My response to the consultation
Graham Marsden, 07 Nov 2005 19:08:20
Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:
> Can I suggest that people with the time and skills be asked to volunteer to
> help others, i.e. privately assist anybody who has something individual and
> significant to say, but is insufficiently confident of their own ability to put
> it across effectively?
I've just realised, I haven't actually posted my response to the
consulation, so here it is, I hope it may be of use to others who
haven't written theirs yet (if not, *why* not?!)
* * * * *
Re: Home Office Consultation on the Possession of Extreme Pornography
Dear Sirs,
With regard to the above document, I enclose my response to this
consultation below.
Firstly, however, I would draw your attention the fact that I run a
business making adult leather goods ("bondage gear"), selling my
products to consenting adults. Although I own this business, I am
replying as an individual and would request that my address be kept
confidential.
In addition, before I get to my replies, I wish to strenuously express
my disapproval of the tone of the entire document, the questions it
poses and the manner in which they are posed (eg falsely implying links
between this material and child pornography), which seem to be neither
impartial nor unbiased and which appear to be more aimed at eliciting
favourable (to the Home Office) responses from the public, presumably so
they can be spun into "the majority of people who replied were in favour
of the proposals".
I also wish to object to the aim of the document which seems to be to
create nothing less than a "Thought Crime" whereby if someone so much as
looks at an image, even if the participants are consenting adults, they
should automatically be considered a criminal if the Home Office deems
the image "abhorrent" or "unacceptable" according to the Home Office's
particular values or beliefs.
To answer the questions raised by the Consultation:
Q. Do you think that the challenge posed by the Internet in this area
requires the law to be strengthened?
No.
The Internet is the greatest tool for Freedom of Expression since the
invention of the printing press, yet, even before the advent of
printing, there have been those who, for whatever reasons, some
putatively good, others criminally ill, have sought to censor the right
and the ability of others to express their views deeming them
"abhorrent" or to "not have a place in society".
Freedom of Expression is the right of the individual to say what they
wish, even things that others may not like and provided that right is
used responsibly there should be no restriction on it at all.
Please note that by "responsibly" I do not mean "not saying or showing
things that the State doesn't like", but "not abusing it by, for
instance, calling on others to commit acts of violence". If someone was
to express a belief that "we should not allow so many immigrants", that
would possibly be unpleasant, but not an abuse of the right of Freedom
of Expression. Were they, however to say "I think we should give all the
immigrants a good kicking", that would be unacceptable.
By the same token, simply producing an image that some may consider
"abhorrent" does not mean that the producers are saying "you should go
out and do this", that is a decision for the individual and the vast
majority should not be penalised on the off-chance that one aberrant
individual may consider acting on such an impulse. This would makes as
little sense as banning alcohol because a minority drink and drive.
I also would like to point out that, with regard to my employment,
through working in a "Sex Business" I have had more than a little
contact with adult material, including some which this consultation
could consider "extreme". Despite this, however, or, perhaps more
likely, because of it, I have not felt inclined to commit acts of
non-consensual (sexual) violence, nor would I ever, yet, were this
material to be found in my possession, these proposals mean I could be
jailed even though I have done no wrong.
I have little doubt that many of my thousands of customers have also had
contact with such material, however I have absolutely no reason to think
that any of them would commit such acts either, yet, they, too, could
suffer imprisonment simply for looking at something that someone else
doesn't like.
Additionally, I do photography as a hobby and on various
(non-pornographic) photographic and modelling sites, you can see images
created for the "Goth" scene, which often feature young women in sensual
or erotically styled poses whilst covered in fake blood and apparently
"dead", sometimes with slit throats etc. Often these images involve
other models posed as if they had caused the injuries. These images
could easily be classified as "serious sexual violence" or even "sexual
interference with a corpse", a ludicrous situation when they are simply
pictures posed by consenting adults!
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?
No.
This is a question which I consider offensively "loaded", since it seems
blatantly rigged to get people to answer "well, yes, I suppose there
could be".
As your question admits, there is an absence of any conclusive research
results of negative effect and, indeed, all the evidence produced by
reputable researchers indicates that actually the contrary is the case,
indeed often that the vast majority those who use this material get a
"cathartic" effect from it which means that they are less likely to
suffer negative effects.
As I mentioned above, the right of Freedom of Expression contains the
right to say or publish things that others may not like. This right
should not be infringed upon for whatever reason (even if those reasons
are brought forward with the best intentions) since it would diminish a
most basic and important freedom.
Q. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of
such material?
Q. Do you agree with the list of material set out in paragraph 39?
No.
(I will answer these two questions together since they form the crux of
my objections.)
It is not a matter of whether there is any "justification" for
"possession" of such material, the question should be "is there any real
justification for criminalising someone for possessing such material"
and my answer is a categorical and unqualified NO.
One of the most fundamental rights enshrined in our laws is the right to
be "Presumed innocent until proven guilty", yet these proposals and
these questions appear to wish to turn that on its head as they have an
underlying implication (based simply on opinions, not facts) that anyone
who wants to look at such material must somehow be "aberrant" and thus
considered a potential (if not actual) criminal who needs "protection"
from themselves by a Nanny State. This is contrary to all established
principles of liberty.
As such, I most certainly do not and cannot agree with the list of
material set out in Paragraph 39 since it would, if passed into law,
effectively establish the authority of the State to criminalise ANY
material that it considers "abhorrent" or to "not have a place in
society" and would thereby empower the State to subsequently extend its
powers to impose censorship on the internet and other mediums.
There are, I would mention at this point, regimes in this world who have
attempted to introduce and, indeed, have actually enacted such laws
preventing the expression or discussion of particular concepts, ideas or
beliefs. This country is supposed to be a bastion of freedom against
such intolerance, but these proposals are simply the thin end of a very
large wedge that could drive its way through the basic and fundamental
rights that we have fought for and which many have died to preserve.
Q. Which option do you prefer?
Q. Why do you think this option is best?
Q. Which penalty option do you think is preferable?
I will also answer these questions together.
Despite blatant attempts to load the dice against it, my preference is
most certainly for "Do nothing".
We already have sufficient laws to protect people from acts of violence
or non-consensual sexual activity. We have laws to protect children and
campaigns to educate parents about their responsibilities to protect
their children from seeing inappropriate material on the internet.
Again, where it says "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", your document
admits that there is no evidence to back up its claims or justifications
or beliefs, yet still it attempts to gloss over this fundamental flaw in
its reasoning in the hope that the reader will fall for the rhetoric and
the hyperbole.
Obviously my answer to the third one is that there should be no penalty
applied to the possession of this material. Such penalties would be
virtually un-policeable and would have no effect on those very few who
might be inclined to commit acts of violence if they saw this material,
but it would have the effect of criminalising adults who would never
commit any offence at all.
A parallel example at this point would be the banning of various types
of guns following the Hungerford and Dunblane atrocities. Despite those
bans, the level of gun crime in this country has risen, whereas, were it
to follow the logic of these proposals, it should have gone down.
If gun crime increases in this way, something which is, surely, much
easier to police and enforce, (being based on fact and clear evidence,
rather than solely on subjective opinions of whether something is
"abhorrent") there is no way that these proposals could have any of the
effects they claim they will produce.
In closing I have to say that I consider these proposals to be
incredibly poorly thought out and seem more an attempt by a minority to
foist their particular standards of "acceptability" on the majority "by
the back door".
This is not the sort of behaviour that we should expect in a free country.
Yours Faithfully
Graham Marsden