Skin Two
E.Vie, 02 Sep 2005 14:14:00
Press Release already added at Skin Two website.
http://www.skintwo.com
E.Vie x
SnowdropExplodes, 02 Sep 2005 15:28:26
--- empress@empressvictoria.net wrote:
> Press Release already added at Skin Two website.
>
> http://www.skintwo.com
I notice you claim that Amnesty International appear
to be in favour of the legislation, but there doesn't
seem to be any mention of it on their website, is
there a source for that claim?
Also, the government spokesperson mentioned in the
article clearly has not read the consultation paper if
he said it was to go beyond the OPA. The paper
clearly states that only material that is already
covered by the OPA would be affected, and in fact the
material would be *subset* of the material covered by
the OPA. There is a suggested option of making
simple possession a crime added to the OPA so that all
material covered by the OPA would be affected, but
that is not the preferred option of the paper's
composers.
Sorry to be pernickety, but I feel that the
information put out by a campaign should be as
accurate as possible and should debunk rather than
perpetuate misinformation.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
demolitionred, 02 Sep 2005 16:37:43
Actually I wrote the article after we spoke to the Home Office about the intention of the department and questioned it on how far proposals could go.
and the support of the Shadow Home Secretary and (and as we are hearing many other MPs) who probably know a lot more than we do about what is being discussed in the corridors of the House is a good sign.
demolitionred, 02 Sep 2005 16:39:48
I have left a number of messages with Amnesty International after searching google for Amnesty International and Jane Longhurst and finding quite a few suggestions that it has backed her campaign.
I suggest you also contact them and search for clarification, as we are doing.
Please report any response you get here.
Lothario, 02 Sep 2005 17:05:14
My understanding is that Amnesty is backing the Jane Longhurst
campaign's petition as part of their Stop Violence Against Women
campaign, but that has come from third-party sources, not them.
Amnesty also supports (gay) Pride, so a position where they also
advocated criminalising one aspect of harmless, adult consensual
sexuality would appear to be contradictory.
It is worth noting that the government's proposals do not necessarily
reflect identically the aims or demands of various campaigns that have
been calling for something to be done about this issue. The proposals
in some respects seem to be more broad than the demands of those
campaigns. For example, none of them have mentioned bestiality, as far
as I know. Perhaps other groups (eg. RSPCA) did.
It's possible that Amnesty might draw some distinction between
evidently consensual SM and imagery that was evidently non-consensual,
but we'll have to wait for their statement on this. I imagine that
they will write and publish a full response to the consultation which
may take some time. They might not issue any statements in the
interim.
There is no obligation on any group or individual (including BDSMers)
to either support or reject the proposals entirely.
I echo the point about making clear distinctions between what we know
is fact and what is speculation. Much of the discussion about the
proposals has been based on erroneous assumptions about them. I urge
people to read and make reference to the consultation document so that
we can organise opposition to it as it is, rather than as we imagine
it to be.