In January 2009 Section 62 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 will become law where it will be an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.
Furthermore, subsection 6b:
An “extreme image” is an image which — is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
This is an ambiguous and catch-all way of including …well anything. The subsection is complex and elastic in terms because it can mean ….well anything. It’s also very subjective, some person’s kink is another’s obscenity. And that’s where the real danger lies, the ambiguity and that it could include anything, which will impact on a person’s right to a private life. The law originated from the Graham Coutts case which isn’t part of a recurrent pattern it is therefore disproportionate to any threat that is faced by society from extreme pornography. Hard cases make bad law!
It will give the religious moralists out there a chance to preach and to sermonise about the evils of sex.
Jacqui Smith isn’t just desperate to trawl and nose through your emails she along with NL want to snoop in your bedroom to see what you get up to in the sack that could lead inevitably to criminalisation. Criminalising sexual arousal and desire, along with creating a risk and surveillance obsessed society.
This has further more general implications and consequences as it creates a kind of good sex and bad sex dichotomy and censoring people active in the BDSM scene, well actually, as previously said, with the way the legislation is written it could implicate anyone as it’s open to interpretation. Also the way the section is written it takes a literal understanding of pornography and takes no understanding of the realm of fantasy. Like I said, one person’s kink is another’s obscenity but should NL be allowed to legislate in such a prurient and authoritarian manner? No, is the obvious answer.
There’s enough legislation on the statute books to prosecute when it comes to sexual abuse and rape regarding non-consensual sex. But this section is no more than an exercise in intrusion and criminalisation. It says more about the authoritarian political dynamics of NL.
I wrote the below post originally for the Socialist Unity blog in summer of 2007 and it was reprinted on the Backlash website:
The Orwellian Ministry of Justice is cracking the whip, so to speak, regarding the banning of extreme pornography. In the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill there is a section about extreme porn that reads: “It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image”.
The legislation has come about due to the lobbying by Jane Longhurst’s mother. Jane Longhurst was murdered by Graham Coutts. The prosecution argued that violent porn such as S&M played a part in the death of Jane Longhurst. The argument about the causal link between pornography and violence is once again raised without any substantial evidence (“it was the porn that made me do it, guv”).
It smacks of the usual moral panics, whether it is over the lyrics of Marilyn Manson, violent video games/films and now the turn of violent porn. As Walter Kendrick argues in the fascinating book, The Secret Museum: “I foresee no final battle in the porn wars, only continuing repetition, with small variations, of patterns that were laid down two and half centuries ago”.
An extreme image, according to the Bill, includes an act that “threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life, an act that results or appears to result in actual injury, an act that involves sexual interference” and so on.
But classified films are exempt and if you want to watch Hostel Part II or Saw, for example, at the cinema or video or DVD, that is OK. But if you download some of the scenes on your computer you are deemed to be in “possession of an extreme pornographic image” (as opposed to violating copyright laws).
So, New Labour is policing and criminalising sexual arousal. Are we going to be given some order from the Ministry of Justice of what is deemed acceptable to look at? Are we to see more Operation Spanner cases? The authoritarianism of this Government knows no limits. Our sexual fantasies are being expunged with a dose of bleach so they will be utterly sanitised, vanilla and respectable. Images deemed trangressive and violent will get you a potential jail sentence. This will be a total injustice.
I assume downloading an image of consenting adults indulging in S&M sex will be a criminal offence as it will considered “extreme”. What about downloading a Robert Mapplethorpe image where two men are engaged in fisting, will that be a criminal offence?
There seems to be a hierarchy of “acceptable” sexual behaviour being created (good sex/bad sex). If you like looking at what the state considers obscene, kinky, sado-masochistic, violent and transgressive imagery then well, comrade, you’re in trouble!
Where’s the crime? Where’s the victim? These images are based on fantasies. Sexual pleasure comes in all packages, and humans are sexual beings. New Labour sermonising us with trite, moralistic, “thou shalt not” commandments is utterly draconian and attacks the core of civil liberties. This coming from a bunch of hypocritical war-mongering liars!
It is easy to blame pornography for the actions of one man, as it abdicates responsibility. Porn supposedly drives men into a Pavlovian state and reduces them to basic impulses. I think humans are a lot more complex than that! Banning extreme porn will not magic away violence against women.
