College Presentation - Coroners and Justice Bill

[shira]

Well guys I thought you may be interested in this- for my Welsh Bacc I have to do a "Wales and the World" presentation. This is incredibly vague and after much deliberation i've decided to go with the entirely appropriate Coroners and Justice Bill. This will allow me to compare laws with Japan on the case of "Should non-photographic images of children witnessing or engaging in sexual acts be made illegal" (It's worth noting i've been advised to wear a Kevlar vest the day I present this...)

So I just thought i'd inform you all on how I will be presentating against the legislation, and wondered what your thoughts, if any, are on the matter?

I'd also like to thank Derfel for being a wonderful primary source, Ilmaestro for translating many Japanese statistics for me, and Rui for much helpful advice on how to go about this issue regarding the Japan side.

I must say... i've been labeled a paedophile already in College... :roll:

(Saying this, I should have expected that, I guess. I thought it'd be controversial but, ****, not this controversial...)

 

[memorium]

a very controversial subject indeed

personally, i think it should be illegal, even if it is non-photographic, i still consider it as wrong and to be honest, it is really indecent

 

[MaxonTreik]

a very controversial subject indeed

personally, i think it should be illegal, even if it is non-photographic, i still consider it as wrong and to be honest, it is really indecent

A personal opinion isn't a reason to ban anything. If that happened, we'd be in a dictatorship.

Personally I think the whole idea of banning it is stupid. Putting restrictions on it is fine but I just don't see how outright banning such material will help anyone. There are worse things in fiction than lolicons.

 

[memorium]

i'm not saying we should, i'm just stating an opinion

an opinion doesn't mean anything

well done with the whole double standards thing as well mate

 

[Zin5ki]

Well done, Spyro. In spoken conversation I'd be hesitant to defend the beliefs I hold on this subject to the same degree as I would online.

The Lords' website does report criticisms of the CJB being made, but everything suggests the relevant clauses of the bill is going through, much like in the case of New Zealand.

 

[shira]

Well done, Spyro. In spoken conversation I'd be hesitant to defend the beliefs I hold on this subject to the same degree as I would online.

Indeed. This has served to be my biggest problem- i've defended it in real life and well, you get labeled for this. It seems that anyone who would want to resist the legislation will be instantly branded a paedophile and depraved, which means their opinion isn't heard, effectively.

Parliament really can legislate anything they want if they can convince a loud minority or a gullible majority that it's for their safety.

 

[SciFiBoy!]

how can you make it illegal to look at something that isnt real?

 

[shira]

how can you make it illegal to look at something that isnt real?

That's my main point in all of this. If this legislation is actually made Law, then effectively it'll be thought Crime.

I mean the Artist is expressing his thoughts in a physical form (A drawing that has no act on any real child involved) and he's getting prosecuted for this. Therefore, on that logic thinking those thoughts is illegal, leading us to thought crime. It's a step in the wrong direction imho.

It's sick, isn't it?

I'd like to see Ayase's views on this though.

 

[SciFiBoy!]

how can you make it illegal to look at something that isnt real?

That's my main point in all of this. If this legislation is actually made Law, then effectively it'll be thought Crime.

I mean the Artist is expressing his thoughts in a physical form (A drawing that has no act on any real child involved) and he's getting prosecuted for this. Therefore, on that logic thinking those thoughts is illegal, leading us to thought crime. It's a step in the wrong direction imho.

It's sick, isn't it?

I'd like to see Ayase's views on this though.

who hear can honestly say they havent thought about commiting a crime of some description, or seen one on a tv show?

are we gonna ban soap opera's too, they show crimes against REAL people?

 

[ayase]

I'd like to see Ayase's views on this though.

Would you now? Well here I am.

Yep, in a nutshell I agree wholeheartedly. I've gone into my thoughts about this in quite some detail about before... I shan't do so again, there is a search function.

Good on you for standing up in defence of individual freedom IRL Spyro. That's one of the main things the law should be protecting, so it's an important point to make. You never know, you may make people actually question the validity of their own opinions (even if they don't change them) which is rare enough in itself amongst most people.

 

[Mutsumi]

Here is a question for you. Would the availability of animated paedophilic images, be it anime child porn or highly detailed CG child porn, reduce paedophilic crimes by providing a way to satisfy their urges harmlessly, or would it encourage people to pursue that kind of interest where they would otherwise have not?

 

[shira]

I'd like to see Ayase's views on this though.

Would you now? Well here I am.

Yep, in a nutshell I agree wholeheartedly. I've gone into my thoughts about this in quite some detail about before... I shan't do so again, there is a search function.

Good on you for standing up in defence of individual freedom IRL Spyro. That's one of the main things the law should be protecting, so it's an important point to make. You never know, you may make people actually question the validity of their own opinions (even if they don't change them) which is rare enough in itself amongst most people.

My main problem has been getting people to listen to what I say. They ask me and as soon as I say "Witnessing or engaging in sexual acts" they just go "errr thats sick and wrong". They are certain I watch it, hence defending it. They don't believe I may actually defend something because I think it's wrong.

I'll be honest, my head of year who has to mark it hates me already when she found out the title...

 

[ayase]

I think that's the likely reaction of most people - not only do they disagree with you, but they don't think you have the right to a dissenting opinion. People are unreasonable like that. But the starting point has to be making them aware that there are other opinions, and that's what you're doing.

@Mutsumi - I've argued that very point for years (that it would reduce the likelyhood of offending) though more often with violent computer games when it seemed everyone was out to ban those. If I hadn't had Grand Theft Auto to take out aggression on when I was growing up, I may well have acted some of it out IRL.

 

[shira]

Here is a question for you. Would the availability of animated paedophilic images, be it anime child porn or highly detailed CG child porn, reduce paedophilic crimes by providing a way to satisfy their urges harmlessly, or would it encourage people to pursue that kind of interest where they would otherwise have not?

There is no evidence to back up either, but I believe personally it will reduce rates. If you're gonna get charged for a drawing and a photo so they're always gonna go for the real photo, or possibly act on the photo. If there is a legal alternative, they're likely to take it.

I think that's the likely reaction of most people - not only do they disagree with you, but they don't think you have the right to a dissenting opinion. People are unreasonable like that. But the starting point has to be making them aware that there are other opinions, and that's what you're doing.

I think you hold a lot of faith in people. Faith that i've lost. But heck, I can only keep trying, right? You're right though, 90% of these people didn't realise there was an opinion bar their own. It's been drilled into them that "Oh even drawings of children are bad!" so much that someone arguing against that view is just totally alien to them.

 

[ayase]

I think that's the likely reaction of most people - not only do they disagree with you, but they don't think you have the right to a dissenting opinion. People are unreasonable like that. But the starting point has to be making them aware that there are other opinions, and that's what you're doing.

I think you hold a lot of faith in people. Faith that i've lost. But heck, I can only keep trying, right? You're right though, 90% of these people didn't realise there was an opinion bar their own. It's been drilled into them that "Oh even drawings of children are bad!" so much that someone arguing against that view is just totally alien to them.

I certainly don't think I have what could be described as 'a lot' of faith in people. Truth be told I have hardly any, but I think what I do have is a slightly odd superiority complex which has actually made my interactions with other people better than it used to be. I expect the vast majority of people to be ignorant, stupid and unreasonable. I expect them to behave, for the most part, like children. But then you wouldn't ram a complex argument down the throat of a child to stop them throwing a tantrum (they'd only get worse... seeing the connection here?) you'd break it down into things they could understand and gradually make them aware of why they are wrong and you are right. I think the secret to winning the majority over to your side is to be patient with them, address their concerns fairly but stay calm. Let them be hysterical. Anyone who's going mental in the face of rational, reasonable arguments looks like a complete twat.

I'm not sure if you wanted strategy but there's mine anyway.

 

[Asdrubael]

Well done for standing up for free speech and against thought control. I just tried to google your paper title to see if there was a copy I could read and came across this instead

http://boingboing.net/2009/05/27/manga- ... -face.html

It will most likely happen in this country too at some point :s

 

[SciFiBoy!]

Well done for standing up for free speech and against thought control. I just tried to google your paper title to see if there was a copy I could read and came across this instead

http://boingboing.net/2009/05/27/manga- ... -face.html

It will most likely happen in this country too at some point :s

He now faces up to 15 years in prison and a life of being treated as a child molester, though there's no evidence he is a pedophile or has ever interfered with a child in any way.

your a criminal and a pedo...we just cant prove it...but you get treated thus anyway by us and the legal system...

 

[Asdrubael]

I am now totally against these laws. After doing some research from a variety of sites I have found that they will allow authorities to convict people for a victimless crime. Victimless because the images are not real children - no one has suffered.

“It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.”

Also if certain amendments come in you will be convicted if the image shows someone over the age of 18 but is judged by a reasonable person to be under the age of 18.

To quote minister Maria Eagle

“[The amendment proposed] provides that an image of a person should be treated as an image of a child if:

‘the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.’"

more

One of the major proponents of the bill even went so far as to suggest that prosecutions should be made for simple doodles:

“Let us assume that for the purpose of this argument he and I were separately doodling the sorts of images described in the measure and that once we finished we tore them up, threw them away, and showed them to nobody. Would he expect that that doodling should lead us to be prosecuted under the clause?”

George Howarth:

“[If] somebody retrieves it, and then it is discovered that it is grossly offensive, disgusting or of an otherwise obscene character—an image that could be of such a nature that it would be solely or principally used for the purpose of sexual arousal—what he had engaged in would be improper and should not be approved of or sanctioned by the law.”



More and more of our freedoms in the uk are being taken every day. With new laws being created for a few people personal opinions on matters and more and more monitoring going ahead. Its true that America despite its corruption is more free than us.

 

[chaos]

i still consider it as wrong and to be honest, it is really indecent

Then the law should ban what's indecent?
I find the way some girls dresses indecent, should I request my MP to pass a law on mini skirts then?
I don't believe that laws should be on the basis of moral.

A personal opinion isn't a reason to ban anything. If that happened, we'd be in a dictatorship.

Agree with it not being a reason to ban, but disagree with the dictactorship thing. I called it dumb democracy instead. What the CJB is.
Witches are bad and immoral. Let's burn them all.

There are worse things in the world than lolicons.

Fixed. Instead of tackling the real problem (paedophilia) they tackle a non-existing one.
I can hardly think it's productive at all.

My main problem has been getting people to listen to what I say. They ask me and as soon as I say "Witnessing or engaging in sexual acts" they just go "errr thats sick and wrong". They are certain I watch it, hence defending it. They don't believe I may actually defend something because I think it's wrong.

My opening to this would be something like "murder is wrong. Why fake murder is allowed? Isn't it as horrible (or worse) than what CJB is trying to ban?"
The whole paedophilia thing has been taken out of proportion by media. A "beautiful" example is the license law that is being passed. If you take care of other people's kids for longer than 3 hours a week, you need to have a license.
The theory behind it is the same to me. It's the government trying to take care of you, after all, all my neighbours are potential paedophiles the same as all man are potential rapers.

I think you hold a lot of faith in people. Faith that i've lost.

You're too young to have lost faith in people man!

It's been drilled into them that "Oh even drawings of children are bad!" so much that someone arguing against that view is just totally alien to them.

Back to the "murder is wrong, why it's not banned from TV as well?"

I am now totally against these laws. After doing some research from a variety of sites I have found that they will allow authorities to convict people for a victimless crime. Victimless because the images are not real children - no one has suffered.

“It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.”

Also if certain amendments come in you will be convicted if the image shows someone over the age of 18 but is judged by a reasonable person to be under the age of 18.

To quote minister Maria Eagle

“[The amendment proposed] provides that an image of a person should be treated as an image of a child if:

‘the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.’"

more

One of the major proponents of the bill even went so far as to suggest that prosecutions should be made for simple doodles:

“Let us assume that for the purpose of this argument he and I were separately doodling the sorts of images described in the measure and that once we finished we tore them up, threw them away, and showed them to nobody. Would he expect that that doodling should lead us to be prosecuted under the clause?”

George Howarth:

“[If] somebody retrieves it, and then it is discovered that it is grossly offensive, disgusting or of an otherwise obscene character—an image that could be of such a nature that it would be solely or principally used for the purpose of sexual arousal—what he had engaged in would be improper and should not be approved of or sanctioned by the law.”


More and more of our freedoms in the uk are being taken every day. With new laws being created for a few people personal opinions on matters and more and more monitoring going ahead. Its true that America despite its corruption is more free than us.

Some interesting info here.
This case has been brought all the time whenever discussing the CJB, as this is possibly the highest profile case.
This "predominant impression" bs is simply ludicrous. I've dated more than one girl which were fair game and look a lot younger. It's the whole oriental thing about been small. There is this lady here at the office who is about 25 but look likes 15. having pictures of her in some compromising situation would be considered a crime? Simply ridiculous.

 

[shira]

Well done for standing up for free speech and against thought control.

Thanks for showing support man- it's nice to know there are people out there who support me.

And in regards to those amendments you mentioned- they're ludicrous. I'm positive they can't be made. What's ridiculous about this is how badly the prosecution will end up arguing.

The Burden of Proof in a Court of Law is on the Prosecution. The obvious defence is to say "This character is not under the age of 16". Now, even with the amendment saying "If they look under 18 they'll still be prosecuted" is ridiculous. Judges and Lawyers are honestly expected to waste their time debating whether an entirely fictional character is 18 or not? Does that sound pathetic?

Also, the defence can appeal against the Jury if they believe they may be biased- there is a high chance that in situations such as these the Jury will seem biased, and therefore, more time is wasted replacing the Jury.

Also, the Law will be trying to target the artist above all. Using a foreign file sharing site, where the legislation regarding this all is different, the artist will have to be very very unlucky to get caught. I mean, this file will be transfered billions of times each day worldwide, lets remember.

Quite frankly this law is going to be nearly impossible to enforce. You can't just search someones house to see if they have rude comic books- no one would issue a search warrant for that. Also, lets go back to Court here... You're going to be Prosecuted for being in possession of a book because despite no evidence from psychologists indicating that being in possession of the book will increase your chances of actually committing a crime the book might make you want to commit a crime. Not only that, but there will be no evidence the defendant has even thought about committing said crime. I think it's just ridiculous myself.

If this legislation comes through, it wont be long until lots of other things such as video games will be banned because they "might make you commit a crime" even though no proof indicates so!