So not long after the fuss in japan over changes to their child pornography laws it seems that our government is taking the next step in this countries long and rather despicable history of over baking legislation to protect people around the subject of sexual acts. That is to say that they are now asking for consultation on legislating against potential future crimes that don't appear to have ever really been committed yet, as well as undermining the entire artistic and creative sector by placing strict limitations on just how expressive they can be.

And, of course, it is working...the BBC itself leading barely with any other news than that of how paedophiles can film our little boys and girls and then turn the film in to a cartoon so as to avoid being prosecuted over child abuse. This is because the consultation paper itself is a form of propoganda, carefully worded and crafted to implant in to peoples minds the fear of what could happen, regardless of how likely, before asking us if it'd be ok to legislate against it.

Take the following for instance. After three paragraphs of supposition and lack of scientific evidence, planting the idea without authority that images that appear to depict child sex abuse would help people groom victims without a fact, and telling us in advance of the question that a failure to do anything means that we're doing nothing less than helping child abuse happen, the following options are given...

Option one- Extend the definitions in the Protection of Children Act 1978, Protection of Children (NI) Order 1978 and the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 which refer to indecent photographs and pseudo photographs of a child under 18 to include for example “any visual representation”, in order to cover cartoons, drawings, CGIs, etc.

Option two - Create new free-standing offences of possession of any non- photographic visual depiction/representation of child sexual abuse.Option three- Do nothing.

The main problem with the ideas the government is coming up with is that they are so vague, aside from the "Do nothing" option that is put there to almost scorn anyone that even considers the other two options to be poorly described and poorly thought out. What happens to pictures of naked children in old art for example, or of prose that includes references to what we would legally determine to be indecent behaviour between or involving minors? Because let's not kid ourselves, though this consultation starts off by talking about images of specific child abuse, less than half way through the consultation they have changed their terminology merely to "pornographic" images, a much lower threshold that causes many more problems.

The report does "give assurances" that they would not penalise genuine art or works of science...but who is it that decides what is art or not? Is there ever going to be a conviction if a reasonable defense to the charge that the pronographic drawings of a child found in your possession is that you're trying to become an artist?

And of course this all completely ignores one of the biggest issues with legislating against "child pornography" in art and imagery...it's all down to the interpretation! Just like in real life there are women that look much older or younger than they are, surely there is a tough fight to be had if the idea that a n illustration contains child abuse is down to the interpretation of only one (or a few) Mary Whitehouse style figures when the honest intention of the artist was never to depict anything other than a young woman?

All in all there are simply too many if's, but's and maybe's in the interpretation of artwork of all kinds, as well as the distinction of just what makes it art or not. While I really don't disagree with the criminalisation of 100% obvious images of children being sexually abused being sold and traded around, I don't believe that there are many cases we can be 100% sure. I certainly don't think that if an artist wishes to depict sexual violence towards a child that he should be strung up because someone views his work and takes it to mean they should go out and do it for real, we have to stop passing the buck for the actions of individuals against the vulnerable on to others that have done nothing in their own actions to tell those individuals to go and commit crimes.

The consultation can be found here so please go and look at it, try and ignore the emotive tone and be rational and objective about your choices...but do give this government feedback on the idea, hopefully to tell them that this is just another illiberal step too far.