A Christmas message to the Home Office
Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:30 am
Open Letter to the Home Office concerning Censorship.
First let me deal with the Witch Hunt that is going on in The United Kingdom against ?child pornography.? What is ?child pornography?? Is it the images that I make of my children naked and unashamed, playing in the garden or in the bath, is it a fourteen year old girl having sex with her boyfriend, is it a drawing or painting done by an artist or is it an image of a pre pubertal child being sexually abused by an adult? I think we all know the answer to that Mr Goggins ! I wonder if the minister ?with a special interest in pornography? is still you as we have had so many in the past. Do you remember our old friend Mr David Mellor?
Why have you drawn the parameters of ?child pornography? so wide when everyone knows unequivocally what it is, except you it seems. There is an enormous black market in real abusive child pornography which anyone with money can obtain in a market which I accuse you and your ilk of encouraging. You know full well that prohibition encourages production and because there is so much money in it ask your economists. To digress slightly the same go for ?extreme pornography? where the same economics apply.
Why are the porn squad smashing down people?s doors at six in the morning and having their computers confiscated for analysis and when they appear in court are charged with ?making? indecent images of children many having their careers ruined or committing suicide. Why don?t you use the English language properly to describe that those charged have not made anything at all but have simply downloaded an image that others have created, that might be indecent in your eyes but may be decent and beautiful in the eyes of others? People are now afraid to take pictures of their own children and are living in fear lest the thought police find their family photo albums that they have innocently shared with others. ?Publishing an indecent image of a child? you call it don?t you?
I say to you Mr Goggins ?Honi soit qui mal y pense? I curse you and others of your ilk who see evil where others see only beauty, sensuality and innocence. You should know this curse well because it is in all your court rooms above the judge?s head and as you judge others so shall you be judged yourself.
Why the convoluted semantics by public schoolboy barristers in our courts in order to convince often gullible juries that an image is indecent when the truth is staring you in the face and everyone knows what it is when they see it? An indecent image cannot be a beautiful image of a child and if you think that it is then the evil lies in your own mind because you think that it is evil. Shall I tell you why you think that a beautiful image of a fourteen year old girl, for example, is evil? It is because you find it sexual! Sex is neither wrong nor right but a human emotion and sexual attraction lies in nature and the genes and one?s responses are biologically inherent. Paedophiles, ?lovers of children? to use the English language are not attracted to post pubertal girls and your psychiatrists have told you that I know. No, a beautiful girl of fourteen should be sexually attractive if she is fit and well and it is natural that one is attracted and only the perverse and unnatural
Creature denies it! Artists are now afraid to create pictures of the ?child woman? because of you. History will condemn your persecution of art and artists because the burning and destruction of beautiful images is a crime.
Is child pornography an image of a fourteen year old girl having sex with her boyfriend? Surely it is the prerogative of a young girl to enjoy sex with her boy friend for this is the most natural instinct of human nature and also the optimum time for a young woman of fourteen to conceive a healthy child so how can it be a crime to create an image of it, or a crime punishable by the most severe penalties of the law and how can a fourteen year old boy be placed on the ?sex offenders register? for looking at mages of girls of his own age? Look into the mirror Mr Goggins and ask yourself why you see images in behaviour so natural as evil.
Is it an image of a child drawn or painted by an artist a c rime? No a drawing or painting is an idea depicted by an artist by marks on paper or other medium that may challenge contemporary standards of morality, especially that of the state or government because that should be the job of the artist. I fear that you have breached Article 10. namely Freedom of Expression as specified in the European declaration of Human Rights! Or are you going to alter that too and slide further down the slippery slope of authoritarianism?
When Roy Jenkins looked at the Obscene Publications Act, in 1969 I think it was he made a specific exception that an image should not be indecent or considered obscene if the jury thought that it was art. This was a special defence that I used at the Old Bailey when charged under the so called Protection of Children?s Act brought in by the Thatcher regime. I was acquitted unanimously by the jury because they considered that the Videx Video Show was art per se. My film production company, Videx Ltd of which I was Chairman, was ?taken out.? Later it was ?proved? that my company was insolvent for the sum of 7K! Meanwhile the OPS were in my offices returning customer?s cheques for thousands of pounds a week. Cheques and cash were coming in from several whole page colour advertisements that I had in all the top quality video magazines of the day and furthermore the OPS stole any cash that came in!
My films were art Mr Goggins they are out there to be looked at! Why don?t you ask Mr Derek Malcolm the film critic and Chairman of the International Circle of Film Critics who gave evidence for me at the Old Bailey and who swore on oath that my work was ?harmless erotica.? I accuse you of creating the contemporary market in pornography which is mainly of no artistic value. I was proud to produce British erotic pornography and thought that my work would be looked at as a positive example of British erotica through out the world, but what you and your corrupt and perverse ilk have done is to encourage the contemporary pornography that shames us as a nation. As I say history will condemn you and rightfully so. You do not encourage erotic art as Roy Jenkins tried to do but the worthless and mundane.
My acquittal at the Old Bailey was a ?test case? and should have set the standard for the future but no the state ignored my acquittal paid me no compensation and maintained that the police raid on the premises of Videx Ltd had nothing to do with its demise. I think that most people will realise the truth that the state were judge and jury even while I was in prison on remand and before an acquittal by a contemporary jury Obscene Publications Act. Was that not when you and your ilk thought up the Video recordings Act?
Mike Freeman. 25 December 2007.
First let me deal with the Witch Hunt that is going on in The United Kingdom against ?child pornography.? What is ?child pornography?? Is it the images that I make of my children naked and unashamed, playing in the garden or in the bath, is it a fourteen year old girl having sex with her boyfriend, is it a drawing or painting done by an artist or is it an image of a pre pubertal child being sexually abused by an adult? I think we all know the answer to that Mr Goggins ! I wonder if the minister ?with a special interest in pornography? is still you as we have had so many in the past. Do you remember our old friend Mr David Mellor?
Why have you drawn the parameters of ?child pornography? so wide when everyone knows unequivocally what it is, except you it seems. There is an enormous black market in real abusive child pornography which anyone with money can obtain in a market which I accuse you and your ilk of encouraging. You know full well that prohibition encourages production and because there is so much money in it ask your economists. To digress slightly the same go for ?extreme pornography? where the same economics apply.
Why are the porn squad smashing down people?s doors at six in the morning and having their computers confiscated for analysis and when they appear in court are charged with ?making? indecent images of children many having their careers ruined or committing suicide. Why don?t you use the English language properly to describe that those charged have not made anything at all but have simply downloaded an image that others have created, that might be indecent in your eyes but may be decent and beautiful in the eyes of others? People are now afraid to take pictures of their own children and are living in fear lest the thought police find their family photo albums that they have innocently shared with others. ?Publishing an indecent image of a child? you call it don?t you?
I say to you Mr Goggins ?Honi soit qui mal y pense? I curse you and others of your ilk who see evil where others see only beauty, sensuality and innocence. You should know this curse well because it is in all your court rooms above the judge?s head and as you judge others so shall you be judged yourself.
Why the convoluted semantics by public schoolboy barristers in our courts in order to convince often gullible juries that an image is indecent when the truth is staring you in the face and everyone knows what it is when they see it? An indecent image cannot be a beautiful image of a child and if you think that it is then the evil lies in your own mind because you think that it is evil. Shall I tell you why you think that a beautiful image of a fourteen year old girl, for example, is evil? It is because you find it sexual! Sex is neither wrong nor right but a human emotion and sexual attraction lies in nature and the genes and one?s responses are biologically inherent. Paedophiles, ?lovers of children? to use the English language are not attracted to post pubertal girls and your psychiatrists have told you that I know. No, a beautiful girl of fourteen should be sexually attractive if she is fit and well and it is natural that one is attracted and only the perverse and unnatural
Creature denies it! Artists are now afraid to create pictures of the ?child woman? because of you. History will condemn your persecution of art and artists because the burning and destruction of beautiful images is a crime.
Is child pornography an image of a fourteen year old girl having sex with her boyfriend? Surely it is the prerogative of a young girl to enjoy sex with her boy friend for this is the most natural instinct of human nature and also the optimum time for a young woman of fourteen to conceive a healthy child so how can it be a crime to create an image of it, or a crime punishable by the most severe penalties of the law and how can a fourteen year old boy be placed on the ?sex offenders register? for looking at mages of girls of his own age? Look into the mirror Mr Goggins and ask yourself why you see images in behaviour so natural as evil.
Is it an image of a child drawn or painted by an artist a c rime? No a drawing or painting is an idea depicted by an artist by marks on paper or other medium that may challenge contemporary standards of morality, especially that of the state or government because that should be the job of the artist. I fear that you have breached Article 10. namely Freedom of Expression as specified in the European declaration of Human Rights! Or are you going to alter that too and slide further down the slippery slope of authoritarianism?
When Roy Jenkins looked at the Obscene Publications Act, in 1969 I think it was he made a specific exception that an image should not be indecent or considered obscene if the jury thought that it was art. This was a special defence that I used at the Old Bailey when charged under the so called Protection of Children?s Act brought in by the Thatcher regime. I was acquitted unanimously by the jury because they considered that the Videx Video Show was art per se. My film production company, Videx Ltd of which I was Chairman, was ?taken out.? Later it was ?proved? that my company was insolvent for the sum of 7K! Meanwhile the OPS were in my offices returning customer?s cheques for thousands of pounds a week. Cheques and cash were coming in from several whole page colour advertisements that I had in all the top quality video magazines of the day and furthermore the OPS stole any cash that came in!
My films were art Mr Goggins they are out there to be looked at! Why don?t you ask Mr Derek Malcolm the film critic and Chairman of the International Circle of Film Critics who gave evidence for me at the Old Bailey and who swore on oath that my work was ?harmless erotica.? I accuse you of creating the contemporary market in pornography which is mainly of no artistic value. I was proud to produce British erotic pornography and thought that my work would be looked at as a positive example of British erotica through out the world, but what you and your corrupt and perverse ilk have done is to encourage the contemporary pornography that shames us as a nation. As I say history will condemn you and rightfully so. You do not encourage erotic art as Roy Jenkins tried to do but the worthless and mundane.
My acquittal at the Old Bailey was a ?test case? and should have set the standard for the future but no the state ignored my acquittal paid me no compensation and maintained that the police raid on the premises of Videx Ltd had nothing to do with its demise. I think that most people will realise the truth that the state were judge and jury even while I was in prison on remand and before an acquittal by a contemporary jury Obscene Publications Act. Was that not when you and your ilk thought up the Video recordings Act?
Mike Freeman. 25 December 2007.