Sandra lets the side down...
Along with a further 21 Lib Dem MPs. Gavin Whenman has been covering this earlier and far better than I , including a letter to Sandra Gidley.
The EDM is badly written. Necrophilia should be illegal for the same reason as paedophilia; one party is unable to give consent [unless you wrote explicitly in your will that you wanted necrophilic acts to be carried out on your dead body]. It is debatable whether necrophilic pornography should be illegal if the allegedly dead person featured is not, in fact, dead. I would argue that this shouldn't be illegal in the same way as grown women dressed up as naughty school girls shouldn't be illegal. As Gavin argues, violent people will probably carry out violent acts whether or not they have access to violent pornography and people can view violent pornography without carrying out violent acts.
Worse still, although the EDM title mentions necrophilia explicitly, the text demands that internet sites are banned 'which are likely to incite people to do harm to others'. Which is as vague as it comes. Never mind S&M, it could apply to anything.
Conclusion: a big bravo to Gavin and a huge illiberal thumbs down to 22 Lib Dem MPs... (who are supposed to be, ummm, liberal an' all)
The EDM is badly written. Necrophilia should be illegal for the same reason as paedophilia; one party is unable to give consent [unless you wrote explicitly in your will that you wanted necrophilic acts to be carried out on your dead body]. It is debatable whether necrophilic pornography should be illegal if the allegedly dead person featured is not, in fact, dead. I would argue that this shouldn't be illegal in the same way as grown women dressed up as naughty school girls shouldn't be illegal. As Gavin argues, violent people will probably carry out violent acts whether or not they have access to violent pornography and people can view violent pornography without carrying out violent acts.
Worse still, although the EDM title mentions necrophilia explicitly, the text demands that internet sites are banned 'which are likely to incite people to do harm to others'. Which is as vague as it comes. Never mind S&M, it could apply to anything.
Conclusion: a big bravo to Gavin and a huge illiberal thumbs down to 22 Lib Dem MPs... (who are supposed to be, ummm, liberal an' all)
posted by Femme de Resistance @ 11:57 am
4 Comments:
At 1:52 pm ,
Anonymous said...
It's a very old EDM - it lists David Rendel, Sue Doughty and Nigel Jones as MPs who signed it and they're not MPs anymore.
At 3:04 pm ,
Femme de Resistance said...
Sorry - nicked it from The Whisky Priest (all his fault :P).
Despite being reported as 'a ban' and 'law', parliament is, of course, in recess. This EDM is when it appeared the first time (?)
At 1:04 pm ,
Anonymous said...
www.backalsh-uk.org.uk is a group opposed to these proposals.
We have been lobbbying heavily in the HoC and the Home Office and we'll continue to do so as and when any papers are drawn up.
At 2:41 pm ,
Anonymous said...
I agree that anything that incite someone to commit a crime should be opposed if possible.
Then again the government has admitted it has no evidence to show that viewing pornography or violent pornography cause crime.
So by it's own admittence there is no need to ban possession of these images.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home