Deborah Hyde at Durham University
(A conference on "Positions on the Politics of Porn" was held at Durham University in March 2007 at which Deborah Hyde was an invited speaker)
Before I go into our main opposition to the law I wanted to clear up a few
facts:
* The government concedes there is no evidence that images such as those on
spoof necrophilia site, Necrobabes cause violence.
* This law will not stop images being made.
* The law criminalises the ownership of pictures, not just their manufacture or
distribution.
* The current plans would criminalise people for looking at pictures of actors
and actresses performing simulated acts and couples who have taken pictures of
their own sex lives.
* The law makes no provision to protect women at risk.
* Not all violent porn features women.
* Martin Salter MP has said it is not up to the government to define what
material it will be illegal to own.
Even if no crime has been committed in order to make the image, the Home Office
has suggested people should be imprisoned for up to three years for looking at
pictures the government thinks are abhorrent.
Simply for looking at a picture.
Backlash is the campaigning organisation bringing together individuals and
activist groups to oppose any such legislation. Since its inauguration, the
group has encouraged people to particpate in the consultation process and
advised people on how to lobby groups like Liberty and Justice as well as their
MPs.
It also paid for the opinion of leading Human Rights lawyer Rabinder Singh who
said the proposals as they stand would breach Human Rights law.
As a result of all the campaigning, the Home Office agreed to meet with a number
of organisations to discuss concerns and has agreed that the original proposals
may have been too far-reaching.
Nonetheless, the government is determined to push ahead with proposals that
could see you threatened for looking at an "extreme" rock video, for
receiving a text message of sex with a horse or for looking at vampiric or
fetish magazines and websites.
You could even be prosecuted for looking at pictures you have taken of yourself
in your own home.
The key point is that even if no-one was harmed, even if an image is legal
to publish you could be breaking the law -- if indeed it comes to pass.
And worst of all, you might not even know what you did wrong until its too late.
"It is likely that an individual will find it difficult to assess under the
legislation whether he/she is committing a criminal act by viewing particular
material. The effect of that uncertainty may be that the individual feels he/she
cannot risk looking at any pornography at all, however mild." --
Rabinder Singh QC.
This is already having what is know as a "chilling" effect. People are
worried that images they look at now may be imprinted on their home PC's.
People are also nervous about signing up to subscriber sites as they fear their
credit card details will be handed over to the police.
"Although the law isn't passed yet, I wouldn't be surprised if the
police weren't gathering internet logs and credit card transactions in
anticipation of the bill going through," said one man who has stopped
looking at "erotic horror" in anticpation of any proposals.
"Even if they aren't yet, I would bet that it is the first thing they
will do if the bill is successful."
The man - who wants to remain anonymous - said he had never considered
the obviously fake images he prefers could lead to him being arrested, tried and
possibly placed on the Sex Offenders register. But if these proposals become law
that is exactly what could happen.
Other people will feel the law would unfairly criminalise them: I regularly
get calls from people concerned this law could limit their sexual exploration or
- worse still - could put them at risk.
These laws vilify a sexuality which counts as many as 4 million in its number
and could lead to feelings of guilt and shame for the 40 pct of the population
which have experimented with kinky games.
Amomg the people who have called our advise line, I've had a caller who was
disabled and wanted to know which pictures he could look at and which it would
be criminal to look at. He wanted to know whether there would be any way of
telling whether a site had illegal images on it before he opened a site.
A bisexual man called me to say he looks at pictures that he thinks may be
covered by the law because it is safer than trying to find someone willing to
enact his fantasies.
But they're the lucky ones because they have heard of the plans. Given the
lack of news coverage and the wide level of misinformation about these proposals
most people won't have heard about the laws or - if they have - will
assume the material they prefer is not covered.
And what happens to the Sex offender's Register if we invent a new sex
crime?
What happens to the overcrowded prisons if we start locking up people for
looking at pictures?
That's a minister for a government which is rushing through law after
ill-thought out law.
Backlash wants this government to stop this law before its too late, wants it to
accept the proposed law is not a remedy for the social problems it tries to
address and calls on it to focus on the real causes of crime.
Because crimes of violence come from many causes and not this nor any other
government has found evidence that porn is one of them.
In the consultation process the Home Office concedes that. Why should we allow
them to implement a law based only on prejudice rather than fact, on taste
rather than evidence?
The Home Office says it wants to send a message to society that this imagery is
unacceptable.
We need to send a message back that we will not tolerate knee-jerk
legislation that threatens our freedom and that scapegoats people with alternate
sexualities for society's ills.
More importantly, we need to send a message back saying that if the government
really cared about the welfare of sex workers, they would listen to their
suggestions about changing the laws on prostitution, they'd address other
issues in society which objectify and degrade women.
And they would invest time and money into studying the complex series of events
that make someone a violent criminal.
Lets's go back to the start of the discussion.
The government says there is no evidence but ...
Substitute any word you like for the word pornography in that sentence and then
see whether you would still support the government's plans to criminalise
people who have done nothing wrong.
