Draft letter re; extreme pornography legislation (1)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Proposed Legislation on Possession of Extreme Pornography

I am writing to you because I have grave concerns about the proposals that have been put forward by the government, as reported recently in the general media. My concerns are outlined below.

The first concern I have is that the legislation as proposed seems to be based on a failure to distinguish between fantasy and real life. The campaign for this type of legislation has originated as result of a media reaction to a crime that rightly was a source of outrage to the general public, and the fact that that crime was also linked to certain types of fantasy image. However, it is part of the basic definition of a mentally healthy human adult that he or she is capable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy. If the legislation is proposed as a means to protect society, then it is flawed because it will not prevent future crimes of a similar type from taking place; the majority of people who might use such images are unlikely to commit such crimes in real life, while those who would be likely to do so would probably be willing to commit such crimes without the trigger of such images.

That the more extreme of these images are produced without genuinely causing the types of harm depicted, and the others are produced with the full and willing consent of all involved, seems a reasonable assumption to make. No actual crime is committed in the production of the imagery; the effect is therefore to legislate against the fantasies thus depicted.

This leads to my second point of concern. That this is not legislation against actions, but against certain types of thought and fantasy. There are many mainstream motion pictures that use images of a similar type but in a different context (that of an overall storyline) that could conceivably be affected by the legislation as proposed. Films such as "Baise-Moi", "Killing Me Softly" and "Secretary", all of which have been awarded 18 certificates, might easily fall foul of the suggested legislation.

The moral outrage professed by some segments of society at these images is not sufficient reason to criminalise those healthy people who have fantasies that offend those segments of society. As observed above, these are not people who are liable to commit crimes against any person, but are people who have thoughts or fantasies that lie outside the norm of sexual fantasy. It is a fact, confirmed by several surveys, that many people fantasise about acts that in real life they would find unpleasant or even revolting: fantasies of being raped being one of the most common of these.

My third area of concern is regarding members of the BDSM community. Statistics available on the internet show that there may be as many as sixty thousand people involved in BDSM activities who would then find that keeping mementoes of their consenting activities, or even communicating between one another, might become illegal. With reference to their activities, it should be noted that recent court adjudications have found that activities that took place within the confines of a consensual private relationship were of no concern to the court. That this type of lifestyle is becoming more and more acceptable to the mainstream of society is evidenced by the fact that more and more advertising campaigns are using imagery associated with the BDSM lifestyle. Many members of the BDSM community might be expected to be users of the type of images that would be prohibited under the proposed legislation, but outside of their chosen consensual sexual activities are entirely law-abiding citizens, who present no threat either to society or to social decency.

I would like you to consider that the principles of freedom of thought and self-expression are deemed important as part of a democratic society, and that as outlined above, I do not believe that the protection of morals or the prevention of disorder or crime, are in fact a valid reason for allowing such legislation to be passed into law. On these grounds I would argue that it contravenes the spirit and the letter of the Human Rights Act. The proposed legislation marks an unnecessary intrusion of government into people's private affairs and into the policing of thought as opposed to deed, which thus represents a dangerous precedent.

Yours faithfully,