn bandwagon. It’s total and utter repression. You
people need to grow up and behave like adults for a change. You need to do
some research and ensure your opinions in this area actually stand up to
scrutiny because I can assure you they do not. I don’t suppose it occurred
to anyone at the Home Office that this sort of self-righteous puritanical
pseudo moralistic claptrap is exactly the sort of brainless dogma behind
terrorist suicide attacks? You are just attacking people that think
differently and do not fit some idealistic picture of the ‘perfect society’
you have painted in your heads.
7. Which penalty option do you prefer?
Penalties for doing what exactly? Looking but NOT doing? It is time to look
at some FACTS:
Spain and Portugal impose no censorship and no age limits on the material
their citizens’ view. Both of these countries exhibit the lowest sex crime
rates in the whole of Europe.
In the 1990s a study in Japan revealed that a rising sex crime trend had
been reversed and reduced by a staggering 86% by relaxing out-dated
US-imposed morality-based censorship of the kind outlined in this
consultation. The Japanese produce the most ‘violent and degrading’ porn in
the world, so much so the BBFC have great difficulty passing Japanese films
uncut if granting a certificate at all. For all the availability of this
‘extreme porn’, Japan now boasts the lowest rate of sexual offences anywhere
in the World. This material isn’t merely harmless, it is positively
beneficial to society, so why on earth does this Government want to ban it
and imprison the people who look at it? Have those in Government any idea of
how to create that mythical “Just and Tolerant society” we’re always being
promised? Has anyone in Government considered looking at real crime figures
from other countries with different perspectives on public morality,
obscenity and censorship? Because when you do look at the evidence, it
becomes abundantly clear that all our obscenity laws are wrong and
dangerously so. A secular society cannot afford to rely on beliefs if it is
to remain secular and if it is to make progress. We cannot afford to pass
law based on puritanical opinions because this inevitably ends in
discrimination, intolerance and conflict. The Law must be Just if it is to
serve Justice, it must therefore only punish those guilty of perpetrating
real and manifest harm. And by all accounts, the people causing the harm in
our society are those enforcing our outdated obscenity laws!
I cannot stress this point enough. From all the available evidence, it is
the attitudes of the legislature and particularly the Obscenity laws in this
land that need a serious overhaul. The Human Rights Act makes it clear that
we should not impose law that threatens the moral and psychological welfare
of the people. Yet, all our draconian obscenity and censorship law does just
that – it creates a stifling environment that promotes the production of the
‘sexual deviants’ this proposed law is aiming to persecute. The attitudes
toward sex in this country create the very people we despise most. It is
therefore essential that the Government stop trying to interpret the harm we
are to protect people from to suit their ingrained idealistic notions of
morality. Freedom of Expression exists to “challenge States and opinions” in
order to “progress society”. Clearly, enforcing ‘Victorian’ standards of
morality cannot be viewed as making progress. Clinging to outdated notions
of what constitutes harmful material, when all the evidence indicates the
opposite is true, cannot be justified. In short, the Government must not and
cannot be allowed to legislate what would constitute an Act of Human Rights
abuse.
Sexual material that was once believed to be harmful has now been shown
throughout the world to be helpful in combating real sexual abuse. If the
Government were serious about tackling the ‘causes of crime’ they would be
making all types of pornography available to anyone who wanted to see it no
matter what their age or sexual tastes. Only those people who are unable to
satiate their sexual fantasies through safe mediums such as films actually
go and act them out on real victims. This is the truth of the matter and
there is over 30 years worth of hard criminal evidence to back it up. The
days of moralistic opinions and State imposed repression are over, and this
Government would be wise to review all the relevant data before proceeding
any further with this dangerous crusade. To continue to deprive the
‘depraved’ of safe and easy outlets for their sexual needs places women and
children in very grave danger. This is blatantly common sense. And, it
places a very different slant on what ‘needs to be done’ in order to
‘protect women and children’ from serious sexual abuse, none of which
appears to have crossed the minds of the bigoted fools who created our
obscenity laws or this despicable consultation propaganda.
Justice can only be served by the truth. To pass law, which is based on
bigoted, puritanical opinions with no firm basis in fact or truth, can only
be viewed as a gross dereliction of duty. You may ‘believe’ people are
corrupted by sexually violent material but until there is proof this is so
then that has as much foundation as a belief in the Tooth Fairy. You may
‘believe’ this is a way to engineer a better or ‘purer’ society but
experiments in eugenics often turn out to be nothing but physical and mental
abuse. We are not Saints or Angels we are Human Beings. We cannot control
our sexuality just as we cannot control the onset of puberty. We are sexual
creatures and it is an evil man who would dictate what his fellow man
shouldn’t, can’t or won’t find erotic. It is also known that to interfere
with the sexual development of a person especially by restricting their
sexual freedom and curiosity can and does result in sexual deviance. Perhaps
the best example of the type of behaviour denial of our sexual fantasies can
produce comes from the disproportionate number of paedophile priests. I ask
you, if men who are dedicated to religious piety cannot control their sexual
urges and resort to taking advantage of children then what is the likely
result of telling ordinary people with strange fetishes they cannot view the
types of images they want to view? The fact these strange fetishes may be a
result of living in a repressive environment should cause us to examine the
laws and attitudes in this land very carefully indeed.
This is supposed to be the ‘age of reason’ yet all reasoning appears to have
been pushed aside in favour of bleeding heart emotional knee jerking typical
of British Governments. With luck the proposals in this consultation will
have met with the overwhelming derision and contempt they deserve. All the
evidence from many years of study tells us we should not be looking at
strengthening our grip on sexual freedom but relaxing it.
|
