Chained in Parliament Square

A brave group of souls willing to protest this bad legislation in public plan to gather in Parliament Square towards 5 pm on Wednesday 7th May.

Some plan to chain themselves to a headboard, to symbolise the state's unwarranted intrusion into people's private consensual activities. If the Police let them.

Whatever your grounds for opposition - civil liberties, insufficient consideration in Parliament, ineffectual in action etc etc - this would be a good moment to demonstrate your opposition.

Select Committee on new media and violence

The Bill was passed by the Lords at Third Reading on Wed 30th April and now goes back to the House Of Commons.

Baroness Howe and others in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords are calling for a Select Committee on new media and violence.

A move with apparently growing momentum, opponents of this badly drafted legislation must do all they can outside Parliament to match the efforts inside Parliament.

So, once again, please contact your MP via www.theyworkforyou.com asking for this objective and neutral politcal step to be supported. As soon as possible. Before it is too late.

One concession

The Government promised one change when the Lords debated amendments to the Bill on 21 April.

The Minister conceded "I recognise that it would be anomalous for a person to be committing an offence by possessing an image of an act which he undertook perfectly lawfully. We intend to introduce at Third Reading a defence" for this.

Baroness Miller warned "the Minister is in danger of leading his Government into becoming the thought police"

The Minister had admitted "We are targeting that material not on account of offences which may or may not have been committed in the production of the material, but because the material itself, which depicts extreme violence and often appears to be non-consensual, is to be deplored."

Baroness Miller made the point "If someone viewed over the internet a third party having sexual intercourse with a sheep, would that carry a greater penalty than someone actually having sexual intercourse with a sheep?"

She went on "The Minister has not really answered any of the issues that have been worrying your Lordships this evening. In light of the fact that the Minister has made absolutely no concessions at all" she withdrew her amendments in order that she could bring them back on Third Reading.

Only one Peer who appears to have taken up the Minister's invitation to visit Charing Cross police station to view examples.

Lord Faulkner (a Labour appointment) said "I was left with the question whether their possession is so threatening to society that it is worth turning people into criminals and sending them to jail".

He decided "I really cannot imagine that any useful purpose is served by creating criminals out of the people who possess them."

The saga continues. The Government have let it be known they will ensure the Bill receives royal assent by May 8.

Justice oppose "disproportionate interference"

Leading human rights lobby group Justice has added its voice the the long list of people concerned about the reached of the proposed "extreme image" laws.

Justice are concerned about the premise behind the law and say the "over-inclusive definition" may constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to free expression under Article 10 of the European Charter of Human Rights.

Making bad law, pt 1

Parliament's joint Human Rights committee were very unimpressed by the Ministry of Justice's definitions in this Criminal Justice bill.

Quote " Individuals seeking to regulate their conduct in accordance with the criminal law cannot be certain that they will not be committing a criminal offence by having certain images in their possession. We look forward to the Government bringing forward an amendment to make the scope of the new offence more precise. "

Making bad law, pt 2

Sam Coates pointed out in The Times that the Government's new head of risk management has said Government policy is often badly formed because it is drawn up in response to tragedies and problems.

Rick Haythornthwaite, head of the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council, said that policy was often affected by pressure from an aggressive media and a confrontational Parliament. "We have got to deal with some of the systemic flaws in policy-making within Whitehall".

He told The Politics Show on BBC One that "calls to protect the public sapped self-reliance, resilience and the spirit of adventure" and that "Some risk could be a very good thing".

The New Sex Crimes: Electronic Obscenity & Censorship

An independent report from the seminar at the Institute of Contemporary Arts, "a critical look at the emerging relationship between the internet, sexuality and the law".

Amnesty does not support porn plans

Amnesty International denies widely reported claims by Martin Salter MP that it backs plans to criminalise porn ownership.

"The factors that can enable violence against women are many and various and pornography will affect different people in different ways over different time periods and there is not research that we know of that can proove that pornography necessarily leads to violence against women."

"While many individuals would hold the view that it must have a long-term, cumulative and brutalising effect both on an individual and on a societies attittudes to women and what is acceptable, the lack of proven evidence making a consistent direct link means that Amnesty International does not feel it can take a position on the issue."

Forty Academics Condemn Government Research

More than 40 academics have condemned government-backed research into the effects of pornography, saying it is extremely poor, based on contested findings and ignores the considerable research tradition into "extreme" (be they violent or sexually explicit) materials.

Academics' Statement and the background to the research and the academics' protest

Liberty join campaign against the CJB

UK Human Rights lobby group Liberty has joined its name to the growing list of opponents to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 and has raised concerns about the plans to criminalise the possession of pornography. Read more

Women's views on the proposals

Many people assume that "violent pornography" is only of interest to men, and no sane woman would enjoy or even tolerate it. However, many of those in Backlash are women, and many of the words on this website are from women.

Here women explain why they are opposed to a law which the government claims will "protect" them.

The International Union of Sex Workers

The IUSW has issued an official statement in support of backlash.

What can you do ?

For more details of the legislation and opposition to it read this brief.

If you would like to contribute in any way to opposing this legislation, contact us.

If you are a journalist or a researcher and would like to cover all sides of the debate, see previous coverage in the media and contact us.

To make a donation, click here.