The ban on "extreme" porn is soon.

[Flat_Eric]

>>


The language is woolly, and the whole thing is very subjective and left open to wide interpretation according to the catch-all subsection 6b ("An extreme image is an image which ... (a) falls within subsection 7 and (b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.)

Because presumably, that could easily be taken to include such things as those admittedly somewhat mysogynistic in places, yet otherwise very "mainstream" French porn flicks from the early '80s, in which the likes of J.P. Armand and Gabriel Pontello wave guns at "startled" female performers in order to make them "comply" (and invariably end up enjoying themselves).

This is a very insidious piece of legislation in that so much is left open to subjectivity and interpretation by the authorities.

- Eric

[johnsix]

Indeed, While no doubt exceptions will be made for historical erotica, You do wonder if some airbrush art work on custom cars and bikes will infringe the law. No doubt some of the tats on the owners will. !furious!

[Elspeth Kiss]

People reading this thread might find this link interesting http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/qcopinion.html regarding the Human rights act specifically articles 8 and 10 which read:-

(8)

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society.for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

(10)

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public authority and regardless of frontiers?

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.. .for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others?


Excerpt:-

Conclusion

37. In conclusion, I consider that the legislation as proposed gives rise to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual's rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention.

RABINDER SINGH Q.C.
Matrix Chambers
Gray's Inn,
London WClR 5LN.
18 November 2005



Once there have been successful cases brought against this law then it may well be scrapped as a result, we all live in the EU, would EU citizens in Denmark and Holland be harrassed like this? Of course not.

[number 6]

You are dead right Elspeth. And what a beautiful lady you are too.

[Trumpton]

Ah yes, the EU Human Rights Act. I can not recall any British government observing this Act?

[Elspeth Kiss]

Here you are then Trumpton:-

The first case invoking the act was brought by The Times in October 2000 which sought to overturn a libel ruling against the newspaper involving the Lee Clegg murder case.

Naomi Campbell and Sara Cox both sought to assert their right to privacy under the act. Both cases were successful for the complainant (Campbell's on the second attempt)(Cox's attempt was not judicially decided but an out of court settlement was reached before the issue could be tested in court) and an amendment to British law to incorporate a provision for privacy is expected to be introduced.

The James Bulger murder case tested whether the Home Secretary, a politician, was the right person to have the final say on the length of life sentences, or whether this infringed the perpetrators' right to a fair trial. The European Court found on the side of Bulger's killers Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. The 2003 Criminal Justice Act removed much of the power to set sentences previously held by the Home Secretary.

On December 16, 2004, the House of Lords held in A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department that Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, under whose powers a number of non-UK nationals were detained in Belmarsh Prison, was incompatible with the Human Rights Act. This precipitated the enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 to replace Part 4 of the 2001 Act.

In 2000, Amesh Chauhan and Dean Hollingsworth were photographed by a speed camera. As is standard practice for those caught in this way, they were sent a form by the police asking them to identify who was driving the vehicle at the time. They protested under the Human Rights Act, arguing that they could not be required to give evidence against themselves. An initial judgment, by Judge Peter Crawford at Birmingham Crown Court, ruled in their favour but this was later reversed.

On March 16, 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling that Leeds City Council could not infringe the right to a home of a Roma family, the Maloneys, by evicting them from public land. The court however referred the case to the House of Lords as this decision conflicted with a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights.

In March of 2006, the High Court in London ruled against a hospital's bid to turn off the ventilator that kept the child, known as Baby MB, alive. The 19-month-old baby has genetic condition spinal muscular atrophy - which leads to almost total paralysis. The parents of the child fought for his right to life, despite claims from medics that the invasive ventilation could be living an 'intolerable life'.

The judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights in Connors v. UK declared that travellers who had their licences to live on local authority owned land suddenly revoked had been discriminated against compared to the treatment of mobile-home owners who did not belong to the traveller population and thus their Article 14 (protection from discrimination) and Article 8 (right to respect for the home) had been infringed. However, there has never been a case where the Act has been successfully invoked to allow travellers to remain on greenbelt land and indeed the prospects of this ever happening seem highly unlikely after the House of Lords decision in Price v Leeds City Council which severely restricted the occasions on which Article 8 may be invoked to protect someone from eviction in the absence of some legal right over the land.

In May 2006, a politically controversial decision regarding the treatment of 9 Afghan men (see more details under Afghan hijackers case 2006) who hijacked a plane to flee from the Taliban, caused widespread condemnation by many tabloid newspapers (most notably The Sun), the broadsheets and the leaders of both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. It was ruled by an Immigration Tribunal, under the Human Rights Act, that the hijackers could remain in the United Kingdom; a subsequent court decision ruled that the government had abused its power in restricting the hijackers' right to work.

[blackjaques]

Ah, but this issue is about sex. Totally different set of criteria.

[Elspeth Kiss]

Not too sure about that the EU court is now superior to the British Crown and tends to have a more liberal view on sex related issues ie this case:-



The European Court of Human Rights has today ruled that UK law violates the rights of transsexual people. In the judgment on Goodwin and I v UK, the Court ruled that article 8 (the right to private and family life) and article 12 (the right to marry) have been violated. Ms Goodwin was represented by Bindmans solicitors.

Liberty intervened in this case, which principally concerned the rights of transsexual people to have their new gender recognised (summary below). After almost 50 years of case judgments in the UK and the ECHR that have failed to protect transsexual people's rights, this marks a historic breakthrough............


Make no mistake the the UK courts answer to Brussels, and this will not go down well there

[eroticartist]

Alice.
You are obviously a moron who refuses to acknowledge the points that I am making and instead wants to attack me on a personal level.
Freeman.