UK Bans Loli: “All Children are Victims”


The UK’s decline under illiberal socialist governance continues with the news that the UK is set to ban all drawn imagery of an erotic nature where the “impression” is that a participant or onlooker is a child, or rather is “under 18”.

The ban officially brands such imagery “disgusting”.

The laws in question, coming as part of the Coroners and Justice Bill, which looks set to come into effect without difficulty, set out a complete ban on possession of drawn pornography featuring underage participants, images where “the impression conveyed … is that the person shown is a child.” In this case child is simply defined as anyone under 18 years of age.

UK law already bans “pseudo-photographs” of underage sex, referring to images which have been Photoshopped or rendered with a computer; this new law is presented as “closing a loophole” as a result.

One of the major proponents of the bill even went so far as to suggest that prosecutions should be made for simple doodles:

“Let us assume that for the purpose of this argument he and I were separately doodling the sorts of images described in the measure and that once we finished we tore them up, threw them away, and showed them to nobody. Would he expect that that doodling should lead us to be prosecuted under the clause?”

George Howarth:

“[If] somebody retrieves it, and then it is discovered that it is grossly offensive, disgusting or of an otherwise obscene character—an image that could be of such a nature that it would be solely or principally used for the purpose of sexual arousal—what he had engaged in would be improper and should not be approved of or sanctioned by the law.”

An MP raises doubts over the complete lack of evidence underlying the bill, and the lack of any victims, but is told that “all children” are victims of the drawings:

“I am a little concerned that we are legislating without any evidence, because the risk to children could increase. If the evidence showed that having images that were not photographic acted as a release, and therefore reduced the risk of harm to children, legislating could increase the risk of harm. That is why I am concerned that we are legislating without sufficient evidence.”

George Howarth:

“If the image in question is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character but does not have a child as a victim, is it not arguable that, by extension, all children are victims of that image?”

A victimless crime where all children are victims? You heard it in parliament.

No evidence of any kind is presented in support of the law or claims of the legislators.

The opposition to the bill is muted, with only amendments to change the wording of the law to cover only “publishing by any means whatsoever to another”, instead of the current blanket ban on possession proposed. Freedom of expression is not given any consideration.

The issue of how to tell the age of a character illustrated is hardly considered by the proponents either; in practice this will be left up to police, courts and juries to decide, with predictable results. Most people would likely be unable to reliably discriminate between 18-year-olds and 17-year-olds, and in fact it is legal to have sex with 16-year-olds in the UK.

An opposing MP considers the matter of age, even making specific reference to manga (although not knowing the proper word):

“Clearly, when we have a photograph of an actual person it is much easier to determine someone’s age. We can work out how old they were when the photograph was taken.

When it is an imaginary figure that is drawn, a number of concerns have been raised— including in some of the responses to the consultation—that Japanese art forms in particular are often ambiguous, so it is difficult to decide how old the figure is.

My amendment proposes to delete the entire subsection. I know the thinking behind it is obvious, but I am not sure how it can be properly implemented without pulling into it all manner of things that probably should not be illegal.

For example, images of an 18-year-old who is dressed as a child, such as Britney Spears in a pop video, clearly is not illegal. If it was a drawing, however, it could be illegal because it would be very difficult to work out whether the person in the picture was supposed to be over 18 or under 18 and dressed up as a school girl.”

Bizarrely, the minister (Maria Eagle) in response starts rambling about how such images could be used for “grooming” a child:

“One of our major concerns is that the images could be used for grooming a child in preparation for actual abuse.

Amendment 489 would remove images such as cartoons or drawings from the scope of the offence. We believe that that is an unacceptable limitation. Children see cartoon images regularly in day-to-day life.

They are a well-accepted form of entertainment for children, and the characters are often well known. An offender could easily exploit that familiarity, using explicit images created in such formats, and such graphic cartoon images could be a powerful grooming tool.

Reducing the scope of the offences described in amendment 489 by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central could leave explicit cartoon images in circulation and open to serious misuse, and without the provision the police would be unable to remove them from people’s possession.

The amendment would create a loophole in the law and in the new offence, which would be exploited.”

She then starts rambling about the need to make illegal disgusting nekomimi shoujo:

“[The amendment proposed] provides that an image of a person should be treated as an image of a child if:

‘the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.’

I appreciate that that last point may sound unusual, but it is important to cover circumstance in which a person may try to avoid prosecution by amending the image of a child slightly—for example, by adding antennae or animal ears, and then suggesting that the subsequent image is not a child. That is a real concern.

The people who seek to exploit the provisions and to continue to create what they call legal child pornography on the internet will use every loophole to try to escape the offence. It has been carefully structured and amendment 491 could create another loophole that would render ineffective the offence that we are seeking to create.

We structured the provision carefully to capture only the images that cause concern.”

When finally pinned down as to how to determine the age of a fictional character, she is determined that no “reasonable person” have the opportunity to judge whether an image is of a child and illegal, only police and courts:

“[The amendment] would add a reasonable person test so that an image would be treated as one of a child if a reasonable person would consider the impression conveyed by the image of the person shown to be that of a child.

We believe that that test is unnecessary and unhelpful …”

The same spate of legislation also contains a variety of unrelated laws, including a ban, including criminal penalties for manslaughter, on providing information which “encourages or assists” suicide…

You can read what else the wise legislators have to say in the official transcripts of their debate.

This comes hot on the heels of the ban on fetish porn the UK recently passed into law, leaving no doubt as to the fact that UK now harbours one of the most illiberal and oppressively moralistic governments found in the developed world, with the ruling Labour Party consistly having shown no interest whatsoever in preserving essential liberties.

Controversy in the US, or the judicial ban in Australia clearly have nothing on the dedication with which UK legislators seek to stamp out sexual deviance….

    Post Comment »
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Comment by Anonymous
    04:53 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    cut it out /jp/, stop spamming this board, go back to your own

    Avatar of repure
    Comment by repure
    05:07 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    here we go!!!

    Comment by BigBrash
    05:14 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    This law they're trying to pass isn't a law specifically targeting loli, its a law against inflammatory images which implies the UK government can decide what images can be banned, this article quoting only part of the legisation. This may pass the commons with ease, but the law lords will throw it out on the grounds infringement of artistic expression.

    This is why I don't follow shitty news links on /jp/, because its full of classic news material being taken out of context.

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:21 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Ok, as stated.
    The Lords does not have the power to Veto anything apart from requests made by the Gov't at a longer term.
    See the two Parliment Acts.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:21 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)


    Avatar of shinaykahn
    Comment by shinaykahn
    07:29 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    that doesn't surprise me, UK has already become Big Brother

    Avatar of Tateha
    Comment by Tate
    07:51 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    man, talk about the government sometimes being such a bitch. leave my loli alone. but in the end this law isn't really going to change much...except the fact that those brits could get owned now for being on this site :P

    Avatar of motaku96
    Comment by motaku96
    08:36 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    This doesn't affect all those eroge that say "all lolis in this game are 18 years or older" right?

    Comment by Kaisos
    08:39 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's what the government thinks rather than what anyone else thinks, it looks like.

    Again, it's really difficult to police this, though.

    Comment by Hito_chan
    07:21 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    well that's me royally screwed! -.- I was hoping they'd realized how stupid this law was and scrapped it.

    Comment by Canada
    06:57 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Feel our pain, Britain.

    Comment by America
    Comment by Anonymous
    06:22 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Welcome to what the US has. Drawings = child rape crime. You are treated as if you actually raped a kid here for loli drawings.

    Comment by Fonzer
    07:04 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    This could have a negative effect.
    If people are really caught and put in prison just for 2d lolicon(i think usa has it).Then those people can actualy think that if they get to prison for this 2d lolicon.Then why not rape a real child for it.Since it's all the same now.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:41 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    That was exactly what came to my mind immediately. This law makes it MORE likely that real children will end up in porn. If even a drawing will land you in the slammer, why not use a real child?

    These MPs are either idiots, or they WANT more children to be abused. That way they can use the excuse of the children continuing to be abused to push through even more of their ultimate agenda.

    Comment by Watson Waterstone
    08:43 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    These MPs watch CP themselves and are very frustrated.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:12 11/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    the same point is argued in Thoma's More's utopia; so it's been what? 500 years for it to sink in?

    Comment by SasaMisa
    12:15 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Well, at least you can cry 'First Amendment', meaning they then have to fall back on The Miller Test, which so far, hasn't been been used in any case purely involving fictional material (that's the impression I got from Wiki anyway).

    Comment by Chen
    06:19 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    So, anyone feels the need to emigrate? As for me, I feel the need to never set step on the freaking country with the rainy weather. Damn those guys, damn them! I wish all of them an allergy to water, oh yes, I do.

    Comment by shalala
    07:07 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    wow the world has comed to an end. first teh swimsuits in animes and now loli/shorta nooooooooooo. wait what if you say they are over 18 would that be still bad. is it not them saying that that the people in the drawings are under 18. so could that mean they want them to be under 18 for the own sakes. and i live in the uk so how will they track me down. if i do go off and buy soem loli/shorta manga or pics will i go to prison for it even though im under 18.

    Comment by SasaMisa
    12:19 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Stated age is irrelevant as they will go by how old the character appears to be. Tracking anyone down would prove impossible at present as they have enough trouble keeping track of released child abusers. I doubt anyone will go to prison over this either, with 'cheaper' cautions being the order of the day just to put the fear of God in people.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:53 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Total crazy shit... it ain't gonna solve hunger, and it'll just make things worse.

    Avatar of Itachi377
    Comment by at
    03:08 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    This is bullshit!!!!!

    So now 2-d characters have rights. That's just perfect. Well there goes any chance for GTA 5,6,7 and so forth or Halo 4,5, so forth, Mortal Kombat and violent video games. All becasue 2-d or 3-d images have rights. All those video games grooms real people to act upon killing others and to be numb to such events.

    Next stop illegal possession of violent video games.

    Avatar of Reboot
    Comment by Reboot
    02:37 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Oh, by the way. Will UK ban also the Koran?

    Because it happens to have a loli story, when it tells how Muhamed got married 6 yo. Aysha and raped her at the age of 9.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:43 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    They can't ban it.

    UK will burn to the ground if that ever happens.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:10 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    And nothing of value would be lost.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:49 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    They were married, so it wasn't rape. Islam sets no lower age for marriage, but in deference to the Prophet's own behaviour, you're generally not expected to fuck 8 year olds.

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:13 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    so as Koran have loli and sex will UK ban it ? It is the laws right ?

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:13 07/05/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    No, had SEX with her at the age of 9, not raped her.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:26 10/02/2017 # ! Neutral (0)

    As if a 9-year-old's really "consenting" to marriage or sex. But whatever. Folks will defend anything in the name of "faith." Well, to be fair, folks do the same with "science," too.

    Comment by clannadfanboy132
    01:57 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Ok, everyone who disagrees with the UK banning lolicon, sign this petition!

    Comment by Fonzer
    01:42 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    oh btw im always surpsised at the amount of comments when it comes to 2d loli being banned.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:29 10/02/2017 # ! Neutral (0)

    I don't care for lolicon. I do, however, care for principles, esp. where freedom of expression is concerned, as well as matters where common sense in the law is clearly defied. Because it doesn't end with "lolicon"--it spreads to bigger issues. And, by the end, you end up looking like something from an Orwell novel. Besides, lolicon's NOT "ch*ld porn"--it's ink on paper. Control what people write or draw or say, and you're killing the tenets of democracy itself. There's no stopping other freedoms from falling, in the name of arbitrary and vague "morality."

    Avatar of Karmappi
    Comment by Karmappi
    06:32 11/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Well, when the main argument for banning loli is "Child porn is wrong guise", going against it would brand you as a paedophile in the eyes of the media. We could discuss semantics to death, but the truth is that if people think you are a paedophile, you can't walk past a daycare center located near your workplace without someone calling the police.

    Since going against it in public is even less of a possibility than usual, and not every place even in the internet is willing to let you argue about it freely, expect a lot of talk in places where you can.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:12 07/05/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Hey, I go against it in public, and I take the label of pedosexual WILLINGLY, because that is what I am.

    Surprisingly, 99% of people who I meet have no problem with me, even when they know that I am a pedosexual.

    Comment by Anon
    02:04 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Thoughtcrime, here we come. =_=

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:17 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    As I have told people many times, if you don't stand up for the pedosexuals today, they are going to come for stuff near and dear to you tomorrow.

    I am sure that this will be overturned in Britain however..... many judges in that country have already said that they were extremely leery of any law like this and would rule it as a violation of human rights were it to come up in front of them.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:23 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    The judicary in Enland lacks power of veto, see Parliment Act 1911, and the later Parliment Act of, ok, I forget when.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:12 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    But surely there must be some kind of court with the ability to rule certain laws unconstitutional?

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:22 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    No constitution.
    Everything Parliment says, goes.

    Only thing we have is the ECHR, and it doesn't work.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:49 11/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    God help us all.

    Comment by Firo
    03:57 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    OK, reading all these comments was like...


    ... I'M GUNDAM! Fawk yeah!

    Avatar of repure
    Comment by repure
    04:01 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    meh~ its UK so its a no brainer lol!
    they even ban "mature" based everything(except adult porn)from games to movies so....yeah it sucks to be living there!
    they might arrest you for possession of manga!
    confusing it for a doujin...its not that far off i think...

    Avatar of repure
    Comment by repure
    05:03 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    this is before when i didnt read the comments..
    and after i did read ALL of those uhhh...i think my brain just died in the process uuggghhh...

    its like the world is indeed a hell hole!
    loli banning? wuts up with this!? just because you cant tell what age that character is or shes wearing animal ears means shes under 18???
    so what if shes under 18? who the hell cares!!oh so real children might become victims of...uhhh it doesnt make any sense!
    so whats next prevent cats or any animal for this matter from murdering their offspring's or blaming natural selection from killing endangered animals??
    im sorry if anyone is reading this i know im not making any sense or im just adding more nonsense than it already has but hey the place were living doesnt make sense there for i blame humanity for everything no one is normal anymore what is normal anyway?

    Comment by Random
    04:05 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I fail to see how people here can connect this in anyway to women's rights.

    Comment by SasaMisa
    04:57 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Like I said above, because militant feminism is largely behind the drive to ban any kind of porn. I mean, the DPA came into force based on a thoroughly bogus report by three of them in fact.

    The business of protecting real kids is just a smokescreen anyway, for bigger grants and even harsher laws to keep 'nasty perverts' (read, all men) in line.

    Comment by Kaisos
    07:01 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)


    Women deserve respect for the years and years and years and years men have mistreated them and in many countries, continue to mistreat.

    There are limits here too, but in general, women deserve respect.

    If anyone came up to me in real life and started ranting about "militant feminism" and "the evils of women", I'd throw them into traffic.

    "You'll be free of oppressive feminists when you're dead!"

    Avatar of Shuu
    Comment by Shuu
    08:09 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I'm not against feminism, quite the contrary actually. Feminism has achieved many great things in the 70s and early 80s to make our world a more liberal, equal and civilized place.

    The problem is with some feminists nowadays. Those stupid cunts have lost all common sense and are disconnected from reality. Heck, that stupid bitch Carol Bellamy that headed UNICEF from 1995 to 2005 has indirectly killed 10 million children every year through pure ignorance (discouraging breast feeding (it treats women like cows), neglecting boys as being worthy of support and protection, discontinuing sexual education by UNICEF and related NGOs in 3rd world countries, and many more). Luckily, not all feminists today are like this. But those who have a say in important matters are.

    This has nothing to do with women's rights anymore. Feminism nowadays doesn't fight for women's rights. If it were, it would direct it's attention to Islamic countries and the 3rd world. Women there are in serious need of help, but the great organizations with feminist influences just ignore them, and focus on the developed world, where women are technically treated equal already. And even there they don't focus on the few remaining issues, but instead fight porn and everything related to it.

    I'm sorry if this offends you, there really are oppressive feminists out there. They even neglect their own followers if they are into BDSM or enjoy anal sex and deem them "traitors". Many feminists, like German Alice Schwarzer, are infamous for using militaristic language and going way over board with it to the point of pure tastelessness.

    Bottom line and tl;dr: feminism in itself is good and needed, but today's feminism isn't what it was 20 years ago and has lost all connection to reality.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:13 13/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I'm a feminist. Extremist feminist groups are involved with both this legislation and the extreme porn ban. However, Feminists Against Censorship has opposed both bans.

    People who oppose this law are not necessarily misogynists.

    Comment by SasaMisa
    12:10 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Here! Here! Now that's evidence-based argument, not like the crappy platitudes 'certain people' on here keep coming out with.

    I said already that I support equal rights, but not militant feminism. These stupid cows all have serious issues where men are concerned and probably all need to be pschoanalysed. In fact, I'm sure Freud would have had a field day with the lot of them.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:46 10/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    “You’ll be free of oppressive feminists when you’re dead!”

    OR OR OR! You'll be free of opressive feminists when feminists are dead!

    Post Comment »


Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments