Inquisition 21
 |
 |
|
|
| Log In
|
|
|
|
|
| Search Articles
|
|
|
|
|
| Comments
|
|
|
You don't have to,
but if you log in,
you can add comments.
|
| Page Referral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mechanisms of repression
|
|
|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
Mechanisms of repression
And the net draws tighter.
By The Littleman
A survey carried out by the British Board of Film Censorship (classification is just another word for censorship; the change being made by Jack Straw who thought it sounded less draconian) has noted that 48% of people do not object to violent movies being purchased for a person’s private use. Although it shows a slim majority of people want to see this material censored or banned, these figures must be viewed in context. The actual survey was undertaken in various video hire outlets amongst a representative cross section of video renters. In other words they were asked questions in a public setting with others hearing their personal views, thus inviting possible disapproval (from a spouse say). So the figures are remarkable in that they show that a substantial number of people, nearly half the respondents, did not agree with the fact that violent movies should be censored. So it begs the question as to how the government has come to the view that the overwhelming majority of people want to see this stuff prohibited?
Furthermore research carried out by Kinsey (on behalf of Playboy) shows that 42% of people have involved some form of corporal punishment in their erotic play (from mild spanking through to BDSM play) and around 12% are either actively involved in the BDSM scene or have a serious interest in it. These are not insignificant minorities, especially when balanced against the 28% of the popular vote that this government obtained in the last election. Moreover this bill was not in the Labour manifesto, yet its early inclusion in this parliament (plus the fact that the select committee sat either side of the election) proves that the government intended to bring in this bill during this current session. So why weren’t we told? Was it because the government thought that people might just vote against it and, given the paucity of actual support for Tony Blair, might actually cause him to lose power? There would be a lot more opponents of this bill if they were allowed to decide by secret ballot than if it was discussed in an open debate or fake consultations.
Furthermore, the law intends to apply only to so-called pornography, whereas there are mainstream films available which show this very subject matter, the most famous of which is Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion of Christ’ which features just about every ‘perversion’ that is to be outlawed in this legislation. For those who did not have the stomach to view this film it features bondage, very, very extreme corporal punishment (in that lumps of flesh are torn out with steel barbed whips) and finally an extremely gruesome death scene together with bodily mutilation. If someone with psychotic tendencies wished to gratify his or her urges, then this film would be a far better illustration of brutality than anything that the Fernando Valley or Tokyo film makers could come up with. Yet there is nothing in the legislation that would outlaw this film, or any others in its genre (such as Martin Scorsese’s 1988 ‘Last Temptation of Christ’, starring Willem Dafoe and even others such as ‘Toy Soldiers’, which shows a priest tied to a steel bed frame and being tortured with electricity being applied to his body, which eventually kills him, or even the violent and explicit gang rape scene in Jodie Foster’s film ‘Shame’ – all of these films have been granted an 18 certificate by the BBFC and Gibson’s film came close to getting a 15 certificate). There has been no attempt to explain why these films should have less of an impact on society than the adult films that would be banned under the legislation because they are ‘pornographic’. Furthermore there has been nothing in the proposals that actually defines the differences between these films and the violent pornographic movies. Is penetrative sex the defining point? (Last Temptation has that in it as does Shame) or context (i.e. the movie dwelt at length on the torture?) in which case the ‘Passion of Christ’ should come under the new legislation as it is one long torture film: indeed there are very few scenes where the main character is not being tortured.
Prohibition will not work. We already have experience in these matters in the legislation banning dangerous drugs. There is a worldwide consensus on these, unlike the proposed legislation, but that has not made any impact whatsoever on the trade. If one uses the drugs legislation as an equivalence to this proposed legislation then what the government is attempting to do is to severely penalize the end customers in order to ‘break the chain’. That has been tried in the battle against drugs with little or no impact. Indeed the availability of drugs on our high streets is, if the current low prices are anything to go by, higher now than they it ever was, which shows that downstream prohibition is a total failure. And there is no reason why this legislation should have any different results. This is particularly true given that there is not, and never will be, a consensus amongst other governments regarding the prohibition of this material. Therefore the people that the government proposes will be targeted by this prohibition are almost exclusively based overseas and will not be affected in the slightest. Except to flash “BANNED IN BRITAIN” across the front of their websites to increase their sales. Hardly the desired result.
Therefore my response to the ‘consultation document’ is as follows:
(1) Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires the law to be strengthened?
No, the beauty and the power of the Internet is its freedom. We are rational human beings and we see what we want to see and can ignore what we don’t. Once the idea is accepted that censorship is okay, then it is a slippery slope downwards as the government of the day may use this legislation to impose more draconian censorship of a more political nature. Already we have seen website owners with images of dead and mutilated bodies taken by soldiers in Iraq on their sites being prosecuted in the USA for having ‘obscene’ images (indeed they appear in the guidelines for this act). These people would not be covered by the defenses outlined in the proposed legislation as they are undertaken by an individual on a web log (blog) and are not, therefore, a member of a recognized media organization. The majority of people in the UK would, most probably, be sickened by the images and they would obviously fulfill the criteria outlined in the proposed legislation (particularly those taken from within Abu Ghraib by the disgraced Lyndie England and her cohorts which were quite obviously sexual), yet their suppression would be a political rather than a moral one. And why is it only confined to sexual material? Why not ban all violence in movies? In the film ‘Commando’ (Certificate 15), over 50 people were murdered in gruesome circumstances with blood and gore everywhere and Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion of Christ’ is a horrendously violent and sickening film, yet we, as a society, find that acceptable, but if someone sees a film featuring say bondage then society needs protection from them. I for one cannot reconcile this viewpoint. And unfortunately it doesn’t cut much ice saying that the actors in ‘Commando’ and ‘Passion’ were obviously stunt men and the action was faked. It is very much the norm in the more aggressive ‘pornographic’ films that this is also the case. These films usually have the equivalent to a BBFC certificate attached, issued by the licensing authorities in that country, which ensures that the participants are over the age of consent and that they took part willingly. Moreover many of the actresses in these films (particularly in Japan) have a large and devoted fan clubs and they earn a significant amount of money from them and are on record saying they enjoy making them. Strange as it may seem, a lot of people enjoy taking part in say BDSM activity, which is not in itself illegal, so why are they being singled out for special punishment?
Britain has the strictest censorship laws in Europe and it also has the highest number of violent sexual assaults (and they are rising every year). There is a considerable body of long term research that concludes (see footnotes) that not only is aggressive pornography not detrimental to society but can actually be beneficial by acting as a safety valve for the more psychotic members. You cannot legislate against human lusts; after the needs for shelter and food is met it is the strongest human drive and so government legislation will never have any effect, however much it might make the legislators feel good. If people are not allowed to have this safety valve through a pornography/masturbation route then how do they carry out their fantasies? On a lonely girl walking home after a party? Obviously this is not an acceptable route, but there is a danger that if they have no outlets for their frustrations that the number of assaults will increase even further. The evidence amassed by Professor Kutchinsky (see below) shows that once restrictions on pornography are relaxed, then sexual assaults fall (particularly those involving children), so why would a government flirt with legislation that, according to scientific research, may actually put women and children in this country in even more danger. One look at the international crime figures shows that the countries with the strictest censorship laws regarding adult material also have the highest number of sexual assaults. Indeed you can almost plot the strictness of the censorship by their relative position on the tables. Britain currently stands as the country with the 6th highest number of violent sexual assaults (out of 191), the highest in Europe, which is not a record to be proud of. The government’s job is to protect its citizens not to make them more vulnerable just on the excuse that it is ‘doing something’.
And of course there is massive scope for police corruption. The disgraceful behavior of the Met’s Obscene Publication Squad is a case in point, where a large number of officers were fired for soliciting bribes, falsifying information, assaulting ‘suspects’ and generally behaving in an out of control fashion, all brought about purely by the senseless Obscene Publications Act. And we have to ask ourselves exactly what was gained by it? The answer of course is nothing positive, which is precisely what this latest act will achieve.
A better approach would be to require that websites have a coding system and/or introduction screen that explicitly lays out what the site contains and which can be picked up by the browser’s screening software thus preventing them being accidentally being accessed by children.
(2) 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?
There may not be any conclusive research that supports the negative effects of the so called violent pornography, but there is plenty of scientific research that concludes that it is harmless and can indeed be beneficial for society (see footnotes), including Home Office sponsored research, so why is the government ignoring this?
On a personal level I might well find the majority of this material to be degrading, violent or aberrant. But that doesn’t mean it should be banned for everybody. Why should I (or anyone else come to that) be allowed to impose my tastes on everybody else? For example, I find homosexuality abhorrent, but I do not wish to impose my views on other people. If people want to view pictures of men putting their penises inside other men’s rectums, then it’s up to them, as long as I know where they are so that I don’t have to look at them. I also consider boxing to be abhorrent - the sight of two men beating each other into pulp in the name of sport turns my stomach and their injuries are certainly not faked and do, in most instances, lead to long term brain damage and premature death. And watching seal cubs being beaten to death is pretty horrific. I could go on and on with this list, but I think I’ve made my point. There are a lot worse images available in the world than those featuring BDSM or whatever.
(3) Do you agree with the list of material set out (in paragraph 39)?
Obviously not and for the following reasons:
First it is far too vague and is obviously nowhere near representative of the actual material that is going to be banned under this new legislation. Already we are seeing ‘guidelines’ being issued by the Home Office that indicate that consensual spanking will be covered by the legislation. Research carried out by Kinsey has indicated that 42% of people have experimented with spanking as part of their sex lives. So why are they being penalized? Up until a few years ago we still practiced corporal punishment in schools and no-one suffered any long term effects, but school discipline was a lot better. It is still practiced as a judicial punishment in 89 countries in the world with few long term effects. Are we, as a society, that seriously worried about legions of middle aged men going round indiscriminately spanking people after they’d watched a forty year old woman in a gymslip getting put over somebody’s knee?
The list contains bestiality, and who exactly is the legislation is going to be saved from victim hood? The woman? It must have been consensual on her part as it’s very difficult to force someone to perform oral sex on an animal. So the animal then? Are we really going to put people in prison because a dog’s feelings might be hurt? The inclusion of this in the list smacks more of individual distaste rather than any of the stated aims of the legislation.
Similarly in the case of Scatology (watching excrement being voided) or Urolagnia (not my spelling – this was taken from the ‘guidelines’ issued by the Home Office – it is supposed to mean an interest in urinary functions). I am seriously wondering who is the victim here. Will watching these videos want to make us go to the toilet? Are we then victims because we vent our bowels? This smacks of nanny statism as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the proposed aim of the bill but instead speaks of the distaste that the legislators (or whoever drew up the secret ‘guidelines’) have for people who are interested in this fetish. Disgusting it may well be to the majority of people, but that doesn’t mean that it should be banned for the minority: isn’t that what the Human Rights Act is supposed to be about? Protecting the free expression of people who don’t necessarily conform to the mainstream of society, particularly if the practice is essentially harmless (a lot of people drink their own urine as they believe it is beneficial to their health and doctors say it causes no damage – will this be banned too?). Is this being included because the police have evidence that Graham Coutts went to the toilet just before he murdered Jane Longhurst?
And what about if the ‘corpses’ in the necrophilia films were to walk into court? Would the assumption still be that it was non-consensual and then jail them too for taking part in the production? Remember that despite all the (large) sums spent investigating it there has never been a real snuff film found anywhere in the world. Ever! They are all posed.
The list mentions that it covers acts of grievous bodily harm that would be penalized as long as they appeared in pornography. Is breaking someone’s arm something that would incite lust in somebody? If so I must lead a very sheltered life. People being suspended from meat hooks were also mentioned: does that mean we have to dispose of the Classic Richard Harris film ‘A man called Horse’? Because that had a very long and incredibly explicit scene where he was suspended on meat hooks. How much of our video cabinet will we have to destroy to avoid running foul of this law? Or will it be exempt as a work of art? Or because it features a man not a woman being tortured? Customs and Revenue already regard movies featuring women being abused as obscene but will allow in movies featuring men being abused. Is this act going to be just as sexually discriminatory?
It is worthwhile noting that non sexual violence is also being included, so things like seeing civilians in Iraq being killed will be illegal. This is hardly sexual and smacks very firmly of press censorship.
And by whose lights will they be regarded as aberrations? Tony Blair? Stephen Byers? David Blunkett? Pillars of moral rectitude all.
(4) Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such material?
Absolutely: for example BDSM can be a dangerous practice and therefore the BDSM community offers ‘training’ films that teach adherents to this particular fetish the correct way to bind their consensual partner (According to research undertaken by a BDSM ‘match making’ website there are 3 submissives [i.e. people that want to be tied up, usually males] for every dominant, so they are hardly victims – moreover they represent up to 12% of the population according to research carried out by Kinsey on behalf of Playboy), so as to minimize the risk of loss of blood to extremities and prevent possible asphyxiation. These training films will be banned under the legislation. How will the legislators feel when somebody dies because of this legislation? Or will they be viewed as fair game for having such ‘aberrant’ sexual desires?
Another justification is for people undertaking work on behalf of defendants. There is no mention in the guidelines that states that the defense can have access to this material, only prosecutors. This is blatantly unfair and will inevitably lead to miscarriages of justice like it is proving to be in some child pornography cases. And will this material be so wicked that it can’t be shown in open court? If so, how is anyone likely to get a fair trial?
And of course the biggest justification of all is the Human Rights Act, allowing free expression, which covers the right to view material that many people would find disgusting. The government claims that they have a right to abrogate this freedom in order to protect public morals, but they have not offered any research to suggest that this indeed will protect us. And who exactly is providing the moral benchmark?
(5) And (6) Which option do you prefer and why?
Do nothing. This legislation is being viewed as knee jerk regulation (or an excuse for a very narrow sector of the population to impose their moral views on the population as a whole) as a result of the actions of one, obviously deranged, man, a man moreover who had a proclivity for asphyxia sexual practices which, according to his girlfriend, he had long before he had internet connectivity. In other words, it is doubtful whether the presence of this material on the internet had any bearing on the actions of Graham Coutts.
If it could be proved categorically that the suppression of this material will prevent another tragedy like Jane Longhurst, then I’m in favour of it, but I am afraid that this proposed legislation will have entirely the opposite effect. Particularly in view of the serious scientific research that has shown that this material is not harmful to society.
It is almost guaranteed that sexual assaults will increase under this legislation. Do we really want that? Will there be a sunset clause in the legislation such that it will be allowed to die naturally after a fixed period if sexual assaults indeed increase or will the women and children of Britain just have to take their chances on the basis that the nanny state thinks it can impose social behavior on society using the blunt stick of legislation. It hasn’t worked with yobbish teenagers, the drugs culture, weapon wielding gangsters or binge drinkers so why does the government think it will work in this instance?
(7) Which penalty option do you prefer?
Why are we looking at penalizing something with prison when there is no evidence to show that it is harmful to anyone? A better way, if we must have this legislation, would be to confiscate the material, then give counseling to the person in whose possession it was found, but only then if they had showed it to a child (or didn’t take enough precautions to stop it being seen by a child) or to someone who did not wish to see it. For people who do commit sexual offences against someone else and they have this material in their possession, then it should result in harsher sentences.
This is a very bad piece of legislation. It is further restricting the rights of the citizens of this country and there is a very strong argument to say that the legislation should not be brought in on that basis alone. Moreover it will not, and never will, gain a consensus amongst the other countries in the world (unlike child pornography) and so this legislation will not achieve one of its main aims of restricting the market for this material: its effect in that area will be marginal at best and will, most probably, increase its sales.
Furthermore, the clause that states that the material will always be viewed as non consensual just in order to make prosecutions easier is a miscarriage of natural justice in its own right. Any legislation must be weighed on its fairness (scales of justice) to both the prosecution and the defense. Any law that naturally weighs in favour of prosecution will become an unfair law. I, for one, would like to think the prosecution does work hard to bring a case to ensure that innocent people are not unjustly convicted (have they forgotten the judicial aphorism that “it is better to let a thousand guilty men walk free than jail one innocent one?”). Making their job a lot easier by bringing in blatantly biased legislation will not make us sleep safely in our beds.
And let’s not forget what Lord Bingham of Cornhill, former Lord Chief Justice had to say on Human Rights:
“The European Court of Human Rights has imposed a strict test of necessity, relying on such concepts as pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness. The overriding principle is clear: since the right in question is to be regarded as fundamental, any restriction of it must be strictly justified."
And the vague definition that it may (possibly, maybe) cause harm is hardly a strict justification to remove this right, however ‘abhorrent’ the practices portrayed are. I can foresee that this legislation may yet founder in the European Court of Human Rights a couple of years into the future unless it is defined a lot clearer than it is at present. And don’t forget the ECHR is not known for being well disposed towards hidden committees effectively drafting legislation on the hoof as they draw up the lists mentioned in the discussion document. A read through Hansard while this bill was going through committee shows that the members had the same doubts about how the HRA will impact on this legislation despite what the discussion document might say.
As regards the protection of victims is concerned: this could be better achieved by using this material as evidence to help secure a prosecution against the perpetrators of the crimes (if any) which are illegal under current legislation.
This law is unfair, based on moral prejudices rather than scientifically backed reasoning and may well achieve the opposite effect that that intended. Furthermore, we haven’t even begun to assess the fallout regarding the current legislation on child pornography as Operation Ore starts to unravel, so why exacerbate the problem by adding extra potential for possible public outrage at the miscarriages of justice? As yet we haven’t had the ECHR hearing a case of a convicted ‘pseudo photograph’ producer and applying the strict justification rule, particularly as it could, in some quarters, be regarded as art, but we will. The ECHR has given the UK considerable leeway regarding the restriction and censorship of adult material, on the grounds of safeguarding the morality of the nation, but it has to at some point draw a line in the sand and say there and no further or Article 10 of the Human Rights Act is not worth the paper its written on. And the vague justifications, with no objective or scientific backing that have been brought forward to support the bill may yet fail the strict justification hurdle. And where will that get us?
This law looks like an attempt by a government who have completely and utterly lost any sense of perspective and have run out of ideas as to how to solve the actual, real problems in society (which are mainly of their own making) to force the population to conform with a very narrow view of morality that is preached (but sadly not practiced) by certain members of parliament and their wonks. Furthermore it looks like it is being brought in purely to find a use for the sparkly new high tech crimes unit (and the myriad Abusive Images Units that all the police forces now have) that the government have wasted so much money on when society would really prefer their policemen to be patrolling the streets keeping us safe rather than sitting in front of computers looking at porn all day. This act will, at a conservative estimate, involve over 500 full time policemen as well as forensic experts and will cost in the order of 75-100 million pounds a year (minimum) to implement. Is this opportunity cost worth paying for the minimal (at best) ‘benefits’ that it will bring (which have never been explained to us) when the police forces are so under funded and remember this money will come out of the rates (i.e. its local councils who have to pay for it). Do we want to see further rate rises (and pensioners going to jail) just so our legislators can impose their morals on us?
It is a bad law and should not be allowed to reach the statute books.
“The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable." - Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
Appendix:
Research supporting the legalization of pornography:
1990 Home Office Report, "Pornography: Impacts and Influences", (by Dr Guy Cumberbatch and Dr Dennis Howlitt)
Reasearch by Berl Kutchinsky who is a Professor of Criminology at the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Science at the University of Copenhagen (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/14/kutchinsky.pd)
Milton Diamond of the University of Hawaii’s - Manoa John A. Burns School of Medicine, Department of Anatomy and Reproductive Biology, Pacific Center for Sex and Society in Honolulu and Ayako Uchiyama from the National Research Institute of Police Science Juvenile Crime Study Section 6, Sanban-cho, Chiyoda-ku in Tokyo
(http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html)
And just in case you are wondering exactly what is going to be banned under this new legislation, I have the complete list here (in simplified format obtained under the Freedom of Information Act). Note this list is by no means comprehensive as the Home Office Legal Department are adding categories and clauses all the time but it gives you an idea of how wide ranging this is:
Asphyxia. Where the person is being choked in order to gain sexual pleasure.
Bestiality. Sexual acts between humans and animals.
Bondage. Tying a person in an unnatural position for sexual gratification where the participant is unable to withdraw their consent (for example they are gagged).
Corporal Punishment. Inflicting pain on another person
Cruelty to animals. Includes organised dog fighting, bear baiting, badger baiting, cock fighting. Also ‘crush’ material which features humans stamping on vertebrates or standing on them with increased pressure until they are crushed.
Defecation. Voiding excrement from the bowels.
Enemas. Flushing the bowels with water, usually to drink the product or torture the victim.
Fisting. (anal or vaginal) Inserting a fist in the anus or vagina for sexual gratification.
Insertion of an object. Only where the insertion clearly inflicts pain.
Menstrual Blood. Sex between adults where the female is menstruating heavily and the blood is being smeared on the body or the used tampon is being sucked etc. This does not include post-intercourse depictions where a small amount of blood can be seen on the participants.
Necrophilia. Sexual intercourse with a corpse.
Sado-masochism. Sadists achieve sexual pleasure through inflicting torture and humiliation upon another person. Masochists desire maltreatment as a means of sexual gratification.
Scatology. Depictions indicating a general interest in excrement such as smearing or eating of excrement.
Urolagnia. The act of urination in the context of any of the following where a person is shown:
urinating at the same time as they are engaged in a sexual act. The urination and sexual act must be seen at the same time. The sexual act includes those such as fellatio (oral sex) and masturbation which would not be obscene if shown without urination; smearing urine on themselves or another;
urinating on another person; being urinated upon;
drinking urine.
Violence (non-simulated). Scenes of actual violence or mutilation shown in an exploitative context where they are not part of a legitimate documentary. For example a compilation of newsreel footage concentrating solely on scenes of violence or mutilation. This would also cover scenes of actual sexual assault including rape.
Violence (simulated). Scenes of simulated sexual violence such as rape shown in an exploitative context where the activity is graphically depicted and clearly intended to appear non-consensual. This excludes scenes contained in serious dramatic films.
Mechanisms of repression
One click and you’re out - Pervcheck
Free speech in Britain under threat
The US lurches to the right
Sarah’s story
Kafkaesque from the National Crime Squad
More Big Brother building blocks in place
How porn is being used to quash dissent
Book burning in Canada given Royal Assent
And the net draws tighter.
Response to AOL
 |
|
|
