Last year, I wrote an article for MAP Union about the UK's Crime and Policing Bill. I discussed a number of proposals relevant to MAPs. These included extreme new requirements for registered sex offenders, more severe regulation of AI, border scans looking for criminalized content, and further requirements for site admins and moderators.

On Sunday, however, I was made aware of an even more shocking proposal. An amendment tabled by Baroness Gabrielle Louise Bertin would essentially criminalize MAP activism along with written erotica. Although this clause would seemingly only apply to British citizens and residents, it would have a chilling effect around the world.

Crucially, it is worth noting that the proposal was rejected for now because there was deemed insufficient time for review. However, the UK frequently passes 'bulk' laws like the Crime and Policing Bill, and one can expect to see the same or similar proposals again very soon.

The proposal

On Saturday, The Christian Institute published an article, clearly commissioned by Bertin, titled Peers: ‘Online glorification of child sex abuse must end’. Bertin is a well-known crusader against whatever she deems inappropriate porn, and that includes certain consensual acts between adults. However, the tabled amendment goes far beyond actual pornography. It reads:

After Clause 82, insert the following new Clause— Amendment of Protection of Children Act 1978

The Protection of Children Act 1978 is amended as follows.

[...]

After section 1 insert—

“**1ZA Offence of encouragement to sexual activity with a child or family member

(1) It is an offence to produce or distribute any written material, visual representation or audio recording that glorifies, advocates or counsels sexual activity that would be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 either with—

(a) a person under the age of eighteen years, or

(b) a family member, where “family member” has the meaning set out in section 27 (family relationships) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.**

[...]

What does 'glorification' mean?

"Glorification" already has a definition under UK terrorism laws:

“glorification” includes any form of praise or celebration, and cognate expressions are to be construed accordingly

To be guilty of one of the terror offenses involving glorification, it is not enough simply to praise or celebrate. It is required that:

what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by him in existing circumstances.

However, this caveat is absent in the proposed amendment to the Protection of Children Act. Therefore, to be guilty of the crime of encouragement to sexual activity with a child or family member, one would only need to praise or celebrate AMSC. Stating "AMSC is an act of love, not abuse, but you should refrain for legal reasons" could still be a criminal offense. Having an opinion could lead to you being thrown in prison.

In context

Looking at the wider context, the amendment is not written primarily to address MAP activism, but to criminalize the written expression of feelings and fantasies. It is part of a broader set of proposals by the same group of women that aim to criminalize pornography in which adults role play as minors, among other things. How did Bertin justify her proposal? In parliament, she said:

Amendment 290 would create a new offence of producing or sharing material that advocates or glorifies child sexual abuse, including text on forums and pornography sites. This again draws on Canadian law and parallels our domestic prohibition on glorifying terrorism. We rightly outlaw the glorification of terrorism; we must also outlaw the glorification of child sexual abuse, as the law as it stands is not clear.

Let me add a human context. I spoke recently to a brave young woman whose world was turned upside-down when police uncovered her father’s posts on a well-known chat site describing and inviting others to describe what he claimed he had done to his daughter since she was six. The police intervened and arrested him, protecting the family, but on further investigation they found no physical abuse and did not charge him for fantasising and glamorising imagined abuse. This is unquestionably abusive behaviour. The law in this area is unclear and we need unambiguous law that makes it easier for the police and the CPS to charge and, ultimately, for prosecutions to happen. By closing this loophole, we could give the police more preventive powers and, importantly, place obligations on platforms and chat sites to stop this content and dialogue at source.

Readers with a sharp pair of eyes may notice that her stated intentions, and the existing definition of 'glorification', do not match. Furthermore, the terrorism law which she references contains the crucial qualifier discussed above. And while Canadian law does criminalize written erotica, it does not criminalize any form of praise or celebration. If Bertin does not see these differences, she is not fit to be writing law. If she is simply lying, she is equally unfit. I'm not a politician, nor a lawyer, nor a resident of the UK, and even I can see these glaring problems with her proposal.

Global implications

Proposals like this are not only a problem for residents of the UK, but for the rest of the world.

First, because western countries have a long-established tradition of importing each other's laws. Indeed, sexual contact between adults and teenagers was first problematized and criminalized in the UK in the 1880s, quickly followed by the hysteria making its way across the Atlantic and being spread throughout much of the world.

Second, with extreme requirements for site admins and moderators already likely to be enacted via the forthcoming Crime and Policing Act, any forum with a British admin or moderator would have to resign their role, or enforce British law on what would likely be an international user base.

How could political speech be protected?

To start with, I want to be clear that I do not support Baroness Bertin's proposals even if watered down. I don't believe that written erotica should be criminalized, and I don't accept that AMSC is always inherently harmful. I do accept that it would be reckless to incite random people to engage in AMSC, but that is already illegal in pretty much every country around the world, including the UK.

Nonetheless, it's worthwhile to point out that if Bertin were honest about her intentions, she would have obvious options.

If she wanted to criminalize written erotica, she could adopt language from existing UK law in order to protect the right to free speech. Under the Sexual Offences Act (2003), the offense of Sexual communication with a child requires that:

(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, A intentionally communicates with another person (B),

(b) the communication is sexual or is intended to encourage B to make (whether to A or to another) a communication that is sexual, and

(c) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over.

If Baroness Bertin were actually serious about criminalizing only erotica, and not simple speech, she could add a "for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification" caveat to her new proposal, thus protecting the right to express an opinion.

If incitement to sexual contact with minors were a concern, despite incitement to any crime already being illegal and being covered by the "advocates or counsels" part of her proposal, she could copy the Terrorism Act (2006) as she claimed to be doing, by including its caveat:

what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by him in existing circumstances.

She doesn't do any of these things.

Silly arguments from Lord Cameron

A quite disturbing comment arrives from Lord Donald Cameron. He said:

My noble friend Lady Bertin has highlighted that, at present, we criminalise child sexual abuse in all its forms. We thus criminalise sexual activity within certain family relationships and the making of indecent images of children, yet, astonishingly, online content that depicts, fantasises about or encourages these same criminal acts is legally and widely available.

Amendment 290 confronts the deeply troubling reality that material which appears to portray a child—even when the performer is an adult—can be used to groom, normalise or encourage sexual interest in children. We know that such material is not harmless fantasy. Law enforcement, child protection organisations and international research bodies have all warned that material appearing to depict children fuels harmful attitudes and increases the risk that individuals progress towards real-world offending.

Crucially, Amendment 290 would also create a new offence of producing or distributing material that glorifies or encourages sexual activity with a child or family member. No one in this Chamber needs reminding that such conduct is criminal and profoundly harmful, yet text-based, audio and visual material explicitly celebrating child abuse and incest remains widely accessible on mainstream pornography sites and user-generated content platforms. The law should recognise the role of such material in grooming, desensitisation and normalisation of abuse.

This amendment would not criminalise lawful adult behaviour; it would criminalise the possession of extreme pornographic images depicting acts that would themselves be criminal if performed in reality. Once again, the principle is consistency. What is an offence offline should not be freely commodified online under the guise of entertainment.

An attraction to children is not something that happens because of what you've seen. People aren't 'turned pedo' any more than they're turned gay or straight. On the contrary, things like written erotica, adult porn featuring youthful actors (which Bertin also seeks to criminalize), and cartoon images are outlets for many people attracted to minors. And there are a huge number of people inherently attracted to children and teens, some exclusively. I, personally, have zero sexual interest in adults.

I can accept that seeing a certain type of content repeatedly might lead to an interest in it. For example, a straight man who watches a lot of BDSM might become interested in trying out BDSM with women. However, the age and gender of people you're attracted to is a fixed state. If anything, lawful access to relatively tame content could be helpful in that regard, as my recent interview with a child pornography site admin indicated.

As for 'grooming'? If a person uses any material to 'groom' a minor, that is already a crime under UK law. And if someone were really motivated to 'groom', they'd be able to do so without access to the content these proposals target. At the rate the UK is criminalizing everything due to an imagined butterfly effect or perceived correlation, they might as well criminalize water because pedophiles drink it.

And finally, criminalizing the simple 'glorification' of any type of written content would be wildly different to simply applying offline standards to online behavior. Amendment 290 would be an unprecedented restriction on free speech in the western world. It is nothing short of alarming that a number of lawmakers are apparently blind to this simply because the subject matter is deemed distasteful.

The Push toward civil disobedience

The UK is really making life impossible for MAPs.

"Great!", they will shout. "Pedos are sick and disgusting!"

But is it great to leave someone with no good options?

Were I a resident of the UK, I honestly think I'd just give up trying to follow the laws at this point. Every time a new outlet is discovered, lawmakers rush to criminalize it under a slew of poor excuses based on prejudice rather than the reality of sexual desire. Now even simple free speech is under threat. At some point, MAPs in the UK are just going to say "enough is enough", and purchase real child pornography or try to have sex with children if they don't believe it to be morally wrong.

And if one is going to imply (as Baroness Bertin's friends do) that men are constantly on the edge of engaging in sexual violence... then what the UK is doing is playing with fire.

Should the UK go ahead with Amendment 290 - and I'm sure Bertin will try again - I want to see an aggressive targeted campaign of MAP pride aimed squarely at the UK. If the goal is to extinguish any outward display of a MAP orientation, we need to throw it right back at them a hell of a lot harder.

---

My site's readership has grown significantly of late, but most people are shy about leaving comments. Do feel free to add your thoughts below.

I will be away from home from the latter half of this week until the end of the next, although a moderator will be available to approve comments (or delete those that don't follow the rules).