|
Pinning Ofcon Down |
|
IanG |
To OfcomI am appalled and dismayed at the complete ignorance and contempt
Ofcom have displayed in the continued ban of R18 type material being
broadcast via UK satellite (and UK TV full stop).
It is wrong to make any assumption as to the harm anyone of any age may
suffer as a result of seeing human sexual activity no matter how graphic in
its presentation.
You are reminded that this is a democratic and secular country and
scientific proof is of the highest priority when making any judgements as to
the need to restrict any form of material. In particular, and as a matter of
UK law, you are required to read the rulings and case law of the ECHR in
conjunction with UK legislation in order to make UK legislation compatible
with Human Rights law. In this respect you have failed to make any such
application of case law or scientific evidence. Indeed, in your own
documentation you make mention of the fact that free access to pornography
is known to be beneficial to those with sexual problems (I know, I supplied
it to you in the consultation). If I may spell this out in real terms; we
are talking about the possible prevention of some 18,000 (eighteen
thousand!) cases of rape and child abuse that occur in the UK every year and
which have increased year upon year at a rate of 10%. I put it to you that
none of the UK's efforts to suppress explicit sexual material have gone any
way to alleviating this rising trend. Moreover, throughout the rest of
liberated Europe this trend has not been seen at all and the UK, Norway and
the USA have all suffered very similar levels of film and TV censorship and
have all displayed this worrying rise in sexual offences. In addition to
sexual abuse, it is also a fact that teen pregnancy and the rates of
sexually transmitted diseases have also increased over the years and again
such trends have not been seen in other liberated European countries.
I would therefore like to ask: Why a slim possibility that some parents may
not be astute enough in the care of their own viewing habits and those of
their children, should warrant a total ban on R18 broadcast despite the fact
such a ban has had no impact except a negative one on the sexual habits of
young persons and adults alike? Where is the proof of moral and
psychological harm you claim the broadcast of R18 material will cause, when
a total ban on such material has had exactly the effect of increasing sex
crime, teen pregnancy and the spread of STIs?
Why have you ignored six years worth of public consultations which show
conclusively that 75% of the UK population are in favour of hardcore sex on
pay TV? (And lets not pretend we don't know what "particularly explicit
sexual material" means - the public are not fools even if you pretend to
be!)
Why have you ignored the fact that only a tiny percentage of households that
would subscribe to sex channels also contain children?
Why have you assumed watershed and PIN protection is less effective at
protecting children than the watershed alone? Or are we to assume anything
rated 18 is suitable for young children or indeed, softcore material is any
less harmful than explicit sexual scenes? Did you not find for C4 and Five
when they broadcast erections and intercourse late at night?
Is it not true that the truth never hurt anyone? That education is far
better than prohibition? That imagined harm and threats are exactly what
took the UK into disastrous war against Iraq? Your justification for your
actions is lacking any logic whatsoever, in fact, it is non-existent. It is
based on nothing more than an overactive imagination. Children grow up to be
adults. From the age of 12 years, children in the UK are taught the 'facts
of life'. They even get to see graphic portrayals of human sexual activity
as part of that education. Your own imaginations and tastes are the only
thing which are causing any harm in this area as evidenced by the rise in
all the above sexual problems.
So we come to the law. The law requires you to offer protection to the young
via several pieces of relevant legislation. The law also requires
irrefutable proof of harm before any prohibition of any material can be
legally enforced. I put it to you that you are instrumental in causing
serious physical and psychological harm to those 18,000 women and children
who are abused every year by men who are incapable of suppressing their own
sexual desires. I put it to you that these man could relieve themselves if
they were given easy access to the type of material they wish to see via TV.
I put it to you that this continued ban is nothing more than a total
misinterpretation of what the law actually requires you to do and, that this
misinterpretation is entirely down to your own sordid imaginations and
irrational fears.
I will not allow this abuse of our Human Rights to view any legal material
by any means the public should choose and, the hidden abuse you cause
indirectly to thousands of people every year, to go unchallenged any longer.
It is time for some Justice. You have no case nor cause to support your
position. I will take this to every newspaper, every child psychologist,
every criminologist in the land if need be. This abuse must stop NOW and I
mean NOW! That rule needs amending forthwith and I will settle for nothing
less. Claim you made a mistake, the wrong version was published, or you have
received expert advice but, change it or else!
I will state for your benefit that Spain and Portugal outlawed censorship 2
decades ago. Anyone of any age can view any type of material and yet, Spain
and Portugal have the lowest incidence of sexual offences anywhere in
Europe. If there were a country to supply evidence of any harm it would be
these two but, they prove conclusively it is yourselves and the BBFC that
are in the wrong in this area for unnecessarily restricting sexual material
via the R18 certificate.
Now please, I beg, do the right thing for all our children's sakes and amend
that rule or the members of Ofwatch will be rallied to take this case to the
Human Rights Court where you will most certainly lose and, your powers to
license and control anything will be revoked. I do not think it is a matter
of "National Appreciation" that thousands of innocents are abused each year
- Do you?
I expect a full and qualified response to the questions raised above. This
abuse of everyone's rights and sexual wellbeing has gone on for far too
long. You are supposed to serve the public, so serve the public!
|
John Glover
Senior Programmes Executive, Ofcom |
From John Glover at Ofcom:
Thank you for your recent correspondence about Ofcom’s new Broadcasting
Code.
I am sorry you are unhappy with the rule which prohibits the transmission of
“R18” and “R18 standard” material. The decision was taken in line with
Ofcom’s statutory duty to protect the under 18s from potential harm – and
was reached after full public consultation, and in the light of research
into the use of existing PIN security systems by both children and adults.
The details of Ofcom’s consultation on the Code, together with responses to
various pertinent points (including those you have raised), are published on
our website (beginning at page 108) at:
www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/Broadcasting_code/bcstat/section2.pdf
Details of research into the potential harm to children; and into the use of
PIN security systems by children are also on our website at:
www.ofcom.org.uk/research/radio/reports/bcr/?a=87101.
Of course, I understand that this is a controversial area, and that you and
others may disagree with Ofcom’s conclusions. However, I should point out
that Ofcom did not conclude that “R18” was unsuitable for transmission per
se – only that it could not be adequately protected from access by children
under current systems.
Ofcom has stated publicly that it is willing to look at this issue again if
technical or other developments mean that secure protection can be provided
in future.
Thank you for your interest,
Yours sincerely,
John Glover
Senior Programmes Executive
|
|
IanG |
To John Glover, Ofcom
I would like Ofcom's response to my direct questions, not an analysis of
responses from the consultation. The reasoning behind your decisions based
on those responses is irrelevant to the questions I raised.
I would also like to raise a further issue, which has now come about since
publication of the Code, in that many adults who wish to view R18-type
material are switching over to European providers. These services carry
material far beyond R18 strength and DO NOT offer mandatory PIN protection.
Ofcom have brought this situation about through their total ignorance of the
rights of the viewer and you are clearly failing to protect children in
these households. And let us not forget that you are powerless to stop the
provision of these channels. There is no 'margin of appreciation', full
stop!
It must also be stressed that if children can gain access to PIN numbers
then the rest of your reasons for allowing 15 and 18 rated material to be
broadcast at 'inappropriate times' become farcical. The harm from bad
language, graphic violence, portrayals of sexual abuse and drug abuse,
deserve far more attention than normal human sexual activity. Some
understanding of the issues facing society and the human condition in
general would have been far more beneficial to your decisions.
I will state once again that ignorance and censorship do nothing to educate
and protect people from harm. Your own research offers no support to claims
that children need protecting from sexual material. Children need protecting
from sexual abuse, which is an entirely different issue and is KNOWN to be
addressed through relaxation of censorial and puritanical notions of harm.
Ignorance and hatred lead to abuse and violence. Education and acceptance
lead to understanding.
Let me state this; the attitudes of people in Britain are the result of
Government, religious and media brainwashing. The evidence from Europe and
Japan clearly shows that it is this conditioning that leads to all the abuse
and fear in our society. The purpose of Freedom of Expression is to
challenge these attitudes and change opinions in order to 'progress
society'. That is the legal understanding of Article 10 in the Human Rights
Act and I fail to see how you DARE to stand in it's way based on 'infantile
public opinions'.
Take a lesson from Norway. Norway has shadowed the UK and the USA with
repressive notions of harm for the last century and suffered the same
result, i.e. a sustained increase in sexual offences. Norway has now
realised that these ideas of harm are are wrong and they are set to relax
their idiotic stance. It is time for the UK to do the same and actually do
something "about the causes of crime" and the causes of sexual abuse.
Finally, in response to your comment: However, I should point out that
Ofcom did not conclude that “R18” was unsuitable for transmission per se –
only that it could not be adequately protected from access by children under
current systems. Ofcom has stated publicly that it is willing to look
at this issue again if technical or other developments mean that secure
protection can be provided in future.
a) First prove there is a need for protection other than ridiculous and
unfounded fears.
b) Parents can change their PIN code at will. Therefore adequate parental
controls are already available.
c) No amount of technical intervention can ever replace parental
responsibility. The roads would be full of dead children if this were not
the case. Thousands would die from toxic poisoning by household cleaning
agents if this were not the case.
Ofcom are failing in their duty to protect anyone with the continuance of
these repressive notions, and rest assured, this will not be allowed to
continue.
|
John Glover
Senior Programmes Executive, Ofcom |
From John Glover at Ofcom:
Thank you for your further correspondence. I realise that you feel
passionately about these issues, and that you disagree very strongly with
the conclusions reached by Ofcom.
I can only say again that the decision was reached after extensive
consultation; detailed research; and much discussion. We believe that
process was robust but, of course, we can understand that others may have a
different point of view.
I don't believe I can add any more. An extremely large amount of paperwork
has been placed on the our website setting out Ofcom's position. I note your
points, but I am sure you would accept that further correspondence is
unlikely to be productive.
|
|
IanG |
Formal Complaint
I beg to differ.
Your decision was not reached by "extensive consultation" or "detailed
research" and all your "discussions" have not been made public. As 76% of
the public agree explicit sexual material should be on TV then it is Ofcom
that hold a different point of view. As a democratic country you must yield
to the majority opinion. Your opinion is based on one assumption only - that
parents who subscribe to adult services are incapable of protecting their
own children. The law of this land means that all R18 material has to be
viewed in the home. The law of this land could find no reason to prevent R18
carrying explicit material. It is hard to understand how Ofcom dare to
suggest the High Court were wrong in that decision to allow parents the
right to protect their own children and view explicit material in the
comfort of their own homes. But that is exactly what Ofcom have decided and
that is a disproportionate restriction in Freedom of Expression. Ofcom are
therefore in breach of the law.
How plainly must I spell out your duty to protect the under-eighteens is not
supported by "Ofcom's position"?
Ofcom have taken an arbitrary stance on the unsubstantiated 'dangers'
explicit sexual material may pose to younger viewers. This is despite no
proof from child welfare/psychologists/sexologists to suggest there is any
danger. Your position is therefore based on pure supposition and as such
cannot be supported by the requirements laid down in the law.
If PIN protection is so useless then why allow the possibility of very young
children viewing 15 rated material all day long? Why allow the possibility
of young children viewing 18 rated material, some of which contains violent
sexual abuse and explicit sexual scenes, not to mention blood, guts,
swearing and drug taking? Ofcom's position is untenable, nonsensical and a
blatant abuse of Freedom of Expression to those adults who would like to
view non-aggressive and purely sexual material. And just how the 'strength
of this material' is of any danger to children is beyond any logic. The
display of a penis entering a vagina, mouth or anus poses no threat compared
to that of a knife or 'light sabre' being thrust into someone's kidneys or
neck. And lets not forget that CGI makes these acts of mutilation and
violence appear as real as 'real sex'. Sex is natural, GBH and murder are
punishable by law. Are you seriously suggesting you are protecting children
from the most dangerous material? Pull the other one.
I do not accept there is nothing to discuss. There are a plethora of issues
to discuss and a resolution must be sort. How can you refuse to answer the
points I have raised? These are extremely serious and the material you have
chosen to allow is highly dangerous to impressionable minds. Remember your
duty is to protect the 'moral and psychological development of children'. So
you are suggesting that extreme violence is not going to affect children in
this way but perfectly natural human sexual behaviour is? Need I remind you
that children are sexual creatures too? Boys and girls of 13-years (and
younger) are having sex as borne out in underage pregnancies. No amount of
censorial intervention has prevented this now or in the past. Ofcom's
position is not only pointless, it is downright ignorant and simply
constitutes an abuse of the rights of adult viewers, the vast majority of
whom want sexually explicit material on specialist UK TV channels.
Clearly you are not serving the general public nor are you protecting
children . This needs to be discussed and if you continue to refuse, it will
be exposed in the press and you will be made to answer to experts in the
field of child development. UK children are no different from those
throughout the rest of Europe (or Japan) and so you do not have a leg to
stand on. You are clearly maintaining a 'British' attitude toward sexual
matters that should have been quashed in the 1970s. There is clear and
irrefutable evidence in our criminal statistics to show that this 'British'
attitude is what leads to the abuse of thousands of children every year. You
dare to choose to ignore those findings? You are doing no one any favours
and this will be exposed for the real abuse it is and the real abuse it
causes.
Do not test me Mr Glover. I am sick and tired of listening to the childish
prattle of tiny minds. I am sick and tired of the real hard criminal
evidence being ignored. You and the other censors will all be brought to
Justice and exposed as the sycophantic accessories to mass paedophilia if
you do not buck-up your ideas. This cover-up in the guise of hysterical
public opinion has gone on far long enough.
And may I remind you that the powers you were granted extend only to
preventing the broadcast of obscene material such as child abuse, torture
and bestiality. There is no precedent in law to allow the restriction of any
legal material from being broadcast. Let me stress the strict test of
'general acceptability' must be legality. The rest of Europe is more than
happy to use PIN and/or watershed time restrictions to allow all viewers
access to all types of material. If there were any danger to children from
explicit sexual imagery this would have been self-evident in Spain and
Portugal who impose no censorship or age restrictions whatsoever and, it
would have been seen in the rest of Europe where the technical provisions
you claim are insufficient are taken as quite the opposite. How stupid do
you want to look? You say PIN protection and an 8pm watershed are fine for
sexual and violent 18 rated movies to be broadcast but PIN protection and a
10pm watershed offer no protection from natural R18 rated 'sex works'. It's
utter tripe and it will never stand up to scrutiny and, if needs be, you
will certainly be laughed out of court.
As you leave me no alternative, I wish to raise these issues as a formal
complaint. I demand answers, nay, I demand you change your Code forthwith.
|
John Glover
Senior Programmes Executive, Ofcom |
Thank you for yet more correspondence. In actual fact, your issues have been
dealt with as a "formal complaint" from the beginning.
Your points are noted, but Ofcom's opinion of the legal position does not
correspond with your own, for the reasons given in detail on our website. We
really do not believe further correspondence will serve any purpose.
Speaking for myself, I find it disappointing that you choose to personalise
these matters. Ofcom has always acknowledged and respected a range of
opinion on this subject, and recognised that some might disagree with the
final, considered judgement of the Boards. However, the decisions were
reached in the light of robust examination of the issues.
|
|
IanG |
Your continued refusal to enter any discussion is not acceptable. A formal
complaint requires a formal response not a fobbing-off.
If you feel I'm taking this personally it is because you insult me by
refusing to answer perfectly reasonable questions. If this is your idea of
responding to a formal complaint then Ofcom truly do not deserve to be
regulating anything. I find it extremely disappointing and very telling that
you refuse to offer any answers to the points I have raised. Your Boards
have not considered anything beyond their own beliefs and misguided
interpretation of what the law actually says.
The case against you is far greater than you realise and there is no defence
in your refusal to discuss these issues. I will openly present this case to
the press so you'd better look it over and decide if you really want the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to come out...
Fact: Japan reduced child related sex crime by some 86% by relaxing their
censorship. Your rules are not protecting children from anything and indeed
are placing them in danger. This is reported in the LSE review.
Fact: Sex crime throughout liberal Europe has not increased in 30 years. In
prudish Britain it has increased at a rate around 10% per annum for the last
30 years. Again this is reported in the LSE review.
Please ask the Boards to explain their decision and their interpretation of
protecting children in light of these facts because I fail to see the
connection.
Furthermore, if PIN protection is so meaningless then I fail to see how
children under eighteen will be protected from 18 rated material broadcast
at 8pm if they cannot be sufficiently protected from R18 material being
broadcast at 10pm. R18 material carries no risk to mind or body. 18 rated
material contains nothing but harm to mind and body.
Someone somewhere doesn't know that violence is wrong and sex is natural.
Someone somewhere thinks sex is evil and violence is good. Clearly someone
somewhere has their priorities where the sun doesn't shine.
Facts are all that matter in law, not puerile puritanical opinions. The
Boards' decisions are not based on the salient facts of child protection and
thus they are wrong, pure and simple.
Japan changed their censorial opinions when abuse of teenage school girls
reached 'epidemic' proportions of 1300 cases per year. According to the
latest Home Office figures, 2600 children are sexually abused every year in
the UK. On a per capita basis this is not twice the rate it was in Japan but
8 times higher. The Boards' decision is indefensible, totally irresponsible
and completely unbelievable!
If you want me to get personal I'd love to know how you can live with
yourselves? I sent all the above information and more for the Boards to
consider during the consultation. The LSE review covered that same
information and drew the correct conclusions. Your own review even quoted my
responses on two items and you still reached the wrong decision based on
completely bogus grounds! Are the Boards totally incompetent or just
lunatics? What agenda are they working to, because it sure as hell has
nothing to do with protecting children!
As for the law, may I remind Ofcom that you are required by law to apply
ECHR Case Law when interpreting UK legislation such that you make it
compatible with Human Rights Law. In the learned opinion of the ECHR:
"It seems also to be undisputed that a [broadcast] licensing system cannot
be used for imposing censorship and cannot justify the suppression of
legally permitted information and ideas." (Groppera AG v Switzerland, 1990.
Your interpretation of what the law permits in the way of broadcast
suppression of legal material is clearly in error. Indeed, the Code has been
in breach of the law since before Ofcom took over from the equally, 'status
quo', rights-abusing ITC. If we couple the 'harm to morals and psychological
development' elements from the HRA (which requires strict proof of that
harm) with the above criminal facts then, you are clearly breaking the law
by restricting material that does more known good to society than any
possible imaginary harm to children.
The facts don't lie. The law is clear. I know I am right and I've got 30
years worth of criminal data and expert child psychosexual development
research to prove it. The Boards are wrong and until Ofcom admit they are
wrong and change that rule I will not cease in this quest. In light of all
the evidence it is the only proper thing to do. As I said, you don't have a
leg to stand on, because the whole issue of harm and right-abuse lies not
with access to R18 material but in the suppression of it.
Somehow I don't think you will really want the British public to know the
extent of the abuse and danger their children have been placed in because of
the narrow-minded opinions of the religious right and our censorial bodies.
Remember 76% of the population actually want R18 on TV. I don't have any
kids and it riles me that the 20% minority have had their way in restricting
my rights for decades. Imagine the backlash from all those parents whose
kids have been murdered and abused over the years when they find out who's
really responsible for the loss of life and innocence! What will people
think when they discover overly protected children are known to develop
paedophilic tendencies? Children need to learn about sex at their own pace
to develop healthy attitudes to sex in adulthood. Only a parent and the
child themselves is in a position to know if they want or need to know more
about sex. It is not for anyone else to interfere. It is not for you or the
Government to decide, not without causing a highly dangerous situation,
which is exactly what all the evidence demonstrates has happened in Britain.
So well done chaps! You are nothing but a bunch of sycophantic,
rights-abusing, mindless puritans who don't know the first thing about
protecting children. All the dangers of sexually explicit material exist
only in your tiny sordid little minds and if you understood the evidence
before you it would be obvious this is the case.
Please don't drag up circular arguments about paedophiles using adult porn
to 'groom' children either. If those men had been allowed to develop
normally as adolescents, at their own pace, they would not be paedophiles.
You need to go back and understand why the law is written the way it is and
understand exactly how to apply clauses relating to protection based on
evidence, instead of your own opinions and the moral objections of
religiously-motivated and brainwashed idiots. No other alternative is
acceptable to me nor I dare say the vast majority of the secular public.
This is your last opportunity to respond in a proper manner to my questions
otherwise you leave me no option but to go public with the real evidence of
harm and the instigators of that harm. Remember, if there were any substance
in your claims we would have seen evidence of real harm in Spain and
Portugal who impose no censorship or age restrictions on explicit material
whatsoever - Spain and Portugal have the lowest rates of sexual offences in
the whole of Europe! You lot are wrong and dangerously so!
|
John Glover
Senior Programmes Executive, Ofcom |
Thank you so much for giving me a "last opportunity". We really have nothing
more to add to the three personal replies you have already been sent, plus
the 89 pages of documents published so far on our website. This
correspondence is now closed.
|
|
Appealing for Our Rights |
|
Context |
Nine adult
companies have got together with the aim getting hardcore material passed at
18 rather than R18. They have submitted hardcore material for an 18 and then
appealed against the inevitable cuts. This will let them argue their case
through the BBFC appeals procedure.Getting hardcore passed as 18 will also serve to diffuse the current
ludicrous ban on R18s on subscription TV and mail order R18s. UK sex shops are unnecessarily being
discriminated against as all mail orders sales are being driven across to
perfectly legal foreign operations.
The Video Appeals Committee (VAC) will hear the appeal on 23rd and 24th
June. It will take place at: Congress Centre,
28 Great Russell Street
London
WC1B 3LS.
The Appeal begins at 10.30am on the Thursday morning and is open to the
public
|
|
Shaun |
I've sent this letter to the BBFC web master for him to
forward to the Video Appeals Committee... I suggest others might want to
send them something...
Dear Video Appeals Committee,
When considering the appeal against R18 classification and in favour of
adult videos having a 18 rated classification, I would ask you to bear in
mind that there is no real evidence at all that children are harmed by so
called "adult" material, of the type currently classified as R18, and Ofcom
have said as much in a document available on their website. This is not to
say children should see the material, but to say that the harm is minimal
should they do so. The BBFCs OWN research comes to that conclusion as well.
The R18 classification is currently a complete joke. It allows people with
obvious biases and prejudices to control what we, a free people are allowed
to see, by them refusing to issue licences to sex shops. It discriminates
against disabled people, who are not allowed to order such material mail
order, and cannot attend a sex shop themselves, perhaps because they are too
disabled, or mildly disabled, needing assistance, which they dare not ask
for, due to possible embarrassment on their part.
Also explicit material IS shown at 18, in films such as "9 songs" as if a
seven year old, could determine the context of the material. Explicit sex
scenes would either harm such a child, or they would not, and I submit that
all known knowledge of this matter, clearly indicates that they would not
harm the child.
I am aware of the recent trial concerning the Human Rights Act, and people
selling R18 videos via Mail order. The judge came to the conclusion that the
Human Rights Act, allows a "margin of appreciation", for the authorities in
the country. However what he did not consider, is whether that margin of
appreciation had been correctly applied. In classifying material R18, and
thereby preventing it being sold mail order, I do not believe the margin of
appreciation allowed by the Human Rights Act, is being correctly applied.
Use of such a margin to limit freedom of expression, surely requires a
proper test of real and manifest harm, which would be likely, if the
material was to be more freely available, and yet, no one has ever been able
to show that the material really is so harmful, that it cannot be sold more
openly, subject perhaps to restrictions currently applied to top shelf
magazines about what can be shown on the cover, etc.
I strongly believe that possibly religious people with a distorted sense of
what constitutes morality, are using any excuse they can, to try and limit
this kind of material in any way they can.
I ask the Video Appeals Committee to consider if the restrictions on R18
material really are proportionate, and really are necessary, and compatible
with the Human Rights Act. Not just the Human Rights, of the few able bodied
people who have a sex shop on their doorstep, but also the rights of those
who, for many reasons cannot get to such premises, but don't want a negative
choice being imposed on them, for reasons wholly beyond their control.
The Human Rights Act is an important law. Surely it isn't to be rendered
worthless by people restricting material they cannot properly show is
harmful in any proportionate way?
The logic is quite simple. If the harm caused, which justifies such almost
repressive restriction on explicit adult sex material cannot be shown to
exist (and there's plenty of evidence to show it does not exist in other
countries, where such material is sold in news agents etc.) then the
material should be classified at 18, so that it can be sold mail order, and
not restricted in the way it is being, now.
Thank you for your time, in considering my views.
|
|
Incitement to Incite Hatred |
|
Rohan Jayasekera
Index on
Censorship |
By passing an act to outlaw incitement to religious hatred, the British
government will create a quasi-legal forum for extremists ready to use one
law while breaking others – to silence critics of their faith and punish
apostates. Rohan Jayasekera comments.
If you build it, they will come… Novelist W.P. Kinsella’s fictional
Iowa farmer Ray built a makeshift baseball diamond to bring the faithful to
him. Britain’s government is orchestrating a plan to build a different kind
of playground to attract the spiritually driven.
But this is no Field of Dreams – more a place of nightmares. It’s the
quasi-legal gladiator pit for religious extremists that will be created by
the government’s Racial & Religious Hatred bill.
This is the bill that is supposed to protect the country’s religious
faithful from hateful words. More specifically it’s supposed to win back
Muslim votes lost since the Labour government began its war in Iraq, by
granting imans the same medieval defence against blasphemy allowed Christian
bishops.
The government thinks this trade off is a good deal, as it also provides a
legal tool to use against radical Islamists preaching hate from the
country’s mosques.
It also thinks it comes cheap. The Home Office expects to see fewer than two
or three cases of incitement to religious hatred brought before the courts a
year. Only 67 people have been tried, and 44 convicted, under 19-year-old
legislation banning incitement of racial hatred in Britain. The government
expects a sister law covering religious hate to be equally lightly applied.
But this calculation underestimates the religiously driven in Britain, their
organisation, the focus for protest provided by the court option and the
political fallout from a refusal to prosecute, let alone a failure to
convict defendants in high profile cases.
Calls to prosecute the blasphemous will become rallying cries. Religious
extremists will lead, fired not by fear of violence or threat of crime, but
by the desire to bring their apostates and critics to court to be punished
and silenced.
Bizarrely, as the government official empowered to approve prosecutions
under the proposed law Attorney General Lord Goldsmith QC will become the
key arbiter of legally permitted religious free expression in Britain.
But though he may have to start spending time perusing Bollywood films for
slights against Sikhs and paintings for offences against Greek Orthodox
sensibilities, Goldsmith won’t be allowed to take his role as Britain’s new
cultural commissar lightly.
The government says that the proposed act could not be used to silence or
prosecute Salman Rushdie, or Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, author of a play about
moral corruption in a Sikh gurdwara, or the BBC producers of a TV showing of
Jerry Springer – The Opera, supposedly blasphemous to Christians.
It won’t stop their enemies trying though. Rushdie lived under a death
sentence for years; Kaur’s play was pulled after a Sikh mob attacked the
Birmingham theatre that put it on; BBC executives’ families came under
threat from angry Christians who hadn’t even seen the musical.
There are thousands ready to make the case for religious offence, marshalled
by religious leaders from the pulpit, or nowadays, via the internet. Nearly
50,000 people were rallied against the BBC in this way to protest Jerry
Springer – The Opera.
Goldsmith will become ringmaster of a medieval circus that the government
wants nothing to do with, but is facilitating anyway for its own political
advantage.
But if they build it they will come. The damage to inter-faith relations –
and the safety and free speech rights of those artists and thinkers who
offend the extremists - will be done. And it will happen regardless of
whether Goldsmith lets a judge and jury rule on the substance of their
allegations at the end of their campaigns.
The furore surrounding Goldsmith’s 2003 legal opinion on the legality of the
war on Iraq, allegedly under government pressure, tarnished his
independence. More of that – accusations of partiality, no doubt some
couched in anti-semitic abuse - will follow when Goldsmith issues his first
refusal to prosecute under the act.
Or whatever decision he makes, in whatever circumstance. For Goldsmith will
have to rule on allegations raised by people not known for their tolerance.
|
|
Polly Toynebee writing in the Guardian |
A mandate is a wonderful thing, even if this government's rests on just 22%
of the electorate. A bad bill already twice rejected with a big rebellion on
Labour benches was tabled again yesterday, regardless of the strength of
opposition to it. The incitement to religious hatred bill is back, although
it lost the argument resoundingly on every other outing. Forward not back?
No, back for the third time.
Why? To appease a Muslim vote that elected George Galloway in Bethnal Green
and gave a fright to several other MPs. It is an appeasing gesture strongly
lobbied for by the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain. But its unintended
consequences will stir up exactly the religious hatred it seeks to assuage.
Last time, this misbegotten bill passed through the Commons after a very
rough ride and was stymied in the Lords. The difference now is that the
Lords by convention pass any bill "mandated" in a manifesto, even one line
on page 111. If the Lords defy the convention, the government will use the
Parliament Act to push it through.
But another parliamentary convention might consider this bill a matter of
conscience for secularists and not something to be pushed through on a party
whip. It would be entirely reasonable for secular Labour MPs to plead
conscience on this, just as the religious are excused the whip on matters
that trespass on their faith. This touches on freedom of thought and ideas,
with far-reaching consequences for the values of the Enlightenment that are
under growing threat from a collective softening of the brain on faith and
superstitions of all kinds. Contemplating Galloway should stiffen Labour
MPs' resistance to a political expediency that seeks support from religious
lobbies.
The government claims this bill is designed to stop the BNP using "Muslim"
as way of inciting racial hatred by getting round race hate laws. It talks
of protecting Muslims from abuse in the street, which sounds reasonable,
though the law already protects everyone from abuse and harassment. Labour's
own 2001 act already adds "religious aggravation" as a reason for tougher
penalties where incitement to violence has an anti-religious motivation.
Fierce opposition is lead by the National Secular Society, whose leading
member, Lib Dem MP Evan Harris, proposes a neat solution. His amendment
would ban "reference to a religion as a pretext for stirring up racial
hatred". Why was that solution rejected by Labour, since it stops the BNP
using "Muslim" as a proxy for race, without trespassing on free speech?
The government claims that Muslims of all races need equal protection with
Jews and Sikhs, who are already covered by race laws. But if Labour were
advocating equality between all religions, they would repeal the blasphemy
laws that only cover Christians, remove the bishops from the Lords and
abolish religious state schools: 30% of state schools are religious, almost
all Christian controlled. These privileges for Christianity cause great
resentment among the other faiths: many think this is their blasphemy law.
This bill is not "closing a loophole" as Labour claims, but marches right
into dangerous new terrain. Here is an example: it is now illegal to
describe an ethnic group as feeble-minded. But under this law I couldn't
call Christian believers similarly intellectually challenged without risk of
prosecution. This crystallises the difference between racial and religious
abuse. Race is something people cannot choose and it defines nothing about
them as people. But beliefs are what people choose to identify with: in the
rough and tumble of argument to call people stupid for their beliefs is
legitimate (if perhaps unwise), but to brand them stupid on account of their
race is a mortal insult. The two cannot be blurred into one - which is why
the word Islamophobia is a nonsense. And now the Vatican wants the UN to
include Christianophobia in its monitoring of discriminations.
Already this proposed law has cast a long shadow. Christians expect it to
stop something like Jerry Springer - The Opera ever being screened. Sikhs
who drove the play Behzti off the stage expect this law to prevent any
future insult to their faith. When a Telegraph writer accused the Prophet of
paedophilia for marrying a nine-year-old girl, Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim
Council said this was the kind of insult against their faith that made
Muslims want "safeguards against vilification of dearly cherished beliefs".
The government swears they will all be disappointed. No, says Paul Goggins,
minister responsible, he'd never do anything to stop Rowan Atkinson making
jokes. But if he's right and the law catches just four or five BNP cases a
year, then he faces outraged religious extremists furious at betrayal of a
blasphemy law they thought they were promised.
But even if he is right and Atkinson is never up before the beak, the
religious are already getting their way in more insidious ways. For the
chilling effect of this law is here now. There is a new nervousness about
criticising, let alone mocking, any religious belief, a jumpiness about
challenging Islam or Roman Catholicism. This most secular state in the
world, with fewest worshippers at any altars, should be a beacon of
secularism in a world beset by religious bloodshed. Instead, our politicians
twitch nervously in a lily-livered capitulation to unreason.
Why? Because this clever blending between race and faith has tied all
tongues. This law springs from a cult of phoney racial/religious respect
that makes it harder than it ever was to dare to criticise, let alone mock.
There is a new caution about "causing offence". What kind of offence? Not to
people's race but to ideas in their head. If I want to write that I find the
hijab a gesture of obeisance to the nasty notion that women are obscene and
should be modestly covered up, I may offend a lot of Muslim women. I am not
for banning it or tearing it off them, nor am I being racist. But that is
becoming an argument that growing numbers of feminist women no longer dare
articulate. Unless the Commons comes to its senses, there will be those who
regard this view as religious hatred and will expect the law to stop it.
(This crime attracts a seven-year sentence.)
Laws change cultural climates: it's what they are for. Religion will become
out of bounds in many spheres. Schools, universities, the arts,
broadcasting, will feel social pressures that induce self-censorship. A
small example: if you wonder why there have been no penetrating exposes of
cults like Scientology in recent years, it is because they have sued so
often that the media caved in - fear of litigation outweighs the story. That
is how the law cast its shadow.
The irony is that those spending most time in the courts will be the
religious themselves. A similar law in Australia brought a burst of
litigation and demands for arrests from one bunch of fundamentalists against
another. Hate-filled evangelicals were creeping into mosques to take notes
on imams' hate sermons. So extreme Jews, Muslims, Hindus, papists and
Paisleyites will all challenge each other's fiery thought crimes while the
Bible and the Qur'an incite enough religious hatred to be banned outright.
|
|
OfCon |
|
Context |
All the fine words from Ofcom about evidence based
regulation turned out to be a con.Ofcom have recently released their new program code see
website
Just a reminder of their laudable aims published at the
time of the public consultation about their broadcasting code.
- Freedom of expression is an essential human right. It is the
right to hold opinions, to receive information and ideas and to
impart them.
- Broadcasting and freedom of expression are intrinsically
linked. The one is the life blood of the other. Nowhere can that
tension between the right to freedom of expression and its
restriction be more acute than in drawing up a Code which seeks to
regulate broadcasting.
- All regulation in the proposed Code must be prescribed by law
and necessary in a democratic society. Unnecessary regulation should
not be in this Code. Rules cannot be made at the whim of a
regulator.
- Regulation should be transparent, accountable, proportionate,
consistent and targeted only at cases where action is needed. That
is a requirement of the Act but it is also part of the test Ofcom
has to apply in restricting freedom of expression.
Now on a whim they have denied our freedom of
expression with a totally disproportionate and unnecessary ban of legal
adult material...
|
|
Paul Taverner on OfcomWatch |
Ofcom’s new broadcasting code was published today. Despite claiming to
reduce the regulatory burden and to regulate with a lighter touch what is
actually in the code demonstrates the exact opposite. The ITC program code
ran to 51 pages. Ofcom’s broadcasting code is 88 pages long with an
additional 46 pages of guidance.
Our evidence based regulator also intends to continue with the total
censorship of much legally available content including sexually explicit R18
rated material despite its own research, also published today, that shows a
lack of any real evidence that such material is harmful to anyone. This is
the same material that is considered suitable for broadcast *free to air* in
Spain. When the substantial protective measures that are already available
such as mandatory PIN security are considered, the imposition of censorship
by Ofcom is an insult to the intelligence of the viewing public and a sad
reminder of the power of prejudice.
Whilst the issue of broadcasting of R18 content is but a tiny part of the
code, this single decision clearly demonstrates Ofcom’s attitude to Freedom
of expression, proportionality, consistency and evidence based regulation.
The desire to regulate and control has won out against the need to
deregulate. Although this theme is evident throughout the code, it is
entirely absent from the rhetoric.
Whilst the majority of the public have no interest in adult services, those
same people also respect the right of others to make up their own minds and
to organise their own viewing and that of their families free from
interference. As Salman Rushdie said a free and civilized society should
be judged by its willingness to accept pornography. Whilst our society
does respect the views of others our television regulator does not appear to
hold the same view.
Ofcom suggest that they will ‘consider’ whether to ‘review’ lifting the R18
ban if future developments enable more secure protection. On the other hand
they might not, and if past performance is anything to go by any future
changes that might prompt Ofcom to consider reviewing anything will take
years of snail paced contemplation. What’s more likely is that Ofcom will be
overtaken by circumstances by European and Internet based services that will
eventually destroy domestic adult broadcasters and render Ofcom’s code
irrelevant.
Perhaps of even greater concern than the imposition of all this restriction
is the expectation by Ofcom that somehow this new code should be seen as
supporting freedom of expression and viewer choice. It almost seems that
Ofcom want to be congratulated for having laboured for eighteen months to
create all this regulation.
In days gone by television was regulated by those who wanted certain kinds
of content censored, and they weren’t afraid to admit to it. Nowadays
censorship has a bad name and censors are treated with suspicion. Some
thought that this might have encouraged a lighter touch in regulation, with
less censorship and greater responsibility being granted to the consumer.
Unfortunately this is not so, the desire to censor doesn’t have it’s roots
in regulating what is generally accepted, but in the moral beliefs,
political aspirations and need to control within those in authority. As such
the desire to censor has not diminished, but the method of applying
censorship has had to change. As it’s no longer acceptable to be seen as to
openly censor legally available content, censorship is being disguised with
a variety of subterfuges.
Ofcom are keen to point out that they are not censors. They claim that
censorship involves prior restraint which they do not do. Broadcasters point
out that they are constrained by Ofcom’s codes and Government simply say
that such things are a matter for Ofcom. Meanwhile an entire classification
of content is being suppressed.
Ofcom are being economical with the truth when they claim that they do not
censor, whilst they do not examine individual films before transmission,
what they do is far worse, they censor by category. Rule 1.25 in the new
code states that “BBFC R18-rated films or their equivalent must not be
broadcast.” This represents the collective censorship by prior restraint of
an entire BBFC classification. Ofcom have censored more than five thousand
titles with a single sentence.
Ofcom’s role in this area is made much easier by the fact that there is a
small but vociferous minority who favour censorship of this kind and that
the vast majority of people have little interest in the material that is
being censored. It is to this majority that Ofcom make there case about
light touch, proportionate, evidence based regulation and many people
without the detailed knowledge of these matters will simply accept this.
Ofcom want to be seen as champions of free expression by the masses whilst
operating a policy of draconian censorship against certain minorities.
To censor legally available material intended for adults on the basis of the
opinion of twelve of the great and good in the content board is
unacceptable, to then pretend that you show a high regard for freedom of
expression is intolerable and shows an arrogant disregard for the views of
consumers in who’s interests Ofcom is supposed to operate.
If we are to have censorship foisted upon us then let’s at least be open and
honest about it.
|
|
Shaun |
To Ofcom re continued prohibition of R18 material on UK satellite,
I am posting from Majorca Spain. A free country. Something you people at
Ofcom wouldn´t know about.
Well, you people really have shown yourselves in your true colours now
haven´t you ?
All the evidence shows that no harm is caused by this material, enough to
justify your prohibition, and this includes your own published analysis of
the situation.
But you are going to prohibit it anyway.
This is shameful, and all you are doing is pandering to the so called (im)
moral mouthpieces such as media watch. I trust you will now start
proscription orders on foreign broadcasters ? If you do, I hope the European
broadcasters will take you legally to the cleaners.
I will also be monitoring the British channels to ensure they show NOTHING
which would be passed R18, which is not the case now. Oral genital contact
for example is often shown on XplicitXXX BUT This is NOT permitted at any
other classification level than R18, and under your own rules MUST NOT BE
SHOWN, and I will be helping to ensure IT IS NOT SHOWN, until your rules are
changed.
Words cannot express how angry I am about your position on this issue.
As far as I am concerned your "evidence based regulation" is nothing but a
sham, and you are unfit to regulate anything.
I expect a reply please.
I shall also be complaining to my MP, and demanding justification according
to Human Rights Act.
|
|
Dan |
To The Melon FarmersThe new Ofcom code disappoints Mediawatch UK because
they feel it does not protect viewers from being offended by programming.
But Mediawatch should ask themselves how far Ofcom can go in order to
protect all viewers from any and all offence.
There has to come a time when the viewer must take responsibility for
his/her own viewing choices and switch off programming that he/she finds
offensive or morally objectionable.
If Ofcom began regulating against all and every offence it would spend the
most part of it's time investigating every complaint no matter how trivial
and no matter how view person registered an objection. Surely this is not
what Ofcom is for.
Ofcom have realised that it cannot be responsible for the viewing choices of
the British public. It cannot act as a nanny shielding the viewer from
anything and everything which may be upsetting or offensive.
Ofcom has sent a message out that sometimes viewers have to take
responsibility for what they are watching themselves and cannot expect an
all powerful regulator to do it.
|
|
IanG |
To OfcomI am appalled and dismayed at the complete ignorance and contempt
Ofcom have displayed in the continued ban of R18 type material being
broadcast via UK satellite (and UK TV full stop).
It is wrong to make any assumption as to the harm anyone of any age may
suffer as a result of seeing human sexual activity no matter how graphic in
its presentation.
You are reminded that this is a democratic and secular country and
scientific proof is of the highest priority when making any judgements as to
the need to restrict any form of material. In particular, and as a matter of
UK law, you are required to read the rulings and case law of the ECHR in
conjunction with UK legislation in order to make UK legislation compatible
with Human Rights law. In this respect you have failed to make any such
application of case law or scientific evidence. Indeed, in your own
documentation you make mention of the fact that free access to pornography
is known to be beneficial to those with sexual problems (I know, I supplied
it to you in the consultation). If I may spell this out in real terms; we
are talking about the possible prevention of some 18,000 (eighteen
thousand!) cases of rape and child abuse that occur in the UK every year and
which have increased year upon year at a rate of 10%. I put it to you that
none of the UK's efforts to suppress explicit sexual material have gone any
way to alleviating this rising trend. Moreover, throughout the rest of
liberated Europe this trend has not been seen at all and the UK, Norway and
the USA have all suffered very similar levels of film and TV censorship and
have all displayed this worrying rise in sexual offences. In addition to
sexual abuse, it is also a fact that teen pregnancy and the rates of
sexually transmitted diseases have also increased over the years and again
such trends have not been seen in other liberated European countries.
I would therefore like to ask: Why a slim possibility that some parents may
not be astute enough in the care of their own viewing habits and those of
their children, should warrant a total ban on R18 broadcast despite the fact
such a ban has had no impact except a negative one on the sexual habits of
young persons and adults alike? Where is the proof of moral and
psychological harm you claim the broadcast of R18 material will cause, when
a total ban on such material has had exactly the effect of increasing sex
crime, teen pregnancy and the spread of STIs?
Why have you ignored six years worth of public consultations which show
conclusively that 75% of the UK population are in favour of hardcore sex on
pay TV? (And lets not pretend we don't know what "particularly explicit
sexual material" means - the public are not fools even if you pretend to
be!)
Why have you ignored the fact that only a tiny percentage of households that
would subscribe to sex channels also contain children?
Why have you assumed watershed and PIN protection is less effective at
protecting children than the watershed alone? Or are we to assume anything
rated 18 is suitable for young children or indeed, softcore material is any
less harmful than explicit sexual scenes? Did you not find for C4 and Five
when they broadcast erections and intercourse late at night?
Is it not true that the truth never hurt anyone? That education is far
better than prohibition? That imagined harm and threats are exactly what
took the UK into disastrous war against Iraq? Your justification for your
actions is lacking any logic whatsoever, in fact, it is non-existent. It is
based on nothing more than an overactive imagination. Children grow up to be
adults. From the age of 12 years, children in the UK are taught the 'facts
of life'. They even get to see graphic portrayals of human sexual activity
as part of that education. Your own imaginations and tastes are the only
thing which are causing any harm in this area as evidenced by the rise in
all the above sexual problems.
So we come to the law. The law requires you to offer protection to the young
via several pieces of relevant legislation. The law also requires
irrefutable proof of harm before any prohibition of any material can be
legally enforced. I put it to you that you are instrumental in causing
serious physical and psychological harm to those 18,000 women and children
who are abused every year by men who are incapable of suppressing their own
sexual desires. I put it to you that these man could relieve themselves if
they were given easy access to the type of material they wish to see via TV.
I put it to you that this continued ban is nothing more than a total
misinterpretation of what the law actually requires you to do and, that this
misinterpretation is entirely down to your own sordid imaginations and
irrational fears.
I will not allow this abuse of our Human Rights to view any legal material
by any means the public should choose and, the hidden abuse you cause
indirectly to thousands of people every year, to go unchallenged any longer.
It is time for some Justice. You have no case nor cause to support your
position. I will take this to every newspaper, every child psychologist,
every criminologist in the land if need be. This abuse must stop NOW and I
mean NOW! That rule needs amending forthwith and I will settle for nothing
less. Claim you made a mistake, the wrong version was published, or you have
received expert advice but, change it or else!
I will state for your benefit that Spain and Portugal outlawed censorship 2
decades ago. Anyone of any age can view any type of material and yet, Spain
and Portugal have the lowest incidence of sexual offences anywhere in
Europe. If there were a country to supply evidence of any harm it would be
these two but, they prove conclusively it is yourselves and the BBFC that
are in the wrong in this area for unnecessarily restricting sexual material
via the R18 certificate.
Now please, I beg, do the right thing for all our children's sakes and amend
that rule or the members of Ofwatch will be rallied to take this case to the
Human Rights Court where you will most certainly lose and, your powers to
license and control anything will be revoked. I do not think it is a matter
of "National Appreciation" that thousands of innocents are abused each year
- Do you?
I expect a full and qualified response to the questions raised above. This
abuse of everyone's rights and sexual wellbeing has gone on for far too
long. You are supposed to serve the public, so serve the public!
|
|
Russ on OfcomWatch |
I thought I would share a few more thoughts
about the decision:
1. The reaction to the R18 ban (or lack of reaction) says alot about the
British system of content regulation. The decision--from an economic
standpoint--is a significant and highly intrusive market intervention by
Ofcom that creates winners (licensed sex shops, internet porn sites, future
IPTV players) and losers (cable and Sky). Adult content flows through the
UK. Ofcom's decision has not stopped that flow--it has redirected the flow.
So, while I use the term 'ban', that doesn't quite capture the economic
reality of what happened as a result of Ofcom's decision.
2. The decision also has a social impact: There was straight, uncritical
reporting of the ban in the trade press. Privately, some people have told me
that they thought the Ofcom research was shoddy. In fact, one former content
regulator told me he was 'angry' with the decision. But, there seems to be a
general intellectual consensus that there is a difference between 'freedom
of expression', championed by British academia and the likes of the
Guardian, and 'porn-campaigning' which is some lower form of freedom.
3. Ofcom's reputation was going to be damaged no matter what it did on this
issue. If the regulator permitted R18 content, there would have been a
firestorm. If the regulator banned it, the flimsy reasoning used for the ban
would be attacked. One decision (a lift of the ban) would have been
evidence-based, the contrary decision (maintaining the ban) would have been
political. Ofcom is a utility-maximiser and went with the route with the
least amount of pain. That's how I see it. I'm willing to be convinced
otherwise - by Ofcom or others... so feel free to write us and share an
alternative opinion.
4. Speaking of flimsy reasoning, the 'PIN protection' argument advanced by
Ofcom has been universally castigated--by those willing to speak out--as
weak and illogical. Of course it is. Many adult activities, such as driving,
voting and the viewing of adult content, are restricted to minors, and those
restrictions are sometimes porous. Underage minors have always done things
that they are not supposed to. That possibility, however, has never been
used to restrict the freedom of adults. Until now.
5. In any case, minors will still access R18 over the internet or by raiding
their parents DVD collection. God forbid, they will probably also create
their own R18 content! So, the regulation is mostly ineffective. The
regulation is also not platform or technology neutral. I suspect Ofcom will
be successfully challenged on this extremely weak (and non-converged)
justification for its decision. But going back to my point no. 3, above, it
is a better political route for Ofcom to have a judge tell them the ban
cannot stand. It is also a better political route for Ofcom to maintain a
ban that is ineffective.
6. I'm concerned that the LSE research on R18 harms and the YORG research on
PIN protection were held and not released until the day that the code was
released. Matt Peacock of Ofcom previously posted on OfcomWatch and
stridently indicated that Ofcom does not tactically time the release of
documents. But I was told by LSE that there research was completed in early
March. Why was it not made available to the public until May 25th -- too
late to attack the flimsy reasoning behind the R18 ban? Perhaps Ofcom can
shed light on this.
|
|
IanG |
To the GuardianYou may be aware that Ofcom published their much delayed
Broadcasting Code last week. I wonder though how many of your readers have
understood what the full implications of this Code mean in the much abused
terms of 'child protection'? There are two aspects of this Code, which are
not only contradictory but down right dangerous.
First, Ofcom claim that PIN access codes for encrypted movie services via UK
satellite channels are safe enough to allow BBFC '15' rated movies to be
broadcast all day long. Further, they claim it is safe enough to allow BBFC
'18' rated movies to be broadcast after 8pm. This all seems fair enough and,
adults probably agree this is far better than the old ITC Code.
However, in the very next breath so to speak, Ofcom then claim, according to
some research that, persons under the age of 18 can get a-hold of their
parent's PIN code and access inappropriate content. Thus Ofcom have
justified a total and continued ban on the transmission of all legal BBFC
'R18' rated material. I'm sure in this "no sex please we're British"
mind-set this all seems perfectly reasonable until one realises that Ofcom
have completely destroyed their own reasons for allowing '15' and '18' rated
movies to be broadcast when youngsters could be watching. In the immortal
words of Homer Simpson that would be a "Doh!".
Moreover, parents who would like to access 'R18' ('hardcore' sex) via
satellite TV will now be forced to seek such services from continental
suppliers. It may also interest your readers to know that Ofcom and the DCMS
recently tried to proscribe such a service, namely Xstasi, which regularly
broadcasts material beyond BBFC 'R18' guidelines as part of a multi
sex-channel package. However, the DCMS were unable to proscribe this service
because "it is a foreign channel". It seems Free Trade Agreements prevent UK
interference in the promotion and sales of these services.
So, in one very dubious and highly non-nonsensical sentence in the new Code,
Ofcom have managed to place UK children at the risk of seeing, sex, drugs,
violence, hardcore sex and violent abusive pornography. Well done Ofcom!
It seems to me the TV regulators haven't got two brain cells to rub
together. They should be fired and replaced with people who at least can
predict the outcomes of their decisions and, understand that when 75% of the
population feel satellite channels should carry 'particularly sexually
explicit material' (from The Public's View 1997-2002) then perhaps UK
satellite channels should indeed be allowed to do so. Anything else is
simply an abuse of power, democracy and, our fundamental Human Right to
Freedom of Expression. Cheers Ofcom!
|
|
Kit Ryan from Ofwatch |
To Ofcom
I am writing with regard to the
release of the new Broadcasting Code. I am disappointed with the new Code as
it gives a confused message to citizen-consumers. The decision not to allow
R18 material due to the current PIN set-up is one that I may have
reluctantly accepted (given your research) if it was not for the decision to
allow the showing of films up to a classification of 15 with a mandatory PIN
protection at any time of the day.
As you will be aware, these films
have been classified by the BBFC in order to protect younger viewers from
the content of these films. If Ofcom believe their research to be correct
then there seems no doubt that younger viewers will now be able to access
material that should not be available to them. This situation will now leave
Ofcom open to criticism from so-called ‘family’ groups who will rightly
claim that Ofcom have introduced a Code that exposes younger viewers to
unsuitable material. Indeed, under the Video Recordings Act (which does not
apply to broadcasting) it is an offence for retailers to sell videos
classified as ‘15’ to a child below this age but Ofcom’s new Code will
effectively allow broadcasters to supply this material to younger children
with inefficient safeguards (according to the research).
Ofcom may now argue that the new
Code means that parents will be more vigilant with the PIN code as the
Watershed no longer applies to films classified up to ‘15’. This argument is
weak though as Ofcom opted not to investigate this when they researched the
security of PINs. There is also a strong probability that more children over
the age of 12 (and even more over 15) will be given the PIN by their parents
to allow them to watch films during the day when the parents are not at
home. This same PIN will also be used to access material that is only
suitable to adults over the age of 18. Rather than protect children from
unsuitable material, Ofcom may have made the problem worse by allowing these
films to be broadcast under the new Code.
The solution to this problem is
actual very simple. I am actually very surprised that no one seemed to
suggest it in the responses to the Consultation. The introduction of the
facility for the subscriber to delegate individual PINs to each member of
their household (controlled by a new master PIN known only to the
subscriber) would allow subscribers to let other household members have
access to material that is suitable for them while stopping access to all
other material. The master PIN should not be used to access channels (the
subscriber should set up their own separate PIN for that), only to change
options in the menu. The main PIN used by parents should not allow R18
broadcasts to be decoded using it (in case children learn the code from
watching their parents actions on the EPG). Any potential R18 broadcasts
should only be decoded by entering a separate PIN specially defined for this
purpose. For obvious reasons, all PINs would have to be different.
This idea is not new. British Sky
Broadcasting registered a patent in 1998 that proposed individual PINs for
users of their digi-box system. The idea behind Sky’s patent was to allow
each user to access the interactive services available through the digi-box.
However, the same technology could be used to allow individual PINs to
access television broadcasts. Indeed I should imagine that Sky’s ability to
produce such a system should be relatively easy given the technological
advances that have happen in the past 7 years. The details of this patent
can be found at the following website:
http://gauss.bacon.su.se/EP/8/6/EP868816.html
Another proposed idea I have read is
the idea of having two viewing cards, one for normal viewing and the second
one to allow the broadcasting of R18 material. The second card is optional
and can only be applied for by the subscriber through writing to their digi-box
supplier. This second card would act as an age verification card and would
require a different mandatory PIN to access R18 material. Since there would
be no need to use this card when non-adults are in the same room, there is
no way that a child would find out about the second PIN. Indeed it may be
unlikely that the child even knows whether their parents have this card as
parents are very vigilant about such things.
I would be interested in hearing
your views on these ideas. It would give far greater security to parents
while allowing adults the freedom to choose what they want to watch. Both of
these ideas would effectively remove the possibility of children accessing
R18 (and other unsuitable) material
|
|
Inconsistent Rights Abuse |
|
Context |
The judgment for the recent High Court hearing concerned with the
legality of R18 Mail Order was duly
delivered to day by Lord Justice Maurice Kay & Mr Justice Newman. They
dismissed the appeals of both Interfact and Pabo. This means that R18's
cannot be sold by mail order and that purchasers must turn up in person at a
licensed sex shop.In particular the High Court rejected the argument that an internet,
telephone or letter sale processed in a licensed sex shop can be considered
as supplied from a licensed shop. The judges argued that the scope of the
term 'supply' was wider than just the financial transaction and included the
delivery to the purchaser. So it could not be said to have occurred in the
licensed premises.
It was also argued that a mail order brochure is an 'offer to supply'
outside of a licensed sex shop and so by the same arguments as above is
prohibited under the Video Recordings Act.
The judges did not accept that the restrictions on sales of R18 were an
infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights because they felt
that the ECHR gave sufficient leeway to the Government to impose licensing
restrictions for the protection of children. The fact that importing R18s
via mail order from abroad allows circumvention of the restrictions was
accepted but this wasn't accepted as a reason for removing domestic
restrictions.
It is believed that this case will now be taken to the House of Lords.
|
|
Editor, World Sex News |
Regarding the recent decision to ban the sale of R18 by mail order "to
protect children", I note that we (the people) are happy to sell by mail
order: alcohol, cigarettes, knives, a variety of drugs (eg. paracetamol),
rat poison, sulphuric acid, air rifle, etc. Does this seem somewhat
inconsistent?
|
|
IanG |
I'm afraid the learned gentlemen in question have not fully understood the
intention of the law in any way what so ever. If the intention were to
prevent sales of R18 material to persons under 18 then the import of such
material would also be prohibited, or do HMCE somehow know who the purchaser
is and how old they are? Also, as the videos can only be played in the home,
even if an adult buys the material, there is still a possibility persons
under 18 can view said videos. And as someone pointed out, just because
someone looks 18 does not mean they are 18 and as 'children' under 18
frequent pubs and get served, anyone with the cash to buy R18 from a sex
shop can be served far more easily than someone under 18 trying to use a
creditcard to order by phone/Internet. The law in this instance is a clearly
pointless and hence unnecessary restriction to freedom of expression.
Furthermore, the issue of supply is indeed a greater one. In the case of
overseas purchase they recognise the supply has taken place at the point of
sale. Somehow within the UK this doesn't apply and although the carrier
would be the same (i.e. the Royal Mail, or whatever they're called these
days) in both cases and, pickup would be from within the UK and, both
packages would appear identical, the law is somehow able to differentiate
one from the other. What crap!
Also, the justification against a breach of Art. 10 falls flat because there
is NO SOLID PROOF that R18 type material can "damage the moral or
psychological development" of a person under 18, indeed, anyone of 16 years
can legally have sex and can perform anything they may (or may not) be able
to see at R18. Without such proof of harm, there is no justification for
restriction of freedom of expression. Moreover, the ECHR have already
decreed the use of a licensing system cannot be used to prevent access to
legal material. This is observed by HMCE in allowing R18 type material
through customs, and possibly by Ofcom shortly. The whole issue of licensing
sex shops has yet again been brushed over as if it is perfectly acceptable.
In the case of tabacco and alcohol, sales may be restricted to |
