If your law is so badly written it bans harmless acts by mistake, that’s a problem with YOU as legislators, not with the people pointing that out

Thread:

No, the “porn law row” does not risk trivialising VAWG. The terrible wording of the porn law risks trivialising VAWG.

If your law is so badly written it bans harmless acts by mistake, that’s a problem with YOU as legislators, not with the people pointing that out

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/row-porn-laws-trivialising-violence-minister-5r3qgxfcq

Alex Davies-Jones doesn’t want to be seen as a modern-day Mary Whitehouse. But she’s shepherded in legislation that is very Whitehousian in nature. Maybe she didn’t intend to. But by refusing to engage with people going “hang on, that will cover xyz” because it’s seen as icky, that’s what’s happened

If you as a minister don’t think the law should cover certain things and it does – or is ambiguous as to whether it does – that’s a problem. It’s YOUR problem. You don’t get to abdicate responsibility and blame the pesky critics pointing out that the law is vague for not recognising your intentions

And crying VAWG (“it’s so unfair they’re TRIVIALISING it”) is an insult to anyone who cares about keeping women safe.

Victims are not a smokescreen for your failure – out of squeamishness about discussing sex acts you personally find distasteful or embarrassing – to do your job as a legislator

So. Do you think depictions of vigorous oral sex should be banned in porn? If the answer is yes, say so. If it’s no, bad news – because according to government guidance that’s now covered.

Refusing to engage with that question because you don’t want to talk about oral sex is a coward’s response

It doesn’t matter if this law had good intentions. It doesn’t matter how dangerous choking and strangulation are – because this law doesn’t just ban depictions of that. It bans a whole lot of stuff that the people who brought it in just don’t want to talk about. This is their law. This is their JOB.