Assuming that the Home Office has already decided
that they will go ahead with their noxious legislation then it is time
to consider the next move. As the next step is parliamentary debate then
it seems logical to start sounding out of our MPs. I wonder how many of
them have close friends or family who are secret downloaders who could
be liable for prison. Quite a few I would have thought.
My local MP is actually David Lepper, one of the
architects of this nasty idea. Strangely I first came across his name in
connection with Liberty in Brighton. How easily politicians succumb to a
jerking knee!
Thanks to Michael who has started the ball rolling with his
submission.
Dear Mr Murphy
I am writing to you with some rather grave concerns regarding
fundamental flaws in the proposed legislation to criminalise 'extreme'
pornography, and the activities of a certain group called 'Mediawatch'.
Firstly the proposed legislation, which is, until the end of this week,
still at the consultation stage. As I'm sure you are aware, the
legislation plans to criminalise the viewing and possession of so called
'extreme' pornography, punishing transgressors with prison sentences of
up to 3 years. Whilst I must stress that the material the government are
seeking to legislate against is absolutely not to my own taste, one must
appreciate the need for tolerance of other people's individual tastes
and sexual orientation, and if they are not doing any harm to anyone,
surely any legislation which would seek to criminalise them has
absolutely no place in a democratic society. Pornographic material
involving paedophilia, or for that matter any material where people are
being exploited or hurt against their will, absolutely should be banned.
However, the vast range of material which is proposed to be included
within this legislation (including safe practices between consenting
adults such as bondage) will almost certainly cause a great number of
people to unwittingly fall foul of the law. Given the way in which a PC
stores files, even someone who has accidentally visited an illegal
website could potentially be criminalised, prosecuted and imprisoned.
As to the legislation itself, it is stupefyingly vague and riddled with
irregularities. If the legislation itself cannot define in no uncertain
terms what type of material is to be included, how on earth can the
average person be expected to judge for themselves? It would appear that
judging would take place on the basis of personal taste, which as we are
all aware differs greatly from person to person, leaving much scope for
inconsistency within the law. The legislation, at least in it's current
state, does not even seem to have any understanding whatsoever of the
term 'consent', nor does it seem able or willing to make the distinction
between fantasy and reality in relation to the type of material it seeks
to outlaw.
Looking ahead to a time when this legislation may become law, what will
inevitably start to happen is that people who have never before
committed a crime would quite literally be criminalised overnight. The
numbers could quite easily run into tens of thousands, and if you think
that this is an over-estimation, imagine how many loving couples
regularly enjoy activities in the privacy of their own homes which could
be affected by this legislation. Three years imprisonment would
certainly lead to divorce, the loss of homes, destruction of family
units and even suicides. If the issue of extreme pornography is such a
threat to this country, then surely more effort should be made to
eliminate it at source rather than simply making the viewing of it a
crime? I can also envisage a huge influx of court cases involving people
claiming to have had their basic human rights violated by being arrested
simply for viewing this material. In a democratic society, where all
minority groups must be seen to be treated fairly and equally,
legislation simply cannot be concocted to single out certain groups for
persecution. This is almost certainly what will happen. Thousands of
otherwise innocent people will be negatively affected by this
legislation as it stands at the moment - there is no getting away from
this.
I think that some very fundamental issues are raised by pressing for
this legislation which require a much closer look at the people who are
pushing for it and their motives for doing so. This legislation came
about because of the murder of June Longhurst by a man who was
supposedly hooked on violent internet pornography, and one must feel the
deepest sympathy for the grieving relatives she left behind. However, as
the only evidence which links her murder to the issue of violent
pornography are the hysterical headlines of sensation hungry
journalists, this is hardly the basis upon which to be making
far-reaching decisions involving the law. The main pressure to ban
violent pornography seems to have come from newspapers and a pressure
group called Mediawatch UK, and I have grave concerns regarding the true
motives of both, but more especially the latter, who appear, in no
uncertain terms, to have hijacked this campaign for their own ends.
For example, John Beyer, on the Mediawatch website, has already stated
that he feels that the list of material covered by this legislation is
far too limited and should be extended to include material classified
18R by the BBFC. He states that "The penalty appropriate for these new
offences should be a minimum of three years imprisonment with heavy
fines and confiscation of assets...". This could easily extend the
number of 'overnight criminals' caught up in it's wake by a few million
if it does get extended to include 18R rated pornography. What could
possibly be the justification for this? As for the heavy fines and
confiscation of assets, who exactly will this money benefit? It can't
possibly be the victim's families when the crime in question has no
victim. How can any organisation such as Mediawatch that claims to be
acting for the greater good possibly justify wanting to send innocent
people to prison because their private bedroom activities do not fall
into a category that is morally acceptable by their standards? The
proposed legislation is obviously already being seen by Mediawatch as
'the thin end of the wedge', and if they are successful this time, then
pressure for further censorship will inevitably follow. And if they are
successful in helping introduce laws which actively discriminate against
certain kinds of sexual orientation, what could follow; pressure to
legislate against certain religions? Or races?
Anyone who enjoys the freedom of living in a democracy must find the
implications of this absolutely horrifying. Where will it end? Being
that they contain "realistic scenes of sexual violence, staged or
otherwise", could people be sent to prison for up to 3 years for owning
DVDs of critically acclaimed and BBFC certified movies such as 'A
History of Violence', 'Irreversible', 'Salo' or even the Oscar winning
drama 'The Accused'? It obviously doesn't matter to Mr. Beyer, who
apparently thinks nothing of flying in the face of the BBFC, who despite
having over eighty years experience of classifying films, are clearly
not up to the task in his opinion. A supposedly non-political
organisation such as Mediawatch, run by such a small number and narrow
representation of the general public should never have been allowed to
have so much influence in matters of government. Mediawatch UK should be
more stringently regulated, and like the BBFC itself, should be made to
be more publically accountable to the whole spectrum of the UK's
population seeing that it so clearly exerts such an influence.
I have no doubt that Mediawatch, as an organisation, were founded upon a
decent set of principles, with the greater good of the general public at
heart. However, it would appear that this is no longer the case when
such a vast number of the general public could be very seriously and
negatively affected by legislation brought about by their actions. As an
organisation, Mediawatch have every right to campaign to have something
banned if its members find it offensive. However, they DO NOT have the
right, as a non-political organisation, to determine government
legislation, attempt to undermine a government-accountable body such as
the BBFC, and more importantly, they absolutely DO NOT have the right to
decide amongst themselves what sentence should be imposed upon those who
would fall foul of this new legislation. Sexual preferences, government
legislation concerning such matters and the sentencing imposed by courts
upon transgressors of the law are no business whatsoever of an
organisation which concerns itself primarily with maintaining standards
within the media. If Mediawatch UK were going about their business
appropriately they would be seeing to it that minority groups of all
kinds are not offended or misrepresented by anything the media in
general is doing. They most certainly should not be actively encouraging
the persecution of certain groups of people simply because they do not
agree with their way of life. There is a word for this type of behaviour
- it's called facism. Whether it masquerades behind a mask of religion,
morality or anything else, it is no different in essence to the policies
of extremist groups like the BNP, which have no place in a democratic
society.
Which is why I propose that the activities of Mediawatch UK be brought
under control, through legislation if necessary, so that they are more
accountable to the general public AS A WHOLE. For a non-political
organisation, they are exerting far too much influence in matters of
government, and with high ranking members with views as extreme as John
Beyer, they are a very real threat to freedom of speech, equality and
civil liberties in this country.
In short, if the aforementioned legislation comes into effect, it will
send out a number of clear messages to the vast majority of this
country's population:
1. That we are no longer living in a democracy.
2. That it is perfectly acceptable to legislate against certain minority
groups on the whims of a very small number of people with unacceptably
extreme political views.
3. That a higher prison sentence for viewing violent pornographic
material than actually committing an act of violence yourself is legally
right and morally acceptable.
4. That media-fuelled witch hunts founded on intolerance are also
perfectly acceptable.
5. That this Government can no longer decide it's own policies, but
instead must rely on pressure from dubious non-political organisations
to help create the country's legislation.
6. That crime, terrorism, binge drinking, violence, drugs, teenage
pregnancy, the struggling NHS, the woefully inadequate transport system,
ridiculously expensive house prices, the pensions crisis, the recent
economic downturn, compensation culture, benefit fraud and bullying in
schools are nowhere near as important to this Government as creating
overnight criminals of a huge number of otherwise innocent people.
7. That this Government have no qualms about wasting enormous amounts of
public money.
8. That religious bigotry and intolerance is alive and well in 21st
century Britain.
Are these really the messages that you want to be sending out to people?
