United Kingdom (Trying) To Ban Loli 17

Well, in a world which continues to degrade civil rights in the name of protecting people from things that have yet to happen, the United Kingdom is trying ban loli. That’s right. The same people who criticise American constantly for being grossly conservative an bull headed has continued to prove that they’re madly in love with the idea of governing the morality of the people that live in their country.

How could this have happened? Well, as I’ve mentioned before in the podcast, most people don’t really give a fuck about free speech or expression. In general, most modern country outright ban many more things than the United States. So… yeah. This is what happens. The UK’s government has seen a large shift towards the more conservative side in the past few years, even as they repeatedly shitcanned America for the whole Bush thing. Good times. I just love it. They’re considering lifting a ban on contacting militant Islamic groups but pictures of people who don’t exist… ohhhh man.

I Live In The UK, What Does This Mean For Me?

Having read through the whole thing, and having a pretty good idea of how the British law-making works, I think I’ve got a fair handle on the situation and what it really means.

The short answer is that, no, loli is not yet banned in the United Kingdom. By this particular law anyway. In the UK there have been some minor, unsuccessful arguements that the Obscene Publications Act could cover lolicon images, but the main bill that would stand to clearly make a victimless piece of art, lolicon, illegal is the upcoming Coroners and Justice Bill. A name that makes it sort of hard to argue with… like Patriot Act. Hmmm…

So, they haven’t banned it yet?

Despite some people’s posts about the issue, no. They haven’t passed the bill yet. In fact, not even the House of Commons has passed the bill. The problem is that the liberals who are standing against the law as a matter of free speech are in the vast minority. You will notice, via the link above, that they have very sound arguments, but basically since the British people are idiots, the logical people have all been voted out of office and the paltry complaining of children’s charities about perceived ills and threats, without credible evidence, is in a real position to become a real law.

So what’s the status of things?

Ok, well, long story short, the bill has just passed the House of Commons commitee review. Basically a time during which amendments are proposed and voted on in a line-by-line fashion. Basically, the opposition made some really bold moves in the committee review of the bill, but most of them were struck down outright. Considering the relative ease with which their valid complaints were dismissed by the supporters of the bill, it’s fairly easy to see how one could pretty much assume loli is going to be banned in the UK. Honestly, it’d take a lot of letter writing on behalf of concerned free expression and free speech groups to get anyone to turn sides.

Do you think that’ll happen?

Honestly? No. There’s a lot of campaign contributions and good will in children’s charities and very little money or good will in free speech, especially when the speech is a picture of what appears to be young people fucking.

So should I start deleting my loli stash?

Not just yet, no. It’s entirely possible that the bill, which has a lot of controversial points in it, could bouce nack and forth between the House of Commons and the House of Lords (the two branches of Parliament) for quite some time and at some point someone could make a fairly strong case for the free speech and free expression that all people deserve. Especially as calling all children victims of a completely fictional act is flimsy even for a sycophant like Maria Eagle. Anyway, your loli should be more or less safe for a while yet as it will probably take a few more months to get this thing through both houes even if it goes through without much more amendment. Hopefully some MPs from both houses will take the various remaining readings to stall the bill until more logical heads can prevail. Hell, if you just watch this link, you know you’re safe until that little “RA” box gets a date. After that date, assuming the bill passes as is, it will have attained Royal Assent and will become a valid and enforcable Act of Parliament.

Is there anything I can do to help?

If you live in the UK, write your local MP. Tell him that, regardless of your own interest in the bill, free speech is a right to which all peoples are entitled and that this is an affront to such liberties. Tell them that you are all for protecting children when they are actually IN DANGER and that without a victim, there really can be no crime. Especially in this case. Please do be eloquent and polite, and feel free to use anything on this site as a guide or e-mail me and I will help you out as much as I can.

If you live OUTSIDE the UK, call people you know IN the UK and get them to write their MP. Tell them the things I said above about what they should say. If you don’t know anyone in the UK, you can still help the cause at large by donating to the various groups who fight for free speech and free expression in various countries. Look up UK civil liberties groups, donate to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, and generally try to keep yourself aware of violations of these rights in countries that are SUPPOSED to be forward thinking and progressive.

Why are you doing this? You must be a hugeeee  loli fan. Hardeehar.

I actually don’t really like loli all that much. I just believe whole heartedly that art, ALL ART, should be free. Thought should be free. And people should be free to do as they like so long as they aren’t infringing on the rights of others or causing harm to anyone. BDSM notwithstanding.

I know this post hasn’t been that funny, but government censorship isn’t really all that fucking funny. Not when it’s real, anyway. I’ll do something funny here in a few days when I make a new podcast.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I really did just want to clear up a few things Artefact was a bit unclear on, especially given the title of his post. Information is extremely important in situations like this and I just wanted to help out. Likewise, if I have given some bad info, please let me know. I’ll correct it as soon as I can.

For a little taste of irony, I decided to make the post image of a 1500 year old demon. Solid logic, UK! 1500 year olds are wayyyy too young to be fuckin’.

Update: One of my wonderful hostees has taken the time to write up an article about it. It explains things a bit more thoroughly than mine does as far as the full process of creating an Act of Parliament goes. Hell, I just didn’t want to bore you guys. Haha.


17 thoughts on “United Kingdom (Trying) To Ban Loli

  • mt-i

    We’ve actually had similar provisions in France for like 12 years, even though it was only made clear in court a few months ago that they do apply to drawings (and yet we claim that our criminal law, as opposed to Common Law, is “d’interprétation stricte”). Now the chances to have them overturned are less than zilch…

    I guess our hope lies with the European Court of Human Rights, which is much less politicized than national law-makers and doesn’t take freedom of speech lightly, even though Article 10 of the CPHR is a far cry from the First Amendment.

  • Martin

    Great post. My view on the ‘ban loli act’ is the similar in some ways to the smoking ban. Namely, it doesn’t directly affect me. I haven’t had an interest in teenage girls since I was a teenager and I’m certainly not a lolicon; similarly I couldn’t care less about smoking in public places since I don’t smoke anymore either! However, the way in which this whole thing is being brought in is what doesn’t sit right with me. The government is being its usual ill-informed, heavy-handed self and yeah, most of the voting public in this country are indeed idiots (there’s an old adage about countries getting the governments they deserve!).

    The problem with situations like this is there’s an anti-paedophile hysteria like the anti-terrorism hysteria: as soon as you voice concerns about the law going too far, you run the risk of being viewed as siding with the paedophiles/terrorists when all you’re trying to do is show a bit of common sense. It’s ludicrous but that’s political correctness for you – in fact ‘common sense’ is itself a contradictin in terms these days. While the safety of REAL kids is vital I don’t see a problem with letting people downloading a bit of ecchi if they feel so inclined. We’ve got more important things to worry about, such as real crime…the stuff that actually causes harm.

  • lelangir

    On a more serious note, the picture you post does bring up a good point: what is the operative definition of “loli”? One that may appear to be <10 years but is actually 1500 years old? Couldn’t then, technically and theoretically, Japan make all “lolis” be 2000 year old demons that shapeshift into little girls? Would they then be legally considered young or old?

  • Onii-chan Post author

    It’s sad to hear France has joined up with the censorship gang, but I guess it’s not terribly surprising. It is interesting how this misguided morality has managed to invade a country which has long stood for art and forward thinking culture. Well, maybe not on that hippy ass “animal rights” crap, but there you go.

    As for the EU protecting such rights, I’d tend to agree with you but I remember reading some pretty disturbing quotes about the subject a few months ago when I was reading up on there the Treaty of Lisbon was at and where it was headed. Basically, there were a lot of folks looking to avoid putting specific rights in the treaty for speech and arts and things like that. They didn’t say as such, but it’s fairly clear that their aim was to make sure the laws were fairly easy to circumvent in the event of offense to even the smallest of groups. So I’m not as hopeful about the EU courts.

    Yeah, that’s the problem with rallying support. It’s hard for people who don’t care either way to stand up and say “Don’t ban drawings of three-year-old vaginas” because it sounds sort of bad.

    As for the anti-paedophilia hype, it’s exactly that. The numbers are extremely low in consideration of other sorts of crimes. But it’s hard to argue with things like that because once people think you don’t give a shit about the kids, you’ve lost all favor. Gia over at AnimeVice, she’s a friend of mine by the by, made some good points in the comments of her post about that sort of thing, but I won’t bother linking it because I’ve made the point a number of times before in my own posts.

    British isn’t a race. Also, stop being such idiots and I won’t have to call you names.

  • TheBigN

    “On a more serious note, the picture you post does bring up a good point: what is the operative definition of “loli”? ”

    They know it when they see it? I’d assume that more people would focus more on how something looked rather than what it’s actual age is. Especially in the cases of things like this, where you can arbitrarily place a certain age on the characters. :/

    I basically agree with Martin’s second paragraph as well as the message of this post.

  • Onii-chan Post author

    That’s sort of the problem. I mean, it’s a bit of a stretch for drawn characters, since they never existed so the question of age should never come up, but I always like to think of it like this: There are a number of genetic anomalies that can cause people to… not develop completely. To look, for all rights and purposes, like children. Now, assuming these people reach 18, should they NOT be allowed to do as they like? Including choosing to be in pornography if they’d like?

    I mean, then it becomes a whole different argument. Instead of stopping jerk-material from being drawn, you’d be limiting the rights of an adult citizen of whatever country.

    That argument, in my mind, gets to the root of the issue at hand. The PROBLEM is the mental capacity of children . Their ability to understand what is happening to them and put it in context (not so much their ability to do math…). And certainly sexual abuse is highly damaging to children. But if someone has the body of a child and the mental maturity (or as laws dictate, age) of an adult, what are we protecting by stopping them from having sex or showing off their naughty bits? And what are the costs to that individual, and civil rights at large, by restricting what they are allowed to do for something as shortsighted as the peace of mind of reactionaries.


  • Kenny Penman

    One things for sure if people don’t know about comics which use characters which appear to look under age of sexual consent in sexual situations they will once you all start writing to your MP’s.

    The law is not about comics per se – if the comics intentionally choose images that are likely to fall foul of the law why not change the images of the characters to where they cannot. Is there a reason that loli is wedded to making characters often look underage – I’m missing what it gains from this. What is the extra pleasure the reader gains?

    The UK does not have a written constitution as such and whilst ‘freedom of speech’ should be embodied under international law we know how effective that is around the world. The situation is very different from that in the USA for a large number of reasons.

  • ChronosAI

    Yeah, it’s sad to hear UK is hopping on the “moral guard against imaginary things” bandwagon.

    I damn hope that something like this never comes to my country, though there was some green party mp who tried to stir up the soup. That was when Dragonball landed here and she found that “stealing underwear” & buttocks should be considered child porn. Yes, you read that right.

    Well luckily that thing was laughed out of the speakers podium pretty much.

    My country luckily _yet_ isn’t that far that they’d try to follow UK/France on this. Well at least if you follow public opinion.

    I know that there are some doctors that have been fined over holding images that are real deal child porn, but they are just fined as they haven’t had any misconducts with minors.
    They were all excellent doctors in their own trade and have kept their jobs but arranged so that they won’t be having patients under 18y.

    Most of the public comments that came when these headlines came into public newspapers, were “yeah, I wouldn’t take my children to him but as long as he does his job par to his skills, I don’t mind.”

    I know in US at least, this would be unimaginable from the view of public consensus on this matter.

  • Onii-chan Post author

    Well, I like to the think that the bulk of people in the Nordic countries are more given to thinking about things. That’s been my experience anyway. I mean, you get people like the MP you spoke of and the guy trying the TPB guys.

    Basically, in the US, which was founded my reactionary Christian cultists in the first place, we have a bunch of… reactionary Christian cultists. They’re not really the majority here, they’re just very vocal and very organized. Though, with anything to do with children, you have so much media influence telling people how prevalent it is and how dangerous it is.

    Now I will write a quick article explaining a few things.

  • Susan Boyle

    I think the UK gov’t is doing fine. I think the problem is with some people. The world will be a much better place without s i c k o s like you oniichan. No thanks to your mother who produced another unwanted deviant into the world. Oh yes the world will enjoy the moment without the likes of you here.

  • Onii-chan Post author

    Dear Susie,

    I’d like to take the time to thank you for taking the time to take the time to post on my blog. As you might have noticed based on the previous sentence, I won’t be taking you seriously at this time and for that I wholeheartedly apologize. Though, I would like to thank you for pushing to remove the only remaining gap between my sexual gratification and actual children. I think it’ll be liberating to finally dive into those tasty underage flesh mitts and really get a taste for what loli has kept me from by way of providing a safe, legal outlet for my deviance.

    An unrelated question: Do you have any, or are you indeed yourself an underage girl(s)? Sorry for the bad grammar. I’m just trying to keep it concise (that word means “short”) as your sort tend to have the sort of attention span people generally associate with inbred livestock.

    Sardonically yours,
    Joseph “xHitlerxYouthx” Ratzinger

    P.S. I hope it’s alright if I call you Susie.

Comments are closed.