The UK 'extreme' p*rn law

On the May 9, 2008, The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill received Royal Assent. Part of this Bill, Part 5, Clause 63 to be precise, is to criminalise “extreme” pornography.

“Extreme”?

An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following -
(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life
(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse, a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal, where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real. From UK Parliament.

Let me give you a little background.

This new law is in response to the campaign by Liz Longhurst whose daughter Jane was found dead on April 19, 2003, having gone missing on  March 14, 2003. She had been murdered by Graham Coutts (found guilty on February 4, 2004, and again after an appeal on July 4, 2007).

Coutts was obsessed with asphyxiation and strangulation. The day before he murdered Jane, he had downloaded violent pornographic images depicting such content. According to the prosecution, the pornography triggered Coutts to murder Jane.

After the trial, her mother Liz Longhurst stated:

I feel pressure should be brought to bear on internet service providers to close down or filter out these pornographic sites, so that people like Jane's killer may no longer feed their sick imaginations and do harm to others. BBC.

The Jane Longhurst Trust was set up and, with the support of Martin Salter MP, they petitioned to criminalise the possession of extreme pornographic material (gathering about 50,000 signatures), which would include that which realistically depicted, as outlined above, violent sexual acts. This material, to clarify, is now illegal to possess irrespective of no laws having been broken in the making of it.

Some feminists in the UK have responded favourably to this new law on the grounds that “extreme” pornographic websites promotes violence against women in the name of sexual gratification. Some even argue, “Pornography killed Jane Longhurst”.

The fact that Coutts was known to be fascinated with asphyxiation before he was looking it up on porn sites seems to be lost in this. Coutts had said himself he wanted to kill women from the age of 15. Believing that these thoughts would one day lead to criminal actions, he sought psychiatric treatment - this was twelve years before the murder. Five years before the murder, he discussed his obsession with his GP.

To say, “pornography killed Jane Longhurst”, therefore, is grossly simplistic.

So why then criminalise the possessor of this material when, in fact, no crime was committed during the making? Absolutely, if a crime was committed; if the image was showing a non-consensual sexual assault, then absolutely it should be illegal to possess as it was to make. But as it wasn’t, so why make a criminal out of the user?

As Lord Faulkner of Worcester argued in the House of Lords discussion on April 21, 2008, “... if no illegal activity has taken place and we are concerned about merely the possession of the images, I really cannot imagine that any useful purpose is served by creating criminals out of the people who possess them”.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness added, “… if no sexual offence is being committed, it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence”.

Indeed, in Lord Thomas of Gresford’s words, it does seem “rather silly”. When a crime is committed, when an actual assault has taken place, then without doubt the material should be illegal.

But, as Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer rightly, in my mind, pointed out, it is real violence against women that ought to be addressed and stamped out. But that which, to quote from the clause, “appears” to result in injury seems to be, as some have suggested “a war on BDSM/rough sex”.

For example, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath described images he had been shown by the police that “appeared” violent but were in fact consensual as “disgusting” and “revolting”. He went on:

I frankly find it horrific that they are available and that people can see them. I am sorry, but I do not take this very liberal approach of “If it does no harm to the people taking part, why should we worry about it?” I do worry about it, and about the access that people have to that kind of disgusting material. I am afraid that is my position.

Disgusting and revolting?

The suggestion is that a “normal”, well-adjusted and sane minded individual will turn on, tune in and flip out. That an individual is so disturbed and fragile that these fantasy images would trigger him to rape and murder is not being addressed. As JUSTICE argues (PDF 258KB), that pornography would trigger such behaviour is based upon “speculative causal connection”.

In fact, this law protects no one. If the actors consented to participate, and the material they produce is enjoyed by individuals or groups, and there is no evidence to suggest that a healthy mind would “flip” and trigger a sexual assault, or even murder, then no one has been harmed, then really what this amounts to, to paraphrase Baroness Miller, is the government legally justifying regulation of “bedroom” activities.

It seems to be a fairly extreme suggestion that women may enjoy BDSM. Women themselves are downloading this material for their own pleasure. Ideas that BDSM, or “rough sex” is “retrograde [and] repressive” seem to me to be somewhat repressive.

Much of their argument focuses upon men using pornography, and that women use and enjoy pornography seems to be as radical a suggestion as lesbianism to Queen Victoria.

The fact that some people, even feminists, are arguing “... if you need ‘violent pornography’ to get you through the night, you have serious problems and should get help … If you ‘get off’ on watching any of the things listed as ‘extreme porn’, you are a sick individual …” is a worry, a big worry. It is both denying and repressing women’s sexuality in the name of “feminism” whereas in fact feminism ought to strive for women’s sexual freedom and autonomy.

Now, I’ve been “kicked out” of the feminist movement many times by radical feminists for this point of view, and so too have other “sex positive” feminists. I do not deny that violence against women is a problem; it is a problem I do address in my writing. But by claiming “men use pornography to kill” and “pornography killed Jane Longhurst” is not addressing the real issues that may be responsible for this violence.

Why has no one asked why Coutts treatment was so inadequate that he was able to live out his fantasy? Blaming pornography is not protecting women. Furthermore, making illegal pornography that does not actually depict but “appears” to depict violence is a suppression of some women’s sexuality as it criminalises BDSM fantasy that many women enjoy.

This kind of censorship benefits no one and represses sexuality, however extreme, deviant or “distasteful” some find its expression. Meanwhile, murderers will still murder women and rapists will still rape women. Attributing it to pornography is not addressing the issue - it is distracting from it.