Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback New Zealand Film and Literature Board of Review

Police - 5 videos [2023] NZFLBR 1 (30 May 2023)

Last Updated: 26 July 2023

Content Warning:

The decisions of the Film and Literature Board of Review are formal legal documents of a semi-judicial body. For this reason, they must be made available in full. They do not contain images or examples of pornography. In descriptions of the material being assessed the Board needs to use language used in the material and needs to describe some images in general terms. Please be aware the decisions may contain reference to sexual themes, abuse, self-harm, suicide and other topics that may be upsetting. It is not advisable for young people or those under 18 years of the age to access this material unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.

DECISION OF FILM AND LITERATURE BOARD OF REVIEW

UNDER the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 (“the Act”)

IN THE MATTER of an application under section 47(2)(c) the New Zealand Police (“the applicant”) for a review of the publications:

MVI_5967.MOV; MVI_2244.MOV; VID_2020111_185836.mp4; MVI_3009.MOV; and MVI_4234.MOV

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO APPLICATION

1. The following members of the Board met on 27 April 2023 in a combination of Zoom and in-person to consider this application for review:
   

Ms R Schmidt-McCleave (President, in person) Mr M Boddington (in person)

Dr R Liang (via Zoom) Ms E Marvelly (in person)

2. A full quorum of the Board was not available due to vacant positions on the Board not being confirmed at the time of the hearing. Due to the delay in hearing the application already occasioned by these vacancies, the President determined that the Board would sit in division under section 101(1) of the Act for the purposes of hearing and determining the application.
   
3. The publications which are the subject of the review are five homemade videos of varying length (the “5 videos”). Four of the videos show an elderly man showing, handling or sucking on used menstrual products (pads and tampons). The fifth video depicts an array of used menstrual products (pads and tampons) laid out on the floor with the camera panning over them. A more detailed description of each video is set out below.
   
4. Because the Board has ultimately determined that all 5 videos are objectionable under the Act, the remainder of the Board’s decision considers the 5 videos in the round. While there are minor differences between some of the 5 videos in terms of the amount of blood depicted, or the treatment being given to the 5 videos, the overall effect of all 5 videos remains the same in the Board’s view.

5. On 16 January 2023, the Office of Film and Literature Classification (the “Classification Office”) classified the 5 videos as age restricted to persons over the age of 18 years.1
   
6. Specified persons dissatisfied with any decision of the Classification Office with respect to the classification of any publication are entitled, on application, to have the publication reviewed by the Board.2
   
7. The New Zealand Police, as a party to Court proceedings referring the publications to the Classification Office, has applied for review under section 47(2)(c) of the Act.
   
8. The Board was required to conduct a review as soon as possible, to examine the publication, and to determine its classification3. As stated, the Board’s ability to conduct the review hearing was hampered by vacancies on the Board affecting the Board’s ability to reach quorum. That situation was rectified by the President determining the Board could sit in division for the purpose of hearing this application.
   
9. There are three possible classifications: unrestricted or objectionable or objectionable except in one or more specified circumstances.4
   
10. The question of whether a publication is objectionable is a matter for the expert judgement of the Board, and evidence as to, or proof of any of the matters the Board is required to consider is not essential to its determination.5
    
11. The applicant does not have the right to appear before the Board but does have the right to make submissions to it.6 Submissions have been received from the applicant. The Board has the power to invite submissions from the Classification Office.7 It made that invitation and submissions were received. No submissions were received on the part of Mr Davidson, the owner and maker of the 5 videos.
    

1 Under section 23(2)(c)(i): objectionable except...if the availability of the publication is restricted to persons who attained a specified age not exceeding 18 years.

2 Sections 47(1) and 52(3).

3 Section 52

4 Sections 23(2) and 55(1)(a).

5 Section 4.

6 Section 53(1).

7 Section 54(1).

12. The NZ Police provided the Board with information concerning Mr Davidson’s broader offending, as well as a “File Tree appendix” detailing where Mr Davidson was likely to have obtained the used menstrual products which feature in his videos. The Board notes that it did not require this information to form part of its consideration, and the Board was fully able to determine the publications as objectionable on their face for the reasons set out below.
    

THE KEY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

13. Key legislative provisions referred to are set out in the attached schedule to this decision.
    
14. The Board is first required to consider in terms of section 3(1) whether the publication describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence. If the consideration results in a negative answer, then the Board must classify the publication as unrestricted.8
    
15. If the section 3(1) consideration just referred to results in an affirmative answer, then the next consideration is whether the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.9
    
16. This then requires the Board to consider whether the publication is deemed objectionable under section 3(2). This provision has been interpreted by the Court of Appeal,10 which emphasised the high threshold to be overcome for the provision
    

8 Section 3(1) In Living Word Distributors v Human Rights Action Group (Wellington) [2000] NZCA 179; [2000] 3 NZLR 570 the Court of Appeal described section 3(1) of the Act as a “subject matter gateway” to being found to be objectionable, in that if a publication does not describe, depict, express, or otherwise deal with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence, it cannot be classified as objectionable. Once a publication makes it through the subject matter gateway, the Board must then consider whether the subject matter is dealt with in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.

9 Ibid.

10 The relevant decisions of the Court of Appeal are Moonen v The Film and Literature Board of Review [1999] NZCA 329; [2000] 2 NZLR 9 (Moonen 1 and Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2002] NZCA 69; [2002] 2 NZLR 754 (Moonen 2). In both Moonen decisions, the Court of Appeal espoused the importance of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) and the fact that the Board must be mindful that, in applying the Act, it must act consistently with BORA. Section 14 of BORA states that everyone has “the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in

to apply, citing the importance of freedom of expression. The Court of Appeal emphasised that description and depiction of a prohibited activity do not of themselves necessarily amount to promotion or support of that activity.

17. If the Board decides that it must deem the publication to be objectionable for the purposes of the Act, then it need not consider any further. It must classify the publication as objectionable.
    
18. If the Board decides that the publication is not deemed by the Act to be objectionable, then it must determine whether the publication is objectionable, or should be given one of the other 2 possible classifications (unrestricted, or objectionable except in specified circumstances).
    
19. When making a determination as to whether the publication is objectionable, the Board must give particular weight to the matters set out in sections 3(3) and must consider the matters set out in section 3(4).
    

DESCRIPTIONS OF THE VIDEOS

MVI_5967.MOV

20. MVI_5967.MOV is a homemade video of 9 minutes and 7 seconds duration. The video shows its maker filming himself in a bathroom, clad only in his underwear and
    

any form.” Under section 5 of BORA, this freedom is subject “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Further, section 6 of BORA provides that “[wherever] an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained [in BORA], that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning.” In Moonen 1, the Court of Appeal made the following statement which the Board recognises is key to its consideration of the section 3(2) “deeming” provision for objectionability (at [29]):

“The concepts of promotion and support are concerned with the effect of the publication, not with the purpose or the intent of the person who creates or possesses it. The concepts denote an effect which advocates or encourages the prohibited activity, to borrow the words of Rowles J of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in an allied context in R v Sharpe (1999) 136 CCC 3d 97 at para 184. Description and depiction (being the words used in s 3(3)(a) of the Act) of a prohibited activity do not of themselves necessarily amount to promotion of or support for that activity. There must be something about the way the prohibited activity is described, depicted or otherwise dealt with, which can fairly be said to have the effect of promoting or supporting that activity.”

a pair of surgical-type gloves. The viewer mostly sees the man from his neck down until the end of the video when his elderly male face is revealed. In the video, the man shows a used sanitary pad to the camera and then squeezes menstrual blood from the pad into a glass. He does the same thing to another used sanitary pad while periodically showing his fingers to the camera. His fingers have dripping blood clots on them which he wipes on a sheet. At the end of the scene, the man walks away and says “oh shit” when he comes back into the scene. It is not clear what or to whom his swearing is directed. The video stops when the glass is almost full of menstrual blood.

MVI_2244.MOV

21. MVI_2244.MOV is another homemade video, this time 1 minute and 23 seconds long. The same man, the maker of the video, films himself folding a used sanitary pad in half and then sucking it. The man intermittently shows the camera his tongue in close up with blood over it. The man is shirtless, and his face and chest take up most of the screen. The man allows menstrual blood to dribble down his chin at various points and he licks his lips.

VID_20201111_185836.mp4

22. VID_20201111_185836.mp4 is another homemade video, of 1 minute and 32 seconds duration. The Board considers that the man filming himself is in a kitchen, as there are kitchen utensils evident on the wall behind him. This time, the man is wearing a blue jersey and engages in the same activity as previously, holding up a used sanitary pad to the camera and then sucking, biting and chewing on it, while periodically showing his tongue to the camera.

MVI_3009.MOV

23. MVI_3009.MOV is a longer homemade video (6 minutes and 57 seconds). The man filming himself this time appears to be in a living or dining room, as noise from a television or radio can be heard in the background. The man is dressed in a coloured fleece jersey. He again films himself sucking on a used sanitary pad, showing his tongue with blood clots on it to the camera from time to time. The man’s tongue periodically moves in and out of his mouth as blood drips down his chin.

MVI_4234.MOV

24. MVI_4234.MOV is a homemade video of a slightly different nature. This time, the man is not seen but, rather, films (for 44 seconds) an array of used sanitary pads, tampons and soiled underpants set out on the floor.11 The camera pans across the displayed items, sometimes using wide shots and sometimes zooming in.
    

SUBMISSIONS

25. The applicant, the NZ Police, submitted that:
    
    1. The 5 videos are objectionable as defined in the Act as they depict Mr Davidson ingesting and sucking menstrual blood from sanitary products in such a manner that the availability of any of these publications is likely to be injurious to the public good.
       
    2. The publications also meet the alternative test for objectionability under s 3(2)(a) of the Act 9(2)(a)
       
    100. As shown by his naming conventions set out in the File Tree appendix, Mr Davidson has obtained used sanitary products for the purpose of ingesting, squeezing and displaying 9(2)(a) . He did so for his own sexual pleasure.
         
    4. The ingestion of the menstrual blood shown in the videos cannot be divorced from the 9(2)(a)
       
    5. In terms of the mandatory considerations under section 4 of the Act:
       

11 The submissions from the NZ Police confirm that there are 31 used sanitary pads, 6 used tampons and 1 pair of women’s underpants displayed in video MVI_4234. MOV.

1. The dominant effect of the videos as a whole is one which arouses disgust and horror. In particular, the depiction of menstrual blood may be culturally offensive to many in the community who view menstrual blood as taboo or sacred.
   
2. The videos are digital, are brief in duration and can be shared widely via social media.
   

iii. The videos serve no merit, value or importance in regards to artistic, cultural, social, educational or scientific matters.

4. The NZ Police has no evidence to suggest Mr Davidson distributed the videos beyond himself. However, the target group if distributed would be menophiles (someone who is aroused in some way by menstruation).
   
   5. The purpose of the videos is to normalise degrading behaviour, for sexual gratification, and to satisfy masturbatory fantasy.
      

26. The Classification Office submitted that:

1. The s 3(1) subject matter gateway elements relevant to the publications are sex and horror. They focus on used period products, which have evidently come into contact with a person’s genitals at some point in the past. Additionally, periods have been widely stigmatised in society and as such videos that depict used period products are very uncommon. Videos that openly show those used products being handled are even rarer.
   
2. Given the unusualness of this kind of content, and the clear connection these products have to genitals, many people are likely to see the way the man handles and shows these products as paraphilic. That the man is completely alone and silent in all of the videos, apart from swearing at the end of one

video, suggests at least a level of secrecy, which further reinforces this reading.

100. The effect is that the videos are easily described as a matter of sex. At the least, they are deeply unsettling. They do meet the subject matter gateway.
     

4. In terms of s 3(2)(a) of the Act, the Classification Office acknowledges the Police analysis of the naming conventions but submits that the origin of the products are not apparent on the face of the videos. An unknowing viewer would not be able to divine the provenance from simply being shown used products, 9(2)(a)
   
5. In terms of s 3(3) of the Act, the matters relevant to the videos are s 3(3)(a)(iii) and s 3(3)(c). These videos deal exclusively with conduct that is highly demeaning and degrading to anyone who menstruates.
   
6. The most likely source of used period products is from public disposal bins. The corollary is that these are products their users did not expect to be retrieved from the garbage, and definitely did not expect them to be seen or handled by another human being.
   
7. The secretive way in which the man acts in the videos reinforces this reading. He is completely silent in all of the videos. He does not appear to be engaging or interacting with either an off-screen or a presumed audience. On the face of the videos, it seems that these are private records for the creator to re- watch later, rather than a dialogue with, say, a person who has volunteered their period products to be consumed in this fashion.
   
8. Additionally, the framing of the videos highlight the menstrual blood. The blood is the reason why these videos are being made. The showing off of blood and blood clots that the man extracts from the products is particularly degrading as people who menstruate are essentially reduced to their private bodily functions.

9. In terms of the section 3(4) facts, all the videos are short video files that show a man showcasing, handling and sucking on used period products. They have a voyeuristic tone and are repugnant. There is no merit to the publications. They appear to be made for private use, likely as some sort of trophy for their owner. There is no indication that these videos were shared in any way and there is no clear intended audience that can be deduced from the publications other than the person who made them.
   
10. In terms of age restriction, ingesting human blood from disposal bins (or any configuration of the two) is unhygienic and may cause serious harm in the form of illness if the behaviour was imitated. Most women would find the possibility of their products being retrieved and used in this way violating and distressing. They, along with the majority of New Zealanders of any age, but particularly those under the age of 18, would be greatly shocked and disturbed by this behaviour.
    
11. The videos do not meet the high standard required for them to be made objectionable under s 3(3) of the Act, but should be classified as restricted to adults (R18). Adults are likely to be repulsed and confronted by the behaviour exhibited in the videos. However, on balance, they are unlikely to be left with a lasting impression as they will generally have the experience and maturity to process that behaviour. Teenagers and young people, on the other hand, are still developing their understanding of social norms and boundaries and are likely to be greatly shocked and disturbed.
    

50. A restriction to adults is a limitation on the right to freedom of expression, but is reasonable and justified to prevent injury to the public good.
    

ANALYSIS

Do the 5 videos describe, depict, express, or otherwise deal with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence?

27. As referred to above, this is the initial “gateway” issue for the Board to consider under section 3(1).
28. The Board considers that the 5 videos deal with sex and horror. Menstruation is a process associated with procreation and, as noted by the Classification Office, menstrual products have at some point come into contact with genitals. It is readily apparent from the 5 videos that the man’s intent in handling and sucking the products is sexual titillation. Additionally, the 5 videos are abhorrent. They invoke an immediate and visceral reaction of horror in the viewer. They depict human tissue in the form of clots, and human blood. Further, unless they have been donated to the maker of the videos, there is no way for him to have obtained the used menstrual products without digging around in rubbish bins and disposal units, which also evokes revulsion in the viewer.
29. The answer to the first question is therefore “yes”.
    

Should the publication be deemed objectionable?

30. In light of the affirmative answer to the previous question, the next practical issue for the Board to consider is whether the 5 videos should be deemed objectionable pursuant to section 3(2).
31. The Board does not accept the submissions of the NZ Police that under section 3(2)(a), the 5 videos should be deemed objectionable because they promote or support, or tend to promote or support, 9(2)(a) That conclusion involves a complex analysis which the NZ

Police has carried out but which the ordinary viewer would not be capable of doing.

32. While the Board can (under s 4(2) of the Act) take into account other evidence, it does not need to in this case where the videos are abhorrent on their face and can be determined objectionable under s 3(3) of the Act.
33. In reaching this conclusion, the Board had regard to the judicial interpretation of the subsection referred to in footnote 10 and, particularly, the high threshold for section 3(2) to apply.
34. For completeness, and again reflecting perhaps the age of the legislation here, the Board notes that had section 3(2)(d) included menstrual product, the Board would

easily have been able to deem the 5 videos objectionable under that provision which refers to “the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct.”

35. The view of the Board, then, is that the required threshold for a deeming of objectionability under section 3(2) is not met in respect of the 5 videos. Although the 5 videos are incredibly repulsive and repugnant, s 3(2) nonetheless requires the Board to overcome a high threshold, bearing in mind freedom of expression rights.
    

FURTHER ANALYSIS

36. The Board therefore moved onto consider whether to determine the 5 videos objectionable, considering weight to be given to any of the section 3(3) factors and considering the matters in subsection (4).
37. The Board considered in this analysis that the 5 videos:
    
    1. Depict sexual conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature (s 3(3)(a)(iii));
    2. Degrade or dehumanise or demean any person (s 3(3)(c));
       
38. In this regard, the Board has particularly noted the abhorrent and revolting nature of what the 5 videos depict. All 5 videos evoke in the viewer a reaction of primordial disgust.
39. Menstruation is a deeply personal and private bodily function. The Board considers that most people would view the idea of used menstrual products being fished from bins and disposal units and used for sexual gratification, as abhorrent. THose whose menstrual products are used likely did not consent to their usage in this manner and would be horrified at what has occurred.
40. While it might be true that menstruation in society is unfairly stigmatised and made taboo despite it being a normal bodily function that affects half the population, nonetheless it is for those who menstruate to push against that stigma, not for elderly

men to do so via sexual depictions. Every time one of the 5 videos is watched, the person whose menstrual product is shown, is demeaned again in the Board’s opinion.

41. Additionally, the risk of cross-contamination by the use of used sanitary products in this way (including ingestion of them) is extremely unhygienic and could result in illness to those who might see fit to imitate the behaviour in some way.
42. Finally, the Board notes that the blood and clots shown in the 5 videos are part of someone’s body, part of their uterus, which enhances the demeaning and dehumanising nature of the publications.
43. All those aspects mean that unrestricted availability of the 5 videos is injurious to the public good in the Board’s view. The ways in which that injury to the public good may occur exist regardless of a viewer’s age, and the Board does not consider an age restriction to be appropriate here.
44. Regarding the section 3(4) matters, the Board considers:
    
    1. The dominant effect of the 5 videos is visceral repulsion on the part of the viewer. All Board members were shocked at the nauseating nature of their reaction to the 5 videos. That revulsion was enhanced by those videos where the man held blood clots on his tongue, showing them to the camera.
    2. The impact of the medium, all digital videos, is that the videos can be easily shared and disseminated.
    100. None of the videos have any merit, value or importance.
         
    4. It is not readily apparent to whom the 5 videos is intended or is likely to be made available, or their purpose. The Board has no way to assess this but does not accept the submission of the Classification Office that the 5 videos were made just for the re-watching by their creator. The Board considers that there is a performative aspect to the man’s actions in some of the videos which suggests a wider audience or purpose may have been considered.
    5. There are no other relevant circumstances relating to the intended or likely use of the 5 videos. Extraneous information relating to other charges faced by the creator of the 5 videos have not been taken into account by the Board.

CONCLUSION

45. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the availability of any of the 5 videos is likely to be injurious to the public good, and all are thereby determined to be objectionable under s 3(3) of the Act.
    
46. The Board hereby directs the Classification Office pursuant to section 55(1)(e) of the Act to enter the Board’s decision in the register.
    

Dated at Wellington this 30th day of May 2023.

Rachael Schmidt-McCleave

President

SCHEDULE: STATUTORY PROVISIONS

FILMS, VIDEOS, AND PUBLICATIONS CLASSIFICATION ACT 1993

3Meaning of objectionable

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), a publication deals with a matter such as sex for the purposes of that subsection if –

(a) the publication is or contains 1 or more visual images of 1 or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude; and
(b) those 1 or more visual images are, alone, or together with any other contents of the publication, reasonably capable of being regarded as sexual in nature.

(1B) Subsection (1A) is for the avoidance of doubt.

(2) A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support, -
(a) the exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for sexual purposes; or
(b) the use of violence or coercion to compel any person to participate in, or submit to, sexual conduct; or
(c) sexual conduct with or upon the body of a dead person; or
(d) the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct; or
(e) bestiality; or
(f) acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty.
(3) In determining, for the purposes of this Act, whether or not any publication (other than a publication to which subsection (2) applies) is objectionable or should in accordance with section 23(2) be given a classification other than objectionable, particular weight shall be given to the extent and degree to which, and the manner in which, the publication—
(a) describes, depicts, or otherwise deals with—

• (i) acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm, or acts of significant cruelty:
• (ii) sexual violence or sexual coercion, or violence or coercion in association with sexual conduct:
• (iii) other sexual or physical conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature:

• (iv) sexual conduct with or by children, or young persons, or both:
  • (v) physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain:

(b) exploits the nudity of children, or young persons, or both:

• (c) degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person:

(d) promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism:
(e) represents (whether directly or by implication) that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class, being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in section 21(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993.
(4) In determining, for the purposes of this Act, whether or not any publication (other than a publication to which subsection (2) applies) is objectionable or should in accordance with section 23(2) be given a classification other than objectionable, the following matters shall also be considered:
(a) the dominant effect of the publication as a whole:
(b) the impact of the medium in which the publication is presented:
(c) the character of the publication, including any merit, value, or importance that the publication has in relation to literary, artistic, social, cultural, educational, scientific, or other matters:
(d) the persons, classes of persons, or age groups of the persons to whom the publication is intended or is likely to be made available:
(e) the purpose for which the publication is intended to be used:
(f) any other relevant circumstances relating to the intended or likely use of the publication.

FILM AND LITERATURE BOARD OF REVIEW SUMMARY DECISION

1. This was an application to the Board under section 47(2)(c) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 (the Act) by the NZ Police for a review of the decision of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (the Classification Office).
   
2. The publications which are the subject of the review are five homemade videos of varying length. Four of the videos show an elderly man showing, handling, or sucking on used menstrual products (pads and tampons). The fifth video depicts an array of used menstrual products (pads and tampons) laid out on the floor with the camera panning over them.
   
3. In its decision, the Board classified all of the 5 videos as objectionable.
   
4. In this regard, the Board considered that the 5 videos deal with sex and horror. Menstruation is a process associated with procreation and menstrual products have at some point come into contact with genitals. It is apparent from the 5 videos that the man’s intent in handling and sucking the products is sexual titillation. The 5 videos are abhorrent. They invoke an immediate and visceral reaction of horror in the video. They depict human issue in the form of clots and human blood. Unless they have been donated to the maker of the videos, there is no way for him to have obtained the used menstrual products without digging around in rubbish bins and disposal units, which also evokes revulsion in the viewer.
   
5. Menstruation is a deeply personal and private bodily function. The Board considers that most people would view that idea of used menstrual products being fished from bins and disposal units, and used for sexual gratification, as abhorrent.
   
6. While it might be true that menstruation in society is unfairly stigmatised and made taboo despite it being a normal bodily function that affects half the

population, nonetheless it is for those who menstruate to push against that stigma, not for elderly men to do so via sexual depictions. Every time one of the 5 videos is watched again, the person whose menstrual product it is is demeaned again in the Board’s assessment.

7. Additionally, the risk of cross-contamination by the use of used sanitary products in this way (including ingestion of them) is extremely unhygienic and could result in illness to those who might see fit to imitate the behaviour in some way.
   
8. The blood and clots shown in the 5 videos are part of somebody’s body, part of their uterus, which enhances the demeaning and dehumanising nature of the publications.