Strangulation in pornography to be made illegal
Pornography depicting any act of strangulation is to be made illegal as part of government efforts to combat an 'epidemic' of sexual violence against women and girls.
The move was recommended in a review for the Government by Baroness Bertin, a Conservative peer, who found that porn had effectively established choking as a 'sexual norm'.
She said that a belief had taken root that choking a partner during sex was 'safe' because it was not fatal, despite overwhelming evidence that there was no safe way to strangle a person.
The Government has already introduced a specific offence for abusers who strangle their partners, with perpetrators facing jail sentences of up to five years.
Alex Davies-Jones, the justice minister, said: 'Depicting strangulation during sex is not only dangerous, but also degrading, with real-life consequences for women.
'Cracking down on the appalling rise of strangulation pornography will protect women and send a clear signal to men and boys that misogyny will not be tolerated.'
Lady Bertin, who was commissioned to carry out the review by Rishi Sunak, also recommended that harmful online porn that would be illegal on the high street should be banned.
The review, published on Thursday, found that violent, harmful and misogynistic porn was common on mainstream platforms.
However, the material would be judged as illegal and refused classification by the British Board of Film Classification if it was sold in shops on the high street, according to Lady Bertin's review.
It comes ahead of new legally enforced rules requiring websites that host pornographic or other harmful content to have 'robust' age verification in place for UK users by July at the latest.
Methods to be required include open banking, photo ID matching, facial age estimation, credit card checks, digital ID services and email-based age estimation.
'No such thing as safe strangulation'
Andrea Simon, the director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAW), said: ' We welcome the Government's decision to criminalise the depiction of strangulation in pornography, a move that reflects years of campaigning by EVAW and other experts who have long warned about the normalisation of violence against women and girls in online content.
'There is no such thing as safe strangulation; women cannot consent to the long-term harm it can cause, including impaired cognitive functioning and memory. Its widespread portrayal in porn is fuelling dangerous behaviours, particularly among young people.
'This is a vital step towards recognising the role violent pornography plays in shaping attitudes to women and regulating an industry which promotes and profits from violence against women. The UK's flagship Online Safety Act must now be updated to ensure online platforms are made to remove this content.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
32 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Billionaires' Row 'tramp', 57, banned from Hyde Park over his 'swan whispering' after he rammed a woman with his bicycle who filmed him 'stroking, cuddling and kissing' the birds
An eccentric homeless bird lover known as the 'Swan Whisperer' who lives in a doorway on Billionaires' Row in London has been banned from Hyde Park after a fight over a swan. Anders Fernstedt, 57, rammed a woman with his bicycle as she filmed him 'stroking, cuddling and kissing' the birds, then attacked a swan volunteer who tried to apprehend him. The pair had warned the Swedish botanist and writer that his actions were spreading avian flu amid an outbreak, a court heard. Fernstedt was found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm by a jury at Southwark Crown Court and was yesterday given a 15-month community order. Virginia Grey and Jon Ferguson had approached him on March 30, 2023, by the pond in Hyde Park after he had ignored multiple warnings and continued to touch the swans. Judge Mr Recorder David Etherington KC told him: 'You have beliefs about interacting with and touching swans and showing them to tourists to understand the bird population. 'The sad thing is all three of you have an interest in the welfare of birds but different views about how this should be achieved.' Fernstedt called Ms Grey 'Hitler' and 'evil' then knocked her over with his bicycle. When Mr Ferguson tried to tackle him the pair tussled on the ground before the Swede kicked his ribcage and torso, the court heard. 'He [Mr Ferguson] required stitches to the inside of the mouth which had bled which caused him soreness and blurred vision and he required painkillers for the bruising to the ribs,' the judge said. Judge Etherington said he found Fernstedt to be an eccentric man but not suffering from a mental illness. He handed him a restraining order preventing him from entering Kensington Gardens in Hyde Park or contacting Mr Ferguson and Ms Grey for two years. Fernstedt, who defended himself in court, has been living outside Rutland Gate in Knightsbridge, home to Britain's most expensive property at £200million. He has set up his own shelter in the large doorway of a 45-bedroom mansion, complete with a bed, plants, books and designer clothes donated by wealthy neighbours. He claims he became homeless in 2023 after a fall from his bicycle and because the property where he had been living was sold. Westminster Council determined he had intentionally made himself homeless, however. The judge told Fernstedt to reflect on his lifestyle and warned he should try to get back into the working world. 'You are obviously an intelligent man, you clearly have had a responsible work history and it is unfortunate that seems to have gone away,' he told him. 'Don't fall in love with this way of life, because when you get older and need help* try not to fall in love with this way of life, it is important you try to get out of it actually and get yourself on a more certain footing.' Ms Grey, who admitted she had sent imaged of Fernstedt interfering with the birds to police, told the court she had been 'very scared' of her assailant. Fernstedt, who gave evidence wearing a navy suit and purple tie with a long grey beard and his long hair tied up in a bun, claimed he had not wanted to hit Mr Ferguson and described the pair as 'two of the worst Londoners I have ever met.' He said he would in future 'try to modulate the boiling kettle aspect of life.'
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on assisted dying: a momentous bill that needs further attention
The central issue before MPs, as they decide how to vote on the latest version of Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill, is how to value individual autonomy relative to collective responsibility for vulnerable members of society when making regulations around the end of life. Should terminally ill people be allowed to end their lives with medical help? If so, under what safeguards? The question remains ethically, medically and legally complex. Technological and social changes enabling people to live much longer have created challenges around the resourcing of care and experiences of ageing and dying. There are profound questions about how we manage the final stages of life – and what we owe to those living through them. Ms Leadbeater, a Labour backbencher, has taken on the challenge of steering this bill through parliament with principle and empathy. The past nine months have seen an impassioned debate that has, rightly, filtered beyond parliament and the news media into everyday life. From the start, as this newspaper noted, public opinion has sided with the bill's backers. Yet even such public backing is tempered by serious concerns. Earlier this week, Gordon Brown cited a poll commissioned by Care Not Killing in which two-thirds of respondents agreed that the government should 'sort out palliative and social care first'. That concern is not misplaced. Too many people do not receive adequate end-of-life care. There is a danger that assisted dying, if introduced without sufficient protections or investment, could feel less like a choice and more like a pressure. Legalising assisted dying wouldn't open the door to something entirely new – it would bring into the open a phenomenon that already exists in the shadows. In Britain today, life and death decisions hinge on opaque prosecutorial discretion. Those who help a loved one die, often with kindness, face prosecution for murder or manslaughter. Or they may not. The Crown Prosecution Service decides, after a police investigation that can be traumatic: homes treated as crime scenes, phones seized, grieving families interrogated. For many, it's not the act that scars, it's the ordeal that follows. For the bill's advocates, the goal is simple: to spare people needless suffering. Some have watched loved ones endure drawn-out deaths; others, like the TV presenter Esther Rantzen, want control over their own. Some doctors see assisted dying as a humane choice. Many supporters of the bill are motivated by compassion, but questions remain as to whether the necessary safeguards and public investment have been seriously addressed. While many believe that a choice about dying is their right, it is essential to reflect carefully on the implications of such a momentous change on people with less agency and fewer resources. For a parliament less than a year old, this is a moment of political maturity and a test of its ability to handle one of the most emotionally charged questions of our time. MPs may pass the bill on Friday, but there is no doubt that the legislation will need further refinement in the Lords and government assurance to ensure that compassion is not compromised by cost-cutting, that vulnerable people are not left exposed to subtle forms of coercion, and that the values of care and dignity are central to how we support those at the end of life.
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rebel MPs hit back at Starmer after suspension threat over benefits cuts vote
Labour MPs are preparing for a significant rebellion against Sir Keir Starmer's proposed £5bn benefit cuts, which include changes to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) affecting up to 800,000 people. Party whips have warned backbenchers who vote against or abstain on the measures face severe consequences, including potential suspension or being blacklisted from future government roles. Despite threats, around 50 Labour MPs are expected to vote against the bill, with many more planning to abstain, viewing the proposed cuts as "unprecedented" and "authoritarian." Charities like Sense and Mind have strongly criticised the reforms, warning they will push disabled people further into poverty and hardship, calling the cuts "horrendous" and "harmful." Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall defended the reforms, stating they are crucial for the social security system's sustainability and represent a "new social contract."
