Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill ( Incorporating extreme pornography proposals) - Public Post
Last night we sat through the televised second reading of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. The reason for tis self induced torture was the incorporation of the new "extreme pornography" measures.
The Hansard transcript is here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071008/debtext/71008-0010.htm
There was the inevitable crowing from Martin Slater, the inevitable support from David Lepper - both personally connected with the Longhurst case.
Two rays of hope
Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): I support much of the Bill, but I want to raise two separate matters. I shall be brief, because of the time available. First, I should like to mention sex. Clause 64(6)(b) mentions an image of an act
“which appears to result...in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals”.
I agree with virtually all the clause, and I understand the motivation behind Liz Longhurst’s campaign, but my problem is with the phrase “appears to”. That will catch all sorts of things that it should not. I have several examples, but time precludes me from raising them. The Government should consider that sub-paragraph, which could be problematic for the future.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD):
Finally, on the issue of extreme pornography in part 6 of the Bill, as Liberty says in its briefing,
“Extreme caution should be exercised when new criminal laws are imposed with the intention of imposing a subjective opinion on what is morally acceptable...the state should be required to provide justifications for legal restrictions on pornography, and to demonstrate that a proposed measure does not go further than is necessary.”
Liberty goes on to say that it is vital that
“legitimate and undamaging behaviour is not unintentionally criminalised by carelessly drafted, over-broad criminal offences.”
It is concerned
“about the breadth of the proposed new offence”,
which
“might criminalise people who cause no harm to others and who possess pornographic material involving consensual participants.”
Ministers have not provided an evidence base for some of the material that will be covered by the measure. Despite the eloquent testimony that Members have given about an individual case, if we do not have evidence that the material causes harm, it is right that the House should subject the proposals to close scrutiny. We must ask why, for example, the Obscene Publications Act definition is not being used, and why another definition, which, it is argued, is broader, is being used. I can see no reference to compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 in the Government’s explanatory memorandum, either; that will need to be tested. I would be grateful if, in his response, the Minister set out the evidence that justifies the measure. I understand that time is limited, so I shall leave my remarks there.
The second reading was passed
The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 183.
The committee stages have to be completed by 30th October.
This is encouraging
"Is it not now time that we had an offence of incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation? The number of people facing homophobic attacks-both physical and verbal, and often directly associated with the vile propaganda of organisations such as the British National party-is now growing, not falling."
Maybe we should be grateful to the BNP for being so vile that it has focussed attention on this type of behaviour.
However what I do wish is that BDSM was recognised as a sexuality and that I can look forward to hearing a future Home secretary stand up and defend my rights as much as he did for homonsexuals here.
"I am pleased to say that we will propose a further step to strengthenthe protection afforded to homosexual people. It is a measure of howfar we have come as a society in the last 10 years that we are all nowappalled by hatred and invective directed against gay people, and it isnow time for the law to recognise the feeling of the public. InCommittee, we will table an amendment to extend the offence ofincitement to racial hatred to cover hatred against persons on the basis of their sexuality"
40 years ago Homosexuality was considered an illness by the world health organisation - BDSM still is - we have to work together with the medical community, the mental health community and amongst ourselves to get BDSM defined as a sexuality and not a mental illness.
The Hansard transcript is here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071008/debtext/71008-0010.htm
There was the inevitable crowing from Martin Slater, the inevitable support from David Lepper - both personally connected with the Longhurst case.
Two rays of hope
Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): I support much of the Bill, but I want to raise two separate matters. I shall be brief, because of the time available. First, I should like to mention sex. Clause 64(6)(b) mentions an image of an act
“which appears to result...in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals”.
I agree with virtually all the clause, and I understand the motivation behind Liz Longhurst’s campaign, but my problem is with the phrase “appears to”. That will catch all sorts of things that it should not. I have several examples, but time precludes me from raising them. The Government should consider that sub-paragraph, which could be problematic for the future.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD):
Finally, on the issue of extreme pornography in part 6 of the Bill, as Liberty says in its briefing,
“Extreme caution should be exercised when new criminal laws are imposed with the intention of imposing a subjective opinion on what is morally acceptable...the state should be required to provide justifications for legal restrictions on pornography, and to demonstrate that a proposed measure does not go further than is necessary.”
Liberty goes on to say that it is vital that
“legitimate and undamaging behaviour is not unintentionally criminalised by carelessly drafted, over-broad criminal offences.”
It is concerned
“about the breadth of the proposed new offence”,
which
“might criminalise people who cause no harm to others and who possess pornographic material involving consensual participants.”
Ministers have not provided an evidence base for some of the material that will be covered by the measure. Despite the eloquent testimony that Members have given about an individual case, if we do not have evidence that the material causes harm, it is right that the House should subject the proposals to close scrutiny. We must ask why, for example, the Obscene Publications Act definition is not being used, and why another definition, which, it is argued, is broader, is being used. I can see no reference to compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 in the Government’s explanatory memorandum, either; that will need to be tested. I would be grateful if, in his response, the Minister set out the evidence that justifies the measure. I understand that time is limited, so I shall leave my remarks there.
The second reading was passed
The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 183.
The committee stages have to be completed by 30th October.
This is encouraging
"Is it not now time that we had an offence of incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation? The number of people facing homophobic attacks-both physical and verbal, and often directly associated with the vile propaganda of organisations such as the British National party-is now growing, not falling."
Maybe we should be grateful to the BNP for being so vile that it has focussed attention on this type of behaviour.
However what I do wish is that BDSM was recognised as a sexuality and that I can look forward to hearing a future Home secretary stand up and defend my rights as much as he did for homonsexuals here.
"I am pleased to say that we will propose a further step to strengthenthe protection afforded to homosexual people. It is a measure of howfar we have come as a society in the last 10 years that we are all nowappalled by hatred and invective directed against gay people, and it isnow time for the law to recognise the feeling of the public. InCommittee, we will table an amendment to extend the offence ofincitement to racial hatred to cover hatred against persons on the basis of their sexuality"
40 years ago Homosexuality was considered an illness by the world health organisation - BDSM still is - we have to work together with the medical community, the mental health community and amongst ourselves to get BDSM defined as a sexuality and not a mental illness.