An Open Letter to Her Majesty's Government

by Dan H

Dan proposes a radical alteration to UK Criminal law
A bill is currently being rushed through parliament which seeks to make it illegal to possess "extreme pornography". It defines "extreme pornography" as:

An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life
An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal

This bill is a reaction to the murder of Jane Longhurst by a man named Graham Coutts, who was a regular user of "extreme pornography".

For some reason, some people have objected to it.

I can't imagine why. It's not as if the phrasing of the bill effectively bans action movies, and it can surely be taken as axiomatic that the very best way for the government to make new legislation is for them to wait for a high profile murder case, and then rush something through parliament as a direct reaction.

And then, of course, there is the most cogent, consistent, and salient argument of all. Because you see, the whinging, whining liberals are complaining about the rights of perverts and sickos who want to be able to look at pornography, but nobody cares about the rights of the victim.

And that's why I propose that our government should give serious consideration to the immediate criminalization of murder.

Some of our American readers may not realise this, but murder is not currently illegal in the United Kingdom. This is of course because of the European Convention of Human Rights, which in no way suggests that anybody's right to life, personal safety or the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions should be protected by law. This state of affairs is of course reprehensible, and indicative of our government's shocking kowtowing to interfering Eurocrats.

Currently, under UK Law, murderers cannot be punished in any way, and indeed the prevention of violent crime is not a priority for our government. No organisations or institutions exist whose purpose is the detection, or prevention of such crimes (I understand that other nations have institutions called "police forces" which serve this purpose). This is, of course, because we care only for the rights of criminals.

Of course the fact that murder is absolutely legal in this country means that is is also entirely socially acceptable. British people regularly break into each other's homes and slaughter each other by the bucketload, suffering neither legal nor social repercussions as a result, and I strongly feel the Government should take the lead in rectifying this deplorable situation. Somebody, in short, needs to take a stand against murder.

It falls to the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government to take the difficult moral decision and come out against killing each other. It will be unpopular, I know, and a less courageous assembly might be temped to go after less ambiguous evils like pornography and immigrants, but the Government must understand that it has a moral duty to protect its citizens, and that it cannot fulfil this duty if it continues its present policy of not attempting to catch, punish, or convict murderers.

I am confident that, if the Government takes appropriate measures to criminalize and prosecute murderers that this will prove significantly more efficacious than their current commendable but inadequate strategy of banning everything that any murderer has ever been interested in. Hopefully, once we have proper legislation protecting our right to not be murdered (which present EU law does not in any way do) the wholly justified complaints that people are currently making will evaporate.
Themes: Topical

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

Comments (go to latest)
Rami at 11:02 on 2008-05-01
You make a very good point. Any fool can come out in favor of drawing and quartering immigrants -- they're so patently evil it's not even interesting. The Government is the Government because they need to be able to make the tough choices -- even something as radical as saying murder (of all things!) might be wrong.
Arthur B at 12:00 on 2008-05-01
I like the point that Lord Wallace of Tankerness made in the House of Lords, where he pointed out that in the case of some of the material covered by the act consensually taking part in proceedings isn't actually illegal (I suspect he is thinking of clauses other than the ones about bestiality and necrophilia), so the law would reach this bizarre situation where it's illegal to possess the image in question but not illegal to take part in the sort of action depicted. This would seem untenable.
Jen Spencer at 12:09 on 2008-05-01
How do they distinguish between pornography and films? Most of my DVD collection is horror and would be rendered illegal by those definitions. If they use the definition that pornography is supposed to be deliberately sexually titillating, then isn't someone who finds that kind of stuff arousing going to get the same kind of thrills from watching Itchi the Killer as they are from some kinky porno flick?
Claire E Fitzgerald at 14:00 on 2008-05-01
What's wrong with you bunch of cringing, pussyfooting liberals? Use some common sense! Ban films, I say! And television, obviously. It's a gateway drug.
Damien F at 11:35 on 2008-05-27
Wouldn't the rule about corpes make Clerks illegal.
Wardog at 14:33 on 2008-05-27
Hee hee - yes!
In order to post comments, you need to log in to Ferretbrain or authenticate with OpenID. Don't have an account? See the About Us page for more details.

Show / Hide Comments -- More in May 2008