criminalising kinkiness.

"Anyone who doesn't agree with the new law has serious mental health issues..."
Daniel, Oxford via the BBC News website.

Your mum in your bed
whilst you were in the pub last night.

Fantastic news for all fans of Unwell style movies (oh and freedom of speech I guess) as next week sees a bill outlawing the possession of "extreme pornography" set to become law.

But many fear it has been rushed through and will criminalise innocent people not just with a harmless taste for 'unconventional' sexual practices but that the wording of the bill will also criminalise many (non-pornographic) movies too .


The campaign to ban the possession of 'violent sexual imagery' is spearheaded by Liz Longhurst whose daughter was by murdered five years ago.

It emerged that her killer had been compulsively accessing websites such as Club Dead and Rape Action, which contained (fake) images of women being abused and violated. Supported by her local media hungry MP, Martin Salter and bastion of moral decency David Blunkett, the then home secretary planned to introduce the legislation to ban the possession of "violent and extreme pornography" which gets its final reading this week and will get Royal Assent on 8 May.

Enjoy wearing masks in the bedroom?
then you're a filthy Pervert!

Until now the smut peddlers, rather than the consumer, have needed to operate within the confines of the 1959 Obscene Publications Act, but while this law will remain, the new act is designed to reflect the realities of the internet age, when pornographic images may be hosted on websites outside the UK.

Under the new rules, criminal responsibility shifts from the producer (not the musical journey that is 'Hey Mr. Producer!') - who is responsible under the OPA - to the sweaty palmed, gimp masked consumer.

Jodie shows how many
of her movies
will become illegal
under the new law.

But campaigners say the new law risks criminalising thousands of people who not only use violent pornography as part of consensual sexual relationships but also anyone that owns any motion picture that can be deemed to feature 'violent sexual imagery'.

As defined by this new bill it will be illegal to own (or produce) imagery that features:

An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life

An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals

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

The main problem according to civil liberty groups is the use of the word 'appears' in the bill as this can be taken to mean scenes appearing in a non-pornographic, dramatic setting.

That's most of your DVD collections screwed dear readers.

Films that can fall foul of the new bill (and therefore can be seen as illegal to own) include amongst others:

Casino Royale (alongside most Bonds)
Visitor Q
The accused
Scum
Taxi Driver
Blue Velvet
Cape Fear
Evil Dead (it's been a long time since this was deemed obscene!)
Pulp Fiction

(fake) corpse sex: illegal from next week.

Some sensible MP's (yup there are a few surprisingly) are also worried about the wording of the bill. The sultry Baroness Miller said "You have to be very careful about the definition of 'extreme pornography' and they have not nearly been careful enough."

She has suggested the new act adopt the legal test set out in the OPA, which bans images which "tend to deprave and corrupt" (a wee bit like photobucket does here) but our Parliamentary masters have refused.

Mrs Longhurst acknowledges that libertarians see her as "a horrible killjoy" but replied "I'm not. I do not approve of this stuff but there is room for all sorts of different people. But anything which is going to cause damage to other people needs to be stopped."

To those who fear the legislation might criminalise people who use violent pornography as a harmless sex aid, she responds with a blunt "hard luck".

"There is no reason for this stuff. I can't see why people need to see it. People say what about our human rights but where are Jane's human rights?"

A horrible Killjoy? No. Just a grieving mother coming to terms with a deep loss by trying to find a reason for her daughters death, rather than blaming the sick individual who would have killed with or without his fetish.

Truth be told the extreme pornography sites probably satisfied him enough to stop him killing earlier, without them he would still have had the same urges just no 'safe' (to begin with) release.

How long before people realise that bad things happen without the use of films, books, photo's and specialist websites?

See?
Too much does make you go blind.

The recent jackbooted rompings of Formula 1 Fuhrer Max (son of Oswald) Mosley have served as a reminder that kinkiness is found in all walks of society.

And just as Herr Mosely is calling the revelations an invasion of his private life, so Baroness Miller says the new law also threatens people's privacy:

"The government is effectively walking into people's bedrooms and saying you can't do this. It's a form of thought police." She says there's a danger of "criminalising kinkiness".

Blue Velvet: A sick and vile film for sick and vile people.
Probably.

"How many tens or hundreds or thousands of people are going to be dragged into a police station, have their homes turned upside down, their computers stolen and their neighbours suspecting them of all sorts?" Such "victims" won't feel able to fight the case and "will take a caution, before there are enough test cases to prove that this law is unnecessary and unworkable".

Mosley: Nazi whore loving fan
of fisting (but aren't we all?).

Another opponent of the new law is Edward Garnier, an MP, skin care expert and part-time judge, who questioned the clause when it was debated in the Commons.

"My primary concern is the vagueness of the offence," says Mr Garnier, his voice cracked and worried. "It was very subjective and it would not be clear to me how anybody would know if an offence had been committed."

But the Ministry of Justice is arrogantly unrepentant, saying the sort of images it is seeking to outlaw are out of place in modern-day Britain (except when indulged in by Tory MP's obviously).

"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.

Well that's us told then.

Craig: illegal bollock beating.

Yet opponents have also seized on what they see as an ideological schism (no idea what that is but it does sound impressive, a bit like that rift in Cardiff) in the new law, noted by the brave hearted Lord Wallace of Tankerness during last week's debate in the House of Lords.

"Och, If nae 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, you ken?" he said before riding off to fight the English or something.

Wallace: You'll never take
his freedom (to fuck animals).

That mad bald bloke from Mediawatch, John Beyer has been conspicuous by his absence throughout it all tho.