Issues
The present Government likes to position itself as somehow liberal when it comes to matters of sex. Unfortunately, you only need to read the small print to realise that this is very far from the truth. The following are just some of the issues that suggest that they are far more interested in cracking down on any sexuality that does not conform to their own narrow standard of “normal” or that they find in any way ever so slightly “icky”.
Extreme Porn
The issue that first got people thinking about what the government is up to. From 2009, the government has decreed, it will be a criminal offence simply to possess material that is pornographic, depicts a level of serious violence or acts capable of doing harm, and is grossly offensive.
Prior to this, the only material that it was actually an offense to possess – as opposed to publish – was child porn. In that instance, the government rightly makes the argument that in most instances, child porn is actually a depiction of real harm being inflicted on an individual incapable of giving consent.
This is not the case with “extreme porn”. The government has been up-front in arguing that it does not matter whether the material is real or staged: it needs only to be realistic. Nor does it matter whether those participating in any acts depicted were consenting or not. It will be criminal to possess.
In passing this law, the government completely ignored evidence that the vast majority of material deemed to be “extreme porn” originates in the USA, which has some of the toughest laws in the world regulating consent when it comes to porn.
Other idiocies of this legislation include the fact that a film passed by the BBFC will be legal – but extracts from it or versions without the BBFC “black card” at the front could be illegal. And couples filming their own sexual activity may possess the resulting pictures without fear of prosecution: but any friend to which they pass the pictures would be instantly criminalised.
NOTE: when this law was passed, it applied only to England and Wales. For a brief moment, it looked as though Scotland might escape the heavy hand of Puritan thinking. Sadly not. The Scottish Government has recently brought forward proposals for an even more draconian law to be introduced in Scotland on extreme porn.
Vetting
This is the proof that government were not interested in considerations of “harm” when they put together legislation designed to attack the bdsm community. The relevant clauses were passed, with virtually no parliamentary debate, in 2006 – at the very time when government was admitting publically that it had no evidence of a link between porn and harm.
The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 puts in place a whole raft of measures to stop the “wrong” people working in sensitive (“regulated”) jobs. According to government there are about 11 million of these – although we have seen estimates that the final total might be as high as 14 million.
You can be banned from these jobs if you possess “sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings”. That is far wider than the extreme porn ban – and puts millions of workers on notice that they may have to choose between their sexuality and their job.
Legal to Do: Illegal to View
This is another example of the government’s flight from logic when it comes to sexual activity. In 2003, they made it illegal to possess pictures of 16 and 17-year-olds engaged in perfectly legal sexual activity.
CAAN is not interested in tinkering with the age of consent (although they can have sex, 16 and 17-year-olds are not legally adult). However, we do believe that this bit of criminalisation is misguided and disproportionate. This particular legal booby-trap is , designed to create yet another area of uncertainty, where adults must risk being branded paedophile (or not) depending to whether they can always distinguish visually between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old.
This is clearly ludicrous: it is also counter-productive. Adding to the Sex Offenders’ Register the names of individuals whose sole offence is that they are turned on by biologically mature human beings devalues the Register. It also provides an opt-out for genuine paedophiles, who can argue that if ordinary sexual interaction can land someone on the SOR, then whatever they did could not have been that serious.
If parliament – and society at large – wishes to regulate activity in this area, it should do so: but the criminal law is far too heavy handed a tool for the purpose.
Criminalising Prostitution
Prostitution covers a very wide range of circumstances: from the appalling exploitation of young girls trafficked into the UK from abroad, to fully aware consenting men and wiomen who choose to make a living by using their talents in this area.
A large number of laws already exist to tackle the worst aspects of the trafficking trade (most of the girls involved will have been kidnapped, held against their will and raped). However, the government – and particularly Harriet Harman – are now arguing in favour of the Swedish legal model (which makes it a crime to pay for sex) by citing the worst case scenarios.
So, in order to deal with cases already fully covered by the law, the government is proposing the creation of new laws that will penalise innocent end users in cases where no exploitation is taking place.
For further details of these proposals and how you can fight them, go to IUSW.
Lapdancing
A spokesperson for the Met's Clubs and Vice unit recently informed the parliamentary culture committee that it was difficult to close down lap dancing clubs because their customers are usually well-behaved.
Despite this, the government has said it is considering a change in the law so that the clubs are categorised as "sex encounter" establishments - the same as sex shops. This would mean stricter rules about what is allowed to take place inside.
Yet again, the government is attempting to legislate on grounds of very narrow morality, rather than respond on the basis of available evidence.