Concerned members of the public took their lobbying to the streets on 7th May outside the British Library and Houses of Parliament, in advance of the Royal Assent of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

Protestors at the British Library talked to a journalist from Radio 1. Showing her an image from Madonna's book SEX, they talked about how they weren't sure if some posed photographs in Madonna's book might be illegal, due to the vague wording of significant parts of sections 62-64 of the Bill and the lack of clarity about how this law is going to be interpreted in court. One person commented I can't seek advice from a solicitor every time I look at an erotic image!.

Leaflets were peacefully shared with people entering and leaving the Library while a few protestors moved outside to symbolically burn a page from a book they believe likely to be banned under the new law.

Later the demonstration moved to Parliament Square, where objectors distributed more leaflets and cheered as passing cars honked their horns to show support at their placards being waved.

Small crowds also gathered as two women staged a pink-fluffy-handcuffing and 'strangulation' on the Parliament railings, as their interpretation of the kind of things the government's definition of 'extreme' might include, were it similarly acted out in a pornographic setting.

Campaigners believe that it not the Law's business to dictate what images consenting adults may choose to view for the purposes of arousal if no actual crime is taking place in that image, and are surprised the government has made no clear distinction between actual and staged scenarios.

To put it another way: if you wish to know where this government is going wrong, you have only to look at their shiny new Criminal Justice Bill. Take, for instance, the bit about "extreme porn".

Now is not the place to re-rehash the many arguments against it. But the devil is in the detail. Once this Bill is Law, you could go to jail for up to three years for possessing an image of an action that is not itself illegal.

...Read full article

The mother of the murdered Jane Longhurst has spoken of her joy as a bill banning extreme pornography is due to become law.

The Criminal Justice Bill, championed by Jane’s mum Liz Longhurst and Martin Salter MP, is due to receive Royal Assent tomorrow, making it part of the law.

Mrs Longhurst told the Post her daughter would be proud of what her mum had achieved: I am really very delighted it is due to be passed, but I don’t think it is a magic bullet.

The law is the start of good things, but I think it will be difficult to enforce. But I want the legislation on the books even though it might be difficult to enforce.

If someone else is murdered and it can be shown the murder is due to extreme violent internet pornography, I think the police will take a strong interest.

I think Jane would be proud. Martin and I have done it between us. Martin has had most of the right contacts, but he couldn’t have done it without me and I could not have done it without him.

I think the law probably is censorship, but you have to think of the greater good. Far be it for me to deprive people of what they see as harmless fun, but any site which can encourage a person to commit murder or GBH is bad.

Salter, who has promised to take Mrs Longhurst for a “slap up meal” at the House of Commons to celebrate the bill’s assent, said: I am absolutely thrilled this law has been passed. But most of all I am delighted for Liz. If we can reduce some peoples’ temptation to watch violent images, including rape and mutilation, then that is a good thing. It is also important we protect the women who are in these videos.

The passing of a new law criminalising the possession of extreme pornography is about to take the ‘thought police’ out of the realm of fiction.

The shame once associated with looking at dirty pictures has fallen away since porn moved into the mainstream, around the time of Madonna's Sex book. With the rise of the internet there can be few adults in the UK who have not seen some porn, somewhere.

But all of these people could soon, without knowing it, be breaking the law. This week, with little fanfare or media debate, the Labour government finally puts on to the statute book its Criminal Justice and Immigration bill, which creates a new offence of possessing "extreme pornography". The bill is based on a joint Home Office/Scottish Executive consultation on the possession of extreme pornographic material undertaken in 2005/06, and though this bill is for England and Wales, the law in Scotland is likely to follow suit.

So what could possibly be wrong with banning something as forbidding as "extreme pornography"? First, it's unworkable. Second, it will be ineffective in targeting the genuine problem of sexual violence in society. And third, it's undesirable in itself because it reverses an important liberal trend of recent times - society's acknowledgement of the right of consenting adults to indulge their private desires and fantasies without the interference of the state, as long as they do so without harming others.

...Read full article

Comment: Gordon Brownshirt

9th May 2008 Thanks to Alan

Great article by McNair. The Sunday Herald is, of course a Scottish newspaper. The DPA won't apply in Scotland unless the Scottish Parliament decides that it should.

The Scottish Parliament isn't controlled by Labour. Maybe Scottish opponents of this nasty legislation should start writing to their MSP.

Wouldn't it be splendid if Gordon Brownshirt's own constituents didn't have to fear three years' porridge?

Near the British Library
11am, Wednesday 7th May

The British Library is at 96 Euston Road next to King's Cross and St Pancras International stations, which are served by National Rail, First Capital Connect and London Underground. You can also use the Hammersmith and City, Piccadilly, Northern, Circle, District, Metropolitan and Victoria Underground Lines. Many bus services stop on Midland Road and Euston Road.

WHAT TO BRING:

Any erotic book which contains an image you think may be illegal under the CJIB, of consenting adults engaging in an activity which is not illegal. eg Madonna's book, SEX

Food and drink in case we are apprehended from moving round, any medications you normally use. Bear in mind sometimes police cause people to be late home. Material to make a placard or one you made at home... suggestions for slogans welcome. A raincoat and plenty of warm clothes. It often rains on demos!! Your mobile phone. and the willing to give out your real name and number so we dont lose you. A small fire extinguisher if you own one. A big friendly smile and your community spirit.

WHO IS WELCOME:

All adults who think that we should be able to view in private images of consensual legal adult fantasy play. All adults who believe that creating 2 million harmless criminals is just another exercise in the government picking on easy targets.

Adults of all ages and backgrounds welcome, on an equal basis. Someone has volunteered to police liason on the day who also uses British Sign Language.

CONDUCT:

This is a peaceful NON-violent civil disobedience. There will be no tolerance of aggressive, abusive or dangerous behaviour.

SAFETY:

Everyone in attendance needs to take responsibility for their actions, their own health and safety and mind everyone else's. further information about this will be given on the day to anyone who turns up including a solicitors phone number in case anything goes wrong and they are arrested.

WE NEED:

People to give out leaflets, people to talk to the press, people to stay back from the demo and be there to support. people to get more copies of leaflets if necessary at the last minute. people to write to MP's and Lords while we are doing the action. People to phone us on the demo and update this forum. People to answer any articles which arise.

WE ARE:

AN INDEPENDENT NETWORK OF ORDINARY CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CJIB and how it creates 2 million harmless criminals and allows police to investigate people who have never committed any offense.

WHO's in CHARGE...?

Nobody - we're all in charge of ourselves. Smile

As mentioned in the House of Lords yesterday, Baroness Howe and others in both houses are calling for a Select Committee on new media and violence.

This apparently has growing momentum. They are asking us to do all we can outside the House to match the efforts inside the House. This means writing letters as organisations and asking our readers to do the same.

Please support these efforts in whatever way you can.

Comment: Sheep Shagging

Thanks to Alan

Someone has questioned the wisdom of the idea of a select committee, since Lady (Elspeth) Howe is not exactly liberal in her views about censorship.

However, since her husband (Geoffrey Howe) was famously compared to a dead sheep, she may feel that the DPA threatens her own intimate activities!

Sunday 25 May
Doors 7.30pm, performance 7.45pm
Switch, Warwick Arts Centre Tel: 024 7652 4524
£10.50 / £8.50 Concessions Over 18s only

Playing The Victim (Part of My Fierce Festival)

A hackneyed image of male brutality is unveiled to reveal a celebration of one woman’s pleasure.

Playing the Victim is a visceral and intense performance that explores sexuality, pain and individual choice. It depicts forbidden acts, challenging preconceptions and questioning laws drafted in knee-jerk response to media sensationalism. Due to its nature Playing the Victim can only be performed once every 3 months. The performance at My Fierce Festival is no. 2 in a limited edition of 7 performances. It contains scenes of a graphic nature that may offend some viewers.

The House of Lords passed the Dangerous Pictures Act, within the Criminal Justice & Immigration Bill, last night with no meaningful amendments whatsoever.

As usual, a surreal debate with most Lords who spoke pointing out the nastiness of law. But the votes cast against a helpful amendment was telling at 134 to 91.

The bill is now likely to be rubber stamped at a guillotined 3rd reading in the Commons.

A bill outlawing the possession of "extreme pornography" is set to become law next week. But many fear it has been rushed through and will criminalise innocent people with a harmless taste for unconventional sex.

Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered. It later emerged her killer had been compulsively accessing websites such as Club Dead and Rape Action, which contained images of women being abused and violated. When Graham Coutts was jailed for life Jane Longhurst's mother, Liz, began a campaign to ban the possession of such images.

Until now pornographers, rather than consumers, have needed to operate within the confines of the 1959 Obscene Publications Act (OPA). While this law will remain, the new act is designed to reflect the internet age, when pornographic images may be hosted on websites outside the UK.

Under the new rules, criminal responsibility shifts from the producer - who is responsible under the OPA - to the consumer.

But campaigners say the new law risks criminalising thousands of people who use violent pornographic images as part of consensual sexual relationships.

People like Helen, who by day works in an office in the Midlands, and enjoys being sexually submissive and occasionally watching pornography, portrayed by actors, which could be banned under the new legislation. She feels the new law is an over-reaction to the Longhurst case: Mrs Longhurst sees this man having done this to her daughter and she wants something to blame and rather than blame this psychotic man she wants to change the law but she doesn't really understand the situation. Do you ban alcohol just because some people are alcoholics?

She has an ally in Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, a Liberal Democrat peer who has fought to have the legislation amended.

Obviously anything that leads to violence against women has to be taken very seriously, says Baroness Miller: But you have to be very careful about the definition of 'extreme pornography' and they have not nearly been careful enough.

She has suggested the new act adopt the legal test set out in the OPA, which bans images which tend to deprave and corrupt.

But the government has sought to broaden the definition and the bill includes phrases such as an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life.

Speaking from her home in Berkshire, Mrs Longhurst acknowledges that libertarians see her as a horrible killjoy. I'm not. I do not approve of this stuff but there is room for all sorts of different people...BUT...anything which is going to cause damage to other people needs to be stopped.

To those who fear the legislation might criminalise people who use violent pornography as a harmless sex aid, she responds with a blunt hard luck.

There is no reason for this stuff. I can't see why people need to see it. People say what about our human rights but where are Jane's human rights?

Baroness Miller says the new law threatens people's privacy: The government is effectively walking into people's bedrooms and saying you can't do this. It's a form of thought police.

She says there's a danger of criminalising kinkiness and fears the legislation has been rushed through Parliament without proper debate because it is a small part of a wider bill.

Deborah Hyde, of Backlash, an umbrella group of anti-censorship and alternative sexuality pressure groups, has similar concerns: How many tens or hundreds or thousands of people are going to be dragged into a police station, have their homes turned upside down, their computers stolen and their neighbours suspecting them of all sorts?

Such "victims" won't feel able to fight the case and will take a caution, before there are enough test cases to prove that this law is unnecessary and unworkable.

Another opponent of the new law is Edward Garnier, an MP and part-time judge, who questioned the clause when it was debated in the Commons.

My primary concern is the vagueness of the offence, says Garnier: It was very subjective and it would not be clear to me how anybody would know if an offence had been committed.

Opponents have also seized on what they see as an ideological schism in the new law, noted by Lord Wallace of Tankerness during last week's debate in the House of Lords.

If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence. Having engaged in it consensually would not be a crime, but to have a photograph of it in one's possession would be a crime. That does not seem to make sense to me.

Amendments to the Criminal Injustice Act have been tabled for the 3rd Reading

Baroness Miller and Lord Wallace have suggested that dangerous pictures should be defined as both violent and legally obscene. They have also proposed reducing the maximum sentence from 3 to 2 years.

The evil Lord Hunt has proposed a minor exemption. Those participating in the dangerous pictures and hence knowing that they were produced legally would be exempt. Surely a recipe for injustice as the same images would be legal for some to own and illegal for others

Clause 62

BARONESS MILLER OF CHILTHORNE DOMER
LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS

Page 49, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) is obscene as defined by section 1 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (c. 66) (test of obscenity)."

After Clause 64

THE LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH

Insert the following new Clause—
"Defence: participation in consensual acts
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person ("D") is charged with an offence under section 62, and
(b) the offence relates to an image that portrays an act or acts within paragraphs (a) to (c) (but none within paragraph (d)) of subsection (7) of that section.
(2) It is a defence for D to prove—
(a) that D directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed, and
(b) that the act or acts did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and
(c) if the image portrays an act within section 62(7)(c), that what is portrayed as a human corpse was not in fact a corpse.
(3) For the purposes of this section harm inflicted on a person is "non-consensual" harm if—
(a) the harm is of such a nature that the person cannot, in law, consent to it being inflicted on himself or herself; or
(b) where the person can, in law, consent to it being so inflicted, the person does not in fact consent to it being so inflicted."

Clause 65

BARONESS MILLER OF CHILTHORNE DOMER
LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS

Page 52, line 3, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
"(2) A person guilty of an offence under section 62 is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years."

LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH

Page 52, line 8, leave out "depict" and insert "portray"

The register is carrying a headline story about the recent failure to pass amendments to the Dangerous Pictures Act in the Lords:

As matters stand, there are two serious issues with the proposal.

The first is the wholly uncertain scope of the offence. Experts reckon that up to two million people could have such images on their computers – often unaware that they breach the law. In many instances, pictures could be downloaded to cache the moment an individual opens a blog. They might not even be aware of what they had downloaded: but they would have a very hard time proving that. This raises the spectre of police unable to prosecute someone on another unrelated matter taking a peek at their hard drive to see if they can get them for possession of porn.

The second issue is the role of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). If child porn leads the IWF to recommend blocking a few thousand sites, stand by for that list to grow by many tens of thousands. At least the subject mattter of child porn is reasonably objectively defined. But "extreme"? Particularly when the IWF guiding principle seems to be: when in doubt, recommend a ban. Many small site owners will find themselves closed down and if they are not aware of the role of the IWF – and many are not – they will never know why.

...Read full article

I did something last night that may soon be illegal. I watched a DVD of The Last House on the Left. It's interesting to consider how it stacks up against the "Dangerous Pictures Act" soon to have its final debate in the House of Lords.

Well, Last House has scenes that portray people being threatened with guns and knives. In fact, they actually get killed with guns and knives. Not uncommon in films, really. But that must mean it falls under 7(a).

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

Yes, the people are definitely real. It's a fair cop, then...

...Read Violent Pornography Debate featuring views from the spanking community

In the light of sheer intransigence by Lord Hunt on the part of the Government being totally unwilling to even consider the first set of amendments (ie incorporating the Sexual Offences Act, the Obscene Publications Act and the "consent" defence), Baroness Miller has withdrawn those and, instead, they are now voting on the Amendments to remove the Extreme Porn clauses entirely.

Unfortunately this amendment was defeated by 66 votes to 30.

There are further opportunities to vote eg at the 3rd reading but the feeling is that wider groups of Lords are even more likely to support the Dangerous Pictures clauses.

It looks like Britain will soon become an even more unpleasant land.

Update: A New Defence

Lord Hunt conceded there should be a new defence, which he will lay before the Third Reading: I am aware that the noble Lord has concerns about individuals who keep a record of themselves freely and willingly participating in bondage, domination, submission and sado-masochistic practices in which no unlawful harm occurs. I recognise that it would be anomalous for a person to be committing an offence by possessing an image of an act which he undertook perfectly lawfully. We intend to introduce at Third Reading a defence which addresses precisely that situation.

Comment: Says it All

From IanG on the Melon Farmers Forum
See also parliamentary transcript from TheyWorkForYou

Doesn't this say it all?

Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour):

My Lords, I, too, expressed reservations about these clauses in Committee and took very much the same line as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, did on that occasion. I looked carefully at the amendments that my noble friend brought forward and I said in Committee that I thought that they represented an improvement on what was there before.

I think that I am the only Member of your Lordships` House who took up the invitation of my noble friend to visit Charing Cross police station to view some of what one might call the exhibits that underlie the Government`s thinking on this matter. A variety of adjectives comes to mind, such as "bizarre", "unpleasant", "distasteful", even "repulsive", but the images were not in any sense sexually arousing. At the end of the visit, I was left with the question whether their possession is so threatening to society that it is worth turning people into criminals and sending them to jail if they happen to have them on a computer screen at home or have obtained them some other way.

I suspect that, like me, many noble Lords have had a fair number of submissions on this subject from a variety of organisations. Some of them are very articulate and well argued. The main point that comes through was expressed by an organisation called backlash, which said: The proposals are still, despite the recent amendments, worded in such a way as to risk inadvertently criminalising hundreds of thousands of British citizens.

He went on to say:

Equally importantly, people will be deterred from exploring their sexual preferences for fear that their research may lead them into illegal territory which in turn can cause both distress and mental health issues as well as being a fundamental breach of their human rights".

The point is also made by a number of these organisations that most of the scenes to which my noble friend introduced me at Charing Cross are not real scenes but are faked for the benefit of their creation or are the product of an entirely consensual activity, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, pointed out. I am at one with my noble friend Lord McIntosh and, I suspect, with the Minister in wanting to prosecute illegal activity that has taken place in order to create these images. However, if no illegal activity has taken place and we are concerned about merely the possession of the images, I really cannot imagine that any useful purpose is served by creating criminals out of the people who possess them.

My worry is that the wording of the Bill is still much too vague and could cover all sorts of light, consensual and safe imagery which many people enjoy and practise and which at present is perfectly legal but which as a consequence of these clauses will certainly become illegal. In Committee, I finished by asking my noble friend a question. I did not get an answer on that occasion and I therefore put the same question to him now. As a new offence is being created by these clauses, what will be the position of people who have already downloaded material on to their computers that until now has not been illegal but henceforth will be? Will the possession of that be regarded as a criminal offence and, if it is, what advice are the Government offering to help people to get rid of it? This is an important issue. This House cannot pass legislation that inadvertently turns people into criminals, particularly when the activity in which they are engaging is not doing anybody outside their own homes any harm.

A new amendment has been suggest for the Dangerous Pictures Act. This commendably limits 'dangerous pictures' to those featuring real unstaged violence.

BARONESS MILLER OF CHILTHORNE DOMER
LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS

Clause 65

Page 49, line 21, at end insert—
"(d) that they reasonably believe that no person portrayed in the image was made to act against their will.
( ) For the purposes of this section whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances."

Now we really have got to get those letters out. We have a few weeks left to get enough Lords to vote to get these amendments through.

The UK Government wants to force this Bill through by May the 8th 2008, meaning that they're likely to guillotine debate in the Commons and push it through using their Parliamentary majority without letting MPs discuss it properly.

If you think that this is an abuse of Government power, you're right, so write to the Lords and get them to amend it before it's too late!

Max Mosley (son of Sir Oswald the fascist) was caught in a News of the World sting visiting a BDSM dungeon.

Film, widely available on the web, initially starting on the News of the Screws' own site, is censored with black squares on Max's bum and that of a girl he canes, but raises some interesting issues about the Dangerous Pictures Act.

Presumably, even if uncensored, the vids would escape the DPA because they weren't produced for purposes of sexual arousal but as part of a shock horror investigation of pervy Max.

See full article from The Register
see also article from News of the World

Formula One boss Max Mosley lost a High Court bid to stop the News of the World from putting a video of him and five prostitutes back on its website.

Mr Justice Eady came to the conclusion that because the material has already been widely reported, and is still widely available, granting an injunction would serve no purpose.

Eady said: I have, with some reluctance, come to the conclusion that although this material is intrusive and demeaning, and despite the fact that there is no legitimate public interest in its further publication, the granting of an order against this respondent at the present juncture would merely be a futile gesture.

Mosley was featured in a front page story by the Sunday paper which accused him of paying five prostitutes to dress in German Nazi-style uniforms and what look very like concentration camp uniforms for the S&M session.

Mosley, the son of British fascist Sir Oswald Mosley, is taking the News of the World to court on privacy grounds - the two sides will be back in court in July.

The newspaper has only released a 95 second section of the video including clips of Mosley being beaten and enjoying a refreshing cup of tea after his five hour session. Mosley denies any Nazi connotations to the session.

Update: Formula 1 Circus Moves on to France

19th April 2008

A French judge will render a decision on April 29 on whether to ban a video showing Formula One chief Max Mosley cavorting with five prostitutes from being aired in France.

Mosley's lawyer Philippe Ouakrat said that the video "characterises a violation of his right to respect for his private life" and demanded that the tape be banned from being aired on French territory.

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab): I note that the legislative consent memorandum refers to three specific areas of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. I was concerned when I saw it last week—I understand that the motion does not include clauses 113 to 120, which relate to pornography. I would be grateful if the minister could confirm that the issues around possession of extreme pornography, which are covered in the Westminster bill, will be dealt with by Scottish legislation, as was indicated by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing in response to an oral question from me. She stated:

We have consulted on new law to prohibit extreme pornographic images, and will now work to implement the outcome of the consultation"

Women's organisations in Scotland and organisations with an interest in tackling violence against women would welcome having input into the implementation of that process and are keen to ensure that the issue will still be dealt with as a devolved matter.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill): I am aware of Elaine Smith's track record in quite correctly pursuing the matter. The point that she raises is perfectly valid, and it is appropriate for me to explain clearly that, as is mentioned in the legislative consent memorandum, we are seeking to address various gaps, for example relating to violent offenders doing something significantly wrong. I refer to actions that are taken—as is sought south of the border—regarding those people if it is felt that they might escape punishments or requirements by moving north of the border. Clearly, people have been seeking to do that.

There are matters under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill that are being legislated on south of the border that relate to pornography. As Elaine Smith has correctly said, legislation that will apply south of the border is being introduced in that regard. As was mentioned and has been dealt with by my ministerial health colleagues, there was a joint Scottish Executive and Home Office consultation on extreme pornography. We have legislative competence on that area here in Scotland.

We are working on proposals and are more than happy to meet Elaine Smith because of the valuable input that she and the people with whom she has communicated and whom she has represented can give. We intend to legislate on the matter in due course, rather than introduce measures that have been decided on south of the border and which are predicated on the situation there. To an extent, the member answered her own question. I can say that, in due course, we intend to address the matter that she correctly raises, but we will do so within the competence of the Parliament and in a manner that is appropriate for Scotland.