Sample letter to an MP

If I ask a friend of mine to dress in a "hoody" jacket and pretend to violently rob another friend of mine, while I take photographs of the scene, then I am creating a graphical work of fiction. No one has been robbed. No one has been hurt. The scene depicted never really happened and everyone involved did so willingly and happily. No crime has been committed.

Yet if the scene enacted contained sexual violence rather than the violence of robbery the proposed "Extreme Pornography" legislation proposes putting people in jail for up to five years for mere possession of the resulting image.

Imagine a country where you can be put in jail for having the wrong work of fiction on your bookshelf. Own a novel that is considered "not appropriate" by the authorities and you get arrested.

Such a country would be rightly and properly condemned by the very people who are proposing exactly the same concept in Britain.

Do you believe that Britain should be a country where people are put in jail for possessing the "wrong" works of fiction ? If you do - support this "Extreme Pornography" legislation and that is what you will get.

Then the rest of the world can rightly and justly condemn Britain for being a country where the authorities arrest and imprison people for owning "unacceptable" fiction. Then we, as a nation, can collectively hang our heads in shame that we live in such a country.

Another sample letter to an MP

I've been reading the news about this proposed violent pornography legislation and it's looking to me like a very worrying chunk of law. I've fished around, checking out different sources because I wanted to get the best idea about what exactly is being proposed, and the consensus seems to be that we are looking at some incredibly vague and thus quite draconian laws being enacted. The idea of banning possession of violent pornography, which would be understandable if we were talking about images of actual acts of rape and murder, means for the first time that I can think of in the UK we, as citizens, are potentially looking at jail and a place on the sex offenders register for possessing works of fiction. Now no matter how nasty an act is portrayed in a work of fiction I find it hugely disturbing that the government believes ownership of such an item should warrant jail time. This is one concern, essentially that the principle of locking somebody up for possession of a work of fiction is, in my opinion, draconian and thoroughly wrong. There is also the simple fact that if you take a harmless and for the most part law abiding man, stick him in prison and turn his life inside out you stand a very good chance of creating precisely the dangerous and violent criminal that banning of these materials was supposed to prevent.

The second concern is that nobody has come up with a satisfactory definition of what is to be covered by the new law, nobody seems to really know. This means that the legislation itself, while fu y, is incredibly powerful. The fields that it supposedly covers stray far too close to the mainstream in my opinion, in so much as if the portrayal of rape and murder from porn sites is to be legislated against how can this not also apply to the same themes when presented in TV and cinema? This, in my opinion, could mean that in one fell swoop, by targeting an unpopular subsection of society to push the legislation through the government suddenly has massive powers of censorship, way beyond anything the BBFC (British Board of Film Certification) already has.

The worst case scenario from this point of view could be that possession of the movie Straw Dogs for example could be a criminal offence carrying a jail term, after all it contains a rape, it contains violence, on what grounds could it be exempted? Or would there be a clause for Oscar nominated movies?

My third concern for this legislation is that I don't see why it is even on the table at all. By the usual run of things legislation should be based upon clear and thoughtful analysis of hard data and fact. All we seem to be presented with from the lobby in favour of the ban is conjecture and the death of one person which may, or may not, be directly related.

That's not to say I believe legislation should be based around who can wheel the biggest number of corpses to the Houses of Parliament, but we are clearly seeing neither smoke nor fire on this issue. If there were bodies turning up all over the place killed in this manner by people exposed to this material then like most folks I'd say legislation is a smart move in the interests of public safety, but the fact is that exposure to this material has increased thanks to the Internet exponentially over the last ten years or so and there is no corresponding trend in criminality. For all the benefits to public safety it provides we might just as well enact a ban on the walking of killer whales in public parks.

Anyway that's my two cents on the issue and as my elected representative I hope you'll take it on board. I would be very interested to hear what your opinion is on the issue and also what the Liberal Democrat party line is on it, if you have one.

Another sample letter to an MP

This is an example of a letter sent to one backlash supporter's MP.

You will, no doubt, be aware of the consultation launched last year by the Government into proposed legislation against the Possession of Extreme Pornographic Material.

I'm sure you will also share my concern regarding both the manner in which this consultation has been conducted, and the potential implications of such legislation, were it to be enacted.

i) The consultation was conducted in a biased fashion, with emotive, loaded questions.

ii) Despite having yet to publish the result of the consultation (which is now several months overdue) the Home Office appears, according to press reports, to have recently met with supporters of the proposals (including Martin Salter MP), assuring them that they intend to press ahead with the legislation.

iii) The proposals, if enacted, would enact legislation that advice from Rabinder Singh QC concluded is incompatible with European Human Rights legislation.

As my representative in the House of Commons, I would be very grateful if you would formally pursue on my behalf:

a) whether the Government has conducted a consultation in spite of, apparently, having made up its mind before even commencing the consultation;

b) whether NOT proceeding with legislation is a realistic alternative for the Home Office (and if not, why not?);

c) why the Government is wasting resources pursuing proposals that, if enacted, will almost certainly fail at the first court challenge.

I would ask you to, as I have, put to one side any distaste you might feel for the material under consideration, and consider the merits of legislation that will not halt the production of the pornographic material to which it refers, will indiscriminately oppress those who accidentally encounter material as well as those who seek it intentionally (hence criminalising children who encounter such material unintentionally), and will do nothing to protect the public from dangerous criminals.

I will be very interested to hear your views on this matter, and what plans you have for challenging the Government on the appalling waste of resources in support of its increasingly common knee-jerk reactions, that simply pander to the worst excesses of the tabloid "opinion-formers".

Another sample letter

Firstly I would like to apologise for not sending this to you directly and including my correct name and address. The reason I have chosen to contact you in this fashion is because I am scared.

The reason I am scared is that despite leading a near faultless existence for 33 years, it is possible I am about to be become a criminal.

Therefore I would like to make representation to you regarding the recently closed consultation on the outlawing of so called 'extreme pornography'.

I and many like me who live blameless existences, are about to be criminalised in a fashion that I find entirely unacceptable. Indeed, I fear that being found in possession of 'extreme pornography' will lead to a criminal record and possibly being listed on the sex offenders register.

I would like to point out that those who view this kind of material, are not crazed killers and sexual predators. You will find that amongst those who practice the pastimes depicted in the material are those who in part form the backbone of civil society. Doctors, lawyers, policemen and women. I myself am a charity worker, I am passionate about my job and believe I am making this country a better place to live. Although I do not work with children, I would certainly face dismissal if my sexual preference for BDSM and the associated imagery were discovered, to say nothing of the terror of becoming indefinitely listed on the sex offenders register.

The consultation states: "There has been increasing public concern about the availability of this extreme material, highlighted by the case of a young woman who was murdered by a man who had been accessing extreme pornographic websites." This makes reference to the tragic killing of Jane Longhurst.

It troubles me that the changes to current law were proposed even though the Home Office "do not yet have sufficient evidence from which to draw any definite conclusions as to the likely long term impact of this kind of material on individuals generally, or on those who may already be predisposed to violent or aberrant sexual behaviour."

Essentially someone has decided that the material specified is morally objectionable to them and decided to act in the absence of any evidence of harm. I find this bizarre as we do not operate this precautionary principle in regards to genetically modified food, which theoretically poses a threat to human health for no direct benefit to UK citizens. Or to the main way in which we organise our society; capitalism relies on having a large pool or poorly skilled cheap labour, this obviously had a major impact on many areas of these individuals' lives, including their life expectancy, health and even to their chances of being victims of crime. In neither of these cases, or many others, do we feel it necessary to move at the pace of the slowest or most vulnerable in society. I feel that, as always, anything involving sex and pornography is treated as a special case.

Jane's killer strangled her. If the availability of "extreme pornography" was responsible for her death, why were people strangled before the advent of this material? Why have I and the many other thousands of others who have viewed material such as this not gone out and killed someone? The answer is plain, simple and obvious. Whilst almost the entirety of those observing this material are not depraved of corrupted by their contact with it. This man was inclined to carry out this crime, if he had not watched porn, maybe he would have found his inspiration in watching episodes of CSI, or the Sopranos, or maybe he would have chosen his victim because of some other random psychological fixation he had developed.

The consultation document states: "We believe most people would find this material abhorrent. " I don't doubt that is true. But I am also certain that if you showed the general population homosexual pornography they would also state that it was 'abhorrent'. There is no move to ban this material. Indeed they may well state that homosexuality itself was abhorrent. Again, there is no move, obviously quite rightly, to criminalise this activity. General Abhorrence for an activity or its depiction is no argument for action.

This says nothing of the almost farcical suggested sentencing guidelines, for example a person could get 3 years custody for possessing images of sexual activity including animals - this is the same as for producing/publishing the same material for monetary gain. Even more absurd - the sentencing guidelines for the sexual offences Act 2003, place the maximum sentence for actually having sexual intercourse with an animal at 2 years custody maximum.

I believe that the proposed new laws would divert attention and recourses away from the high profile campaign against child pornography. This campaign is currently well supported by the public and has made good progress over recent years in reducing and removing images from circulation and arresting those involved. It should go without saying, but I will say it to avoid ambiguity, that the BDSM community is fully behind this campaign, and I worry that criminalising us and diverting resources from this would be counter productive.

I have tried to refrain from making a point by point response to the consultation here, but I would like to close by saying I feel very worried by this assault on my liberties as enshrined under the European Convention on Human Rights. Specifically my rights to; respect for my private life and freedom of expression. Here I reference an opinion from Rabinder Singh QC: "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."

Assuming there are for example 1,000 convictions per year (a conservative estimate given there are approximately 250 prosecutions under the Obscene Publications Act per annum), over three years (the maximum proposed sentence) that means that an extra 3,000 people could be imprisoned. Given that as of 16/6/06 the prison population stood at 77,785 and useable operation capacity at 79,478, leaving 1,693 or 2% spare capacity. An estimated 700 to 1,000 new offences have been created since 1997, one in three men already has a criminal conviction and the prison population is already very close to maximum capacity. Given that there is no sign of the political will or public funding for additional capacity, I would like to enquire which types of criminals will be released early to make space for those convicted of these new offences? I would ask you, are they likely to be of a greater or lesser risk to the general public than those convicted of viewing 'extreme pornography'. Given the recent spate of violent and dangerous criminals released early I believe the answer to this is obvious. It hardly makes for increased public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Again apologies for contacting you through a third party. Should you wish to respond to the points I raised here please do so through my chosen intermediary.