Letter to the Guardian

Writing about this article in the Guardian.

Sir,

I was disappointed to read Rachel William's one sided reporting of the Government's commencement of the so-called violent pornography ban in Monday's Guardian (26/01/09).

This report failed to acknowledge the opposing arguments from those who feel that the law, as drafted, goes far beyond targeting sexual abuse and could harm consenting adults whose sexualities do not conform with that of Labour Ministers or some womens groups. The article also failed to mention that this law deliberately criminalises images of consensual acts, including the possession of scenes from mainstream film.

The government conspincuously failed to engage with those who feel that they are being unfairly demonised by the legislation; men and women whose sexual orientation leans toward bondage, discipline or sado-masochism (BDSM).

The official consultation on the violent porn ban illicited 143 responses in favour of a new law and 241 against, including a sceptical submission from the Police Superintendants Association. While the Government made much of submissions from some 'Women's Groups', it completely ignored Feminists Against Censorship while dimissing the individual rights of women who are interested in BDSM.

Having been weakened by a rounded rebuke in the consultation, the Goverment commissioned a 'Rapid Evidence Assessment' from carefully selected anti-pornography campaigners; basically a biased literature review rubber stamped by the authors' own students! Over forty respected academics in the field wrote to the Government debunking this so-called 'evidence', but this was completely ignored.

Ms. Williams also failed to acknowlege the criticisms of Baroness Miller, the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesperson in the House of Lords, or her attempted amendment to the Bill to ensure that this legislation targeted abusers rather than the merely kinky; Lord Hunt, speaking for the Government, explicitly rejected this amendment on the grounds that it would make conviction difficult!.

Finally, the Consenting Adult Action Network organised a protest outside of Parliament on the eve of the ban to highlight the need for key amendments to the law as it stands, ensuring that the law targets real abuse rather than consenting adult fantasy. This protest was attended by men and women who might not easily fit into the Government's categorisation of 'monsters', though it would seem that the Goverment is determined to try.

Further information can be found on the human rights website backlash-uk.org.

Daily Mail's typically manipulative, one sided, coverage of the Dangerous Pictures Act

Writing about this article in the Daily Mail

"
Protesters say it's their right to watch sadistic porn. Tell that to the mother of the girl murdered by a man addicted to it...", or so says Lorraine Fisher in the Daily [Hate] Mail!

This is a cleverly written, and highly manipulative, article. It is constructed in such a way that the casual reader cannot help but find herself on the side of this new law, since how could anyone choose otherwise when faced with a 'motley group' of protesters who want to watch images of people being strangled versus a 'quiet, dignified' old lady and her murdered daughter?

Sadly, the reality of the situation is a lot more complicated than the cynically manipulative author would have us believe.

Firstly, the Dangerous Pictures Act is not simply about images of strangulation. It is much, much broader than that and could easily capture images of bondage, discipline and sadomasochism that in no way revolve around a 'snuff' theme, staged or otherwise.

Secondly, those who protest against this law have are not riled simply because Liz Longhurst is quiet and determined. They are riled because the understandable grief of an old lady has been hijacked and abused by a group of puritans in government and on the right-wing pseudo-feminists who are using this as an opportunity to persecute men and women whose sexuality does not conform with their own.

This law may have been cobbled together on the back of the Longhurst case, and hard cases often make bad law, but a criminal statue can never be about a single incident and we need to look at this law objectively. If you are going to dwell on photographs of Jane Longhurst, I hope you also publish family photographs of the otherwise upstanding citizens that this law will destroy over the coming years.

There are teachers, police officers, doctors and nurses, indeed the full range of professions across the public and private sector, who are afraid of the consequence of the law for themselves and their families. Not because they are secret abusers who like to rape or otherwise abuse women, but because their sexuality includes consensual role-plays with like-minded adults. Strangulation is at the extreme end of this, but this law goes an awful lot further, including images of staged 'damsel in distress' scenes.

The author of this article, indeed many people, may find the whole idea of adult fantasies distasteful, especially if they involve restraint, punishment or pain, but these sort of fantasies are common place amongst men and women and are not dangerous providing they remain just that: fantasies.

Criminalising fantasy actually weakens the crucial distinction between fantasy and reality, just as it criminalises and oppresses thousands of men and women who understand this distinction and have come to terms with it rather than seeking to repress themselves.

Coutts had stated that believed he might strangle a women long before the internet even existed. Criminalising thousands on the basis that this man committed a serious criminal offense is the equivalent of criminalising the possession of violent action films (Pirates of the Caribbean perhaps?) because they are invariably owned by people who go on to attack people with swords in the high street.

Is it really too much to ask of the Mail to offer some genuinely balanced coverage of this important issue, an issue where many men and women have offered serious and considered opposition to the law?