Jul 12 2007
The Thursday Politics: Like a bit of the old Ultraviolence?
Probably best I don’t use an image for this one, or you’d probably go to jail.
A couple of weeks ago the government presented it’s latest Criminal Justice Bill to Parliament. This is a fairly common occurence, and is usually a time when the government gets to sort out little quirks in our criminal justice system in an attempt to make it more efficient. This is usually done by attempting to limit minor things like trial by jury, but that’s neither here nor there.
Most of the bill this year is pretty inoffensive stuff. It allows the use of more offenders to be dealt with in the community rather than prison, an easing on prostitution penalties and a set of small changes designed to simplify the system. However, buried within it is a very worrying piece of legislation outlawing the possession of extreme pornography. While I know many of you will probably switch off at this point by thinking that this is relevant to you, you’d be foolish to do so.
Campaigners against extreme pornography use the same argument that those against violent films or games do; that it influences behaviour and turns those that watch it into psychopaths. Of course, no one has yet to be able to present any evidence that this is the case both here or in the earlier cases, but why let the facts get in the way of a good crusade? Yet while most people will agree that it’s ludricrous that film will have such an impact on someone, most people (groups like Index on Censorship aside) are keeping quiet on this one. Even Liberty, while (rightly) campaigning for the right to protest and other free speech matters don’t seem to want to go near it.
As for the law itself, it’s so badly thought out that surely at least some MPs must have noticed. Granted, this lot aren’t the greatest when it comes to oversight, but you’d think someone would have thought “hey, did you notice this thing doesn’t even define what extreme pornography is?”. That’s right folks: Possession of extreme pornography will be banned by the government, but the government can’t tell you what extreme pornography is. The vague guidelines set out in the legislation make token references about “an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life” and “an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals”. Which may seem simple, but the use of “appears” in there is a very dangerous thing.
This legislation does not stop at pornography that obviously puts someone at risk. If it did, there would be much less wrong with it. Instead, it also goes after pornography that features two consenting adults acting out a violent sexual scenario. Most people will probably find that idea offensive in itself, but exactly who is harmed if a person does choose to watch such a thing acted out between consenting adults? This just creates yet another victimless crime in a system that is already overloaded.
It continues to get worse from this point. A BBFC classification provides no exemption from this law. While something like A Clockwork Orange or even Hostel should be fine as an entire product, keeping screencaps or sections of video from them on your computer would constitute possession. This may sound like I’m yelling about a worst case scenario here, and possibly I am, but all of this is covered under the legislation. Something that is all the more worrying when the penalty if convicted is a prison sentence of up to two years.
This is a law that will threaten thousands of people, from the most obvious cases in the BDSM community right up the guy keeping some clips of Hollywood films because he finds them kind of hot. Action against either group is entirely unacceptable and outside the realm of what a liberal society should represent.
I’ve argued against the smoking ban on a number occasions. It’s with us now, and while I’m still opposed to it, I can at least understand the basic health argument behind it. Lighting up in public against the ban will at worst get you a £50 fine, despite the health risks involved. Watching pornography in your own home will at worst get you two years in prison. Is any part of this system fair?
MP3 Brakes - Hold Me In The River (expired)
I woke up late and found my liberty lost, it had been written down in law as a security cost.
Related Posts
I have to disagree, it seems to me that sadism is desperatly throwing as much mud at this proposed bill in the hope that some of it will stick.
Anyone who for one minute believes the nonsense that cutting bits out of mainstream films will result in prosecution under this act is living in cloud cookoo land.
It is very specific in what it is classifying as illegal. Torture of genetles, breast and anus, it is only the most graphic and horrific abuse that will be classified.
Yet sadism repeats the mantra that because it may show abuse between ‘two consenting adults’ then this legitimises it. This shows a deliberate misreading of the law as it stands in the United Kingdom. The spanner trial gave presedence in law that consent is no defence to cetain types of abuse(the more serious type such as classified by GBH). This has been appealed through the high court, court of appeal and the European Court of Human Rights, all of which have ruled that consent is not a defence.
Yet we continually get sadists repeating the mantra of ‘consent’ as if it had some legal standing. It doesn’t.
“Anyone who for one minute believes the nonsense that cutting bits out of mainstream films will result in prosecution under this act is living in cloud cookoo land.”
So why doesn’t the law specifically exempt material from classfied films? In fact it does quite the opposite, having entirely clauses that make it clears section that may be taken out of context for the purpose of sexual arousal are not exempt.
“It is very specific in what it is classifying as illegal. Torture of genetles, breast and anus, it is only the most graphic and horrific abuse that will be classified.”
So by your very reasoning, taking selected scenes out of Hostel 2 for example will fall foul of the law. The sexual violence in that film is of a far worse nature than many of the “porn” films that will be attacked under this law. If action isn’t taken against those taking sections from Hostel 2, then the law is inherently unfair in dictating what is “art” and what is “porn”.
“Yet sadism repeats the mantra that because it may show abuse between ‘two consenting adults’ then this legitimises it. This shows a deliberate misreading of the law as it stands in the United Kingdom. The spanner trial gave presedence in law that consent is no defence to cetain types of abuse(the more serious type such as classified by GBH). This has been appealed through the high court, court of appeal and the European Court of Human Rights, all of which have ruled that consent is not a defence.”
So because the ECHR says so, it should be taken as gospel? I’m sorry, but you’re never going to convince me that anyone has the right to dictate what two consenting adults engage in. There’s simply no logical justification for the government to get involved in people’s personal lives over such a trivial matter.
“So because the ECHR says so, it should be taken as gospel?”
Well yes, because the ECHR is the final arbiter in certain aspects of law under our legal system. Would you sooner that different people abided to different laws when or how the fancy took them? That is a recipe for chaos.
“I’m sorry, but you’re never going to convince me that anyone has the right to dictate what two consenting adults engage in. There’s simply no logical justification for the government to get involved in people’s personal lives over such a trivial matter”.
What about Armin Meiwes and Berne Jurgen-Brandes? Meiwes consensually cut Brandes penis off, flambéed it, and they both ate it. Then Meiwes slaughtered Brandes, butchered him, and consumed most of him over the next few months. This was all done consensually, Miewes videoed Brandes confirming his consent before Killing him and went on to plead the consent defence in court. Meiwes was convicted and sentenced to a long prison sentence despite Germany’s rather liberal outlook.
If you go down this road about not ‘dictating what two consenting adults engage in’ then you really are opening a Pandora’s box which would allow some sadist will commit an horrific act, claim consent, and would result in the judiciary having no legal framework on which to act. If consent excuses every abuse then the judiciary would have no option but to allow someone like Meiwes to go free.
“Well yes, because the ECHR is the final arbiter in certain aspects of law under our legal system. Would you sooner that different people abided to different laws when or how the fancy took them? That is a recipe for chaos.”
You misunderstand me. My point isn’t that the public should have a right to pick and choose the laws that they follow, but rather that we should still have the right to argue against them. Whether or not the ECHR rules on this or not, I’ll continue to argue against it merely for the fact that it’s a thoroughly misguided bit of legislation.
“What about Armin Meiwes and Berne Jurgen-Brandes? Meiwes consensually cut Brandes penis off, flambéed it, and they both ate it. Then Meiwes slaughtered Brandes, butchered him, and consumed most of him over the next few months. This was all done consensually”
Okay, this is a fair point, and I should have qualified my original comment. With this issue and every other issue, I’m a libertarian when it comes to social issues. This means that I am in favour of the individual having complete freedom in their actions, up to the point where it causes harm to another person. The case you refer to there obviously goes against that, and to be quite honest, I fail to see how that issue will ever be comparable to that of someone watching a video in the privacy of their own home.
“Anyone who for one minute believes the nonsense that cutting bits out of mainstream films will result in prosecution under this act is living in cloud cookoo land.”
Why would they specifically include it in the law then?
“Torture of genetles, breast and anus,”
Yes. Also acts which appear to be life threatening - where “threat” can include “threat with a weapon”.
“it is only the most graphic and horrific abuse that will be classified.”
Where does it say that?
And the explanatory notes make it clear that this will cover consensual and staged activity - have a read of the justifications at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 .
Yes, we know that Spanner ruled that consent is not a defence - no one is claiming that it has legal standing. But:
1. Just because we already have one bad law, does not mean it is a good thing to introduce more bad laws aimed at consenting partners. Are you saying you agree with the Spanner ruling, and that BDSMers should be targetted? Is this a law about targetting alledged non-consensual violence, or a law to criminalise BDSM porn? The problem is that supporters of the law conflate the issue, pretending they are only concerned with the former - if they mean the latter, at least come out and admit it.
2. The argument about consent is irrelevant, since this covers staged and fictional material.
No one is talking about cutting off penises - the level of harm done in BDSM is comparable to the risk and harm in all sorts of other acts, which are legal. Contrary to popular belief, it _is_ legal to consent to assault, it’s just that there has to be a good reason, and the Spanner case ruled that S&M specifically should be illegal.
Consider R v. Wilson - this was a case where a husband branded his wife consensually. Initially he was convicted, due to the Spanner precedent. But this was later overturned, because the courts decided it was more comparable to body modification, not S&M. So, you can consent to harm to your body, just not if you do it for pleasure.
Similarly, if this law only targetted images of actual very serious acts (e.g., cutting off penises, as you cite), I wouldn’t lose sleep over it even if it included cases where the people consent. But the law is far broader than that, including both cases where there is much milder harm, and entirely staged or fictional material, so I don’t think the debate is helped by citing examples of really extreme cases.
Just because you think cutting off penises should be illegal doesn’t mean that S&M has to be illegal - anymore than it means that body modifications should be illegal. (I presume you’d be against cutting off penises whether or not they did it for pleasure, right?)
The idea of outlawing naughty fictional material is almost comically stupid, and completely morally vacant.
Why worry about sexual practises depicting the staged injury of a human being when we don’t care a fig for the staged slaughter of hundreds in all sorts of movies.
As to the causing of actual harm, this appears to be another law designed primarily to be as vague as possible, not to enforce a moral principle or to protect the vulnerable, but primarily to give law enforcement another stick with which to beat the people they don’t like.