2008-May-09 - Section 63 Becomes Law (0)

emark's profile

Posted by emark on Sun 18 May 08, 4:02 PM

[Repost from 2008-May-09]

Section 63 Becomes Law

The final text of the law is at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080... .

For more info on this law, see: http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ , http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... , and my post at http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/emark/1... on the originally published bill (note there have been some minor word changes since that post, and the two concessions I list below).

Some final updates on the wording of the "extreme porn" bill:

* Two proposed Lords Amendments to restrict the bill to actual sexual offences, or allow a defence for reasonably believing the participants were willing, were not voted on, I'm not sure why.

* Two minor concessions have been made by the Government. One to require that the material "is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character". Oh goody, it's only material the police/jury think is disgusting that will be illegal! ("Disgusting" seems to be the Government's favourite new word - when defending the law on 21 April - http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-04-... - Lord Hunt's argument seemed to boil down to: But these images are disgusting! No one should have them!) On the plus side, this does at least put some power into the hands of the jury, who could now return Not Guilty on this basis. Note this is not the Obscene Publications Act test of obscenity, which requires that the material "deprave and corrupt" those likely to see it - an amendment to use the OPA definition was voted on, but failed to pass.

* The other is a defence that it is legal to possess if you prove that you "directly participated", and the acts are those that one can legally consent to. So what about the photographer? It also means that an image of yourself that is legal for you to possess is illegal for your partner to have, if they were not directly participating in the scene (or in the scene at all - a particular issue for non-monogamous BDSMers). And note the blatant reference to Spanner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner) - this defence won't apply for actual acts that are more than "transient or trifling", though it will at least be useful for depicted "threats" or staged acts.

The Earl of Onslow sums up the last amendment (on 30 April - http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-04-... "when members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights were told that the Minister was going to move this amendment, we all said, "Yippee" or words to that effect, so I would like to thank the Minister for going as far as he has. There is a question of moving millimetres rather than metres, but one must be thankful for small mercies; on behalf of the Joint Committee, I would like to say, "Thank you for the millimetres"."

* Curiously, images depicting someone shagging an animal now extends to dead animals. Not something I particularly care about, but it does show up the law as not about being concerned with things harmed in the production, but more about criminalising images for being "disgusting", even though the acts themselves are entirely legal. (I presume this doesn't include wanking with a leather glove...)

Despite my enthusiasm for opposition, I knew this was likely so I'm not quite as mad as I thought I'd be. I don't regret any effort spent - I think just making a noise about it is important (and this doesn't stop here). When the plans were first announced, I feared not a single politician would dare to speak out; instead, whilst it may be in vain, it's reassuring to find MPs and Lords who criticised the plans, as well as all sorts of favourable or balanced media coverage that isn't simply "OMG violent porn - here's Liz Longhurst to tell you about it".

Ah yes, Liz Longhurst. Never underestimate the political power of a murder victim's grieving parent.

To those who risk being criminalised, she responds "hard luck" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm). This infuriates me - I think it's the fact that she's been given her moral authority, and national media coverage for her political views, solely on the sympathy that people give to her - yet she gives not one bit of sympathy to those who disagree, or risk being criminalised! People speaking against this law have had to be careful to show sympathy towards her, out of fear of being accused of not showing her respect. She's a figurehead that politicians supporting the law can use; she plays the role of the "innocent lady singlehandedly taking on the Government" (even though they're with her all the way). She can be a campaigner pushing her political views, whilst hiding under a shield of "grieving parent who just wants justice for her daughter". She's far from the only guilty party (those in the Government who supported her include MPs Martin Salter and David Blunkett), but her campaigning gave the Government the excuse to be seen to be doing something, whilst making it hard for people to criticise her.

I leave you with words from the Lord McIntosh of Haringey: "I spent nearly 20 years on one Front Bench or another, and during that time I never quite had the guts to say what I really thought about these issues. I never quite had the guts to quote Kenneth Tynan, who in a review of eastern erotic art said, "All my life I have enjoyed having erections, and I have been grateful to the people and the works of art that made them possible". Now I have said it, and no one can accuse any political party of having any involvement in that."

A new petition, FWIW: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/ [Edit: Now closed].

Edited Mon 21 Jul 08, 10:56 PM by emark


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent