SnowdropExplodes's profile . SnowdropExplodes's homepage
 |
| SnowdropExplodes |
on Wed 31 Aug 05, 12:37 PM to SnowdropExplodes's blog.
Having now read the consultation paper itself in full (rather than relying on the media reports) I have realised that I will have to redraft my letter to answer the position of the paper much more directly and clearly.
I have extracted all the major relevant points that i feel need to be answered, but the Word file I created by doing so runs to 6 pages, and I don't think I can post it here at that length (if anyone wants to read what I've created, please memo me with an email address and I can send it as an attachment)
For those interested in writing to the Consultation, but who have not yet done so, I have here picked out the absolute minimum that I believe needs to be addressed. the consultation paper presents a series of questions to which they would like answers, and I have picked out three of these as being the most relevant to our situation. I believe that answering these questions, and giving clear and well-argued reasons for your answers, will be the most important part of your letter.
Consultation Questions
Q. In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative effects, do you think that there is some pornographic material which is so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should not be tolerated?
| Consultation paper on possession of extreme pornography wrote: 39. We propose restricting the offence to explicit pornography containing actual scenes or realistic depictions of: i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal; ii) sexual interference with a human corpse; iii) serious violence in a sexual context, and iv) serious sexual violence. 40. In (c) above, “serious violence” will involve or will appear to involve serious bodily harm in a context or setting which is sexual – for example, images of suffocation or hanging with sexual references in the way the scenes are presented. In (d) above “serious sexual violence” will involve or will appear to involve serious bodily harm where the violence is sexual. |
Q. Do you agree with the list of material set out in paragraph 39?
Q. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such material?
| Consultation paper on possession of extreme pornography wrote: The Options Option one – adding a general offence of possession of “obscene” material to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and in Scotland, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982; Option two – adding a possession offence limited to the category of material we have set out but under the umbrella of the OPA and in Scotland, the CG(S)A; Option three – a new free standing offence in respect of the category of material we have set out; and Option four – do nothing. 52. Option four, doing nothing, would risk sending a message that we considered accessing such material was harmless, or not worthy of attention. But although we recognise that accessing such material does not necessarily cause criminal activity, we consider the moral and public protection case against allowing this kind of material sufficiently strong to make this option unattractive. |
Q. Which option do you prefer?
Q. Why do you think this option is best?
*****
Another point to consider when writing, is that the paper makes specific mention that participants in the material are sometimes "clearly victims of serious crime" whether or not they are "notionally or genuinely consenting". On this point, the mention of the court cases where consent has clearly been a factor in deciding whether or not to prosecute, may be helpful in giving reasons for answers to the above questions, or as a separate issue.
The paper states:
| Consultation paper on possession of extreme pornography wrote: Our proposals to strengthen controls on extreme pornographic material are based on: * a desire to protect those who participate in the creation of sexual material containing violence, cruelty or degradation, who may be the victim of crime in the making of the material, whether or not they notionally or genuinely consent to take part; * a desire to protect society, particularly children, from exposure to such material, to which access can no longer be reliably controlled through legislation dealing with publication and distribution, and which may encourage interest in violent or aberrant sexual activity. |
It will probably be helpful to the case against the proposals, to include clearly argued reasons why we believe that these objectives are not well-served by the proposals, or why these objectives may be out of step with current society. To do this, making reference to fantasies that are relatively common, but include such things as violence or non-consenting sex (surveys have shown that women and men both have such fantasies), may be helpful.
The Human rights section of the document reads as follows:
| Consultation paper on possession of extreme pornography wrote: 57. The proposal which we have set out will impact upon the freedom of individuals to view what they wish in the privacy of their own homes. However, the material which we intend to target with this new offence is at the very extreme end of the spectrum and we believe most people would find it abhorrent. There will be no restriction on political expression or public interest matters, or on artistic expression. It is not the intention that this offence should impact upon legitimate reporting for news purposes, or information gathering for documentary programmes in the public interest and, in drafting the offence, we will give careful consideration to the best means of ensuring this. In the light of this, we have considered whether there are implications for our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and our view is that both our domestic courts and the Strasbourg court will find our proposal compatible with Article 10 (freedom of expression) or Article 8 (private life) if that is raised. |
Finally, they state that if a writer wishes their response to be kept confidential, they should mark their response clearly to indicate this, and they would also like an explanation of why the writer wants their response kept confidential.
I am currently thinking about how best to argue the case I wish to put. If people are interested, when I have written a second draft of my letter I will post that also.
Ta, SnowdropExplodes
Edited Wed 31 Aug 05, 12:45 PM by SnowdropExplodes
| 31 Aug 05, 7:07 PM domino_scotland UK, 6 yrs |
Thanks for this I'd like to see your final draft. Also would you post the weblink please- I lost track of the blog which posted it thanks domino | |
| 31 Aug 05, 9:23 PM SnowdropExplodes UK(TN), 7 yrs |
The list of current consultations by the Home Office can be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/cur... At present, the consultation on possession of extreme pornography is the second one down. The paper can be downloaded as a .pdf file. My finished letter runs to 4 pages on Word (plus 2 more pages to answer all their consultation questions). I will post it separately if it is not too long. Ta, SnowdropExplodes | |
| 1 Sep 05, 8:22 AM domino_scotland UK, 6 yrs |
many thanks. You could post it a page at a time if it's too long to post in one go. I think more people would see it that way than woiuld ask for you to mail it to them. alla best domino
|
