Beyond censorship

Lately, the Front Against Censorship had occasion to criticise the Labour Party for having voted in favour of a modification of clause 208 of the Criminal Code. The relative section of law basically deals with the distribution of pornographic material. Such activity has been considered an offence since time immemorial, and till this amendment, carried with it a punishment of up to six months’ imprisonment.

The revision of the law has increased the penalty to up to one year. The Front considers this to be a form of censorship. They argue, correctly, I would state, that in this day and age, and in a Western country, there should no longer exist any restrictions in this respect. What is to be considered pornographic or otherwise is purely subjective and one should be at liberty to come to his own conclusions. This notwithstanding, however, I feel that the strong criticism levelled at the Labour opposition was uncalled for, and this for the following reasons.

First of all, it must be emphasised that the Labour Party has declared itself as having progressive ideals. This direction was fully embraced in the Labour Party general conference held some time back. Thus it goes without saying that the Labour Party could never be ideologically in favour of extreme censorship, since such a position would undoubtedly contradict its expressed ideology. This does not, however, signify that the Labour Party argues in favour of the state abdicating under all circumstances its duty to regulate society and meet the fine balance between the rights and aspirations of all its citizens. That would be anarchy. On the other hand, the liberal outlook of the Labour Party definitely signifies much more freedom of choice, freedom of speech and surely, yes, much less censorship.

The amendment in question was part of a package of amendments promulgated by Act VII of 2010. This rather voluminous Act caters for a wide spectrum of criminal law amendments. In fact, the said Act contains 65 separate sections dealing with a range of issues such as money laundering, extradition, traffic offences, child slavery and child pornography, among many others. It is very rare in such instances that the opposition would agree with all the amendments being proposed. This notwithstanding, for the sake of consistency and the avoidance of undue polarisation, the decision was taken way back to vote in favour of a particular Act if in substance, and generally, the new law would appear to be beneficial. In truth, the relative Act contains a number of necessary reforms which were perhaps long overdue, and which naturally had the backing of the Labour Party. However, the opposition did entertain certain reservations with regard to certain aspects of the law being promulgated and expressed such doubts at the opportune moment.

With regard to the section in caption, while shadowing the Minister of Justice, I did have the opportunity to severely criticise that which was being proposed. In this regard, I refer to certain extracts of my delivery. In Parliament, I affirmed that while I was in total agreement that an increase in punishment was appropriate with regard to the distribution of paedophilic material, I expressed strong reservations regarding the amendment as proposed. I argued that there should be a distinction made between the distribution of pornographic material and the distribution of other kinds of porn, which would include child pornography. My proposal was dismissed.

More importantly, I had occasion to emphasise the necessity to clearly define what is pornographic material. I argued that it would be ludicrous to ban magazines, films, shows and the like, simply because these would contain nudity. This would obviously put us at odds with other European and Western countries. I therefore concluded, in no unclear terms, that the best option would be to leave things as they stood.

This notwithstanding, during Committee Stage, the opposition found itself in a dilemma. When the relative amendment came up for vote, it was made clear to us that the distribution of pornographic material also included the distribution of child pornography. Thus, a decision had to be taken whether to risk being labelled as too liberal with regard to matters dealing with the distribution of child pornography, or too conservative in wanting to clamp down on pornography itself. To my mind, issues that relate to paedophilic activity are so heinous and so repulsive that the choice was easy, and I compromised by voting in favour of the proposal.

If you ask me, the issue was far removed from the question of censorship.

Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.