I Unfettered was formed last year to represent the interests of the 4
million people or more in the UK's BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Domination and
Submission, Sadomasochism) and Fetish community.
Our aim is to help those who practise BDSM/Fetish to be strong and happy in
their choices, and to bring about a more open and positive view of BDSM/Fetish
both within the community and outside it.
We believe that BDSM/Fetish is a valid expression of human sexuality, worthy
of equal protection under law and worthy of being treated within the
acceptable bounds of normality by the medical, social and educational
establishments.
Consenting adults should be able to give free and informed consent to
participate in activities affecting only other consenting parties, free of
persecution, prosecution, or any other prejudiced interference. The practice
of BDSM has no bearing on the fitness of a person to do a particular job or
to be a parent.
As such we are strongly opposed to any legislation which will vilify members
of this community or in anyway infringe the Human Rights of its members.
We believe the Consultation Paper on the Possession of Extreme Pornographic
Material has at its heart fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of
BDSM and the levels of consent that are intrinsic in the majority of images
that may be deemed to show sexual violence.
The proposals within it reflect this, scapegoat members of the BDSM/Fetish
community and risk repressing people within that community. They could lead
to the arrest of millions of people who didn't even realise they were
committing a crime.
According to Rabinder Singh QC -- whose opinion was sought on the proposals
-- the paper is also recommending action that would breach articles 8 and 10
of the European Convention on Human Rights.All the while these proposals
would fail to address the issues it sets out to resolve.
The proposals purport to protect people involved in making the images and to
protect people from exposure to these images.
It also aims to break the demand/supply cycle and to discourage interest in
the material but in its current guise it will not achieve these goals.
The Home Office also says that it believes this material may encourage an
interest in violent and aberrant sexual activity to the detriment of society
as a whole even though it admits there is no evidence that this is the case
and despite the fact that many eminent psychologists believe the opposite is
true.
The remedies suggested will not achieve the Home Office's aims.
Rabinder Singh points out that the supply/demand cycle is impossible to
break when much of this material comes from overseas. He notes that the law
is intended to combat the prevalence of the Internet but yet will make it
illegal to look at all images of this material whatever the format. The laws
in the UK cannot protect those making the material overseas and laws already
exist to protect anyone harmed here in the UK. Since the measures will not
affect supply they will not stop children seeing the images.
As many of us are parents ourselves, Unfettered believe that parental
guidance is the only way to protect children form all sorts of ills whatever
their nature or their source.
Rabinder Singh also argues that the proposals go too far and says "the
reasons provided by the Government for the measures are insufficient to
justify the extent of the interference in the individual's freedoms."
Prosecution or the threat of prosecution with the threat of three years’
imprisonment for looking at pornography in your own home is too harsh.
The measures suggested would also mean that members of the public -- who
do not have the same recourse to legal advice as producers -- could be
arrested for doing something they did not know was illegal. The onus would
be on them to prove their innocence if material were found in their
possession.
The damage to these people and to their families is disproportionate to the
supposed crime. The increase -- if these proposals were to become law-- in
the number of people who would be included on the Sex Offender's register
would also have a damaging effect on society as a) communities would
perceive a greater threat to themselves and their children than actually
exists and b) police time would be taken up with ensuring the welfare of
people who have done nothing more than look at a picture.
Furthermore, the possession offence applies whatever the circumstances and
whether or not anyone was harmed. As such, many members of the community and
indeed any of the population who enjoy bondage and any number of other
so-called violent activities as part of their sex lives and like to record
such acts on camera would run the risk of being imprisoned for looking at
photos of their own partner.
This offence -- if it were to be created -- would also be a huge drain on
police and CPS resources as these presumably would have to interpret the
law. How would they know what counts as 'realistic', 'extreme' and/or
'sexual'?
In his conclusion Rabinder Singh considers that the legislation as proposed
"gives rise to real concerns as to its compatibility with individuals'
rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights."
Further, Unfettered argues that the remedies suggested will criminalise
victimless behaviour, inaugurate “thought-crime” as a criminal offence and
lead to the repression of a massive sexual minority simply because certain
members of the British government believe their reading material to be
abhorrent or indeed aberrant.
Unfettered oppose any change to the current laws which would make it an
offence to view images the police or any other organisation deem abhorrent
as it believes any images of actual crimes should be used as evidence to
prosecute those crimes.
We believe that sufficient criminal and Health and Safety laws already exist
to protect society in the UK and in other countries where pornographic
material is produced.
We believe that it would be detrimental to society to let these proposals
become law as it would open the government and the police up to ridicule. It
would soon become obvious that the government's mores are out of touch and
that the Home Office hopes to arrest people for possessing harmless
material. Any new law would start to be seen as intrusive, discriminatory
and unjust.
We believe freedom of choice, freedom from state intervention in our
personal lives and freedom of information are cornerstones of our modern
society and any attempt to compromise them will have nothing but a
detrimental effect.
Given that the Paper itself admits there is no evidence that this material
causes harm, there is no justification for a change in the law that would
restrict the freedom of people in Britain.
We would also like to take this opportunity to complain that contrary to
guidelines on the construction of government consultation papers, the Home
Office has failed to consult stakeholders such as ourselves, has presented
the options in a leading manner and has proposed no alternative solutions
other than legislation to the problems it says it wants to rectify.
Demolition Red
On behalf of Unfettered.
|
