I am a 48-year-old mother of three. I have worked in many areas including
finance, law and education.
I have spent the last 6 years teaching and facilitating in the BDSM
lifestyle as well as counselling people with BDSM problems and issues.
I am a member of SMPride and a supporter of The Sexual Freedom Coalition,
The Spanner Trust, Revise65, Unfettered and Backlash as well as a member of
the many national, international and local area BDSM support groups and
organisations.
My personal position is as follows.
1. I am an active member of the BDSM Community. I believe I (along with many
others) have a right to enjoy my safe sane and consensual sado-masochistic
sexuality. I believe I have a duty to broaden understanding and develop
support for this minority group – as well as educating on safety issues,
technique and best practice.
2. I support efforts to legislate against child pornography and abuse of
minors.
3. I support and work with organisations that work with and provide
assistance for victims of violence including domestic and sexual abuse both
at a local and national level.
4. I oppose real, filmed or pictorial images of actual violence towards
non-consenting adults or children – including images of “Happy Slapping”,
“Marine Initiation Ceremonies” and the abuse pictures from the jail at Abu
Ghraib.
5. I oppose actual necrophilia and bestiality.
6. I accept that some people will find any kind of pornographic imagery
distasteful.
7. I currently have a collection of images that include needle play and
suspension as well as bondage and other sado masochistic acts. I also have a
collection of historical torture images and a collection of images I use in
sex education work – including a video, which shows the differences between
real abuse –v- S&M marks –v- accidental damage.
I have considerable problems both with the consultation document itself and
the manner in which it has been carried out.
I have already outlined my problems with the consultation process at length
to Pio Smith in separate correspondence. I will summarise them here.
1. Failure to include representative stakeholders from the film industry,
sociologists, behavioural scientists, perceptual scientists, Human rights
organisations, academics, psychologists, sex workers, actors and actresses
and sexual freedoms organisations including those representing BDSM
community.
2. The difficulties in finding the Consultation Document and Response
Document on-line and the fact that for large periods of the consultation
period the documents were not available online.
3. Failure to include experts from Europe and further – this is a worldwide
issue.
4. Other failures of the consultation process, which fall short of the
governments own “9 Principles of Better Policy-Making” found here http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/better_policy_making/
The consultation document itself concerns me concern in several areas.
Freedom of speech, thought and expression – I believe this act could
seriously curtail the freedom of speech, thought and expression in this
country. It appears to be part of the ongoing erosion of freedoms and civil
liberties in this country. At the simplest level it can be seen as further
interference in our private lives by the Nanny State. At a higher level this
can be seen as “thought crime” – which is not the best direction for a
modern democracy to be taking.
Evidence of Harm - Those that proposed the consultation have conceded that
there is no evidence to link extreme pornography to harm. (* 1)
Studies from Japan and Denmark have shown that there can be positive results
from the loosening of pornography laws. In 1967 the Danish government lifted
all restriction on pornography (save a 16 year old age limit for purchasing
porn). Yet rather than experiencing a wave of sex crimes as some had
predicted, sex crimes actually declined. (2*). The Japanese who have one of
the lowest sex crime rates in the world, view the availability of
pornography as cathartic – it often appears in the mainstream media – both
written and televised. (*3)
Framing of Questions - I object to the “subjective” and “emotive” manner in
which the document has been constructed. There are repeated references to
links between this subject matter and child pornography. This creates a
false analogy between child pornography and this material. One has to ask
why?
Lack of Definition - The document as it is fails to be specific enough about
what imagery it proposes to criminalize. The Home Office was unable to
provide any examples or details. It has been very difficult for those of us
with some knowledge to establish where the line will be drawn. How difficult
will it be for those with NO knowledge - the accidental tourists? This lack
of definition leaves the proposed law open to abuse by individuals with
moralistic and judgemental perspectives rather than sound legal guidelines.
The potential criminalization of 4 million people in the UK – Following on
from the last point – depending on where the line is drawn this is one of
the possible outcomes of this legislation.
There is a large fetish BDSM Community in the UK. Current research from
Durex (*4) suggests that one in ten of the UK adult population has
experimented with some form of BDSM. With the advent of Polaroid and digital
camera’s it is a fair to assume that a significant number of those people
have “recorded” the event for posterity. They have taken private pictures of
themselves having fun. – Why should they be criminalized, stigmatised and
put on the sexual offenders register? Why are the authors of this document
targeting the end viewer – and not the producers?
Focus – Leading on from my last point – I feel the focus of this
consultation is too narrow. I agree that the Internet presents a real
challenge to society today. I feel that countries and governments will be
judged on how they manage their response to its challenges.
I believe we should in the first instance look to our European neighbours
and join with them in formulating a common European policy on all forms of
pornography and bring in a European wide standard.
I believe that given the amount of concern and debate about the possible
effects and dangers of pornography that there needs to be worldwide research
over the period of a generation (15/25 years). Fundamental rights to view
any material of a consensual nature in the privacy of your own home should
not and cannot be given up for “possible”, “might” or “one in a million”.
Keeping the Internet safe for children – is a concern for us all. I believe
that parents should take more responsibility for what material their
children can access through their computers. I also believe that the
computer suppliers should provide appropriate “safe surfing” software at the
point of purchase.
In summary I feel this consultation is ill conceived and will not solve the
perceived problem. I feel it is unwieldy and unworkable and should be taken
back to the drawing board and if looked at again should be done so in the
light of either hard evidence or as part of a total overhaul of our
pornography laws and coming into line with a European standard.
To answer the consultation document:
Section C Consultation questions
Current Legislation
1. Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires
the law to be strengthened?
No – but I do see a case for a full review and a coming into line with the
rest of Europe and the formation of a European standard.
Evidence of Harm
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. There will always be matters of taste that each and every one of us will
find distasteful and or abhorrent. I don’t think the government should be
legislating about what consenting adults take pictures of and view in their
own homes. Research into the long - term effects of pornography needs to be
undertaken.
Content of Material
3. Do you agree with the list of material set out?
No. The list is ill defined and far too ambiguous.
4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such
material?
Since when have I had to justify my sexual fantasies, visuals of my
consensual BDSM activities, or my intellectual curiosity to anyone?
Having said that I believe there is ample justification for possession of
such material. I believe that adults have a fundamental right to explore and
celebrate their chosen sexuality provided that is undertaken in a safe and
consensual manner and that no harm is caused in the process.
Options
5. Which option do you prefer? (Please tick one only)
Option 4 - do nothing
6. Why do you think this option is best?
Comments: In the light of such limited options and my other comments
outlined in my accompanying letter. I feel you should do nothing. I would
propose option 5 which would be back to the drawing board and overhaul the
whole lot in line with the rest of Europe.
Penalties
7. Which penalty option do you prefer (please tick one only) ?
a) maximum penalty for possession of less than 3 years.
b) maximum penalty for possession of 3 years and increase maximum penalties
under the OPA and CG(S)A to 5 years
None / neither - : I do not believe that people should be criminalized for
the possession of material that some might find offensive.
Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment
Please use the space below to make any comments on any aspect of the Partial
Regulatory Impact Assessment
Comments:
I think the authors of the consultation document have failed to consider the
impact of criminalizing the 4,000,000 strong BDSM Community.
There has been a failure to consider the effects of withdrawing access to
pornography of this nature – and the possible loss of any cathartic affect
that it might have. People will also find substitute material for
pornographic uses – stills from mainstream films – Passion of Christ - Kill
Bill – Buffy The Vampire Slayer – Pirates of the Caribbean – Psycho – The
Cell – Boxing Helena – Snow White – The Cell – The Secretary -are already
used!
There will be many webmasters, education groups, models, performance artists
and photographers who will have to review their operations.
There will be many libraries (both book and film) that will have to review
their stocks. Will old pornographic masters be destroyed?
I also think that the authors have ignored the fact that prohibition doesn’t
work. It tends to drive the prohibited underground and into the hands of
criminals. I can see the potential for the use of mobile telephones here to
circumvent the Internet – much as the “happy slapping” craze has.
Appendix
*1 Paragraphs 27- 31 Home Office consultation document on the possession of
extreme pornographic material – August 2005.
*2 In 1969 Denmark lifted all restrictions on pornography, and sex crimes
declined. For example, between 1965 and 1982 sex crimes against children
went from 30 per 100,000 to about 5 per 100,000. Similar evidence was found
for rape rates. Source - Institute of Criminal Science, University of
Copenhagen, Denmark.
*3 Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan - International Journal of Law
and Psychiatry - Milton Diamond & Ayako Uchiyama 1999
*4 World-wide 2003 survey by the Durex condom company found that 38% of UK
nationals had used handcuffs or bondage as a sexual stimulant, the highest
percentage in the world for this kind of activity. The same survey also
found 42% of UK nationals had used pornographic materials.
|
