This response to the Consultation Paper on the Regulation of R18 Videos is from the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA). We wish first to welcome the intention to protect “children from unsuitable sexually explicit material” – not least because that statement implies that some sexually explicit material will not be unsuitable for viewing by under-16s. We support any recommendations that will protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation. Such protection is, however, all with which the law should concern itself in this field. We are concerned that the paper [paragraph 2.8] seeks views only on how “the vulnerable, and especially children, should be better protected from exposure to” R18 videos, thereby implicitly ruling out any argument that no additional protection is required – or, indeed, that the present restrictions are too severe. Why, for example, should it be taken for granted that 18 – rather than, say, 16 – is the appropriate age at which restrictions should apply?
A pluralistic, democratic society should not attempt to impose any particular religious or other moral codes on its citizens as a whole, but should base such restrictions as it does impose solely on a rational assessment of the evidence. We therefore think it inappropriate that the paper should base its proposals for restrictions on a “common sense view” while admitting that “there is little conclusive evidence of harmful effects”. This admission is of particular importance given the need pointed out at the end of paragraph 1.17 for objective justification for any restriction on freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. In our view, the decision of the High Court which gave rise to this consultation [paragraph 2.6] was reasonable, and it would be wrong to change the law as a way of getting round that decision.
As paragraph 1.1 of the paper points out, even the videoworks available in this country which are classified as R18 “tend to be less explicit than those available in much of [the rest of] Europe”, and no justification for this divergence is given. GALHA see no reason to assume that we British people are less morally robust than are our fellow Europeans. The list of prohibitions in paragraph 1.2 is far too wide. Why should one, for example, assume that adult incest is always abusive, or that actions such as the murder of Edward II should never be portrayed on a video? It is all too characteristic of British legislation that the list in the second sentence of paragraph 1.13 treats human sexual activity, even when it is consensual, as being on a par with criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violence, and horror.
We see no possible objective justification for the amendment of Section 4A of the Video Recordings Act 1984 discussed in paragraph 3.2. To censor anything that a child may ever see, regardless of the circumstances, would be absurd. On the other hand, option 2 in paragraph 3.4 would be acceptable, despite its interference with parental rights, because, given such a new offence, there would then be no reason why any restrictions should be placed on the content of R18 videoworks, as pointed out in paragraph 3.12. However, in the light of the points made in paragraph 3.11, it would be more appropriate for the new offence to be one of deliberately failing to take reasonable care. (As far as videoworks dealing with child abuse are concerned, the right approach could be analogous with that in paragraph 1.15 – i.e. making it illegal to show any scene if children were in fact treated cruelly in the making of that scene, such actual cruelty itself already being illegal.)
We see no reason for the proposed increase in the fines suggested in paragraph 3.14, given our view that the introduction of new offences of
deliberately showing an R16 video to a child,
allowing a child to watch an R16 video, and
deliberately failing to take reasonable care to prevent a child from watching an R16 video
should be accompanied by the abolition of all restrictions on the contents of such videoworks.
The arguments for reducing the age to 16 given in paragraph 3.9 are convincing and have our support.
We agree that an effective appeals system needs to be, and to be seen to be, wholly independent; and the alternative suggested in paragraph 3.18 would be an improvement.
Our final comment relates to the risk assessment in the Annex. The first part of paragraph 3 is objective – but the final sentence does not follow from it. Given the undoubtedly correct assessment that “there is no known and substantiated health or other risk associated with watching a video which has been given an R18”, the correct reaction to the “widespread public concern” is to educate the press and public, rather than “to ensure that the controls on the distribution and viewing of these videos [are] as stringent as possible”.
GALHA’s conclusion is thus that the new offences described in option 2 of paragraph 3.4 should be introduced, and all restrictions on the content of R16 videos then be abolished.
GALHA is a UK-based organisation, and the views expressed in this submission are equally relevant to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The principles underlying this submission should be applied throughout the United Kingdom and to the Channel Isles and Isle of Man.