The Ambiguity of Interpretation

“Language is the source of misunderstandings.” - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, from The Little Prince (Le Petit Prince)

I'm sure the few people who read my blog will have recently seen this poster, delivered courtesy of the Home Office. Its apparent purpose seems to be protecting our streets from the hordes of photographers whose only intent is to capture inappropriate images of women for later personal gratification. Many has been the time I've found myself unable to move for these perverts. Sometimes I wonder how they can afford such expensive cameras and phones when all their time must be spent in a state of self-onanism.

I am, of course, being mildly flippant. These posters are aimed at asylum seekers, who, it would seem, fall into a category in which upskirting and other forms of sexual photography are apparently rife. I write this because what actually outrages me is the wording of the poster and the way I suspect it will be misconstrued by certain members of the constabulary whose legal prowess could be written on the reverse of a postage stamp in crayon. I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores of asylum policy, because this isn't a political platform, nor do I want to start a rage fire with anyone who takes issue with my liberal considerations. There are plenty of places online and in the real world to pursue those particular desires. CharlieRibeiro.com is not one of them.

Where I do take issue is with the wording of the poster, because it is both factually questionable and, in the hands of those with policing powers and limited understanding of the law, potentially dangerous. Non-asylum seekers could conceivably get caught up in pointless confrontations or litigation as a consequence. I'm also unclear as to how an asylum seeker who is genuinely taking legitimate street photographs could be arrested for breaking a law that doesn't actually exist. There is no general law stating that you need permission to photograph someone in a public place. Common decency might suggest that if an image is going to be used commercially, permission should be sought. If you're photographing someone in a particularly obvious or intrusive manner, common courtesy might also suggest asking permission. That consideration applies to everyone, including those with a certain bent towards aping the behaviour of Bruce Gilden, a photographer whose oeuvre I cannot abide. But whether I like it or not, he and his ilk are not, simply by taking photographs of people in public, breaking the law.

So the question remains: how do the police intend to arrest and subsequently prosecute an asylum seeker who has not actually broken a law of the land? Equally, how does the Home Office expect the courts to successfully prosecute someone for something that isn't an offence? It can't be done. Unless, of course, it is done through coercion, at which point we wander into an entirely different arena involving civil liberties and human rights.

The moment I saw the poster, I was propelled back a few years to when I still lived in Brighton. My evening practice was to hit the streets and photograph whatever took my fancy. My street photography isn't really about people. People, if they appear at all, are an incidental asset. I'm more interested in buildings, abstract entities and the peculiarities of the urban environment. If a human form appears, it is usually a background interest rather than the subject. One evening I took my usual amble into town, which meant passing Brighton police station. Camera in hand, the sun was setting and throwing a rather majestic reflection across the American Express building opposite. I took a few photographs, only for a police officer to tell me to stop. I asked why and, this is my concern, he told me I was 'breaking the law'. I knew I wasn't, but I asked him to explain. His response was that he had no way of knowing whether I was taking photographs for 'erroneous purposes'. I should probably have replied, 'And how do you know I'm not?', but what followed was a back-and-forth with a man who appeared to have little idea what he was actually talking about. This exchange happened several times over the following week or two, eventually reaching the point where he threatened to confiscate my camera. I complained and was subsequently told that everything was fine, only for the same officer to threaten me again the following evening. In the end, I simply changed my location and carried on. But this is precisely what concerns me about a poster such as this. It's not necessarily the intention behind it that bothers me. Sexual offences involving photography are obviously serious, and where an actual offence has taken place, it should be dealt with accordingly. What concerns me is the blurring of the distinction between behaviour that is unpleasant or suspicious and behaviour that is actually illegal.

It is not only the police who concern me. There will undoubtedly be members of the public who decide to jump on the bandwagon of amateur policing. I remember when my eldest used to play in public spaces. On several occasions, I was advised by some overly sensitive soul that I shouldn't be taking photographs of my own daughter in public because I could be mistaken for a paedophile. I kid you not. This mindset has settled somewhat in recent years, but I remain convinced that we've lost some sense of proportion and propriety. The irony is that, in attempting to protect people from genuinely harmful behaviour, we can end up creating an atmosphere in which entirely innocent behaviour is viewed with suspicion.

Photography, particularly street photography, has always existed in that uncomfortable space between what is legal, what is ethical and what other people simply don't like. Those distinctions matter. So, by all means, prosecute people who commit actual offences. Protect people from sexual exploitation. Protect children. Protect people's privacy where the law provides that protection. But perhaps we should also protect the ability of ordinary people to walk down a street with a camera without immediately being treated as though they've wandered into town with a perverse agenda. A little less hysteria, a little more understanding of the law and perhaps, occasionally, a Government poster that actually says what the law is would be a good start.

There is a comment section on this blog and I would be really interested to hear your opinion.