2.5.3. FB's writings on the Sexual
Offences Act 2003
2.5.3.1.2. SEXUAL ETHICS AND
CRIMINAL LAW
Summary
62. I accept, having been
one myself, that the Bill was conscientiously put together by
competent higher civil servants. However the downside is that
they were acting under the influence and advice of do-gooding
voluntary bodies or NGOs, each solely concerned with its own clientele.
Children's NGOs think the child should be sacrosanct. Disabled
NGOs think the smitten should be shrink-wrapped. Animal NGOs think
their beastly clients should have no contact with human sexuality.
And so on. All such bodies think only of their own clients, and
ignore the humans those clients engage with. Our country must
not act blindly on the findings of this conglomeration where the
vital matter of sex is concerned, especially when they take the
negative view of our sexuality that emerges from the Bill.
63. In my book THE SEX
CODE suggest that sex positivism, largely absent from our
society, is essential for human happiness. If you search the world
wide web for "sex positive" you will find many campaigning
sites, but almost all are in the United States. Here in Britain
we remain resolutely sex negative, as the Bill shows.
64. A nation's laws, particularly
its sex laws, need to be based upon accepted morals and values.
Law does not (or should not) operate in a moral vacuum. Its function
is to uphold agreed norms, so a proposed new law must be assessed
by reference to these. Yet on this question of a basis of common
morality the Bill and white paper are strangely silent.
65. The majority of our people
are not close adherents of any particular religion, being secular
in their values. They are western values, so these are what should
prevail when we recast our sex laws. However the white paper is
not based on any ethical system. It merely looks to what is thought
to be "unacceptable". Yet to rank as a crime, sexual
conduct needs to be far worse than "unacceptable". It
needs to be vile and vicious.
66. The white paper's proposals
relating to sexual activity with a young person under the age
of sixteen demonstrate the great danger involved in drawing up
legislative proposals about sex without first laying down the
governing moral principles. It insists that for a child to engage
in any sexual activity with an age mate, even though consensual,
is to be a crime punishable with up to five years imprisonment.
So when two pubescent children in the age range eleven to fifteen
explore each other's bodies, in the way we have all done in our
time, they are to be branded as criminals - however trivial their
behaviour. The fact that trivial behaviour is unlikely to be prosecuted,
or even to attract the attention of the social services, is irrelevant.
If the law brands what they innocently do as criminal there is
a risk of the law being activated - even if only by a spiteful
private prosecutor.
67. The white paper shows
many signs that the Home Office is here being driven by unbalanced,
indeed uncivilised, attitudes to human sexuality widely held today
by the British public. Yet the Government dismisses and disregards
similar inhuman attitudes widely held on matters such as capital
punishment, homosexuality, racism, corporal punishment, immigration
and asylum. Surely it should in the same way insist on enlightened
attitudes to sex when it frames new legislation concerning that
difficult topic. It should be sex positive, but it is not.
68. These Government proposals
raise the question what lawful sexual outlets pubescents in the
age range eleven to fifteen should have? If these borderline creatures
are, as must be admitted, highly sexual beings they obviously
need suitable opportunities to fulfil their sexuality. This could
be called one of their human rights, if that topic had been fully
developed in the region of sexuality. Yet the white paper ignores
this aspect. It sets the standard as that of the reasonable person.
We all know that most people are unreasonable when it comes to
sex.
69. The white paper forbids
what it calls grooming of children. Here we have yet another indication
of the vicious trend of these proposals. The whole grooming scenario
is well on the way to inhibiting, even destroying, that wide social
intercourse between adults and children that hitherto has been
a constant feature of human life. Until this period in our increasingly
sick society the adult-child conjunction has been regarded without
question as a valuable, even necessary, feature of human behaviour.
Adults who wish to groom children for sexual purposes are in a
tiny minority. Are they to drive out the vast majority of adults
who only have children's welfare at heart?
Footnotes: To read a footnote
simply move the cursor so that it "hovers" over the footnote number
in the text. It is not necessary to press any mouse buttons as the footnote
will appear automatically.
