2.5.3. FB's writings on the Sexual
Offences Act 2003
2.5.3.1.2. SEXUAL ETHICS AND
CRIMINAL LAW
Conclusion
70. Obviously in this report
I have only been able to scratch the surface of the problem. My
main object has been to alert the public to the radical and extensive
nature of these intrusive proposals. What should be done? I believe
this grossly defective Bill should not be given a second reading.
It should be scrapped, and the Home Office should start again.
Belatedly, it should work out what ought to be the ethical basis
of its proposals. It should acknowledge that human sexuality is
a delicate issue, not to be wrapped in bureaucratic red tape.
It needs to recognise that though much harm is done by sexual
predators, who need to be contained, sex is essentially an intensely
private and personal matter. State forces should not come bursting
into the bedroom unless the need is dire. Children should not
be frightened by hysterical adults as they strive to come to terms
with the life force, as all past children have done. The mentally
handicapped, who suffer enough, should not, on top of their other
deprivations, be denied sexual fulfilment. Sex should not be seen
as a bogey by anyone.
71. When, at the age of eighty,
I read through this Bill I was dismayed. Plonking clause after
plonking clause, framed in crass civil service language, brings
the police officer and social worker into our nation's bedrooms,
to the peril of our cherished humanity. Civilisation can surely
do better.
72. Early media comment bears
out my view of the Bill. In its Thunderer column the
Times said-
Queen Victoria's alleged scuppering
of the criminalisation of lesbianism on the ground that it would
be impossible to imagine such grossness in the female sex had
much to be said for it. There are some things that the law should
just steer clear of, on the ground that they would not normally
occur to people. David Blunkett's Sexual Offences Bill, however,
brings on to the statute book new crimes of having sex with corpses
and animals, as well as penetrating people's orifices with a bottle.
Is this really Mr Blunkett's idea of bringing law up to date,
to reflect the way we live now? . . . This is before we get to
the exciting new offence of "grooming a child for sex".
Any man who can be shown to have "met or communicated with
that child on at least two earlier occasions" will be suspect,
particularly if he leaves the house equipped with "ropes,
condoms or lubricants"50
. . . the new Bill will introduce what would be a de facto raising
of the age of consent, by criminalising prostitution and pornographic
photographs involving 16 and 17-year olds who are now to be regarded
as mere children.51
Somehow I cannot help thinking that it might be a good idea to
enforce the perfectly good laws we have, before introducing rafts
of politically correct nonsense."52
73. I end with the view of
the Daily Telegraph.
There can be only two possible
justifications for a new law: 1) that it meets a need unmet by
existing legislation; and 2) that it puts right something that
is wrong with the law as it stands. The Sexual Offences Bill fulfils
neither criterion. At best, it is a fantastically silly measure
that will do nothing to redress any respectable grievance. At
worst it will give rise to very serious injustices . . . Human
beings have been confused about sex since Adam accepted the apple
from Eve - and none more so than [Mr Hilary Benn MP] and his fellow
ministers. They should tear up this unnecessary and uncalled-for
Bill before it does serious harm.53
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.
