I agree completely with Dissenter:
> The whole law is a insult to foreign countries and their laws and
> customs.
Another example for people to comment on- what if I went to Amsterdam
on holiday and visited a 'hash bar'- legal there but not in UK. Or I
visited one of the licensed brothels in Hanover?
Both activities are legal in the country I do them in but not in the
UK. Under the wording of this law, I can be charged upon my return
for breaking British law as a British 'citizen' even if the breach is
not on British Soil.
This follows on from a statement in the House of Lords regarding the
now passed Criminal Justice Bill and specifically Clause 63 "extreme
.":
The debate left behind a feeling of deep dissatisfaction: a sense that
the government was indulging itself with extended foreplay on this
issue rather than getting down to serious business.
The Lords again raised a number of issues, which were parried rather
than answered. The vagueness of the definitions was of special
concern, since this may either lead to many more people being
criminalised than intended; or to the proposal being unworkable in the
courts.
The selective use of academic research was questioned. Baroness Miller
commented:
"[the Minister] could have chosen to quote from Professor Todd Kendall
who presented his paper to Stanford Law School. It showed that as the
United States brought in access to the internet at a different rate in
the 50 states - not intentionally - a 10 per cent increase in internet
access yielded a 7.3 per cent decrease in reported .s. The purpose
of quoting that is to show that different academic studies show
different things."
Also of concern was the fact that individuals may be criminalised for
looking at images of acts that are not themselves illegal: and that
where they are, the penalty for looking at an image is on a par with
the penalty for participating in the act. In most instances, up to
three years in prison: though not an admission to the . Offender=92s
Register.
There were also accusations that this measure is yet more gesture
politics, "sending a message" rather than legislating with clear
purpose. This was not helped by the introduction of significant
government amendments at such a late stage.
Overall, the debate felt far more like prologue than finale. The bill
now goes back to the Commons, where it is almost certain to be passed.
However, widespread calls for a select committee to look at the issues
raised =96 and a relatively benign response by the Minister to such a
proposal =96 means there may be far more debate to follow, even after
this measure becomes law.
The last and most worrying observation came, again, from Baroness
Miller:
"Perhaps the most chilling point in the Minister=92s summing up - I
thank him for going into some detail - was that when it came to
policing this it was for dealing 'with individuals' who are 'causing
concern'. Well, that is pretty difficult. How are they causing concern
if they have committed no crime yet? They might be causing concern in
all sorts of ways; they might be individuals whom the police do not
much like, for a number of reasons, but then they get raided. Again,
that really makes me feel worried."
Time, perhaps, to start looking for a good disk washer! =AE
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/05/extreme_law_lords/
http://www.totallyconfused.co.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3D474 |