SnowdropExplodes's profile . SnowdropExplodes's homepage
 |
| SnowdropExplodes |
on Wed 30 Aug 06, 10:30 PM to SnowdropExplodes's blog.
The following is the text of the letter I have sent to my MP tonight following the publication by the Home Office of their intentions following the consultation on "simple plossession" of "extreme" pornography:
Home Office proposals on simple possession of "extreme" pornography
1. As I am sure you are aware, the Home Office published their "summary of responses" to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography, in which they also outlined their "next steps" regarding the proposals.
2. You will recall also my previous correspondence with you, and the meeting in July this year in which we discussed some of the issues concerning the proposals, and my opposition to the Home Office's intentions in this matter. We agreed that, if the Home Office chose to pursue their proposals beyond the consultation phase, I would write to you again concerning their more specific proposals
3. Those proposals have now been made so I am writing to you once more to express my opposition to the proposed legislation and explain why I feel that the proposals are inimical to the interests of our society and freedoms.
4. As I recall from our meeting, you told me that you could not see any reason, given that the material was already covered by the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (OPA) as regards publication and distribution, why the simple possession of the same material should not also be a criminal offence. As you will recall from our meeting, I and my associates in the campaign against the proposed legislation, tend towards the view that the OPA is redundant and does not serve a useful purpose in protecting the morals of this nation; however, as we discussed at our meeting, it is very unlikely that a review of the OPA will be undertaken in the foreseeable future.
5. The proposals are now clearly to create a separate piece of legislation to introduce the new offence, and so it will not be directly linked to the OPA. The OPA uses a common-law definition by which juries are asked to decide whether material is "likely to deprave and corrupt" those likely to come into contact with it. The new proposed legislation uses a different, and potentially broader definition: "material that has been solely or primarily produced for the purpose of sexual arousal" (Summary of responses and next steps, p. 6). It also carries the tests that the material must be explicit and show "actual scenes or depictions that appear to be real".
6. Implicit in this is a judgement on the intention either of the producer or of the viewer (who would be the defendant), regarding the purpose of the material. That places the commission of a crime not in the possessing of material, but in the mental response to it. This is in effect a form of "thought crime". Although the Home office describes it as an "objective" test, there will need to be far clearer guidelines on how to determine whether or not material is produced for "legitimate" storytelling (or documentary), or for "sexual arousal".
7. The main thrust of your argument that, because the material is illegal to publish or distribute, it can also be illegal to possess it, is seemingly convincing. However, the publication and distribution of material "likely to deprave and corrupt" is not the same as possessing it; such material might be produced for personal use, for example.
8. The current proposals are in effect an attempt to extent the reach of the UK's censorship laws overseas, by prohibiting publishers in other countries from conducting their business. The OPA stands to prevent the spread of obscene material within the UK. The current Customs and Excise laws stand to prevent physical depictions from entering the UK and being distributed. The proposed laws, however, stand to prevent individuals from pursuing their interests privately, in their own homes, and therefore simply to punish the existence of material in this country, which may have been obtained via the internet or may have been produced for an individual's or a couple's personal use.
9. This amounts to a suppression of sexual fantasies, and may have the opposite effect of the intended outcome. There is anecdotal evidence, at least as convincing as that for a link between pornography and sexual crimes, that a denial of access to the ability to explore sexual fantasies safely, leads to a tendency towards acting them out in reality in non-consensual situations, and the same tragic consequences as are ascribed to using the material in question.
10. In 1932, a former Archbishop of Canterbury wrote of a book concerning an explicit explanation of sexual activity between husband and wife, "I would rather have the risks which come from free discussion than the greater risks which we run by a conspiracy of silence." It would be the contention of many mental health professionals both in this country and the United States of America, that a "conspiracy of silence" that denies access to safe and harmless expression of extreme adult sexual fantasies, runs far greater risks than openness and freedom to explore sexual fantasies. At least one psychologist who expresses this view is a member of the campaign against the proposals.
11. Although the spread of this material may be considered undesirable, denying any access to it at all seems to be going a step too far, and to be inimical to the health and wellbeing of our society.
12. Because of the intolerable repression of sexual fantasies that this legislation would represent, and the implicit "thought crime" that it would create, it is also inimical to our society's vaunted freedoms and democracy. It is a principle that is often repeated that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, is no concern of the law. It is this principle that makes the clear distinction between the offence of "publishing or distributing" and the proposed offence of "simple possession", and that makes the current proposals such a terrifying attack on our basic human rights.
13. Thank you once again for being willing to follow up my concerns on this matter, and I hope that you will continue to work on my behalf in this respect.
Yours sincerely,
*****
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
Edited Wed 30 Aug 06, 10:43 PM by SnowdropExplodes
| 30 Aug 06, 11:38 PM electricfog UK, 7 yrs |
Ruddy well said, that person! |
| 31 Aug 06, 1:20 AM subtrainer69 UK(NG), 11 yrs |
Here! here! Stunned with admiration for your hard work. Quote: "an' it shall harm no one, do what ye will" |
| 31 Aug 06, 9:19 AM Zardos UK(BA), 6 yrs |
excellent, you should be a solicitor, |
