Seminar competition reports

In the first year of our seminar competition, two events were chosen for sponsorship. The first took place at Durham in March and the second in Liverpool in September.

• Positions on the politics of porn: Durham
• Children's participation in research processes: Liverpool

Positions on the politics of porn

A debate on government plans to criminalise the possession of extreme pornography

15 March 2007: University of Durham

Organisers: Clare McGlynn, Erika Rackley and Nicole Westmarland

In 2006 the Government announced plans to criminalise the possession of ‘extreme pornography’ and these plans are being taken forward in the Criminal Justice Bill 2007. These proposals re-ignite not only the debate regarding the legitimate scope and role of the criminal law in proscribing private adult behaviour but also the so-called ‘porn wars’ of the 1980s. The purpose of the seminar was to bring together speakers and participants from a variety of ideological positions and perspectives to discuss not only the Government’s proposals but also the politics of porn more generally.  

Over 70 delegates attended the afternoon seminar, including members of related campaign groups (Feminists Against Censorship, Backlash, Wearside Women in Need, Rape Crisis Federation, Cyber-Rights and Cyber-Liberties), enforcement agencies (New Scotland Yard and the Internet Watch Foundation), The Times newspaper as well as academics and students. 

The key speakers – Professors Jill Radford and Gavin Phillipson (Universities of Teeside and Durham) and Deborah Hyde (Backlash) – were asked to speak on four key questions: what has informed your position on porn?; what is your position on the politics of porn?; what is your view of the Government’s proposals?; and thinking generally, what would be your utopian position on porn? As anticipated, their responses varied greatly. While Jill Radford challenged the ability to identify and distinguish between ‘extreme pornography’ and the ‘eroticisation of hate’ in all pornography, Deborah Hyde described the proposals as ‘Victorian legislation’ ignoring the realities of sexual violence. Gavin Phillipson addressed the human rights implications of the proposals. He argued that potential restrictions on sexual freedom and preferences were limited by the Government’s focus on the form of the material (in particular, the exclusion of the written word and drawings from the proposed legislation) and narrow definition of ‘extreme pornography’ as pornographic material that includes ‘actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts’ of: 1. intercourse or oral sex with an animal; 2. sexual interference with a human corpse; 3. serious violence, that is, ‘acts that appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling injury’ (Home Office (2006) Consultation on the Possession of Extreme Pornography, paras 15–16).

After a brief question-and-answer session, invited respondents spoke from the floor in response to the key speakers’ comments and views before the discussion was opened up to the whole floor. Again, the views expressed were varied and strongly held. Yaman Akdeniz (Cyber-Rights and Cyber-Liberties) focused on the difficulties with the ‘paternalistic’ imposition of morality through legislation and the disproportionality of the proposed sentences while Sarah Robertson (Internet Watch Foundation) considered the practical difficulties of enforcement and definition. Clare Phillipson (Wearside Women in Need) and Avedon Carol (Feminists Against Censorship) both addressed the harm underpinning pornography debates. Phillipson spoke of her anger and upset at detached academic discussions which, she suggested, silence the stories of real harm to real women of pornography, while Carol emphasised the harmlessness of pornography in contrast to harm of increased state interference in private sphere. By the end of the afternoon there was, unsurprisingly, little consensus on the Government’s proposals. Key concerns of those both generally in favour and against the proposals included:

• Depictions of rape: it is unclear where rape sits in relation to the definition of ‘serious violence’; the opinion was expressed that sites which effectively constitute an incitement to rape should be covered;
• ‘Alternative’ sexualities: concerns were expressed that the provisions would have a disproportionate impact on those who engaged with so-called ‘alternative’ forms of sexual expression; reinforcing of morality-based rather than harm-based standard/criteria in relation to responses to pornography;
• Policing priorities and resources: concerns were expressed whether there would be any incentive (in terms of performance indicators) or resources for the police to investigate these crimes; also concern that police investigating would have sufficient training and expertise to police law in a measured way;
• Proposed sentencing: there was some concern that the proposed sentence (up to three years) was disproportionate and out of line with other sentencing recommendations in comparable areas;
• Dangers of categories of ‘extreme’ and other porn: in explicitly addressing ‘extreme’ pornography, there was some concerns that there may be an increased failure to consider the wider impact of all forms of pornography;
• Vague and untested boundaries: some participants were worried that as the limits of the proposed measures were tested this may result in some people ‘accidentally’ committing criminal acts.

The conference organisers have produced a Briefing Note for the Home Office reflecting the discussion of the seminar. Papers from the seminar are currently being prepared for publication by the seminar organisers.All three organisers are at Durham University. Clare McGlynn and Erika Rackley are based in the Department of Law and Nicole Westmarland is in the School of Applied Social Sciences. For a full list of delegates, speakers’ biogs and information on the press coverage of the seminar, see http://www.dur.ac.uk/law/research/politicsofporn. 

top

Children’s participation in research processes

10–12 September 2007: Centre for the Study of the Child, the Family and the Law, Liverpool University

Organisers: Christina My Lyon and Mike Jones

This interdisciplinary three-day seminar organised by the Centre for the Study of the Child, the Family and the Law (CSCFL) took place in September 2007 in the Rendall Building at the University of Liverpool and was attended by academics, policy-makers, NGO representatives, practitioners and young people from across the UK, Ireland, Europe and as far away as New Zealand. Including members of the Centre, the overall attendance at the seminar was 70.The feedback from participants and contributors was overwhelmingly positive in terms of the quality of the content, the time allowed for as well as the level of discussion and debate – and last but not least the Scouse hospitality. The seminar was made possible by major funding from the Socio-Legal Studies Association, plus additional sponsorship from the Children’s Society, Shipshape Ventures, Save the Children England and Priority Research. Further information about the seminar is available on the CSCFL website.

The workshop was motivated by an identifiable need to discuss the practical, ethical, social and legal implications of conducting research involving children and young people. While a number of national and international events have focused on the methodological issues relating to research involving children and young people, these have almost all adopted a theoretical approach. This tendency is reflected in the now vast ‘sociology of childhood’ literature. The key, and we believe, innovative purpose of the Liverpool SLSA Seminar workshop was to explore the conflict between the ‘new sociology of childhood’, with its emphasis on children as ‘social actors’ and the increasing emphasis on ‘child protection’ and risk assessment. The workshop aimed to explore the tension between participation and protection in the UK, which has been referred to as ‘the protective invasion of the child’s autonomy’ (Lyon, 2007). We were particularly interested in exploring how and, indeed, whether this tension is addressed in the design and implementation of research involving children and young people and to make comparisons with child-focused work being done internationally, across a range of disciplines and sectors. A comment of those conducting research involving children and young people on other continents, for example, has been – and this was repeated at the Liverpool seminar by those who had conducted research overseas quite recently – that they do not think they could have done their work with children and young people if they had had to operate within the constraints imposed on such work within the UK.

The aim of this workshop was thus to gain a practical, socio-legal perspective on how theory and practice should combine in such work and in the process, to challenge some of the established protocols that are routinely applied to research involving children and young people within the UK, to explore new, more innovative techniques of engaging young people in research, and to consider the true impact of such approaches on law, policy-making, and the participation experience of children and young people.The event benefited considerably from the work of the Conference rapporteurs or summarisers: Professor Malcolm Hill, from Glasgow University; Dr Mike Gallagher from Edinburgh University; and Bill Badham from the National Youth Agency. Their summaries can be found on the centre’s website. A complete report of the event is also available for download. 

Mike Jones and Professor Christina M Lyon (Co-Directors of the CSCFL) 

top