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.
A summary of the Scottish consultation public responses - at least, those that got through their firewall blocking "inappropriate words".
33 Pro-legislation
29 Anti-legislation
1 Ambiguous
4 Neutral / no comment
21 Pro-legislation
3 Anti-legislation
4 Neutral / no comment
12 Pro-legislation
26 Anti-legislation
1 Ambiguous
1 Option 1
2 Option 2
25 Option 3
22 Option 4
17 None chosen
The choices offered by the consultation paper were
1 - adding a general offence of possession of "obscene" material to the Obscene Publications Act
2 - adding a possession offence limited to the category of material set out but under the umbrella of the OPA
3 - (the Government's preferred option) a new free standing offence in respect of the category of material set out (because juries interpret the corrupt and deprave test differently)
4 - do nothing.
The first number is the sequence on the Scottish Executive website. The hash number refers to the number the SE allocated when the response was logged in. Missing numbers presumably are those requesting their response not be made available to the public.
1. Anon 1 (respondent #1) Pro-legislation, supports option 3. "It has no place in our society".
2. David N. Mackie (#3) Pro-legislation, supports option 2. Proposes a 10 year maximum custodial sentence.
3. Anon 3 (#4) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. A very compassionate and well argued response
4. Alex Cruickshank (#9) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. Blunt in tone, but well argued.
5. Andrew Tucker (#10) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. A well argued response.
6. Anon 4 (#13) Apparently anti, but confusingly answers "yes" to Q1-3. An adult model in BDSM; sincere, but difficult to follow.
7. Anon 5 (#14) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. A well argued response.
8. John B. Dick (#15) Ambiguous, although he answers "yes" to Q3. Seems more concerned with issues of Scottish autonomy than the proposals in question.
9. Tony Fish (#16) Anti-legislation, supports "option 4, but perhaps 3". Only supports option 3 for actual non-consensual material.
10. Violate (An organisation) (#18) Anti-legislation, support option 4. BDSM group; a well argued response.
11. D. Ovington-Brown (#20) Anti-legislation, no option preference given. "Yes" to Q1, but only for children, animals or non-consenting parties.
12. Anon 6 (#21) Anti-legislation, supports option 4 with reservations. Supports option 3 for actual non-consensual material.
13. Anon 7 (#22) Anti-legislation, supports option 4 A bit quirky, but well argued.
14. Peter Brand (#24) Pro-legislation, supports option 3. "You (the executive) have thought about the practicalities of enforcement and reached this conclusion"
15. The Sheriffs Association (org) (#25) Neutral; "not appropriate to comment"
16. Douglas Pickering (#26) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. A well argued response
17. Keith Redford (#29) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. Pro-BDSM, well argued response
18. Susan Davie (#30) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. Pro-BDSM, very similar to response #29!
19. Rachel Thwaites (#31) Pro-legislation, didn’t answer any questions directly. "This encourages violence against women" slant to this response
20. Justin Semiramoth (#32) Anti-legislation, supports "absolute freedom". Clearly not from a UK citizen.
21. Neil Robertson (#34) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. A well argued response
22. Anon 8 (#35) Pro-legislation, supports option 1 "…to hell with human rights"
23. Anon 9 (#36) Pro-legislation, supports option 3 Wants scope extended to cover R18 material
24. West Dunbartonshire Council (org) (#38) Pro-legislation, support option 3 Caveat added about additional resources needed.
25. Iain Robert-Smith (#39) Anti-legislation, with proviso supporting option 3 for actual non-consensual material, outspoken in doing so.
26. Scottish Court Service (org) (#40) Neutral. Concerns raised over increased court costs
27. Aberdeen City Council (org) (#41) Pro-legislation, support option 3 "this material would considered by any reasonable person to be intolerable"
28. Celia McKenna (#42) Pro-legislation, supports option 3 Option 3 "gives a very direct message"
29. Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (org) (#43) Pro-legislation, option 3. Sentences of less than 3 years are "undesirable".
30. Anon 13 (#44) Anti-legislation, supports option 4 A well argued response.
31. Angus Council (org) (#46) Pro-legislation, support option 3 "adults need protecting, as well as children".
32. South Ayrshire Rape Crisis (org) (#47) Pro-legislation, support option 3. "All pornography harms women"
33. Andy Taylor (#49) Anti-legislation, supports option 4 A well argued response
34. Central Scotland Rape Crisis (org) (#50) Pro-legislation, support option 3 They seem to strongly believe that the material in question is real, without forwarding any evidence for this.
35. Alexander Lennox (#52) Pro-legislation, consultation questions not answered "A tide of filth" is sweeping over us all…
36. THUS plc (org) (#53) Neutral, although they welcome the consultation process Issues mainly surrounding the liability of ISPs
37. Martin Leech (#54) Pro-legislation, supports option 2 Only supports new law for "most extreme examples"
38. Anon 12 (should be 10?) (#56) Anti-legislation, in letter form rather than answering consultation questions. Well argued.
39. South Lanarkshire Council (org) (#57) Neutral; the council has "limited comments" to make.
40. WS Society (org) (#58) Anti-legislation, questions not directly answered. Some very strong legal arguments against the proposals.
41. Scottish Childrens RA (org) (#60) Pro-legislation, support option 3. Interested in "sending a message", rather than considerations of harm.
42. Lynn Anderson (#61) Pro-legislation, supports option 3. A mainly "violence against women" based response.
43. Renfrewshire Council (org) (#62) Pro-legislation, support option 3. "Females are the victims of this material"
44. City of Edinburgh Council (org) (#63) Pro-legislation, support option 3. The material in question is equated with child pornography
45. Scottish Women’s Convention (org) (#64) Pro-legislation, support option 3 "All pornography is violence against women"
46. Scott Rendell (#65) Anti-legislation, supports option 4 Blunt in tone, but well argued
47. Hamish McDonald (#66) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. A well argued response
48. Scottish Police Authorities CF (org) (#67) Pro-legislation, support option 3. They are in "full agreement" with the proposals.
49. Edinburgh Women’s Aid (org) (#68) Pro-legislation, unsure about which option. "Pornography…is sexual abuse of women". List of material to be proscribed "is nowhere near exhaustive"
50. Barry Slemmings (#69) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. Transcript of SM pride response?
51. Anon 11 (#70) Pro-legislation, supports option 3. The material in question is equated with child pornography
52. West Lothian Council (org) (#71) Pro-legislation, support option 3. Mentions child protection issues
53. J. Moir (#73) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. A well argued response
54. YWCA Scotland (org) (#74) Pro-legislation, support option 3 They seem to believe the material in question is (a) real and (b) degrades women
55. Law Society of Scotland (org) (#75) Pro-legislation, support option 3 "These are not victimless crimes"; no explanation or qualification is given at all.
56. David Witts (#77) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. An extended and excellently argued piece.
57. Womens Support Project (org) (#79) Pro-legislation, support option 3 Pornography is exploitative etc. etc.
58. Maria Blackwell (#82) Anti-legislation, no option chosen. Pro-BDSM
59. Aberdeenshire Council (org) (#83) Pro-legislation, support option 3 Very terse and unquestioning response
60. Catholic Church (org) (#85) Pro-legislation, no option chosen. The only pro response here to mention anything about positive rehab measures for "offenders".
61. James Louttit (#86) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. Nice comments about the role of Mediawatch
62. Andrew G. Robertson (#87) Anti-legislation, supports option 4. A well argued response
63. Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (org) (#88) Pro-legislation, no option chosen. "It has no place in our society".
64. Anon 12 (#90) Pro-legislation, supports option 3. Generalised rant against pornography and profanity
65. Church of Jesus Christ (org) (#91) Pro-legislation, support option 3. Pornography "causes heartache" and the material in question "offends public decency".
66. Scottish Women Against Pornography (org) (#92) Pro-legislation, support option 3. "Pornography is incitement to hatred against women", offenders to be placed on the SOR. They also seem to believe the material in question is real.
67. SM Scotland (org) (#93) Anti-legislation, support for option 4. An extended and well researched, pro-BDSM response.
© Copyleft backlash 2005-6