Porn to be mild

A new UK Criminal Justice Bill is set to criminalise the possession of a wider range of pornography in Britain. The bill includes measures to clamp down on what the government calls ‘extreme pornographic material'. Depictions of apparent sexual violence will be criminalised even when they involve consenting adults or are staged with actors. Violent pornography is never going to be a popular cause, but the legislation is quite rightly being opposed by a new campaigning group, Backlash.

The group makes the point that the criminalisation of images will do nothing to help the victims of real sexual violence or domestic abuse, and disputes the notion that they lead to crimes of this kind. In a press release dated 15 March, Backlash notes: "The Home Office admits there is no evidence linking pornography to violent crime. Nonetheless it has continued to pursue this policy, prompting Clive Walker, Professor of Criminal Justice at University of Leeds to argue 'a decision to criminalise possession of extreme violent pornography is based solely on moral and political grounds rather than on public safety'".

Backlash and Professor Walker are onto something, but the legislation is not moralistic in any traditional sense. Old-fashioned notions of family values or Christian decency hold little currency today, and nothing substantial has taken their place. In fact, it is the frailty of contemporary moral thinking that explains the government's resort to spurious safety concerns. In a free society, people should be allowed to look at whatever images they want, provided nobody is harmed in the process. But there is no reason others should not disapprove, and say so openly. Indeed, if pornography were not objectionable on some level, it is doubtful whether it would have any appeal. Much, if not most pornography is degraded and disturbing, an affront to human dignity: that is surely what makes it effective, whether we react to it erotically, or simply turn away in disgust.

It would be far better if people were willing to express their discomfort with pornography in established moral terms, whether religious or humanistic, rather than lurching between a relativistic, 'anything goes' attitude to sex, and panicky efforts to suppress distasteful expressions of it. If we were more at ease with discussing morality, perhaps we would be less anxious about a few odd websites and videos.

Dolan Cummings