Fw: My Follow-up to Liberty's Belated Reply
Arron Fitzgerald, 21 Feb 2006 09:04:18
Dear All,
Please see below my email to Liberty. Let me know if you have any comments.
Arron
----- Original Message -----
Arron Fitzgerald, 21 Feb 2006 09:04:18
To: Gareth Crossman
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:53 AM
Teddy, 24 Feb 2006 00:13:36
An excellent reply, which just about sums-up my personal views on the subject as well. It does seem that a definite shift has taken place at Liberty, although they are still very vague about their use of the term "consensual". Material featuring actors is consensual to my way of thinking, even if it depicts "illegal" or non-consensual acts...
I think point 4, regarding evidence of any sites featuring real non-consensual acts, would be an excellent question to pose the HO under the Freedom of Info Act. The consultation document certainly could leave the uninitiated reader with the impression that these "real-time rape" videos are real and non-concensual (in which case they would rightly become an issue for the law, under existing legislation).
Teddy.
Author wrote:
> Dear All,
> Please see below my email to Liberty. Let me know if you have any comments.
> Arron
> ----- Original Message -----
: Arron Fitzgerald, 24 Feb 2006 00:13:36
> To: Gareth Crossman
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Response to Violent Pornography Consultation
> 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 -----
om: Gareth Crossman, 24 Feb 2006 00:13:36
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
om: Arron Fitzgerald [mailto:arron_fitzgerald@hotmail.co.uk], 24 Feb 2006 00:13:36
> 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
>
>
>