More like this
No rough sex please, we’re British
A new law banning so-called ‘extreme’ pornography is a nonsense, argues Sean Thomas
Hard cases make bad law" is an aphorism much beloved of legislators. It is also a motto that could be usefully tattooed on the foreheads of British MPs. Because right now the British government is about to pass a very bad law, rooted in one tragic case.
The tragedy in question is that of Jane Longhurst. Five years ago Ms Longhurst, a Brighton-based teacher, was brutally murdered. At the trial it emerged that her killer, Graham Coutts, was a fan of violent porn websites with names like Rape Action. The content of such sites reflected their titles.
Following the life imprisonment of Coutts, Jane's mother Liz began a campaign to ban the possession of violent sexual imagery, or 'extreme pornography'. This campaign got support from her local MP, Martin Salter, and then Home Secretary, David Blunkett.
Now the campaign is near its end. The final fruit is a clause, inserted in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which should receive Royal Assent on May 8.
What's wrong with this clause is its bizarre, catch-all wording. The law does not simply outlaw the making of obscenely violent sexual images. It prohibits the passive viewing of images of violent but consensual sex. It also prohibits, quite astonishingly, the viewing of images that merely appear to be sexually violent - but are actually staged.
The absurdities thrown up by this are obvious. Under the law it will be illegal to look at images of someone freely engaging in rough sex. That is to say: the act itself will be legal, but looking at a photo of it will be verboten.
Even more stupid, under this law you could be prosecuted for looking at an image of yourself performing an act that did not actually take place which you faked at home.
George Orwell had a word for this remarkable legal concept: thoughtcrime. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
"It is designed to target those particularly disturbed individuals who the sadistic lifestyle has spectacularly failed to deal with."
- And how do the police tell the difference between "particularly disturbed individuals" who are actually a danger, and those who are not, but possess/make/view such images?
The law targets images between consenting adults, including images of staged acts. It will even criminalise personal non-published photos that consenting partners make, as well as screenshots from legal films!
If we are not to worry, then what will this law be used for?
The rest of your comment is a depressing straw man. No one is arguing for the right to commit abuse and other non-consensual acts. Backlash supports consensual acts, not abuse. But this law targets images of consenting adults.
The only one supporting non-consensual abuse is you - supporting a law that will harm innocent people by placing them in prison for three years.
"I look forward to the day when seriously disturbed individuals like Coutts will end up in prison before they abuse and kill for pleasure."
- Brilliant, let's lock up people before they commit a crime. Again I ask, how do we tell who will commit a crime, before they do so? How about we start with you? You get three years in prison, because you might commit a crime - that sounds a good "memorial" to Jane Longhurst, doesn't it? Or is it that you only want _other_ innocent people to go to prison?
Got to agree that it will be a shame to have to throw out the James Bond movies, as well as dozens of other really good films, where there might be a few uncomfortable minutes for someone on screen for whatever reason. Not such a shame that the Borat movie will be illegal due to the gross out scene with the dog in the bed. But, as Kneel says above, the law is trustworthy. There was never a set-up or conspiracy in this country, and there never will be. Just ask the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Michael Barry or all the poor sods we have "renditioned" off to Cuba without asking even two questions. They will all tell you that British justice is the best in the world. Those in power would never abuse this law to detain, arrest & then lock up anyone with a copy of "History of Violence" would they? After all, no-one would dare (ab)use the anti-terror laws to arrest an OAP heckler at a party conference, would they?
Basically, just like 99% of the laws pushed through by new labour, these are too broad and too powerful for little effect and no reason.
@ Neil Jonnston
> "this law is not going to have the negative effects that they have been predicting."
And I'm sure all those who were arrested under Operation Ore for supposedly having child porn when their only "crime" was having their credit card details stolen didn't think that laws to protect children would have that sort of effect either, did they?
Of course by the time their innocence was demonstrated many of them had lost their jobs, had their families torn apart and had their lives destroyed, not to mention those who committed like Commodore White, the Senior Commander on Gibraltar and who was posthumously exonerated after it was found there was *NO* evidence against him.
This law will mean that people who have photos of adults engaged in consensual sexual acts may be criminalised simply based on how a picture looks *to someone else*! They won't actually know if they're breaking the law until someone like Mr Johnston comes along and says "that's disgusting! Lock this person up!"
> "It is designed to target those particularly disturbed individuals who the sadistic lifestyle has spectacularly failed to deal with."
Right, that is why if you have a clip of James Bond being tortured in Casino Royale you will now be a criminal!
> "Coutts ended up believing that his right to abuse became more important than Jane Longhursts right to life"
Oh dear, another stock line trotted out by someone who doesn't understand what Human Rights are about.
Tell me, Mr Johnston, since when did two wrongs make a right? Since when did taking away someone's rights make the world a better place? Ask people in China, Saudi Arabia or even in Guantanamo Bay!
Your analogy of speeding is totally ridiculous. If you speed you risk others' lives. This is a proven fact. If you look at "dangerous pictures" there is *NO* evidence that it will lead you to commit crimes. Even the Government's own discredited and biased Rapid Evidence Assessment only came to the vague conclusion that this material *may* affect those who were *already* inclined that way anyhow.
Meanwhile research like that of Professor Milton Diamond of the University of Hawai'i was ignored when he demonstrated that in the USA and Japan the increase in explicit and violent sexual material has actually lead to a *decrease* in sexual crime!
> "this law simply reinforces existing law that consent is no defence"
Unless, of course, you're a boxer or a martial artist or you get your body pierced or... in fact *ANYTHING* that isn't to do with sex is ok. Why do the Mary Whitehouses of this world think that sex is so bad?
> "I look forward to the day when seriously disturbed individuals like Coutts will end up in prison before they abuse and kill for pleasure."
Yes, let's lock people up based on what they *might* do! Let's have Big Brother introduce Thought Crime into our green and pleasant land! Let's have the Nanny State say "we think this is bad for you and we don't trust you to behave responsibly, so if you look at it we'll lock you up!" Let's have people whose only "crime" is to enjoy consensual sexual practices that Mr Johnson doesn't like thrown into jail by the Morality Police!
Wow, what a fitting memorial...
As someone who has supported this proposed law I will be delighted if the bill becomes law on 8th May.
Despite the scare mongering by Backlash, this law is not going to have the negative effects that they have been predicting. It is designed to target those particularly disturbed individuals who the sadistic lifestyle has spectacularly failed to deal with. Indeed they have reinforced their dark desires with the 'anything goes' creed so beloved of sadists. Is it little wonder in this atmosphere that someone like Coutts ended up believing that his right to abuse became more important than Jane Longhursts right to life?
Why is Backlash so terrified of this law? Is it because they want a get out of jail free card? Not everyone agrees that speeding is dangerous, but do we as a society allow those who wish to speed special dispensation under the law? Of course we don't. Sadists choose to abuse, this law simply reinforces existing law that consent is no defence and that serious cases of consensual abuse can and do result in conviction.
Congratulations to Jane's family and supporters who have worked hard to get this law onto the statute book. I look forward to the day when seriously disturbed individuals like Coutts will end up in prison before they abuse and kill for pleasure. Sadists now know where the line is, and they step over it at their peril.
I can think of no better memorial for Jane Longhurst.
This will be another's example of Murphy's Law: If it can go wrong, it will, at the most critical moment in time and space. Likely what will happen is that this bluenose act will prevent any legitimate research into what makes people get their jollies out of this kind of sex -- and what, if any, link there is between this kind of sexual expression and crime. As far as being on the Orwellian timetable, we're just about a quarter of a century late -- but we're plugging away at destroying whatever freedoms we had.
After having just read the act I can see the problem with it:
-----
(6) An "extreme image" is an image which:
(a) falls within subsection (7), and
(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following:
(a) an act which threatens a person's life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),
and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.
-----
It reminds me of all the hype surrounding Grand Theft Auto and other violent video games that are released. Merely viewing this sort of material does not drive a person to act it out themselves. People are capable of thinking for themselves (mostly).
I am one of those who have been fighting these ridiculous proposals since the start. It is clear that our Government does not trust us to behave like reasonable and sensible adults, they think that if we see this material we're going to do nasty things, so the Nanny State is going to say "we think this is bad for you, so we're not going to let you see it".
Not only that, it will be someone else's *subjective* view on how an image *appears* that will determine whether you are committing an offence, you may not even know if you've broken the law until someone else says "that image is grossly offensive and I think it risks someone's life or might cause them serious injury".
There is still the possibility of getting this ludicrous law thrown out, everyone needs to write to their MPs NOW via http://www.writetothem.com and tell them that they don't was want to see a Thought Crime introduced into British Law.
For more details and counter arguments see the Backlash site at http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk
Censorship is almost invariably a very bad thing. But "sex" is the one area where reasonable people and MPs like to interfere. I guess we have to hope that this detail of the law becomes a dead letter: personally the idea of watching acts of violence in non-sexual (let alone sexual) contexts is not something at all appealing. But one has to trust that the law will not be an ass - and all too often such trust proves mistaken. It is absolutely true that hard cases make bad law. The trouble fundamentally is that people (and not just our lawmakers) cannot distinguish between the theatrical imagination and "reality": and anything of which there can be recorded images is seen as a form of "reality". However, in Britain we only got rid of theatre censorship a couple of decades ago, and it surely is no surprise to find it has crept back so quickly. I guess it is typically British and deliciously absurd that, actually, after May 8 in Britain, doing sexual violence or miming sexual violence on stage will remain legal, whereas images recorded on film or video will be illegal.