Stigmatising my sexuality - Diva
Rant by Lisa
I'm here to rant about "violent pornography". At least, that's what the government calls it, and with a name like that, who would disagree that it ought to be banned?
Well, I would, for one.
There's a bill coming before parliament soon (it may have passed into law by the time you read this), making the possession of "extreme" or "violent" pornography illegal. Only it doesn't matter what's actually shown in the picture. It could be someone having an orgasm and screaming with pleasure. But if it looks like they're in pain or afraid, then the picture will be illegal, even though the original act isn't!
A law like that could be used to criminalise any vaguely sexual image the government - or the plod conducting the investigation - doesn't like the look of.
Instead of using any objective criteria, the bill talks about images which are "abhorrent". What's the betting it will turn out in practice that porn featuring SM dykes or leathermen is somehow inherently more "abhorrent" than the straight equivalent?
The government's rationale for banning dirty pictures is a familiar one - to "protect" women from men. As they tell it, the only people who look at kinky porn are male rapists, and the only people who appear in it are coerced female victims.
Nice to know that lesbians don't exist, except as a male fantasy - again!
In reality, all kinds of people enjoy kinky porn. And, sadly, rape existed before the Internet and is not likely to vanish the day after the government bans some pictures.
The one thing such a law will achieve is to further stigmatise my sexuality, and the sexuality of a good number of the women reading this. Lesbians have fought for decades to achieve the recognition we have today, and now the government wants to curb our rights, to "protect" us.
To find out more about the campaign to oppose the Dangerous Pictures Act, visit Backlash at http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/
Stay out of the bedroom
.... there are areas in which the State, or the
community, no longer has a role or, if it does have
one, it is a role that is completely different. It is
not for the State to tell people that they cannot
choose a different lifestyle, for example in issues to
do with sexuality.
Tony Blair 5th Sept 2006
QC's conclusion "real concerns"
"In conclusion, I consider that the legislation as proposed gives rise to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual's rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention."
QC Rabinder Singh's Legal Opinion