The UK 'extreme' p*rn law

To say, “pornography killed Jane Longhurst”, therefore, is grossly simplistic.

So why then criminalise the possessor of this material when, in fact, no crime was committed during the making? Absolutely, if a crime was committed; if the image was showing a non-consensual sexual assault, then absolutely it should be illegal to possess as it was to make. But as it wasn’t, so why make a criminal out of the user?

As Lord Faulkner of Worcester argued in the House of Lords discussion on April 21, 2008, “... if no illegal activity has taken place and we are concerned about merely the possession of the images, I really cannot imagine that any useful purpose is served by creating criminals out of the people who possess them”.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness added, “… if no sexual offence is being committed, it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence”.

Indeed, in Lord Thomas of Gresford’s words, it does seem “rather silly”. When a crime is committed, when an actual assault has taken place, then without doubt the material should be illegal.

But, as Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer rightly, in my mind, pointed out, it is real violence against women that ought to be addressed and stamped out. But that which, to quote from the clause, “appears” to result in injury seems to be, as some have suggested “a war on BDSM/rough sex”.

For example, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath described images he had been shown by the police that “appeared” violent but were in fact consensual as “disgusting” and “revolting”. He went on:

I frankly find it horrific that they are available and that people can see them. I am sorry, but I do not take this very liberal approach of “If it does no harm to the people taking part, why should we worry about it?” I do worry about it, and about the access that people have to that kind of disgusting material. I am afraid that is my position.

Disgusting and revolting?

The suggestion is that a “normal”, well-adjusted and sane minded individual will turn on, tune in and flip out. That an individual is so disturbed and fragile that these fantasy images would trigger him to rape and murder is not being addressed. As JUSTICE argues (PDF 258KB), that pornography would trigger such behaviour is based upon “speculative causal connection”.

In fact, this law protects no one. If the actors consented to participate, and the material they produce is enjoyed by individuals or groups, and there is no evidence to suggest that a healthy mind would “flip” and trigger a sexual assault, or even murder, then no one has been harmed, then really what this amounts to, to paraphrase Baroness Miller, is the government legally justifying regulation of “bedroom” activities.

It seems to be a fairly extreme suggestion that women may enjoy BDSM. Women themselves are downloading this material for their own pleasure. Ideas that BDSM, or “rough sex” is “retrograde [and] repressive” seem to me to be somewhat repressive.