Possessing photos of a Muslim woman without her hijab should be made a criminal offence, MPs say_Nhy
Possessing photos of a Muslim woman without her hijab should be made a criminal offence, MPs have proposed.
The Commons’ women and equalities committee said pictures of a Muslim woman without her headscarf – taken without her consent – should be considered ‘non-consensual intimate images’.
Such photographs should be treated the same as child sex abuse images, possession of which can carry long prison sentences, the MPs said.
The proposals will deepen concerns that Islam is poised to win legal protections which are not afforded to other religions under British law.
It comes after a planned definition of Islamophobia being championed by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner was slammed for risking ‘a blasphemy law by the back door’.
The committee report, published today, concluded: ‘The Government should bring forward amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to make possession of non-consensual intimate images an offence.’
If the proposals are adopted by ministers it could become a crime by the end of the year.
The committee said the law currently defines an ‘intimate’ image as one which shows someone fully or partially nude, engaging in a sexual act or using the lavatory.
The Commons’ women and equalities committee said pictures of a Muslim woman without her headscarf – taken without her consent – should be considered ‘non-consensual intimate images’ (file image)
But MPs concluded that ‘abuse can also include material that is considered ‘culturally intimate’ for the victim, such as a Muslim woman being pictured without her hijab’.
‘The Government should expand the legal definition to include such images,’ it said.
‘Non-consensual intimate image abuse is not always limited to sexually explicit content.
‘For example, in some cultures, countries, or religions, sharing a photograph of someone without their religious clothing—or with their arm around another person—can be disastrous for the victim.’
An intimate image would have to show someone without their ‘particular attire of religious or cultural significance’ and be taken ‘in circumstances in which an ordinary reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy’.
The taking or creation of intimate images is already due to be criminalised but ‘the need to address possession … is so far unmet’, the report said.
Ministry of Justice minister Alex Davies-Jones told the committee last November the Law Commission, which advises the government on legal changes, had previously decided against such a move, concluding it would be ‘impossible to craft a definition that suits everyone and that therefore it could result in overcriminalisation’, she said.
The committee’s Labour chairman Sarah Owen said: ‘Non-consensual intimate image abuse is a deeply personal crime which can have life-changing and life-threatening consequences’
The committee’s Labour chairman Sarah Owen said: ‘Non-consensual intimate image abuse is a deeply personal crime which can have life-changing and life-threatening consequences.
‘We welcome the Government’s proposals to make creating non-consensual intimate images an offence, but a legal gap remains.
‘The Government should bring forward amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to make possession as well as the creation … an offence.
‘This ensures non-consensual intimate images receives the same legal treatment as child sexual abuse material.’
The committee is comprised of seven Labour MPs, one ex-Labour MP who now sits as an independent, two Lib Dems and one Conservative.
David Spencer, of the think-tank Policy Exchange, said: ‘Tackling the problem of ‘revenge porn’ is clearly important – but expanding this to so-called ‘culturally intimate’ images risks extending the criminal law too far.
‘The police cannot be expected to wade into so-called ‘cultural’ issues when officers are already struggling to deal with the volume of stabbings, sexual assaults and thefts that occur every day.
‘The Government should be cautious about creating yet more criminal offences.’
The Home Office was approached for comment.
