Policing porn

Women's Editor Sarah Foster finds out more

IT was a case that hit the headlines - not just because it was a tragedy, but because it gave a graphic glimpse of what had been a hidden world. The facts were these: that Brighton schoolteacher Jane Longhurst lost her life; that this occurred as she had sex with Graham Coutts, and that a jury found him guilty of her murder. What was in question was whether Coutts' deviant hobby - he never denied he liked to view extreme pornography - was fundamental to the case. In reaching their verdict, the jury clearly felt it was.

"He said they were engaged in consensual sex which involved his term for it was breath play',"

says Professor Clare McGlynn, professor of law at Durham University. "Basically she had tights tied round her neck and he was tightening them, which supposedly enhances your sexual pleasure, and she died, which he said was a pure accident. The prosecution case, which he was convicted on, was that this was a very macabre murder. They got computer evidence that demonstrated access to all these websites - for example, the day before her death he was accessing death by asphyxia' and others.

"The other evidence they had was that he kept her body for about four weeks and had it put in a storage facility. There was one day on which he couldn't get access to it, and on that day they had computer evidence that he went on the website necrobabes'. The prosecution case was that this was murder because he had these sadistic sexual preferences involving the strangulation of women and sex with dead bodies and so he was convicted of murder."

The damning verdict, in 2004, unleashed a flood of media interest - did such sick websites really exist and were they fuelling abuse? It also prompted a campaign by Jane Longhurst's mother and her MP to raise awareness of the sites. Now, four years after she died, this seems about to yield results, with Government plans to change the law being brought before the House of Commons in the Criminal Justice Bill.

As Prof McGlynn explains, it could extend existing powers that limit access to pornography.

"What they want to do is criminalise possessing extreme pornography, and that means downloading or viewing it. By that they mean anything to do with necrophilia, bestiality or what they call serious violence, which is life-threatening or involves serious, disabling injury. The significance of the proposals is that, at the moment, it is unlawful to make this material, so it's unlawful to import it, make it here and try to sell it, but because of the internet you can access it. It's because of the internet that we have to now start thinking about this."

What Prof McGlynn is keen to stress is that softer porn - the likes of girlie' magazines - is not the kind that's being targeted. Although the details are not yet clear, the law is aimed at weeding out what most would deem to be offensive. From what she says, there is a wealth of such material. "Some of the websites are necrobabes', hangingbitches', death by asphyxia', rape passion' - these are the sorts of things we are talking about," says Prof McGlynn.

"There's a film with a scene where someone is hammering something into the vagina of a woman, and one with a drill going into the vagina of a woman.

Rape passion' is glorifying the rape of a woman."

While some believe that viewing such abhorrent scenes can lead to actual abuse, as in the case of Graham Coutts, in general terms, there's little evidence to support this. For those against the legislation, this often serves as ammunition. "There have been government inquiries over the last ten to 20 years in the UK, Canada, and the US which have concluded that there's no conclusive evidence,"

says Prof McGlynn.

"But the British Psychological Society says that those who are already predisposed to abhorrent activities may be made more vulnerable to committing these acts. The Government accepts that there's no direct evidence of a link between looking at this sort of pornography and committing some sort of sexual crime but what it would then go on to say is that it's common sense that it has an impact."

From Prof McGlynn's perspective, the law should definitely come in. While she accepts its limitations she feels its message would be valuable. "There are two issues - one is that you watch the films and you go out and commit a sexually violent act and the other is the idea of harm to women in general," she says. "This extreme material provides, if you like, a cultural context or a cultural backdrop which says that some of this violence against women is acceptable.

I would say that the material glorifies violence against women, so by criminalising that position you are saying that this is harmful generally."

YET there's a clutch of vocal groups who feel the law is neither necessary nor desirable. It is to offer them a platform - as well as those who are behind it - that Professor McGlynn, along with her colleagues, Drs Erika Rackley and Nicole Westmarland, will lead a debate. The end results of this event, being held on Thursday, will be relayed to civil servants drawing up the legislation. Among the delegates taking part are those from protest movement Backlash.

"Backlash was established specifically to fight against the proposals," says Prof McGlynn. "I suppose there's a couple of arguments. Because there's no direct evidence of a causative link between looking at the stuff and committing the sexual act they say that we should just let people do what they want to do. The second argument I would label as a spillover argument. They fear that the legislation might be used to impinge on other, legitimate activities.

"Some of the arguments would be the practical things - are you going to put any resources into policing the law and if you're not, what's the point? If you are, why are you policing that? We should be spending the money on, say child pornography."

What's sure to add to the debate is that this summer, Graham Coutts will be re-tried, his first conviction having been quashed. In what's been called a technicality, the jury didn't consider the lesser charge of manslaughter, so Coutts will therefore have his day again in court. As far as Prof McGlynn is concerned, the verdict doesn't really matter - the law's foundations are still sound. "It's still the case that these sites are out there and they have these horrific, horrible images of women," she says.

* Positions on the Politics of Porn: a Debate on Government Plans to Criminalise the Possession of Extreme Pornography will be held from 1-4pm at Grey College, Durham, this Thursday. Anyone interested in attending should email angela.emerson@durham.ac.uk