Human Rights

From Seenoevil

The Government's opinion

The Government stated in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill that "these clauses constitute an interference with Convention rights under Articles 8 and 10", but it goes on to say "for the reasons set out below this is justified as being in accordance with the law, and necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime, for the protection of morals and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." [1]

The Government lists four justifications for this:

That images of actual violence would be illegal to perform, even if the participants consented (Brown [1994] 1 AC 212).
That in the case of both staged activity, and bestiality, it is necessary for the "aim of protecting the individuals involved from participating in degrading activities" (note that this justification does not seem to consider the issue of whether or not the participants have consented?)
That it is necessary for "breaking the demand and supply cycle of this material, which may be harmful to those who view it" and "banning their possession can be justified as sending a signal that such behaviour is not considered acceptable".
That children and "vulnerable adults" may inadvertently come into possession of such material.

[edit]

Rabinder Singh Q.C.'s legal opinion

Rabinder Singh Q.C., of Matrix Chambers, has given his legal opinion as to "whether a proposed new criminal offence relating to the possession of extreme pornographic material is likely to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights". He concludes that "the legislation as proposed gives rise to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual's rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention."

The full text of his statement can be found here.

[edit]