Posted by Sunhillow
on Wed 11 Oct 06, 2:06 PM to Sunhillow's blog.
Firstly I would state that I do not wish in any way to defend the distribution or possession of violent sexual images which actually portray anything other than acts between entirely consenting adults or any type of image which is already deemed illegal by existing law. However, I am against the proposed legislation to criminalise the possession of images of violent pornography because it is yet another ill-thought-out, knee jerk reaction from this Government, which seems determined to ban more things and reduced our freedoms more than any other in history; freedoms and human rights that were gained at huge cost to those who fought for them down the centuries.
Now banning things which cause untold human suffering and oppression on a large scale is obviously a good thing, like slavery, child labour & racism for instance. But the current trend in legislation is alarming in its "nanny" attitude which, rather than promoting the idea of an individual's responsibility for their actions & choices, seems to assume that we are incapable of any moral or intelligent reasoning.
Violent sexual crime existed before TV and the Internet. There is no proof that images, TV programmes or films cause such crime.
Violent films played a large role in Jamie Bulger case, which shocked the nation to its core in the early 1990s. Jamie's 10 year old killers had reportedly watched such films. However, violent films, TV programmes & computer games have not been banned. Why not?
Well firstly because it is assumed that, adults who are legally allowed access to them, can tell right from wrong and can separate fantasy from reality. Secondly, it is expected that parents will take responsibility for their children and exercise careful judgement over what they do and do not have access to. And censorship exists to provide information and guidance in order that such judgements can be made. Finally, and very importantly, detailed Home Office research conducted over 2 years in the wake of the Bulger case: "failed to establish a clear link between violent videos and aggressive behaviour by youngsters." and concluded that, "The implication is that both a history of family violence and offending behaviour are necessary preconditions for developing a significant preference for violent film action and role models."
So whilst it can be reasonably argued that people with a pre-existing personality disorder involving a predisposition towards sexual violence may seek out images of sexual violence, it cannot be reasonably argued that such images cause sexual violence.
As has been pointed out by others, firearms legislation in this country has not reduced gun crime, far from it, nor has it prevented access to firearms for those individuals determined to possess them. In the same way, this proposed legislation will not reduce or prevent violent sexual crime, nor will it prevent access to violent sexual images by those determined to view them. However, it could criminalise a vast number of otherwise stable, socially responsible, law-abiding, tax-paying voters across the whole of our society.
So stop trying to protect us against ourselves and stop eroding the long fought-for freedoms of the majority because of a small minority of psychotic individuals. Sledge hammer and nut doesn't come anywhere near to describing the disproportionate nature of this ill-conceived proposed legislation.
S
http://bloggingforbacklash.blogspot.com/
| 11 Oct 06, 2:57 PM EricStanton UK(BD), 11 yrs  |
Late - perhaps, but well worth reading  If you always do what you've always done, you will always get what you've always had. |
| 11 Oct 06, 3:39 PM Sweetiejar UK(S), 11 yrs |
seconded Sweetiejar |
| 11 Oct 06, 4:00 PM Sunhillow 7 yrs |
Thanks Eric & Sweetiejar, i've sent a slightly expanded and personalised version to my MP who thankfully seems to be against banning things and against ID cards too It'll be interesting to see what response i get, if any. i think there have been some great blogs on this subject.
s ~i know i have the right to remain silent... i just don't have the ability!~ |
| 12 Oct 06, 9:40 PM budgiebird UK, 7 yrs |
Excellent post and well done to you for taking it one step further and writing to your MP. Could I ask you to make a post on the activism forum outlining his/her response, if you are fortunate enough to get one? *Not an official Backlash Representative* Edited 12 Oct 06, 9:41 PM by budgiebird |
