|
•
NEWS
•
ABOUT THE SFC
•
WHAT IS SEXUAL FREEDOM?
•
CAMPAIGNS
•
POLITICS
•
CONFERENCES
•
LEGAL ADVICE
•
SEX INFORMATION
•
HISTORY
•
GALLERY
•
TUPPY'S COLUMN
•
ARCHIVES
•
WHO WE ARE
•
CONTACT
• LINKS
•
SFC
MYSPACE PAGE
site
designed and maintained by Lurid
Films
Hosted by Lovenet
Sponsored by World
Sex News
|
|
CAC
DRAFT RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON POSSESSION OF EXTREME PORNOGRAPHIC
MATERIAL 2005
|
- (1)
- No other European Union country
criminalises mere possession of adult visual material. To do so
here would create an Orwellian victimless crime enforced by Thought
Police. There is no justification for trying to surround Britain
by an Iron Curtain against freedom of access to adult material
on the internet. It would breach the Human Rights Act.
- (2)
- "Degrading", "serious
violence" and "aberrant" are subjective concepts
which have no place in criminal law. As Bernard Shaw stated: "The
role of the artist is to shock." The proposed definitions
of proscribed material would be interpreted in different ways
by different juries, resulting in an arbitrary system of imprisonments.
- (3)
- The only justification for
proscribing mere possession of visual material is protection of
minors, because they cannot give valid consent to the sexual acts
portrayed. The proposed laundry list is intolerable because it
provides no defence of consent by the subjects portrayed. Where
there is no consent, the existing criminal law applies. Proscribing
images of bestiality would criminalise classical art, such as
Leda and the Swan and The Rape of Europa.
- (4)
- The question is wrongly worded.
What is required is justification for prohibiting adults from
exercising their freedom of choice. There is none because the
proposed crime is victimless. No-one is harmed by merely seeing
any material. If they were, all crime films and some newsreels
would have to be banned. Bestiality, necrophilia and violence,
whether filmed or not, are already illegal.
- (5)
- The present law is solely
directed at paedophiles. The proposal, by contrast, seeks to imprison
law abiding people who chose to look at adult material of which
others disapprove. Any criminal offence committed in the production
of the material can and should be dealt with under existing law.
- (7)
- Imprisonment is totally unacceptable
for victimless
thought crimes. The United Kingdom already has the highest prison
population in the European Union. Why increase it with people
whose only offence has been to look at the "wrong" thing
? It would breach the European Convention on Human Rights.
Partial Regulatory Impact
Assessment
- (1)
- If the financial impact will
be low (paragraph lll) then the amount of material concerned
cannot be large enough to justify imprisoning viewers. The requisite
supply and demand exists and there is no evidence that it will
increase. There is no "gap" to be closed.
- (3)
- Participants in the material
are already protected by the criminal law against assault. There
is no justification for using the old "protection of children"
argument. That would mean proscribing all material which is
unsuitable for minors. No country does that. Option 4 has benefits,
namely freedom of citizens in a supposed democracy to watch
what they chose.
- (4)
- Option 4 contains no message.
In a democracy there should be no authoritarian "Nanny
State" which only allows material of which it approves.
If so alcohol and cigarettes should be banned.
- (6)
- Male gay S-M material should
be noted.
|
|
|
