Just because people make and consume porn doesn’t mean it’s good for society. Having worked in child protection for many years I can assure you that it has a damaging effect on the lives of people involved in the production and consumption of it. Most porn is not some cosy, fun activity where people just get off on watching themselves and others – it is a huge industry, driven by the kind of financial interests your party is so against in other areas, with close links to people trafficking and drugs.

In comparison to your campaign against ‘murder music’ are you seriously suggesting that porn does not incite violence?

By the way – I’m still interested in what ‘relatively informal in nature’ means in terms of your criminal justice proposals.

Thanks

My point with the lotteries use of the BBC is that it’s a further example of how the national lottery is a bizarre anachronism – it would be much better to just levy the funds for good works in a fairer way.

All I’m saying on pornography is that just because I want freedom of expression for adults doesn’t mean I’m proposing children have access. If you feel that’s facing both ways then ok then – personally I don’t want to take my 4 year old to a movie if there’s going to be explicit sex in there, and so some level of ratings is needed. Rating is not the same as censorship.

You have yet to point to any evidence whatsoever that correlates porn with any societal problems whatsoever. There has been porn in one form or another for centuries. Similarly sex toys have been tracked back at least 30,000 years.

Women make & consume porn. Men make & consume porn. I don’t believe it’s a major problem – but am always open to alternative views.

It’s not clear to me Martin what your concern is? Is it a feminist argument, a moral argument?

In terms of the lottery – you now throw the BBC into argument. Another prejudice exposed.

Perhaps I can ask again – which is the greater threat to a fairer society – pornography or the lottery?

“Artistic expression by/for adults” is it exactly what it means. I’m not condoning or suggesting it should be available for children. Filters are, and should continue to be, made available to help parents manage their children’s access – as are various licensing laws around films and video sales. That is right and proper.

There’s a real sense of “moral panic” about the banning of so-called ‘extreme pornography’ but from what I can see there isn’t a correlation between murder rates and the availability of pornography. For example Japan has low murder rates but widely available pornographic materials.

On the lottery – my issue is both the profit & the quangos when it is government mandated and goes out on the BBC.

Would your policy allow the sort of pornographic material that was instrumental in the death of Jayne Longhurst?

In terms of criminal justice. Could you explain what ‘relatively informal in nature’ means.

In relation to the lottery – is your issue that it makes a profit, or that the money is handed out by quangos? Why not ban gambling- which is is run for profit, but which gives nothing back? The lottery may be a strange way to fund projects – but my point is that you are comfortable with allowing the insidious spread of pornography whilst at the same time wanting to stop people having a flutter on the lottery. Which is the more serious threat to a fairer society?

Furthermore the Citizen’s Income aims to reverse the perverse situation where someone on state benefits can be WORSE OFF when they find a job. More info at http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/policypointers/ppcitizensincome.pdf

Martin — You’ve slightly misquoted part of our policy which is from a conference motion relating to civil law which doesn’t say ‘communally-based’ but that ‘the basic institutions of Green justice should be community-based and relatively informal in nature.’ This was a preamble to a motion questioning the current use of ASBOs. (To read it in full search for “CLIPS” on this page http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/rops/rcj.html )

In terms of artistic express for adults – yes that’s party policy, because we believe in freedom of expression. Free speech is a fundamental human right, and our policies support that, see http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mcms.html for more info.

As in all political parties, there isn’t 100% agreement by all members on all policies. We are coalitions of opinion and there are sometimes disagreements, for example on our policies regarding drugs or prostitution. Just as some Tories disagree with each other over Europe etc.

Ultimately I believe the National Lottery is a bizarre way to fund projects of importance to society & culture. We aren’t arguing to ban gambling but to stop a national lottery run at profit by a private company with funds handed out by unaccountable quangos.

Finally I believe that what consenting adults do with each other (on or off camera) for consumption by other adults is not something we need to ban or censor.

Another, less important but revealing policy, is that the National Lottery would be abolished immediately. Now, I’m not a fan of the lottery, but I find it hard to reconcile the need to abolish the lottery to save the poor from themselves, whilst thinking that society is ready to manage the consequences of unrestricted pornography.

There’s no doubt that there is a range of opinions within the Labour Party, but I don’t think it’s the only party with different points of view. It’s just that we don’t get to hear about all of them.

Labour will see that there are still lots of people who want social justice and environmental policies and will probably move to take up those policies, probably in a diluted form, that will probably take a lot of the Green vote.

However, if the policies are being implemented that’s not necessarily a bad thing!