Posted by emark on Sat 17 May 08, 6:59 PM to emark's blog.
[Repost from 2007-Oct-10]
MP Martin Salter is worried about snuff films. He refers to SMers as doing "weird things to each other", and calls for "all PCs to be fitted with a blocking mechanism". Yes, it's the 2nd Reading of the Extreme Porn Bill(as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-1... [full transcript]
Some snippets (emphasis mine):
David Lepper (Labour; Jane Longhurt's MP - known to be in support of the law: http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.1367648.0.... "The provisions before us tonight do not go as far as many of us want, but they tackle an important aspect of the issue: the possession of those awful images. ... I wish we had proposals before us tonight to tackle at source the internet sites that purvey this material. However, that needs a degree of international co-operation that, sadly, despite the determination of Ministers, we have not yet been able to achieve—in the same way as we have achieved international co-operation to tackle child pornography. That is a further stage of the campaign."
Martin Salter (Labour; the MP who appears to be basically behind the extreme porn campaign): "We are talking about some of the most obscene and disturbing material, including internet sites such as Necrobabes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography... ), Death by Asphyxia, and Hanging Bitches. Does he agree that the provisions will not make a new offence of anything that is not already illegal? We are talking about material that is already illegal under obscene publications legislation. It is merely the possession of the images that will become a new criminal offence."
Lepper: "We have before us tonight legislation that, in some small way, when eventually passed, will be a memorial to a dedicated teacher and a wonderful daughter."
Salter: "The extreme material that will be outlawed by the Bill covers acts and imagery that are already illegal under the Obscene Publications Act. But that legislation was introduced in an age before computers and the internet to deal with newsagents and publishers. We cannot go after the publisher of material if it is from an internet site whose server may be based in Guatemala [or backward countries like the United States, where Necrobabes is legally hosted] and contains, produces or puts into cyberspace images of young women being captured, raped live on camera and sometimes killed to feed this evil trade and to promote private profit and sexual gratification. We have to go after the imagery itself. We must build on the successful legislation that has outlawed images of child pornography. If we cut that end of the market, we start to deal with the trade, and that is exactly what part 6 of the Bill—a part that is well crafted, sensible and well thought through—seeks to do.
"I have received opposition, as have my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper) and others, from groups claiming to represent the bondage, domination and sado-masochistic communities. I have learned that they organise themselves into munch clubs - I do not want to go any further into that. Let me make it clear to them that nobody is seeking to introduce a new level of censorship; we are talking about imagery that is already illegal. If people want to do weird things to each other they still can, but I say, "Don't put it on the internet." I do not need to see it and nor do my constituents - and, more importantly and seriously, those of an unbalanced mind who could be tipped over the edge by violent and extreme imagery do not need to see it, and we do not need to live with the consequences of their actions if they were to see it. ... Ideally, we would like blocking measures that prevent access - they now exist - to be brought in. We would like all PCs to be fitted with a blocking mechanism before they are sold on the open market—as cars are automatically fitted with seat belts."
Charles Walker (Conservative): Points out the contradiction that although films such as "Hostel Part II" will remain legal, stills from them could become illegal. Yet he concludes: "it seems madness that that film should be allowed on general release. I hope that, as the Bill is considered in Committee, we will look at those concerns to ensure that that part of the Bill is as watertight as it can be." So to summarise: People pointed out that the extreme porn definitions would cover legal films, and they responded by criminalising screenshots from those films. We point out the inconsistencies in that, and we may now see even the films criminalised?
Some positive points:
Harry Cohen (Labour): "My problem is with the phrase "appears to". That will catch all sorts of things that it should not. ... The Government should consider that sub-paragraph, which could be problematic for the future." (hurrah!)
Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat): [Firstly quotes from Liberty] "Ministers have not provided an evidence base for some of the material that will be covered by the measure. Despite the eloquent testimony that Members have given about an individual case, if we do not have evidence that the material causes harm, it is right that the House should subject the proposals to close scrutiny. We must ask why, for example, the Obscene Publications Act definition is not being used, and why another definition, which, it is argued, is broader, is being used. I can see no reference to compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 in the Government's explanatory memorandum, either; that will need to be tested. I would be grateful if, in his response, the Minister set out the evidence that justifies the measure."
Edited Sat 17 May 08, 7:33 PM by emark
