Sample letter to a Minister

This is an example of a letter sent by one backlash supporter to a Government Minister.

To: Baroness Patricia Scotland of Asthal QC

Hello,

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.

Regards