| Return to opening page
for
further information and viewing conditions |
. |
|
Talking dirtyWhat
with all the war, death and looting, talking about sex will be a
blessed relief.
Or will it, asks David Cameron MP Monday April 14, 2003
Guardian
It's not often you get the chance to talk dirty with Ann Widdecombe. But for the next month I will be doing little else: the home affairs select committee, on which we both sit, has started its "pre-legislative scrutiny" of the government's new sexual offences bill. With our mailbags and television screens still full of war, death and looting, talking about sex will be a blessed relief. This bill has already made its way through the House of Lords, where peers discussed subjects as diverse as cottaging and flashing, voyeurism and incest. Most elected politicians approach subjects like these with extreme caution. The unelected Lords, on the other hand, get stuck in with undisguised relish. It was once said that the chamber of the upper house is only truly packed when their Lordships are allowed to discuss either of two subjects: badgers and buggers. As the latter act is described in some detail on page one of the bill, and clause 72 is entitled "intercourse with an animal", there must have been standing room only. By and large it is a very sensible bill. It brings together a patchwork of diverse and sometimes contradictory laws into one consolidated bill. It ensures that our legislation is up to date. And it introduces much-needed new offences such as sexual grooming, to stop perverts from using internet chat rooms to lure children into meetings where they can be abused. Described like that you might expect everyone to agree that the bill is a jolly good thing, pass it into law and get back to the war in double-quick time. Life is never that simple. What the government has tried to do in its oh-so-rational, government-knows-best sort of way is to write down exactly what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. This is difficult at the best of times - and when it comes to sex, it's nearly impossible. The first area of real controversy is rape. The bill attempts to change the law about the vital issue of consent. The case for change is that alleged rapists are getting off by claiming that they believed their victim had consented. It is a serious charge and needs to be dealt with. However, the government's attempt is so complicated that juries will be left utterly confused. The bill lists a series of circumstances in which the victim is "taken not to have consented" and the alleged rapist is "taken not to have believed" that the victim consented. Whatever happened to the idea of letting the jury hear the evidence and then decide who is telling the truth? One of the witnesses before our committee suggested that the circumstances in which it should be assumed that there is no consent must include the victim being drunk. Taking advantage of someone in this way is a dreadful thing to do, but we're trying to write a law, not a wish list. Anyone who has been to a British university in the last 20 years knows that there are occasions when - how can I put this? - both parties are not fully in control of all their faculties. Changing the law in this way would mean that the court must automatically assume that the man is a rapist and the woman his victim. Next up is sexual activity in public. This part of the bill is an attempt to create a level playing field between heterosexual and homosexual activity. As I understand it, at present, hetero-sex in public is not a specific offence, whereas homo-sex is. But before anyone reading this column rushes outside to get on with it before the law is changed, two warnings: first, I am not a lawyer; second, you would still be caught under other laws covering indecent behaviour. The new law says that you commit a crime if you have sex in a public place and are "reckless as to whether" someone will see you or any part of you. The proposed change in the law looks like it will satisfy no-one. The idea that it might allow two gay men to have sex in a public toilet along as the door is shut has been much discussed. From another point of view, it will catch an amorous couple having a tryst in their car in a lay-by halfway up a mountainside. Once you start trying to write this stuff into law, your troubles begin. To make something a crime there should be a victim, some sort of criminal intent on behalf of the perpetrator or, at the very least, some objective moral obloquy in the act committed itself. I cannot see why having a fumble in a faraway field should suddenly become a crime. The final clause that causes controversy is entitled "exposure". Before you start to think that I have crossed the line from libertarian to libertine, let me explain. Exposure, as in flashing, is disgusting, despicable and degrading. However, naturists - as in people who like to strip off and relax en plein air - believe that they may be caught by the new law. Naturists, so I am told, are thoroughly decent, law abiding and sensible people who just like to - how can I put it? - feel the wind beneath their wings. Why would anyone want to make that a crime? Again, the problem with the new law is that there is a clause stipulating that exposing yourself is criminal if (a) you do it on purpose and (b) you are "reckless as to whether" someone else may see you and be caused distress. The law does not identify the victim, spell out the concept of intent or adequately describe what is wrong with the act itself. Come to think of it, we could all be at risk. Never mind naturists, what happens when you change your wet swimming trunks on a crowded beach and, as frequently happens, topple over in a tangled mess? Listening to the lawyers, naturists and others that we summoned before our committee convinced me that the bill needs a thorough overhaul. Why should I be nervous about getting involved in this subject, difficult as it may be? Just as I started dreaming of headlines such as Top Tory Tackles Topical Taboo, reality intervened. In my Oxfordshire constituency for the weekend, I picked up the newspapers from my local, crowded post office. The sub postmaster's voice boomed above the throng: "Good morning David. I saw you on the television last night, talking about sex in public. When are you going to talk about the things that really matter?" On second thoughts, perhaps I should leave this one to the Lords David Cameron
See also Ross's obscene Thatcher slur Rape David Cameron's windmill Is David Cameron AC/DC? Is David Cameron intelligent? Was David Cameron guilty? Sex, drugs and David Cameron Cameron - an upmarket yob? David Cameron Samantha Cameron |
||
| meditations |
top |
|