Pornography (PE752)
I welcome Phil Gallie to the committee for item 3, which deals with petition PE752 from Catherine Harper, on behalf of Scottish Women Against Pornography. The petition calls for pornography to be defined as incitement to sexual hatred and for such incitement to be made an offence similar to incitement to racial hatred. We have received responses to our correspondence on the matter from the Minister for Communities and the Justice 2 Committee. Do members have any comments on the clerk's paper?
Members will recall that, as the gender reporter, I have been tasked to look into this matter on behalf of the committee. I have asked the American intern who is working with me, Crystal Perl, to do some research for me on the issue, and she has done that. I would be happy for the committee to agree to the action that is suggested in the paper—to write to the minister, and so on. I would also like to meet the petitioners to have a further discussion about the way forward on the petition and to find out what their legislative objectives are. A lot of background work has been done on this and I think that it is time for the committee to have another look at the petition and decide on the way forward. I agree with the action points that are suggested in the clerk's paper.
The paper says that when the Justice 2 Committee considered a previous petition from SWAP there was
Clearly, it is up to the Justice 2 Committee to prioritise its workload. We cannot tell another committee to do one thing or another.
Yes, but—
I understand your frustration, Shiona, but it is not within our remit to do that. Elaine Smith has proposed that we take the action that is set out in the paper and that seems to be the wise approach for us to take.
I take on board the points that Shiona Baird has made. However, the gender reporter has agreed to meet the petitioners to try to understand their objectives and that will go a long way to allaying the fears that Shiona Baird expressed. The proposal is a good one.
And Shiona Baird agrees with it.
Yes, I do, but I remain concerned about when a commitment is not a commitment.
I have not been involved in any of the committee's previous discussions on the matter, but I whole-heartedly support anything that cuts down on pornography. I recognise that the petition relates only to female pornography, yet it is obvious that males, too, can be involved. I hope that Elaine Smith could widen her discussions with the petitioners in that regard.
The issue is complicated and I am sure that none of us would say that it is not. I would like to have further discussions with the petitioners to see exactly where we want to go with petition PE752 in legislative terms. Legislation has to be the way forward. The issue is not about censorship or the debate about erotica versus pornography; it is about speaking to the petitioners about their petition and seeing how we can take forward legislation to address the issues that they raise.
The actions that are proposed in the paper are sensible and will move our consideration of the matter forward in a positive way. They will give us more information to consider at a later date, which will be helpful.
I agree with what has been said. The subject is complicated. As a member of the Justice 1 Committee, I confirm how heavy the workloads of both justice committees are. If we want the issues to be given due consideration, it is important that this committee takes a proper part in the proceedings, whether or not that takes us into the area of legislation.
Okay. Are we agreed on the recommendations for action, including asking Elaine Smith to arrange to meet the petitioners?
I seek clarification from the convener. Do you want me to make a report after my meeting with the petitioners?
Yes. That would be helpful. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.