Posted by Smartarse
on Wed 7 May 08, 11:37 PM to Smartarse's blog.
I've followed the debates on the new extreme pornography laws since they were first proposed. I started off thinking it was politically motivated legislation that would never come to pass. Then, as time went on and the legislation became clearer, I thought it would never apply to me. Now I see it as something more sinister. I see the legislation as a vague and blunt law that is so wide and open to interpretation that whoever is accused of breaking it will have a dozen ways to argue a defence in court. But this isn't a law for getting people into court. Not in great numbers, anyway.
Think of the law to do with seat belt wearing. What's it for? Who does it benefit?How many people do you know who have been convicted of not wearing their seat belt? How many cases have you heard about? How many people do you know who don't wear seat belts? The seatbelt law wasn't about getting people into court and convicting them of not clunk-clicking it was about changing behaviour. There is another aspect to the seat belt law. If the police see you driving without one - because you have committed an offence - they have a good reason to stop you and look for other offences - such as having your mobile phone switched on, incorrect documentation, driving an unsafe vehicle etc. The seat belt law isn't intended to criminalise a small minority of people. It's a tool to create the fear of prosecution in the majority so that they behave in a responsible way. I would always choose to wear a seat belt, but my choice to do so was taken away when the seat belt law was passed.
The CJIB or extreme porn legislation could be used to oppress people in general and specifically the BDSM community. I say could be used. We all like to believe we live in a country that plays fair, treats its citizens with the human rights they are owed etc. etc. Perhaps that's true, one hundred percent true. Or perhaps it's ninety-nine percent true with the odd case where the authorities get it a bit wrong, mis-identify someone, make a horrendous cock up or just plain ignore the right of it because they have a political agenda to serve or something else to gain.
Ninety nine percent treated fairly. One percent trampled. The odds are good. I, you and most people won't get trampled. So should we care, should we protest, demonstrate and write to our MPs? Or should we just let it go and just say 'sorry you got trampled' to those that do and thank God it wasn't us this time. I see a few of you nodding, those two at the back there with the big handbags and the copies of the Daily Telegraph tucked under your Rum and Coke. I know you think it doesn't affect you. You don't download porn, not of the kind that the act specifies. You prefer a good story. The imagination is mightier than the camera and all that. I tell you that you are driving without a seat belt. The new laws will affect everyone.
The authorities only need to gain evidence that someone is into BDSM to seize their computers and search premises looking for extreme porn. What evidence might they look at? Membership of clubs, perhaps. Membership of certain websites - this included, tip offs from the public (read ex-partner with a grudge) most likely. Whether there is any extreme porn to be found will be irrelevant. The mere act of turning someone's life over is enough to destroy their reputation. They may be innocent but 'there is no smoke without fire.' If you don't wear a seat belt, you're fair game for closer scrutiny. You can be trampled for looking like the sort of person who is irresponsible enough to not wear a seat belt.
I'm just being paranoid I hear you say. It's true, I am, it comes with the territory - forty years of hiding my secret desires and a vivid imagination. But read the evidence yourself:
| Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Labour) wrote: On the issue of policing, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords. The police have welcomed this offence. They see it as a further means to take illegal material out of circulation and an additional tool to deal with individuals whose behaviour may be causing concern. This is not, I suggest, a case of policing the bedroom. It is intended to target only the most extreme pornography. We believe that the number of prosecutions will be relatively small, but my understanding—from advice that I have received—is that the offence will be a valuable additional resource for officers already working on protecting the public in this area. I also give an assurance that this offence will not be commenced before a full explanation of it is given to the police and to the courts. |
At this stage we have no idea who 'individuals whose behaviour may be causing concern' is likely to be. Would a school teacher with a sideline in BDSM be a cause for concern? Or do they really just mean violent loonies? As a tool for protecting the public would this legislation have helped catch Fred West? If so, how?
As Baroness Miller said, it doesn't need a conviction to ruin someone's life. The Police, the Government will happily destroy someone's reputation if they think they are 'protecting the public.' We already know how that works with tabloid outings. But it's much harder to sue the authorities, harder to redress the balance when mistakes are made.
This law is not about porn. It's not about finding people who are using porn and prosecuting them, although some of that will happen. It's about making people so unsure about the legality of porn they stop using it, they stop discussing it, they stop passing it on. It's about making it impossible to be active and visible in the BDSM scene without fear that one day the authorities will stop you and trample through your life looking for extreme porn. It's about turning the tide. And thereby they achieve their objective - to keep the 'depraved and corrupt' in check. To send a message that this behaviour will not be tolerated in our society. Notice that it is their society, the one that is perfect, obeys the natural laws of nature, believes that sex is a shameful thing deserving of special punishment and doesn't tolerate deviation from the accepted norm. It's not our society, one which includes people of all tastes and persuasions, which believes that sex in all its forms is a wonderful thing between consenting adults.
This law allows the authorities to suppress BDSM and force it underground if they choose to do so. Pray that they do not want to do this. Never say this does not affect me.
[edited for spelling and because I'm precious]
Edited Thu 8 May 08, 9:45 PM by Smartarse
