Response from G.Cox MP (Tory) Devon
MsDemmie, 19 Sep 2006 14:41:02
Both budgiebird and myself received the following response from Geoffrey Cox Q.C M.P this morning.
Dear XXXXXXX
Thank you for your email regarding proposals to outlaw the possession
of Extreme Pornographic Material. You raise a very difficult and
important question.
I must say I have very little sympathy with those who for sexual
gratification wish to possess material of such a graphic and violent
nature that it portrays [b]life threatening injury [/b], or that
depicts sexual acts with an animal or a corpse.
However, while I sympathise with the Government's intention in seeking
to ban the realistic portrayal, and possession of images of such acts,
I am concerned that it would be very difficult to construct precise
definitions in relation to the portrayal of serious violence in a
sexual context so as not to infringe disproportionately on personal
freedom.
I would therefore need to be convinced of both the feasibility and
necessity of creating a law to criminlise possession of material such
as this. I am afraid that, before I could give a firm opinion on
whether I should be prepared to support it, I would need to study the
proposed legislation in much greater detail. I will await the
publication of the Bill with interest and I will take your views into
consideration when determining how to vote.
Thank you, once again, for your email.
Your sincerely
Geoffrey Cox, QC., MP
rovacs, 19 Sep 2006 19:16:53
Ms Demme-Did you point out to him these idiotic proposals not only "ban possession" but threaten 3 years jail for possessing a picture?
It's not just a matter of approving or disapproving,but asking if it's sane and out of all proportion to have such absurd draconianism for a trivial "offense",which is not an offense now and isn't going to be one apart from in this Blair-bothered land. Does he know this drives a dinosaur thru the Human Rights Act and European Convention. At least he seems willing to listen. I believe if the facts about this got to many influential types such people they might start to quiver-many a home collection contains stuff which would fit the Home Office's idiotic current definitions. Maybe send him the relevant definitions from the response document if you haven't. If they think this might just to "real" material/ultra extreme stuff,if they have swallowed the misleading crud propaganda coming out of Coaker/ Salter and such, they may not realise the true horror of what New Liebour are up to. The matter of evidential detail is crucial-I have looked at this carefully and there can be little doubt this proposal will rest on subjectivity both as to what is porn and as to a "level" of violence in a picture. The whole thing is utterly shambolic and a recipe for an expensive judicial catastrophe.
Author wrote:
> Both budgiebird and myself received the following response from Geoffrey Cox Q.C M.P this morning.
> Dear XXXXXXX
> Thank you for your email regarding proposals to outlaw the possession
> of Extreme Pornographic Material. You raise a very difficult and
> important question.
> I must say I have very little sympathy with those who for sexual
> gratification wish to possess material of such a graphic and violent
> nature that it portrays [b]life threatening injury [/b], or that
> depicts sexual acts with an animal or a corpse.
> However, while I sympathise with the Government's intention in seeking
> to ban the realistic portrayal, and possession of images of such acts,
> I am concerned that it would be very difficult to construct precise
> definitions in relation to the portrayal of serious violence in a
> sexual context so as not to infringe disproportionately on personal
> freedom.
> I would therefore need to be convinced of both the feasibility and
> necessity of creating a law to criminlise possession of material such
> as this. I am afraid that, before I could give a firm opinion on
> whether I should be prepared to support it, I would need to study the
> proposed legislation in much greater detail. I will await the
> publication of the Bill with interest and I will take your views into
> consideration when determining how to vote.
> Thank you, once again, for your email.
> Your sincerely
> Geoffrey Cox, QC., MP
MsDemmie, 19 Sep 2006 19:37:51
My initial enquiry to him was using the *write to your MP* function at "they work for you" .
This is what I wrote to him (following the guidlines for first contact to yout MP posted here and other places ).
Having recieved what I consider to be a reasonalble reply I shall now respond and develop the Human Rights angle further.
My original mail .........................
Dear Geoffrey Cox,
I am writing to find out your view of the governments latest proposals
to regulate what they perceive to be *extreme pornography* - outlined
here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extreme-porn-3008051/Gvt-response-extreme-porn2.pdf?view=Binary
Do you think this is needed?
Do you think it is enforceable?
Will you be voting for or against the proposals?
What factors have you taken into consideration in coming to your
decision?
I am not in favour of the legislation - my reasons were outlined in my
response to the Consultation document and are available here:
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/agcmd.htm
In short I believe the proposed legislation is unworkable on many
fronts and for many reasons.
I would be grateful for your views on the matter.
Yours sincerely,
Nicola Brown
Author wrote:
> Ms Demme-Did you point out to him these idiotic proposals not only "ban possession" but threaten 3 years jail for possessing a picture?
> It's not just a matter of approving or disapproving,but asking if it's sane and out of all proportion to have such absurd draconianism for a trivial "offense",which is not an offense now and isn't going to be one apart from in this Blair-bothered land. Does he know this drives a dinosaur thru the Human Rights Act and European Convention. At least he seems willing to listen. I believe if the facts about this got to many influential types such people they might start to quiver-many a home collection contains stuff which would fit the Home Office's idiotic current definitions. Maybe send him the relevant definitions from the response document if you haven't. If they think this might just to "real" material/ultra extreme stuff,if they have swallowed the misleading crud propaganda coming out of Coaker/ Salter and such, they may not realise the true horror of what New Liebour are up to. The matter of evidential detail is crucial-I have looked at this carefully and there can be little doubt this proposal will rest on subjectivity both as to what is porn and as to a "level" of violence in a picture. The whole thing is utterly shambolic and a recipe for an expensive judicial catastrophe.
> Author wrote:
> > Both budgiebird and myself received the following response from Geoffrey Cox Q.C M.P this morning.
> > Dear XXXXXXX
> > Thank you for your email regarding proposals to outlaw the possession
> > of Extreme Pornographic Material. You raise a very difficult and
> > important question.
> > I must say I have very little sympathy with those who for sexual
> > gratification wish to possess material of such a graphic and violent
> > nature that it portrays [b]life threatening injury [/b], or that
> > depicts sexual acts with an animal or a corpse.
> > However, while I sympathise with the Government's intention in seeking
> > to ban the realistic portrayal, and possession of images of such acts,
> > I am concerned that it would be very difficult to construct precise
> > definitions in relation to the portrayal of serious violence in a
> > sexual context so as not to infringe disproportionately on personal
> > freedom.
> > I would therefore need to be convinced of both the feasibility and
> > necessity of creating a law to criminlise possession of material such
> > as this. I am afraid that, before I could give a firm opinion on
> > whether I should be prepared to support it, I would need to study the
> > proposed legislation in much greater detail. I will await the
> > publication of the Bill with interest and I will take your views into
> > consideration when determining how to vote.
> > Thank you, once again, for your email.
> > Your sincerely
> > Geoffrey Cox, QC., MP
>
>
Teddy, 19 Sep 2006 20:26:38
Not a bad reply, altogether; sounds like this guy could be won around. But it's not really a matter of "sympathy" for the users of this so-called extreme porn, but of the government justifying why viewing fictional depictions of any activity should attract the threat of jail.
T.
Author wrote:
> Both budgiebird and myself received the following response from Geoffrey Cox Q.C M.P this morning.
> Dear XXXXXXX
> Thank you for your email regarding proposals to outlaw the possession
> of Extreme Pornographic Material. You raise a very difficult and
> important question.
> I must say I have very little sympathy with those who for sexual
> gratification wish to possess material of such a graphic and violent
> nature that it portrays [b]life threatening injury [/b], or that
> depicts sexual acts with an animal or a corpse.
> However, while I sympathise with the Government's intention in seeking
> to ban the realistic portrayal, and possession of images of such acts,
> I am concerned that it would be very difficult to construct precise
> definitions in relation to the portrayal of serious violence in a
> sexual context so as not to infringe disproportionately on personal
> freedom.
> I would therefore need to be convinced of both the feasibility and
> necessity of creating a law to criminlise possession of material such
> as this. I am afraid that, before I could give a firm opinion on
> whether I should be prepared to support it, I would need to study the
> proposed legislation in much greater detail. I will await the
> publication of the Bill with interest and I will take your views into
> consideration when determining how to vote.
> Thank you, once again, for your email.
> Your sincerely
> Geoffrey Cox, QC., MP