The BBC reports on the unpleasant inclusion in Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill of measures to criminalise "extreme pornography" after the murder of Jane Longhurst by Graham Coutts. A campaign by her mother, Liz, won the support of the local Labour MP, Martin Salter, and the inclusion of measures to criminalise "extreme pornography". The Ministry of Justice are frustratingly moralistic:
This legislation intrudes upon the rights of consensual adults to depict what they please. It is absurd to believe the hideous actions of one man mean that such depictions cause his crime - clearly, a great many people view such depictions without becoming violent killers. Depictions are not actions - by their very nature, they are a visual fiction. Thus, while "necrophilia, bestiality [and sexual] violence" such be illegal, their depiction should not.
This visual fiction is the product of consensual actors whose rights are not infringed upon in its production. It is wrong to assume a link between such fiction and the actions of individuals. Instead, the law should protect individuals from the actions of individuals rather than giving in to a moral panic over depictions of nasty kink. Acting out necrophilia, sado-masochism or bestiality hurts no one if created legitimately - just as violent scenes in non-pornographic films are not illegal even if the acts depicted are.
Worse still than the flagrant disregard for individual freedoms and the moralistic tone of this legislation, this law risks generating sympathy for reprehensible individuals. People like Graham Coutts, whose actions should be condemned in the strongest of terms, can now claim violent pornography caused their actions and that thus they are not their fault. They can hide behind their 'addiction', making their crime somehow less terrible because of it. It is a dark irony that Liz Longhurst's campaign shifts blame from the man responsible to a legitimate product type.
With of without the influence of extreme pornography, there are those who see what is right and wrong, what is legal and illegal, and those who do not. Those who do can digest "extreme pornography" as the fiction it is. Those who do not will still be drawn to hideous acts by the power of a perverted imagination. History has taught us those without conscience will act without the inspiration of extreme fiction. This is a law that will not stop the likes of Graham Coutts for they will still find inspiration for their violent tendencies. Rather, it punishes those with a legitimate interest in an unconventional form of pornography.
This is a law that treats individuals as stupid, porous children without the capacity for individual thought. Actions are not caused from individual initiative in the world of these moralists; they are the product of outside influences people are too stupid to realise are a fiction. Thus, the glorious lawmaker must descend from above to protect the innocent citizen sponges from the evils they will surely imitate. It is condescending and moralising, constraining the freedoms of the British people because of the actions of a disgusting individual.
Coutts' actions were his own and he has been punished for them. Now, the rest of Britain will be further punished as a small minority use his crime (and the tragedy that was Jane Longhurst's murder) to force their own moral choices upon them.
But the Ministry of Justice is unrepentant, saying the sort of images it is seeking to outlaw are out of place in modern-day Britain.This whole campaign centres around the grief of one mother, who cannot come to terms with the actions of Graham Coutts (who was addicted to extreme pornography) and has thus turned to blaming this extreme pornography rather than the individual whose actions were reprehensible.
"Pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated," says a spokeswoman for the ministry.
This legislation intrudes upon the rights of consensual adults to depict what they please. It is absurd to believe the hideous actions of one man mean that such depictions cause his crime - clearly, a great many people view such depictions without becoming violent killers. Depictions are not actions - by their very nature, they are a visual fiction. Thus, while "necrophilia, bestiality [and sexual] violence" such be illegal, their depiction should not.
This visual fiction is the product of consensual actors whose rights are not infringed upon in its production. It is wrong to assume a link between such fiction and the actions of individuals. Instead, the law should protect individuals from the actions of individuals rather than giving in to a moral panic over depictions of nasty kink. Acting out necrophilia, sado-masochism or bestiality hurts no one if created legitimately - just as violent scenes in non-pornographic films are not illegal even if the acts depicted are.
Worse still than the flagrant disregard for individual freedoms and the moralistic tone of this legislation, this law risks generating sympathy for reprehensible individuals. People like Graham Coutts, whose actions should be condemned in the strongest of terms, can now claim violent pornography caused their actions and that thus they are not their fault. They can hide behind their 'addiction', making their crime somehow less terrible because of it. It is a dark irony that Liz Longhurst's campaign shifts blame from the man responsible to a legitimate product type.
With of without the influence of extreme pornography, there are those who see what is right and wrong, what is legal and illegal, and those who do not. Those who do can digest "extreme pornography" as the fiction it is. Those who do not will still be drawn to hideous acts by the power of a perverted imagination. History has taught us those without conscience will act without the inspiration of extreme fiction. This is a law that will not stop the likes of Graham Coutts for they will still find inspiration for their violent tendencies. Rather, it punishes those with a legitimate interest in an unconventional form of pornography.
This is a law that treats individuals as stupid, porous children without the capacity for individual thought. Actions are not caused from individual initiative in the world of these moralists; they are the product of outside influences people are too stupid to realise are a fiction. Thus, the glorious lawmaker must descend from above to protect the innocent citizen sponges from the evils they will surely imitate. It is condescending and moralising, constraining the freedoms of the British people because of the actions of a disgusting individual.
Coutts' actions were his own and he has been punished for them. Now, the rest of Britain will be further punished as a small minority use his crime (and the tragedy that was Jane Longhurst's murder) to force their own moral choices upon them.
3 comments:
Very well put. This is just the kind of legislation we should be seeing less of. Once the media furore dies down people start to miss their rights, so it can hardly be relied upon as a vote-winner in the long run.
I completely agree. I feel thoroughly ashamed that this government is pushing the legislation through.
Excellent article! The more people made aware of this ludicrous Thought Crime (described by Members of the House of Lords as "unworkable, unneeded and unenforceable") the better.
Write to your MPs, people, via http://www.writetothem.com and tell them that you don't want the Nanny State telling you that "we think this stuff is bad for you and we don't trust you to behave like responsible people, so you're not allowed to see it".
Post a Comment