Quote
The Criminal Justice Bill, championed by Jane’s mum Liz Longhurst and Martin Salter MP, is due to receive Royal Assent tomorrow, making it part of the law.
Mrs Longhurst told the Post her daughter would be proud of what her mum had achieved: I am really very delighted it is due to be passed, but I don’t think it is a magic bullet.
The law is the start of good things, but I think it will be difficult to enforce. But I want the legislation on the books even though it might be difficult to enforce.
If someone else is murdered and it can be shown the murder is due to extreme violent internet pornography, I think the police will take a strong interest.
I think Jane would be proud. Martin and I have done it between us. Martin has had most of the right contacts, but he couldn’t have done it without me and I could not have done it without him.
I think the law probably is censorship, but you have to think of the greater good. Far be it for me to deprive people of what they see as harmless fun, but any site which can encourage a person to commit murder or GBH is bad.
Salter, who has promised to take Mrs Longhurst for a “slap up meal” at the House of Commons to celebrate the bill’s assent, said: I am absolutely thrilled this law has been passed. But most of all I am delighted for Liz. If we can reduce some peoples’ temptation to watch violent images, including rape and mutilation, then that is a good thing. It is also important we protect the women who are in these videos.
Quote
Baroness Miller and Lord Wallace have suggested that dangerous pictures should be defined as both violent and legally obscene. They have also proposed reducing the maximum sentence from 3 to 2 years.
The evil Lord Hunt has proposed a minor exemption. Those participating in the dangerous pictures and hence knowing that they were produced legally would be exempt. Surely a recipe for injustice as the same images would be legal for some to own and illegal for others
Clause 62
BARONESS MILLER OF CHILTHORNE DOMER
LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS
Page 49, line 31, leave out paragraph ( B ) and insert—
"( B ) is obscene as defined by section 1 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (c. 66) (test of obscenity)."
After Clause 64
THE LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH
Insert the following new Clause—
"Defence: participation in consensual acts
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person ("D") is charged with an offence under section 62, and
( B ) the offence relates to an image that portrays an act or acts within paragraphs (a) to © (but none within paragraph (d)) of subsection (7) of that section.
(2) It is a defence for D to prove—
(a) that D directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed, and
( B ) that the act or acts did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and
© if the image portrays an act within section 62(7)©, that what is portrayed as a human corpse was not in fact a corpse.
(3) For the purposes of this section harm inflicted on a person is "non-consensual" harm if—
(a) the harm is of such a nature that the person cannot, in law, consent to it being inflicted on himself or herself; or
( B ) where the person can, in law, consent to it being so inflicted, the person does not in fact consent to it being so inflicted."
Clause 65
BARONESS MILLER OF CHILTHORNE DOMER
LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS
Page 52, line 3, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
"(2) A person guilty of an offence under section 62 is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
( B ) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years."
LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH
Page 52, line 8, leave out "depict" and insert "portray"
Quote
According to BBC Newsbeat, the Dangerous Pictures clauses will be enacted from January 2009.
John Beyer, Director of Mediawatch UK, and supporter of even stricter measures on pornography Said: It is important for there to be clear divide between what is legal and what is not. People need to know. Contrary to the views expressed by protesters, he feels the new law provides that clarity on extreme material. But there may be a need for an amnesty, during which the public are able to hand in any material that could be considered a crime to possess. The last thing anybody would want is for the police to be raiding people's homes.
The Dangerous Pictures clauses went unamended but the Government backed down and allowed a free speech protection to be written into its proposed 'homophobic hatred' clauses.
The decision came after the Government was defeated for a second time in the House of Lords. Peers voted 178 to 164 in favour of the protection.
This marks the end of a lengthy battle to make clear that the new criminal offence should not interfere with free speech or religious liberty.
The amendment says, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.
Words or behaviour which are threatening and intended to stir up hatred will be caught by the offence, which carries a maximum seven year prison sentence.
Speaking in last night's debate, Lord Waddington said: My understanding is that the Government do not wish to see discussion stifled and people harassed, bullied, interrogated and sometimes arrested for expressing their views. However, if that is so, it really is time that they did something about it.
Senior judge and 'gay rights' sympathiser, Dame Butler-Sloss, agreed that free speech needed protecting. She said: ...there are religious groups, not only Christians, not only bishops, but many Jews and Muslims, which share strong views that they gain from the Bible, the Old Testament in particular, or the Koran. Those people are potentially at risk.
She continued: It is those people who will potentially be intimidated; they will certainly be bothered and may go through an extremely unfortunate experience before calmer heads point out that under the new clause, as under older clauses, they have not committed any offence.
The Government said the issue could be made clear by publishing guidance instead of inserting a free speech protection into the Bill. But Lord Clarke said: If we mean that we are to maintain the principle of free speech, we should make sure that it is in this Bill and not leave it to the interpretation of guidelines, which would become another lawyers' paradise.
Following the Lords vote, the Government backed down and the measure was passed by a substantial majority in the Commons. The offence will become law with the free speech protection included.
okay if that wasnt bad enough....they also want Manga banned in its near entirity
Quote
At the consultation stage for this law, some Police Forces cited manga as material they would like outlawed. Manga is an essentially Japanese art form, which can cover some quite adult themes. “Tentacle porn” and abduction by aliens are common. Crucially some of the images include individuals whose age is indeterminate or seriously young. As Home Secretary, John Reid expressed his outrage that manga and similar material was not illegal.
Speaking in support of this new proposal, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Justice, said:
“These new proposals will help close a loophole that we believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse.
“This is not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally, but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society.”
Government thinking in this area appears seriously disconnected. Some manga is pornographic and includes childish representations. However, taking the under-18 age limit as the benchmark, the scope of this proposal could be very far-reaching indeed.
Moreover, if the test of banning something is the actual harm caused, then this material fails the test entirely.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/28/go...tlaws_pictures/
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/gcanimat.htm...al_Police_State
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/...rros-borderbbfc
This is fucking outrageous and completely ignorant of human rights law. Its just persecution of blatently exagerrated stereotypes so that useless fucking twatcunt of a Prime Minister can get some positive headlines. Its bordering on Draconian law for fucks sake.
This country deserves a real government, not a bunch of cowards, pigs and old fashioned liars.
They're too afraid to blame the people for their own actions, they blame impossible influences and don't face it seriously, they give the wrong people second chances, and the "causes" aren't even overlooked. Even so, they're not exactly true to this, or Hip-hop would have been banned years ago for provoking racial violence, but that's OK, as long as no one is offended by it.
It's like they're pretending to be in charge, and the police take them seriously.
I've already got encryption software for my internet connection and I am so voting Lib Dems at the next election, that or fleeing up to Scotland.
i'd like to hear people's opinion on this