Thread

Response to Violent Pornography Consultation

Dear Gareth,

I am absolutely gob smacked at your response to the Home Office's consultation on the criminalisation of violent pornography.

The statement of your position that you believe the proposal 'to make the possession of extreme and abhorrent pornography a criminal offence is reasonable' is shocking. You are lending credence to an absurdly illiberal and grossly unjust proposal that will create a whole new category of victimless thought crime and will result in the destruction of the lives of individuals simply because the state disproves of their sexually. Your call for what is essentially a 'tightening' of the proposals is ridiculously inadequate.

Your belief that there is a supply chain of violent pornography that needs disruption and warrants criminalisation of mere possession clearly shows that you have not conducted any research into this issue. You have also given credence to the absurd notion that 'aberrant' or 'extreme' material causes crime and thus should be the subject of the criminal law. Finally you have ignored the manifest violation of multiple articles of the Human Rights Act that the enacted proposals would constitute.

I do not intend to list in this email the legion of arguments against this legislation which you have disregarded. I suggest you review one of the best responses to the consultation at http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/gcvpcac.htm. You may also view a legal opinion at http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/vpqchr.pdf.

As it is likely that the government will give more consideration to your response than many others, you have betrayed a vulnerable minority group with your contemptuous ignorance. Indeed, it would have been far better had you not responded at all. You have also made enemies of intelligent, liberal people who have been radically politicised following the publication of these proposals and would otherwise have supported your campaigns.

I hope you will excuse the severe tone of this message; however please understand that it is an accurate reflection of my sentiments and of my disappointment with an organisation that has done so much for human rights in other domains

Regards,

Arron Fitzgerald

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Dear Mr Crossman,

You mention below that :

"...there are types of non consensual or child pornography that we believe is properly in the domain of the criminal law".

This consultation had nothing to do with child pornography; it was solely concerned with extending the criminalisation of possession into the hitherto unprecedented realms of adult content. I believe you are attempting to mitigate the backlash against your response by evoking the same invalid associations as the Home Office.

As your response to the consultation appears to be conspicuously absent from your website, I would very much appreciate it if you would make it clear, by publishing them on your website, the following points which I presume you must agree:

1.. Adult pornography, regardless of whether described as 'extreme' or 'violent', must never be equated with child pornography (the subjects of which cannot, by definition, give consent to sexual acts).
2.. The criminalisation of the mere possession of mere depictions of non-consensual acts by consenting adults is manifest thought crime and must be condemned without reservation.
3.. That it would be impossible for a private individual to ascertain whether an image he or she is considering downloading, or images that he already possesses, or other images elsewhere on the same site he is considering joining, would breach the proposed 'GBH' threshold.
4.. That you are unable to identify any websites distributing images of actual, rather than simulated, abusive non-consensual sexual activity.
5.. That the extension of criminalisation of possession into the domain of any type of adult content would represent an drastic expansion of the power of the state to invade and inspect the personal computers of almost any person. Comparisons with the disastrous Operation Ore could be drawn.
6.. That the proposals as outlined in the consultation are highly unlikely to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, as convincingly demonstrated in the legal opinion to which I referred you in my original email.

This would ensure that the Home Office would be unable to claim your support for their proposals should they advance to the stage of draft legislation, and would go some way to offsetting the potential damage caused by your consultation response, which I hope you'll now agree was not your finest hour.

Yours sincerely,

Arron Fitzgerald

----- Original Message -----

: Gareth Crossman, 21 Feb 2006 09:04:18

To: Arron Fitzgerald
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 12:45 PM
Subject: RE: Response to Violent Pornography Consultation

Dear Mr Fitzgerald,

I am extremely sorry for the long delay in replying to your mail.

I have received a number of emails about Liberty's response and would like to clarify our position. Liberty does not support the criminalisation of consensual sexual practices or consensual pornography. Our response should have been more clear that that our lack of opposition to criminalisation only relates to any non consensual pornography. That said there are types of non consensual or child pornography that we believe is properly in the domain of the criminal law.

If the governments proposals proceed to draft legislation then I will ensure that this is made clear.

Gareth Crossman
Policy Director
Liberty

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

: Arron Fitzgerald [mailto:arron_fitzgerald@hotmail.co.uk], 21 Feb 2006 09:04:18

Sent: 31 December 2005 12:59
To: Gareth Crossman
Subject: Response to Violent Pornography Consultation

Dear Gareth,

I am absolutely gob smacked at your response to the Home Office's consultation on the criminalisation of violent pornography.

The statement of your position that you believe the proposal 'to make the possession of extreme and abhorrent pornography a criminal offence is reasonable' is shocking. You are lending credence to an absurdly illiberal and grossly unjust proposal that will create a whole new category of victimless thought crime and will result in the destruction of the lives of individuals simply because the state disproves of their sexually. Your call for what is essentially a 'tightening' of the proposals is ridiculously inadequate.

Your belief that there is a supply chain of violent pornography that needs disruption and warrants criminalisation of mere possession clearly shows that you have not conducted any research into this issue. You have also given credence to the absurd notion that 'aberrant' or 'extreme' material causes crime and thus should be the subject of the criminal law. Finally you have ignored the manifest violation of multiple articles of the Human Rights Act that the enacted proposals would constitute.

I do not intend to list in this email the legion of arguments against this legislation which you have disregarded. I suggest you review one of the best responses to the consultation at http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/gcvpcac.htm. You may also view a legal opinion at http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/vpqchr.pdf.

As it is likely that the government will give more consideration to your response than many others, you have betrayed a vulnerable minority group with your contemptuous ignorance. Indeed, it would have been far better had you not responded at all. You have also made enemies of intelligent, liberal people who have been radically politicised following the publication of these proposals and would otherwise have supported your campaigns.

I hope you will excuse the severe tone of this message; however please understand that it is an accurate reflection of my sentiments and of my disappointment with an organisation that has done so much for human rights in other domains

Regards,

Arron Fitzgerald

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Dear Mr Crossman

A member of your organisation has contacted the Backlash email group offering to table a motion on the pornography consultation at your upcoming AGM, with a view to redirecting your 'current campaigning priorities'.

That said, I am perhaps a little relieved to hear that you will be focusing your efforts on less complex matters such as ASBOs, rendition flights and asymmetric extradition treaties. However, with hindsight it would perhaps have been wiser for you not to have responded to the consultation, rather than outsource your response and deliver such an ill-conceived and ill-informed piece of nonsense that no doubt gave succour to Home Office prejudices.

So forgive me for pressing you on this point, but since you believe that "...there are types of non consensual or child pornography that we believe is properly in the domain of the criminal law", I challenge you to identify a single website that produces and distributes this non-consensual abusive pornography you believe warrants imprisonment for mere possession.

If, as I suspect, you are unable to do so, I put it to you that you have been duped by Mr Goggins and his fundamentalist minions into unwittingly supporting their pet project.

Yours sincerely,

Arron Fitzgerald

----- Original Message -----

: Gareth Crossman, 24 Feb 2006 08:05:24

To: Arron Fitzgerald
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: RE: Response to Violent Pornography Consultation

Dear Mr Fitzgerald,

The response is on our website in the 2005 briefings folder.

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/policy-index-05.shtml

I'm afraid I'm unable to agree to placing your list of points on our website. We will ensure greater clarity in our response if legislation does follow but this is not one of our current campaigning priorities.

Gareth Crossman

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

: Arron Fitzgerald [mailto:arron_fitzgerald@hotmail.co.uk], 24 Feb 2006 08:05:24

Sent: 21 February 2006 08:54
To: Gareth Crossman
Subject: Re: Response to Violent Pornography Consultation

Dear Mr Crossman,

You mention below that you believe:

"...there are types of non consensual or child pornography that we believe is properly in the domain of the criminal law".

This consultation had nothing to do with child pornography; it was solely concerned with extending the criminalisation of possession into the hitherto unprecedented realms of adult content. I believe you are attempting to mitigate the backlash against your response by attempt to evoke the same invalid associations as the Home Office.

As your response to the consultation appears to be conspicuously absent from your website, I would very much appreciate it if you would make it clear, by publishing them on your website, the following points which I presume you must agree:

1.. Adult pornography, regardless of whether described as 'extreme' or 'violent', must never be equated with child pornography (the subjects of which cannot, by definition, give consent to sexual acts).
2.. The criminalisation of the mere possession of mere depictions of non-consensual acts by consenting adults is manifest thought crime and must be condemned without reservation.
3.. That it would be impossible for a private individual to ascertain whether an image he or she is considering downloading, or images that he already possesses, or other images elsewhere on the same site he is considering joining, would breach the proposed 'GBH' threshold.
4.. That you are unable to identify any websites distributing images of actual, rather than simulated, abusive non-consensual sexual activity.
5.. That the extension of criminalisation of possession into the domain of any type of adult content would represent an drastic expansion of the power of the state to invade and inspect the personal computers of almost any person. Comparisons with the disastrous Operation Ore could be drawn.
6.. That the proposals as outlined in the consultation are highly unlikely to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, as convincingly demonstrated in the legal opinion to which I referred you in my original email.

This would ensure that the Home Office would be unable to claim your support for their proposals should they advance to the stage of draft legislation, and would go some way to offsetting the potential damage caused by your consultation response, which I hope you'll now agree was not your finest hour.

Yours sincerely,

Arron Fitzgerald

----- Original Message -----

om: Gareth Crossman, 24 Feb 2006 08:05:24

om: Arron Fitzgerald [mailto:arron_fitzgerald@hotmail.co.uk], 24 Feb 2006 08:05:24