Uphold the Human Rights Act

Stop the Government's
Censorship

The Home Office has begun a process to make it illegal to possess extreme adult images.

These plans could lead to people being imprisoned for viewing images on the internet.

This is a step too far from a government determined to regulate every aspect of our lives and quash individual expression.

backlash needs cash ! Please help by donating

Backlash is the campaigning organisation bringing together individuals and activist groups to oppose this legislation.

The response of The Women's National Commission, Sexual Violence Sub-group

The Women's National Commission (WNC) is the Government's independent advisory body on women's issues, working in partnership with women's organisations representing up to 8 million women. The remit of the WNC Violence Against Women (VAW) Working Group, which is chaired by Nicola Harwin, is to develop a cohesive and effective voice to Government on action needed to address VAW. The Working Group membership includes representatives from all the key women's organisations, academics and service providers working in the area.

As its Chair, on behalf of the WNC VAW Sexual Violence Sub-group (of the WNC VAW Working Group), I would like to endorse the attached response .... developed by the Lilith Project.

The Lilith Project is just one of the specialist organisations represented on the Sub-group, along with South Essex Rape and Incest Crisis Centre (SERICC), Eaves Housing for Women, the POPPY Project, the Fawcett Society, Northern Ireland Rape Crisis and the fpa. The Sub-group also has access to a much wider network of expertise and has regular contact with Government officials who work in the area of sexual violence, particularly within the Home Office.

Professor Liz Kelly CBE
Chair
WNC Sexual Violence Sub-group

Response from The Lilith Project

In conjunction with the London Sexual Violence Action and Awareness Network

The Lilith Project was established at the beginning of 2003 as a pan-London, second tier, violence against women (VAW) agency managed by Eaves Housing for Women. The project's remit is to raise awareness of VAW, capacity build within the VAW sector, lobby government, share best practice and develop as a centre of expertise around VAW issues.

Lilith now has a well developed track record of highlighting issues of VAW with action oriented outcomes that enable agencies and individuals to challenge harmful practices. The project produces research reports on issues such lap dancing, and the forthcoming reports on women's homelessness and rape convictions. Lilith also facilitate the London Sexual Violence Action and Awareness Network, and the Kalabash Forum of BME agencies working against VAW field.

In 2005, the Lilith Annual awards which honour innovation in addressing VAW recognized the work of an anti-pornography newsagent in London who refuses to stock pornographic material, and a special award was given to The Jane Longhurst Trust for their work in lobbying against violent pornography.

This response has been formulated in conjunction with the London Sexual Violence Action and Awareness Network, comprised of a range of agencies who support survivors of sexual violence. The expertise of these organisations in addressing both the complex needs of survivors and campaigning for policy and legislative changes is key to the recommendations made in the response.

The following organisations endorse this response:

Eaves Housing for Women
Eaves Women's Aid
The POPPY Project
South Essex Rape and Incest Crisis Centre
The nia project

Response to the (Home Office) document

Gender

The document is lacking a gender analysis of the realities of the production and presentation of pornographic material, both 'violent' and 'non-violent'. This is a major omission considering the document does acknowledge the gendered nature of pornographic imagery:

* "There are hundreds of internet sites offering a wide range of material featuring the torture of (mostly female) victims who are tied to some kind of apparatus or restrained in other ways and stabbed with knives, hooks an other implements". (page 5)

* "some material contains sexualised images of women hanging by their necks from meat hooks, some with plastic bags over their heads. There is also extensive availability of sites featuring violent rape scenes" (p5)

* "Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the vast majority of those who may be forced to participate in the production of the material involved in the consultation are female, but the proposed offence does not distinguish between the gender of the "participants"(p24).

By etymological definition pornography is the depiction of whores.(i) It must therefore be understood as material featuring sexualised images of women - which, as the document acknowledges on page 5 - are frequently shown being subjected to violence and pain. That the majority of victims of violence, particularly sexual violence such as rape and sexual assault, are also women is not a coincidence. For instance:

* According to the British Crime Survey 2001, at least 47,000 women were victims of rape in England and Wales in 2000.

* Twenty-four per cent of women had been subject to some form of sexual assault at least once in their lifetimes (ii).

The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women defines violence against women as:

"any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life." [Article 1]

The increasing use of pornographic images (sexually explicit images featuring women's bodies) in advertising, magazines, music videos etc, causes psychological harm to women by normalising the sexual use of women's bodies; suggesting that women enjoy the acts being shown in pornographic material and therefore enjoy sexual violation; by increasing actual sexual violence towards women and by creating and reinforcing negative attitudes towards women.

Other points

The consultation needs to clearly define pornography. Lilith have suggested a range of material which should be considered pornographic in response to question 3 (please see below).

The Lilith Project is disappointed that the consultation on pornography is separate from the consultation on legal reform of laws relating to prostitution. This creates an artificial distinction between sectors of the sex industry, which are inextricably linked not only ideologically but also in terms of production (women who sell sex also frequently perform in pornographic films and photographs). Evidence from the POPPY project (who provide support services to women who have been trafficked into the UK for the purpose of sexual exploitation) demonstrates that pornography is often used to introduce women to selling sex(iii). No mention is made of this use of pornography and thus these links between pornography, prostitution and sexual violence are missed in the consultation paper.

Lilith are very concerned that throughout the document the term 'sexual violence' is prefaced with the word 'serious' when discussing the types of material likely to be banned. This indicates that 'non-serious' sexual violence is not likely to fall under the new offences. Lilith would like to know how 'serious sexual violence' will be defined, and why sexual violence not perceived as 'serious' will be deemed acceptable to possess. Surely, all sexual violence is serious and any kind of sexual violence should be condemned? Creating a distinction between levels of violence in this way sends out the message that some forms of violence are acceptable. It is totally at odds with the government strategies to address the conviction rates for rape, which are currently, at 5.3%, the lowest recorded levels ever. Despite measures such as the Rape Action Plan and the introduction of CPS specialist prosecutors, Home Office statistics show that the conviction rate has actually fallen over the last year from 5.6% to 5.3% over the last year. Yet the consultation document refers to 'violent' rape (page 5). Lilith do not believe that rape can ever be non-violent, and are concerned that using the epithet 'violent rape' throughout the document demonstrates a lack of understanding about the nature of rape and reinforces misconceptions about 'real rape' that are profoundly damaging both to individual survivors seeking redress and to efforts to challenge myths about rape.

The document mentions freedom of speech as a concern in the restriction of pornographic material. Lilith anticipate that many groups will oppose any restrictions on the grounds of maintaining freedom of speech, but suggest instead this argument fails to recognise the hostile environment that pornography creates by reinforcing social messages of women as sexualised objects and playthings. As such, pornography constitutes a type of hate speech in which explicitly anti-women messages are transmitted, and should not be defensible under freedom of speech. The rights of women to live free from sexualised violence and pornography induced harm should take precedence over the costs of society when certain forms of speech are banned.

1. Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires the law to be strengthened ?

Lilith believes that the law needs to be strengthened to restrict the harm caused to women by the increasing proliferation of pornographic material.

2. In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative effects, do you think that there is some pornographic material which is so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should not be tolerated ?

In response to this question, Lilith would like the Home Office to consider the wider role of imagery in advertising and marketing. Why do multi-national companies spend billions every year on designing and disseminating images to make people buy goods if imagery does not affect action? Why is advertising of smoking material banned if pictures of cigarettes do not promotes smoking? Child pornography is rightly banned because of fears that creators and receivers of such images would then abuse children, so why does this link between consumption and behaviour not apply to adult women? Pornography needs to be understood in this context as the promotion of images of women's bodies which incite the acts depicted in pornography to be re-enacted against all women.

Lilith are aware that a significant body of research exists which demonstrates the links between the proliferation of pornography and sexual violence towards women. For example:

* In the U.S., the 1986 Attorney General Commission (known as the Meese Commission) found a causal relationship between exposure to violent pornography and acts of sexualised violence against women. (iv)

* The transcripts of the public hearings on Ordinances to add Pornography as Discrimination Against Women in Minneapolis (1983) contain evidence from a range of expert witnesses and survivors of abuse about the links with sexual violence and the socialization processes for men that pornography creates. (v) Lilith would urge all policymakers involved in this consultation to read this document fully.

* Kutchinksy's (1991) widely cited research compares the reported rape rates for Denmark, Sweden, West Germany (where pornography is legalised) and the U.S. (where it is not) and finds that in the former 3 countries a decrease in reported rapes (vi). He concluded that there is no link between pornography and sexual violence. Lilith reject this and suggest instead that the legalisation of pornography leads to normalisation of sexual violence and thus women in these countries are less likely to report rape.

* Zillman and Bryant's research(1988) experimental work demonstrated that exposure to 'non-violent' pornography led to men developing 'callousness' towards women and a trivialisation of rape (vii)

* Malamuth et al's research (1984) demonstrated that men who watched pornography indicated a subsequent willingness to force women into sexual acts if they thought that such actions would not be punished. (viii)

* Boeringer (1994) found a strong likelihood of coercing women into sexual acts with use of pornography featuring rape and sexual violence (ix).

* Allen et al (1995)'s analysis of research on the effects of pornography found a significant correlation between exposure to pornography and actual sexual aggression as well as attitudes supporting sexual aggression (x).

* In a summary of research in 2000, Neil Malamuth concluded that "Meta-analyses of the experimental literature show that exposure to both non-violent and violent pornography affects both aggressive attitudes and behaviours, and that violent pornography does so to a greater degree". (xi)

Therefore, there is in fact substantial evidence that all pornographic material is so degrading and violent that it hinders women's healthy development in terms of bodily integrity and the ability to live free from pervasive degrading images of women, and as such should not be tolerated. The evidence finds a substantive link between use of and exposure to pornography and sexual coercion towards women.

The 1996 European Commission Paper on harmful content on the internet stated that "Each country may reach it's own conclusion in defining the borderline between what is permissible and not permissible" (xii).

Lilith would like to see the UK government acting to protect women by defining all pornography as harmful to women and thus restricting all content which depicts women in sexually degrading imagery, as detailed below. The violation to women produced by pornography is not limited to material that shows violent acts, as this consultation paper suggests is the case.

3. Do you agree with the list of material set out (in paragraph 39) ?

4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such material ?

As already discussed, Lilith believe that the list of restricted pornographic material should be expanded from the proposed list to also include:

* Any material which has scenes of sexual violence, not just those which are deemed to be showing 'serious' sexual violence

* Any material which shows women's bodies being abused in any way

* Any material which is hostile to women by showing them in passive roles in sexual activity or being dominated

* Any material which features naked women for the sole purpose of sexual gratification (and therefore not, for example, for educational or anatomical purposes)

Lilith do not believe that there is any justification for being in possession of such material.

5. Which option do you prefer ?

6. Why do you think this option is best ?

Lilith support option c as the preferred offence - a new free standing offence in respect of the category of material set out

6.) We think this option is best as current obscenity law rests on the idea that the harm of exposure to obscene material is done to the person viewing the material, and not any other party who may who be injured because of the viewer's attitudes and actions (xiii). As already stated, we believe, and research demonstrates, that pornography causes psychological and physical harm to women on two levels - by increasing actual aggression towards women and by creating negative attitudes towards women. As obscenity law cannot recognise these wider ramifications, we think that a freestanding offence will be the most appropriate. This will also enable further offences in respect of pornography to be built into the freestanding offences and not be limited by obscenity law.

For instance, in Canada the focus of legislation is on the nature of the material and its broad impact rather than on the impact of the consumer specifically. In 1985, the Fraser Commission suggested that freedom of speech can only be protected as long as this does not conflict with women's rights to protection and equal benefit of the law (xiv). The Supreme Court in Canada, in Butler v. the Queen, 1992 subjected the following types of pornography to criminal sanction, on the basis of research findings demonstrating the harm:

* explicit sex with violence
* explicit sex without violence but treats people in a degrading or dehumanizing way (xv)

Lilith believe that redress for victims will be need to be acknowledged in this development of legislation. For instance, with reference to child pornography, high profile police investigations (such as Operation Ore) have given the issue attention for a short time, but fail to publicly acknowledge how many victims come forward to support services such as rape crisis organisations as they have been identified in the material and struggle with the aftermath of this. The perpetrator is only convicted for the one offence of downloading and there is not any sustained enforcement of the site or distribution of the material. To date, victims of this type of sexual offence have been unable to claim Criminal Injuries Compensation for their experiences. Lilith urges the government to ensure that victims of the pornography which will be banned under the new offences will be able to claim CIC and that enforcement over the continuation of porn sites and, crucially, support services for victims are adequately resourced.

7. Which penalty option do you prefer ?

Lilith advocate for the strongest possible penalty for the possession of material which represents violence against women and causes social and psychological harm, and of the options available we would therefore support option b) to impose a penalty for possession of three years and increase the penalty for OPA offences and offences under section 51 of the CG(S)A, to maintain the distinction, to 5 years.

However, we feel that such is the damage caused to women and society at large by violent pornography that a harsher penalty should apply to the offence of possession of material than the consultation proposes to ban, and offences under the Obscene Publications Act should also be commensurate with the gravity of the offences.

Lilith would also like clarification on how charges will be presented - will someone who is found to have over 500,000 images in their possession only be charged with one offence of possession? This does not represent the accumulative effect of consuming violent pornographic material and Lilith would urge the government to consider this in the development of new offences.

© WNC 2005