Consultation Response from Relaxed London/title> <meta name="title" content="Consultation Response from Relaxed London"> <meta name="description" content="Government Consultation on the Possession of Extreme Pornography"> <meta name="keywords" content="Possession, Extreme Pornography"> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0"> <meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document"> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../main.css"> </head> <body style="font-family: Verdana" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <table width="100%" border="3" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td> <table class="head" style="border-collapse: collapse" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" id="table1"> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top" width="130"> <a href="http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/index.htm"> <img border="0" src="../images/mflogo5.jpg" alt="Melon Farmers Icon" width="95" height="77"></a></td> <td align="center" valign="top" width="120"> <table class="head" border="0" width="100%" style="border-collapse: collapse" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td align="left"> <a title="Melon Farmers home page" class="headLink" href="http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/index.htm">Home</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> <a class="headLink" title="Melon Farmers Index" href="http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/agcresp.htm">Document Index</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left"> <a class="headLink" title="Melon Farmers link suggestions" href="http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/gch.htm">Latest News</a></td> </tr> </table> </td> <td valign="top"> <h1>Extreme Pornography Consultation Response...</h1> <h2>From Relaxed London</h2> </td> </tr> </table> </td> </tr> </table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="2" style="border-collapse: collapse" width="100%" cellspacing="2" class="mf_table_centre"> <tr> <td valign="top"> <p align="center" class="mf_subheadline">Consultation response</p> <p align="center">Possession of extreme pornography<br> <br> Response from Relaxed London</p> <p align="center">December 2005</td> </table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="2" style="border-collapse: collapse" width="100%" cellspacing="2"> <tr> <td valign="top"> <blockquote> <font size="2">1. I would like to preface my response by expressing my concern at the manner in which this consultation has been conducted. During the consultation period, the consultation document has frequently been unavailable on the Home Office website. Since this consultation is largely focussing on the Internet it is incredible that this should have been the case, given that the Internet is the most obvious and readily accessible medium for the majority of interested parties.<br><br>2. The repeated references to “the arrangements already in place in respect of indecent photographs of children, possession of which is already an offence” is unhelpful and disingenuous. There is no connection whatsoever between child pornography and the material with which the consultation is concerned.<br><br>3. The proposals claim “…a desire to protect society, particularly children, from exposure to such material…”. In fact, they will have the opposite effect; by criminalising possession of such images, any child who comes across proscribed images on the Internet will have committed a criminal offence and be exposed to prosecution, a criminal record, and inclusion on the register of sex offenders. In what way, precisely, can any rational person see this as protecting children?<br><br>4. There are two statements implicit in the document:</font><blockquote> <p><font size="2">a. that the Government is indifferent as to whether or not the images depict non-consensual activity<br>b. that the Government is indifferent as to whether or not the images depict actual (rather than staged – and therefore by definition, in all relevant respects, consensual) activity.</font></p> </blockquote> <p><font size="2">It is critical that a clear distinction be drawn between consensual and non-consensual activity.<br><br>The fact that the law at present does not always recognise that consensual activity between adults may include an element of violence, and that this violence may be abhorrent to some, is no justification for legislation to prohibit the possession of images of such activity. A proportion of the population also finds activities such as oral sex abhorrent and would wish to have this banned; this wish is not in and of itself justification for imposing such a ban.<br><br>5. The primary purpose of legislation in this area should be to protect individuals’ rights – not to satisfy a media outcry, or to placate “increasing public concern”. There is no clear evidence presented in the consultation document to suggest that there are any persons whose rights are presently being violated and whom such legislation would serve to protect. There is, however, extremely strong evidence that such legislation would be oppressive to a significant number in society, would suppress freedom of speech, and be of no benefit in preventing actual abuse.<br><br>6. The claim that there is insufficient evidence to draw any definite conclusions as to the likely long term impact of this kind of material on individuals generally is of questionable veracity. Since the Obscene Publications Act became law in 1959, there have been in excess of 45 years of evidence that persons who have been reviewing (as part of their employment) material banned under the Act have been influenced by that material. It is a reasonable presumption that either no cases, or a statistically insignificant number, of such a person having been subsequently convicted of the type of crimes that this proposed legislation envisages as, otherwise, it would have been referenced in the consultation document.<br><br>7. The statement that the proposals are based on a desire to protect those who may be a victim of crime “whether they notionally or genuinely consent” is highly offensive to the concept of freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and the right to personal self-determination.<br><br>8. The failure to define clearly the nature of pornography (itself a devalued term for which there is no longer a consensus definition) that the legislation seeks to prohibit is unfortunate. The title of the consultation refers to “extreme pornographic material” but the proposal state a desire to protect those who participate in the creation of sexual material containing violence”. What does this mean?<br> </font></p> <ul> <li><font size="2">What is “sexual material”?</font></li> <li><font size="2">What constitutes violence (e.g. hand spanking, enjoyed, I am given to understand, by a significant proportion of the population from time to time) and in what way is that different from extreme violence?</font></li> <li><font size="2">What is cruelty (e.g. handcuffing a person to a bed – a scenario depicted in a number of prime-time dramas)?</font></li> <li><font size="2">What is degradation (e.g. “enforced cross-dressing” – the “compelling” of an individual to wear clothing of the opposite gender – a popular role play scenario)?</font></li> </ul> <p><font size="2">9. It does nothing to dignify the consultation process that it draws unfounded, statistically irrelevant “conclusions” that the decline in prosecutions under the Obscene Publications Act “may be” in part a reflection of the higher priority given the combating the increase in child pornography. Equally, it may be that the decline in prosecutions reflects the view of prosecutors that there is no public interest served in the majority of such prosecutions any longer given the realisation that ordinary people are more sophisticated, intelligent and broad-minded than successive governments appear to have recognised.<br><br>10. Human Rights Considerations<br> <br>It is disingenuous to suggest this has no human rights considerations because you (the authors of the consultation document) consider the material to be at the very extreme end of a spectrum that you have defined. You are making numerous presumptions about the proportion of the population who may wish to have the right to view such images, even if they do not wish to exercise that right, because they see it as an unwarranted intrusion into the activity of free individuals.<br><br>11. This should not be an issue of people justifying what they should have access to, but of justifying what should be restricted. No evidence cited anywhere in the consultation document goes any way to making a case for restriction; all the arguments are in terms of “we think this is bad for you” or “we think that most people think”. This is oppressive and unworthy of legislators if we are to continue to hold our reputation as a democracy.<br> <br>Now, turning to the specific questions posed in Annex A to the consultation document:<br><br>1. Do you think that the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires the law to be strengthened?<br><br>This loaded question presupposes there is a “challenge” that needs to be addressed. I think there is a challenge to address in terms of the expectation of the various media (in the guise of “public opinion”) that every regrettable event must somehow have a novel cause, and is caused by an absence of legislation. However, pandering to media outcry in this way achieves nothing beyond establishing the Government as obsessed with appearance rather than substance.<br><br>Criminals commit crimes. Murderers kill victims. This happened before the Internet was invented, it will happen from time to time in future, regardless of any laws that are passed. The murder of a young woman referred to in the consultation document was not “validated” by images the murderer viewed on the Internet. It is insulting to the memory of the victim to suggest that the murderer was influenced by images he saw on the Internet. He was a murderer; he had no regard for his victim and no respect for her.<br> <br>In simple terms, I do not think the law needs to be strengthened, as I do not accept the premise that there is a challenge posed by the Internet.<br> <br><br>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?<br><br>I do not believe there is any pornographic material that should not be tolerated. Individuals find different types of material to be of interest, and it is not for any of us to judge that any person’s tastes are unacceptable, however distasteful or incomprehensible we as individuals may find them.<br><br><br>3. Do you agree with the list of material set out in paragraph 39?<br> <br>I do not agree with the list. Any images that depict consensual activities should not be proscribed under any circumstances, regardless of the content. Possession of images of non-consensual activity should not be prohibited because this could possibly be evidence of a crime having been committed and could reasonably be in the public interest. Any activity that is criminal should be investigated as such; legislating against possession of images of such activity will not prevent the activity and may serve to suppress evidence of criminal activity.<br><br><br>4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such material?<br><br>As a general principle, any person should be free to act as they wish, go where they please, view whatever they wish, provided it does not infringe on another person’s freedom. There is, therefore, no need for any justification. Any person should be free to possess such material as they may desire. If crimes are committed in the production of any images, that should be investigated and prosecuted under existing legislation.<br><br> <br>5. Which option do you prefer?<br><br>The only acceptable option is Option 4. Any legislation would represent an unwarranted attack on basic freedoms, and contrary to the assertion in the consultation document that the proposals are believed not to be in contravention of human rights legislation, my understanding is that a prominent QC who has been consulted is of the opinion that this is not the case. It is unfortunate that the options have been couched in emotive terms, including Option 4 being described as a “do nothing” option. Maintaining the freedom of the individual in a democratic society is never a “do nothing” option, and to suggest otherwise is highly offensive. <br><br><br>6. Why do you think this option is best?<br> <br>Making no change is not doing nothing; it is considering the situation, it is considering whether any person would be protected by any legislation.<br> <br>Not least, it is considering whether the restriction to people’s rights and freedoms is outweighed by the need to avoid “sending a message” when, as conceded in the consultation document, decades of research have failed to demonstrate any causal link to criminal activity.<br><br><br>7. Which penalty option do you think is preferable?<br> <br>Since I do not believe that any option other than Option 4 is acceptable, clearly no penalty is appropriate. I believe that the paragraph 54 note is emotive and inappropriate; there is no similarity, and none should be inferred, between the images under consideration here and indecent photographs of children.</font></blockquote> </td> </table> </body> </html>