Keep the handcuffs in the bedroom
Now pay attention, I want to talk to you about pornography. Stop sniggering at the back, this is important. You might not have realised it, but on 26th January a new law came into force which made certain kinds of pornography illegal. For most, the new law will cause us very little problem, but for a small minority it could spell disaster for a private hobby, which was until now perfectly legal.
Most of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is pretty unremarkable; like most Criminal Justice laws, it simply tidies up some loose ends made by previous laws. Section Five, however, leads us into the murky world of ‘Extreme Pornography’. Under the law it is an offence to be in possession of an image that “portrays in an explicit and realistic way…an act that threatens a person’s life…an act which is likely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,” or an image that interferes with an animal. The most important part of this is subsection 6 which makes guilt only achievable if the image is decided to be “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”.
This new legislation made the statute book after the tireless campaign of Liz Longhurst, the mother of murdered music teacher Jane Longhurst, whose killer was ‘addicted’ to ‘Extreme Pornography’. Liz and her MP Martin Salter campaigned for the new law arguing that there is ‘no reason’ for this kind of pornography. I commend her conviction, but I do not believe this is the appropriate response.
I should point out that the law will not affect me, I’m no whipping boy, and I strongly believe that horses should be kept in fields, and away from the farmhands. The issue at stake is much wider than a few people getting their rocks off to something that most might not find palatable, it is the legislation of morality. The Wolfenden Committee discussed the enforcement of morality in 1959, and concluded that it should have little bearing on the law. After all, lesbianism had never been a crime, yet many people in the 1950s considered lesbians immoral.
All laws are designed to protect people from harm, and if the people within the ‘extreme’ images are consenting, who is harmed? Somewhat more eccentrically, many of the acts covered by the new law are legal to commit, yet possessing any photographic evidence of the acts are illegal. It is sad to think of a minority group being criminalised because of a desire to make those with deviant tastes conform to ‘acceptable’ standards. It’s a cheap pun, but here at least, it seems the law is a spanked ass.
2 responses below. Comments are open.
Leave a Reply
Related Posts
Popular This Week
- Elections Night – Tim Ngwena re-elected president
- University criticised for allowing student to incur a personal debt of over £2,000 for campus event
- Exit polls reveal Hutchings to win Presidency
- Success on two fronts for the University Boat Club
- Ngwena takes Presidency for second year running
- The uninformed must not undermine the role of LGBT
Polls
Loading ...
Talking of Salter!
http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/articles/1/9361
Oh, it gets worse than that. Maybe, or maybe not, the law is open to interpretation, but there’s always a danger of laws being bent to suit a situation, either furthering potential lawbending by criminals and authorities or just lining the pockets of lawyers. An image that “portrays in an explicit and realistic way…an act that threatens a person’s life…an act which is likely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals.” So it’s illegal to own a picture of, say, the Dambusters raid? Of Robin Hood? Of “Schindler’s List”? They sure as hell threaten a life and, depending on the accuracy of the protagonist’s aim, could even do some damage to your anus. This is typical of the knee-jerk reaction of this country’s liberals. No legislation will ever protect us from psychopaths, because there is no pattern they don’t pay much heed to the law anyway. I once heard an expert (after some maniac had gone on the rampage with a gun in a school) say that he hears people criricising the police for hounding motorists when they should be out catching these murderers. The fact is, motorists are easier to catch and, most importantly, kill more people every year than murderers do. Hmmm, maybe having images of cars should be made illegal. Where’s the phone number of my MP?