“Offensive” Virtual Images of Children are now Illegal in the UK
14 November 2009After much lobbying by numerous commercialised “charities”, the parliament of the United Kingdom has enacted a law which is likely to lead to the sexual abuse of countless real children but is likely to win support for the spineless and dangerous politicians who supported it.
In their earlier defence of legislation against images of virtual children, Labour ministers claimed that the images were also illegal to publish or distribute under the Obscene Publications Act. That is clearly not a logical defence for the prohibition of possession, but it is also not true. The new law criminalises the possession of any image which “focuses solely or principally on a [virtual] child’s genitals or anal region” or depicts any sexual act which involves virtual children or is witnessed by virtual children, and is “pornographic” and “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.” These standards are obviously not clear, but the standard of obscenity under the Obscene Publications Act – the “tendency to corrupt or deprave” – is not present in the new legislation, even if the Ministry of Justice would like you to think otherwise.
In a piece which I wrote in July, I described how the proposed law against virtual child erotica will not reduce the Research is increasingly showing an inverse relationship between the availability/use of child erotica and sexual assaults on children, so this law is probably a danger to children and not something which will protect them.
Sadly, the Labour government’s supposed use of evidence-based legislation is simply a myth. To the current government of the United Kingdom, science is as an enemy which threatens their rather unscientific use of fear and panic to control the population and crush legitimate protest. The politics of paedophilia is essentially an extension of the politics of fear, which deliberately frightens people towards accepting a particular ideology (the historical definition of terrorism) which is favourable to the powers that be. The politics of paedophilia is not only useful for power-obsessed politicians who wish to extend the iron tentacles of the state and gain points over their political rivals; it is also major source of income for modern children’s charities. The NSPCC is a good example, as an arguably obsessively markets itself to garner donations, then spends an atrocious proportion of those donations on aggressive marketing practices rather than protecting children. Unfortunately, nobody is really thinking of the children.
The legitimacy of the new law against possessing images of virtual children is also questionable within the European legal framework. The European Convention on Human Rights and domestic Human Rights Act dictate that a person has a right to privacy, with certain exceptions. One of those exceptions is that if the relevant aspects of legislation are believed to protect children, any breach of privacy is held to be acceptable. While the prohibition on the possession of indecent images of children is supported by various weak studies which incorrectly claim that children are harmed by possession of naked or erotic photographs, no such evidence exists in relation to drawings of cartoons. A person appealing against a conviction of possessing a prohibited image of a child has a good case if arguing on the grounds that their right to privacy has been breached.
Another dubious clause within the new legislation is the attempt to extend jurisdiction over service providers in the European Economic Area. If a web host or ISP managed from anywhere in the EEA is in possession of “prohibited images of children” in the course of providing a service, the UK may attempt to have the owners or directors extradited to face charges in the UK. According to the UK parliament’s “research paper”, “the significance of these measures could extend beyond the control of child pornography in that they could potentially provide a test bed for the future development of wider internet regulation”. By using a topic which typically circumvents concerns over liberties and excessive state authority, the British state may succeed in their attempt to apply their draconian laws to other European countries.
Update: The Coroners and Justice Act is now available online. Part 3 of Schedule 21 makes minor amendments to three previous Acts.
13 Responses to ““Offensive” Virtual Images of Children are now Illegal in the UK”
November 15th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
HI,
Great to see some more activity here. I have tried emailing some of the authors but recieved no reply. I really want to be more pro-active but not sure of the best way to go about it. Is there a section that can offer advice in what we can do? If not, then maybe thats an idea. The more child protection agencies (anti-pedo/sex) we can get though to, the better no?
November 17th, 2009 at 4:27 am
Excellent post. The ability to generate irrational fear is without doubt the most powerful tool/weapon the state has against its own citizens. The whole concept of obscenity is moral absolutist archaism.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Hello again. Sorry for repeating myself, but the few authors that have posted their email adds i have attempted to contact but to no avail.
This site is the best ive seen for intelligent observation into what is going on.
I noticed Mr. Crab is of similar age, country of residence and situation to me.
I am hitting my head against a brick wall in trying to become part of something good. I would like to have the chance of adding to this site as i have lots of my own personal opinions, and not those of others.
The louder im shouting the more scary its becoming, and now in real need of advice.
Please would someone contact me so i can learn from you people and better construct my own future projects. My email is pakerpen@mail.com
sorry for posting this here, but i can see no other way.
your hopefully
Joe
November 29th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Hi Joe.
I’m pleased to hear that you enjoy reading this website.
You are welcome to contribute to the site by posting comments, as you have done. Every author appreciates feedback on their articles, even if they do not respond directly to that feedback. I only provide people with the ability to post articles when I have known them for a while.
You are of course welcome to discuss your opinions and concerns here, even if they are a little off-topic. This blog does attract people who are researching paedophilia and related issues, and such people may be interested in the opinions and concerns which paedophiles have.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Thanks very much for replying. I will keep a keen eye on this blog in the future. Who can i contact when e see a significant story that could perhaps be of benefit to this blog?
Id like to have that contact at the least…Thanks
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
If you notice a news story which you believe merits further research and discussion, please feel free to post a link to the story underneath this post.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Hi Admin,
Thankyou and i will certainly remember that i can contact you through “comments”.
I thought id react a little if i may:
I noticed:
“focuses solely or principally on a child’s genitals or anal region”
Is this term “focus” used to describe picture-clarity, zoomed (or too close), or is it whatever happens to be closest to the camera?
“grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”
I cant believe i see such words included in legal legislation. The only way to define these words in this context, would be to have society label many examples of child photos, and decide which ones fall into these categories, depending on pose, percentage of exposed flesh, the worn attire or the main aspect of the picture. Well, that would be a sensible request, but its far more convenient to concentrate on why the picture was viewed.
“An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.”
With this “new” definition of pornography, one can only assume it is now deemed this way in order to criminlize a sexual orientation. The “Sexual” part is not an exclusive one as it would be fair to say, non-sexual feelings of pleasure occur alongside those of a sexual pleasure. The word “sole” cannot be proven without doubt as sex and emotion are very much inter-twined. In all this madness, we will be causing children problems and pain with their own sexual developments and indentities. If they see sex as wrong because they are not yet 18, then that could possibly stay with them well-into their adulthood; to detremental affects.
Are we going in this direction?: If you burn a movie (that consists of child actors) to a disc, you could then be at risk of accusations as to “WHY” you did it. That kids movie can suddenly be put into a distorted and imagined category of porn, but only in relation to you! If i look at a child in the street, i could be criminalized right there, as there might be suspicions as to “WHY” i looked. When i see young girls in the street, dressed in next to nothing, i am then at risk of commiting a crime of looking at such indecency…..and i really hope we dont make it there. How did we ever bring the natural wonder of sex down to such a mysteriously shameful level..
An individual can, only with super-powers, be the judge and jury in identifying pictures as “decent” to ones that are not.
How many more times can they attempt at defining “indency” without actually being able to define it? I think they are saying: attraction to kids is a crime. There is no other statement to be heard from all this, yet they cant admit to it.
Just doing my bit to include another potential link for someone that; thinks for themsleves.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“Is this term “focus” used to describe picture-clarity, zoomed (or too close), or is it whatever happens to be closest to the camera?”
I believe that they are referring to an image in which the primary feature is a child’s genitals or anal region.
“I cant believe i see such words included in legal legislation.”
Photographic and pseudo-photographic images are (and always have been) judged based on whether or not they offend against “the recognised standards of the propriety”. British legislators appear to have a fetish for legislation which encourages subjective interpretation.
“With this “new” definition of pornography, one can only assume it is now deemed this way in order to criminlize a sexual orientation.”
In the case of the majority of people, I think it’s just an emotional, senseless reaction; “oh my god, this is disgusting! Ban it! Ban it!” The government was also facing pressure from comic book fans and people who didn’t want “legitimate” art to be criminalised, hence the warped definition of pornography.
“The “Sexual” part is not an exclusive one as it would be fair to say, non-sexual feelings of pleasure occur alongside those of a sexual pleasure. The word “sole” cannot be proven without doubt as sex and emotion are very much inter-twined.
That is a good argument, but many people believe that paedophiles are psychopathic monsters who have no emotional interest in children. It is a ridiculous belief, but it probably seems “logical” to many people.
“In all this madness, we will be causing children problems and pain with their own sexual developments and indentities. If they see sex as wrong because they are not yet 18, then that could possibly stay with them well-into their adulthood; to detremental affects.”
Indeed. The paranoia about underage sex may be responsible for high rates of teenage pregnancy in the UK. If children and teenagers are ashamed about having sex, they will be less likely to ask for important advice about safe sex and contraception.
“If you burn a movie (that consists of child actors) to a disc, you could then be at risk of accusations as to “WHY” you did it. That kids movie can suddenly be put into a distorted and imagined category of porn, but only in relation to you!”
If a movie is not in a cartoon/drawn format and does not itself offend against the recognised standards of propriety, it is not illegal. A precedent set in 1988 dictates that the intention of the producer or viewer of a photograph or pseudo-photograph does not affect its (in)decency. You can read more about this at Newgon’s wiki.
“When i see young girls in the street, dressed in next to nothing, i am then at risk of commiting a crime of looking at such indecency”
In Maine in the USA, it is actually illegal to look at a fully-clothed child in a sexual manner. I believe that is the only jurisdiction in which looking at a child in person can actually be a criminal offence.
December 5th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Thanks for the reply Brian.
Ive left more replies than i should, so i’ll just finish with reacting to two things you said.
“many people believe that paedophiles are psychopathic monsters who have no emotional interest in children”
This miss-lead belief is at the root cause of our problems. Its an important one that i really want to see corrected. Id say “most” people (at least in the UK) would say “paedophilia” is about an “intent to harm”, although they wouldnt necessarily say psychopathic. When so many people say this to me, i am simply given no choice but to discredit anything else they may have to say about it.
I was recently banned from a mental health forum for giving too much information. They were answers that had been requested of me, but i was also accused of not “sympathizing” with the child abuse victims i found myself debating it with. (Unclear to me in the beginning, there were many claiming they were sexually abused as a child.) When such inhumanity and insensitivity is shown towards me, i find it uncomfortable to sympathise with abuse victims when they are smothered in attention and therapy. It would also feel i was admitting liability or that i felt the need to defend “my name”. When one is bullied and wrongfully blamed over a long time, its unreasonable to then ask that person to show care in return. (Although, “care” will NEVER be compromised with those i am attracted to.)
“In Maine in the USA, it is actually illegal to look at a fully-clothed child in a sexual manner.”
Tell me that isn’t true. That has to be the most unbelievable thing ive ever heard.
Im guessing there have been no convictions due to the impossible task of proving “a look with a sexual manner”. What a sad state of affairs that is…
December 18th, 2009 at 8:04 am
The police state marches on. Now that cartoons are banned, they can move on to printed words, then collecting pictures of children who aren’t your own. Just sprinkle on the child-saving rhetoric and serve.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:41 am
“The police state marches on. Now that cartoons are banned, they can move on to printed words, then collecting pictures of children who aren’t your own. Just sprinkle on the child-saving rhetoric and serve.”
actually erotic fiction about inter generational sex is already considered child porn in some jurisdictions and in some cases has been for quite a while. As for pictures of non-’indecent’, non-related children I wouldn’t be surprised if the day soon comes when possession of those too will become illegal to possess at least not without a ‘valid excuse’.
April 9th, 2010 at 11:59 am
The replies above correctly focus on the neo-Victorian moral panic aspects of the ‘virtual child’ legislation, but there is much more to it. I have documented the other aspects in an article called ” The Essence of Childhood Violated: Ethel Quayle’s new Spirit of Child Pornography” at -http://www.cjat.org/ipb/index.php?showtopic=245
This article is posted in a boylove-positive Christian church site, but only the final paragraphs refer to religion-based concerns. The bulk of the article can be read as secular.
1. There is a legal strand, Victorian in nature but legitimized by the psychology and forensic pathology professions today, that proposes that sexualized cartoon images of children will propel pedophiles to advance to ‘contact offending.’ This is called the “Opening the Floodgates” (OTF) argument in the cited article.
2. As a little-recognized major force, however, there is also a new high-prestige academic philosophy, mostly emanating from Great Britain and Ireland, that mixes new age romantic shamanism in with Victorian dreads about virtual child erotica. This philosophy proposes, believe it or not, that virtual images contain child spirits that can be hurt. To quote London-based sociologist David Oswell “each time (such) an image is used the virtual child is victimised.” ( -http://xuk.obu-investigators.com/library/13a/oswell_images_matter.pdf ). The victimization constitutes a “virtual crime…that occurred in a virtual space,” not distinguishable from the virtual crime that occurs with a real-life child pornographic image.
This bizarre interpretive model is primarily promoted by UK-based researchers Ethel Quayle and Max Taylor, along with some international collaborators. Its implausibility appears to be outweighed for them by two factors:
a) it panders to current British law, and,
b) it offers a much stronger model for thought control than the OTF model offers, since it divorces the harm in pornography from any necessary link to causation of real-life harm.
There is also an argument from typological romantic shamanism that speaks about prosecutable crimes against “the essence of childhood” and “childhood as a universal.” See the full analysis for additional explanation, links and references.
May 7th, 2010 at 4:11 am
Of course, while there may be an inverse trend regarding abuse towards children, legalising child pornography will warrant a demand for its production. At least that seems to be the logic behind the legislation.